Case Law Summaries

Township of South Brunswick v. S.B. Land Restoration Corp.

• Opinion Date: July 5, 2000
• Real Property Law
• E-Mail

CONDEMNATION; EASEMENTS—A municipality may reasonably determine that a particular drainage path is needed for the public good, and once having done so, taking the land as an easement can be a valid public purpose under eminent domain law.

This eminent domain matter arose after a developer rejected a $500 offer by a municipality in connection with the creation of a drainage and construction easement across the developer’s land. The municipality commenced a condemnation suit. The lower court validated the condemnation and appointed commissioners. It then granted the basic relief sought by the municipality. At trial, the developer contended that the taking did not adequately serve the public interest and that the contemplated drainage plan was environmentally unsound. It also argued that the drainage easement would substantially diminish the value of its land, that it would pollute the aquifer, and that an economically feasible alternative route was available. The lower court found in favor of the municipality, holding that “[t]here’s no question seriously any longer in this State these kinds of things [(e.g., drainage easements and construction easements)] are valid public purposes within the meaning of the eminent domain law.” The Court found that “even though there was [sic] a lot of good reasons not to do it in the manner the township suggested there are reasons undisputed which legitimize the [drainage] route taken… .” The lower court also found that “the $500 offer for an easement [was not] so disproportionate as to shock my conscience that it’s not a good faith negotiation offer.” On appeal, the developer argued several procedural claims and a jurisdictional claim all of which were held to be “essentially meritless” by the Appellate Division. The Appellate Division did, however, entertain the developer’s claim of whether the lower court was correct to validate the condemnation without affording defendant a plenary hearing. It concluded that the lower court “gave the matter full and qualitative consideration. We agree substantially with his assessment and rationale. ... [T]he Township cannot be seen to have acted at variance with established standards . . . when it chose a drainage path that follows the natural and pre-existing direction of flow. ... The extent the easement itself or the increased flow affects the value of the dominant estate is a matter for the condemnation commissioners to consider.”

Copyright ©2003. Meislik & Meislik. All rights reserved.