AMERICAN DREAM AT MARLBORO, LLC VS. PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWNSHIP OF MARLBORO(L-1909-07, BURLINGTON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-0547-15T2
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Jun 9, 2017Background
- American Dream at Marlboro, LLC acquired two residential projects (Beacon I & II) knowing a planning-board-imposed restriction forbade future subdivision of a Beacon I flag lot; the restriction was never recorded.
- Patricia Cleary purchased a lot adjacent to the flag lot and objected to plaintiff's subsequent application to eliminate the flag lot by converting its driveway into a road, prompting the planning board to refuse to consider the application.
- Plaintiff sued to vacate the deed restriction; the trial court originally denied relief and voided the Beacon II approval; appellate process led to remand for further factfinding on the restriction's original purposes and unclean-hands defense.
- On remand plaintiff offered expert planner Louis C. Joyce and documentary evidence; defendant moved to exclude Joyce and sought summary judgment but presented no witnesses at trial.
- The trial court found the restriction's sole purpose was to prevent subdivision creating multiple flag lots, that changed plans eliminated that purpose, and although plaintiff had unclean hands for failing to record the restriction, equitable relief was appropriate.
- The Appellate Division affirmed, applying deferential review to the trial court's factual findings and agreeing the restriction was obsolete once the flag lot was eliminated and unclean-hands did not bar relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper purpose of deed restriction | Deed restriction was imposed solely to prevent future subdivision (creation of multiple flag lots) | Restriction served additional purposes (preserving approved lot layout, aesthetics, limited on-site roadways) | Court: No evidence of other specific purposes; restriction aimed at preventing multiple flag lots |
| Changed-circumstances standard for vacatur | Eliminating the flag lot makes original purpose impossible as a practical matter | Continued enforceability claimed because other planning goals remain relevant | Court: Plaintiff met stringent test — purpose cannot be accomplished after flag-lot elimination; relief granted |
| Admissibility of expert testimony (Joyce) | Expert may opine on planning purpose based on records and standards | Testimony was legal conclusion/net opinion/unreliable and should be excluded | Court: Joyce admissible; basis explained; objections go to weight, not admissibility |
| Unclean hands defense | Plaintiff's failure to record does not warrant denial of equitable relief where no prejudice shown | Plaintiff's failure to record and certify compliance should bar relief or require heightened proof | Court: Plaintiff acted with unclean hands but no transactional prejudice to defendant; doctrine discretionary and did not bar relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Rova Farms Resort v. Investors Ins. Co., 65 N.J. 474 (deference to trial court factual findings in bench trials)
- Am. Dream at Marlboro, 209 N.J. 161 (Supreme Court remand instructions re: original purposes and unclean hands)
- Citizens Voices Ass'n v. Collings Lakes Civic Ass'n, 396 N.J. Super. 432 (changed-circumstances test for vacating servitudes)
- Cooper River Plaza East, LLC v. Briad Grp., 359 N.J. Super. 518 (ambiguous servitudes disfavored; not enforced to impair alienability)
- Heuer v. Heuer, 152 N.J. 226 (scope and limits of unclean-hands equitable maxim)