Herbert Wreden and Karen Wreden v. Township of Lafayette
436 N.J. Super. 117
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2014Background
- Plaintiffs own property in Lafayette Township with a horse barn and fields; 2007 project by Finelli and Snook's designed a retaining wall and drainage along a road near their property.
- Plaintiffs allege the drainage design directs stormwater onto their property, causing flooding and damage to structures and septic field.
- January 28, 2008, Plaintiffs served a Notice of Tort Claim describing ongoing stormwater damage and asserting unauthorized discharge from the road project.
- 2009 the retaining wall collapsed onto plaintiffs’ property, allegedly causing continued flooding and damage.
- June 28, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a four-count complaint against the Township, Finelli, and Snook’s; Township moved to dismiss under Rule 4:6-2(e) with supporting certifications.
- Subsequently, plaintiff sought to amend to add claims for inverse condemnation against the Township; the court limited relief and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether continuing tort tolls the 2-year limit under N.J.S.A. 59:8-8b | Wreden: continuing tort accrual prevents time bar | Township: accrual follows notice then filing; time barred | Remanded for factual findings on accrual and continuing tort applicability. |
| Whether a new notice was required for the wall collapse | Beauchamp principle applies; collapse is continuation of the same tort | Township contends new tort and 90-day notice required | Reversed; collapse not a new tort requiring a separate notice. |
| Whether the Township is entitled to plan or design immunity | Immunity not warranted absent pleadings outside the record | Township entitled to immunity based on design approval | Reversed; Rule 4:6-2(e) cannot consider outside-the-pleadings evidence. |
| Whether inverse condemnation claim was barred by entire controversy doctrine | Discovery revealed Township involvement; not final judgment | Entire controversy doctrine bars new claims when final judgment exists | Remanded to permit amendment consistent with doctrine. |
Key Cases Cited
- Russo Farms, Inc. v. Vineland Bd. of Educ., 144 N.J. 84 (1996) (continuing nuisance; accrual anew each day when nuisance continues)
- Beauchamp v. Amedio, 164 N.J. 111 (2000) (notice of claim term misnomer; trigger is injury or loss, not claim filing)
- Kolczycki v. City of East Orange, 317 N.J. Super. 505 (App. Div. 1999) (continuing tort accrual for public entities; notice relevance)
- Wilson v. Wal‑Mart Stores, 158 N.J. 263 (1999) (continuing tort doctrine; accrual when wrongful action ceases)
- Hobart Bros. Co. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co., 354 N.J. Super. 229 (App. Div. 2002) (entire controversy doctrine; scope and application)