History
  • No items yet
midpage
In Re the Declaratory Judgment Actions Filed by Various Municipalities, County of Ocean, Pursuant to the Supreme Court's Decision in in Re Adoption
152 A.3d 915
N.J.
2017
Read the full case

Background

  • The Council on Affordable Housing (COAH) failed to adopt valid Third Round rules after its Second Round rules expired in 1999, leaving a 1999–2015 “gap period.”
  • In Mount Laurel IV (2015) the NJ Supreme Court declared COAH defunct, reopened courts for declaratory relief, and explained that prior unfulfilled obligations remain relevant to municipal fair-share duties.
  • Approximately 300 municipal declaratory actions followed; thirteen Ocean County towns’ cases were consolidated to decide whether and how to account for housing need formed during the gap period.
  • The trial court held the gap need must be included as a new, separate component of Third Round obligations (distinct from prospective and present need). The Appellate Division reversed that characterization but said gap-related need could be captured within present need.
  • The Supreme Court affirmed that municipalities remain constitutionally responsible for low- and moderate-income households formed during the gap and held that the correct mechanism is an expanded present-need analysis (not a new discrete category).
  • The Court directed trial courts to adopt a present-need analysis that includes (a) traditional deficient/overcrowded-unit counts and (b) an analytic component estimating presently existing low- and moderate-income households formed during the gap, excluding deceased, income-ineligible, relocated, or already-counted households.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether municipalities must account for housing need created during the 1999–2015 gap Fair Share: gap need must be counted cumulatively as part of Third Round obligations Barnegat/League: FHA limits Third Round to prior unmet, present, and prospective need; no separate gap obligation Towns are constitutionally obligated to account for presently existing low-/moderate-income households formed in the gap
Whether gap need constitutes a new, separate component of Third Round obligation Trial court/Fair Share: gap need is a discrete component calculable from actual growth App. Div./Barnegat: creating a separate retroactive category is unlawful policymaking and unnecessary Rejected a free‑standing gap category; adopt expanded present-need approach instead
Whether gap need should be treated as prospective (forward-looking) need NJBA/Fair Share: gap need can be included in prospective calculations or otherwise captured League/Barnegat: "prospective need" is forward-looking by statute and cannot be retroactive Prospective need is forward‑looking and not the proper vehicle to capture retrospective gap households
Appropriate analytical method to quantify gap-origin households Experts: trial courts should evaluate competing expert methodologies; gap households may be estimated by demographic/household analyses Municipal parties: risk of double counting and overreach; prefer unit-based present-need surveys Courts must permit expert proof but use an expanded present-need analysis that avoids double counting and excludes ineligible/deceased/relocated households

Key Cases Cited

  • S. Burlington Cty. NAACP v. Township of Mount Laurel, 92 N.J. 158 (establishes municipal constitutional obligation to provide realistic opportunity for regional low‑ and moderate‑income housing)
  • In re N.J.A.C. 5:96 & 5:97 (Mount Laurel IV), 221 N.J. 1 (declares COAH defunct, reopens judicial forum, preserves prior obligations and sets process for certification substitute)
  • In re Adoption of N.J.A.C. 5:96 & 5:97, 215 N.J. 578 (addresses limits on growth‑share prospective need and COAH rulemaking review)
  • In re Twp. of Warren, 132 N.J. 1 (describes present‑need focus on deficient housing units occupied by low‑ and moderate‑income households)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: In Re the Declaratory Judgment Actions Filed by Various Municipalities, County of Ocean, Pursuant to the Supreme Court's Decision in in Re Adoption
Court Name: Supreme Court of New Jersey
Date Published: Jan 18, 2017
Citation: 152 A.3d 915
Docket Number: A-1-16
Court Abbreviation: N.J.