LARRY J. HOLLOWAY VS. TODD MCMANUS (C-0112-14, OCEAN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-4804-15T3
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Sep 11, 2017Background
- Larry Holloway owns land accessed by a 25-foot-wide unimproved dirt/gravel path known as Cerrina Road in Jackson Township.
- A 2002 subdivision map (referenced in deeds) labeled Cerrina Road a 25-foot "utility and access easement" "to be dedicated to [the] Township," and placed maintenance obligations on grantees and successors.
- The easement lies entirely on McManus's property; McManus's deed references recorded easements and the subdivision map.
- Holloway sought to have Cerrina Road declared a public road (or at least dedicated to the Township) after the Township and engineer treated the lane as private and the Township occasionally graded/plowed it; Holloway also sought subdivision approval requiring permanent access.
- The Chancery Court found the 2002 map offered a dedication but the Township did not impliedly accept it; instead the court recognized a 25-foot access easement benefiting Holloway and preserving his right of access and to maintain the gravel path.
- Holloway appealed; the Appellate Division affirmed, concluding the Township's limited acts (occasional grading/snow removal, tax-map inclusion, filing the subdivision map) were administrative or statutorily permitted and insufficient to show implied acceptance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cerrina Road was dedicated to the Township as a public road | Holloway: 2002 subdivision map, deeds, tax-map depiction and the Township's acts (grading, plowing, filing map) show offer and implied acceptance of dedication | Township: Map labeled the feature an access easement; maintenance duties were placed on property owners; occasional municipal acts are permitted and do not equal acceptance | Court: 2002 map was an offer of dedication but Township never impliedly accepted; acts were insufficient to show ownership/acceptance; easement remains private |
| Whether municipal grading/snow removal and tax-map inclusion constitute implied acceptance | Holloway: Such acts evidence municipal control and acceptance | Township: Those actions are administrative or statutorily authorized and do not indicate intent to accept dedication | Court: These acts are insufficient; statute permits maintenance of unimproved roads without acceptance; no implied acceptance found |
| Whether a 25-foot access easement exists and what rights it conveys | Holloway: Sought public road status; alternatively contended easement created by map supports broader public dedication | Township/owners: Map created a private access/utility easement with maintenance obligations on owners | Court: Record supports a 25-foot access easement benefiting Holloway, granting access and right to maintain the existing gravel path |
| Whether the court erred as a matter of law in its findings | Holloway: Trial court erred in not finding dedication and in creating an easement without record support | Township: Court applied correct legal standards and findings | Court/Appellate: No legal error; factual findings supported by record and law; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Seidman v. Clifton Sav. Bank, S.L.A., 205 N.J. 150 (2011) (standard of appellate review for non-jury factual findings)
- Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394 (1998) (deference to trial-court credibility findings)
- Sipko v. Koger, Inc., 214 N.J. 364 (2013) (appellate review of legal questions de novo)
- Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp. Comm. of Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366 (1995) (review of municipal actions and legal standards)
- Velasco v. Goldman Builders, Inc., 93 N.J. Super. 123 (1966) (offer and acceptance principles for dedication)
- State v. Birch, 115 N.J. Super. 457 (1971) (examples of municipal acts sufficient to imply acceptance of dedication)