Rezem Family Associates, LP v. Borough of Millstone
30 A.3d 1061
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2011Background
- Rezem appeals from a Rule 4:6-2(e) dismissal of its civil rights complaint; defendants cross-appeal on attorney’s fees.
- The primary issue is whether exhaustion of land use remedies is required before a substantive due process claim can be pursued.
- Rezem alleged government misconduct in Millstone's land use process, including false statements and zoning obstruction over nine years.
- There were multiple development plans and COAH filings; Borough engaged in actions affecting wetlands, historic claims, and sewer plans.
- Green Acres negotiations and zoning changes were used to induce a sale, but Green Acres never purchased the property.
- The Court affirmed dismissal and held exhaustion/finality is required for ripeness of substantive due process claims in land use.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ripeness/finality requirement for due process claim | Rezem argues no exhaustion is needed when conduct shocks conscience. | Defendants argue ripeness requires final agency action or futility of remedies. | Ripeness required; exhaustion or futility shown before § 1983/10:6-2 claims proceed. |
| Standard for substantive due process in land use | Rezem asserts conduct shocks conscience and violates due process. | Defendants contend alleged conduct does not shock conscience. | To prevail, plaintiff must show government misconduct that shocks conscience. |
| Exhaustion of administrative remedies as to ripeness | Rezem claims remedies need not be pursued before civil rights suit. | Defendants rely on ripeness and finality to require exhaustion. | There must be exhaustion or futility; failure to pursue prerogative writs bars the claim. |
| Cross-appeal on attorney’s fees | Rezem seeks no relief on fees for certain counts; fees decided in trial court. | Municipal defendants argue fees should be awarded to prevailing parties. | The trial court’s denial of fees was not an abuse of discretion. |
| Negligence, fraud, and conspiracy counts | Rezem claims negligent maps, fraud, and conspiracy underlying land use disputes. | Van Dyke defendants owe no duty to Rezem; reliance not shown; no underlying torts stated. | Counts five (negligence), six (fraud), and seven (conspiracy) properly dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Printing Mart-Morristown v. Sharp Electronics Corp., 116 N.J. 739 (N.J. 1989) (plenary review for Rule 4:6-2(e) dismissal standard)
- 41 Maple Associates v. Common Council of the City of Summit, 276 N.J. Super. 613 (App.Div. 1994) (ripeness/finality before enforcing §1983 claims in land use)
- OFP, L.L.C. v. State, 395 N.J. Super. 571 (App.Div. 2007) (ripeness/finality in land-use regulatory challenges)
- Williamson County Reg’l Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank, 478 U.S. 172 (U.S. 1985) (finality and ripeness principles in land use claims)
- Murphy v. New Milford Zoning Comm’n, 402 F.3d 342 (2d Cir. 2005) (ripeness in land-use cases)
- Lauderbaugh v. Hopewell Twp., 319 F.3d 568 (3d Cir. 2003) (ripeness/finality and exhaustion in land-use context)
- Sameric Corp. v. Philadelphia, 142 F.3d 582 (3d Cir. 1998) (ripeness/finality in land-use due process)
- Rivkin v. Dover Twp. Rent Leveling Bd., 143 N.J. 352 (N.J. 1997) (egregious misconduct exception to remedies requirement)
- United Artists Theatre Circuit, Inc. v. Twp. of Warrington, 316 F.3d 392 (3d Cir. 2003) (shocks-conscience standard in land use cases)