State Ex Rel. Commissioner of Trans. v. Marlton Plaza
44 A.3d 626
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.2012Background
- DOT closed the northern Route 73 access to Marlton Crossing and condemned 0.23 acres of land, a slope easement, and a temporary work easement to build the Marlton Circle project.
- The project increased Route 73 frontage and altered internal traffic flow at the 32-acre Marlton Crossing Shopping Center.
- Defendants sought damages for diminution in value from the access change, not just compensation for the condemned land; the trial court allowed expert testimony on internal traffic effects.
- Experts valued the condemned land similarly, but defendants' traffic expert asserted substantial on-site impacts; the defense claimed $2.25 million in total damages.
- The jury awarded $1,607,000; the State appealed challenging the integration of access-regulation damages into a condemnation award.
- The appellate court held the access modification did not amount to a taking and that severance damages from internal circulation were not compensable, but reversed for a new trial due to a legal error in jury instructions allowing such damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether access modification under the Access Act is a taking. | State: regulation under Access Act is non-compensable so long as remaining access is reasonable. | Defendants: access modification can be a taking that warrants compensation in condemnation. | Modification not a taking if remaining access is reasonable. |
| Whether diminution in value from internal traffic impacts constitutes severance damages. | State: such on-site damages are not compensable; severance damages arise only from taking itself. | Defendants: on-site impacts from access change should be compensable as severance damages. | Severance damages for internal circulation are not recoverable when only access is altered and remaining access is reasonable. |
| What is the proper measure of compensation in a partial condemnation involving an access modification. | State: limit damages to the value of property actually taken and non-taking impacts are non-compensable. | Defendants: should recover diminished value of remainder due to on-site impacts from the access change. | Damages limited to the condemned property; on-site impacts not compensable severance damages here. |
| Whether due process and the Access Act framework foreclose considering severance damages at condemnation. | State: due process and statutory scheme limit redress to Access Act proceedings; no extra-judicial severance damages allowed. | Defendants: the jury should be allowed to consider on-site impacts as part of just compensation at condemnation. | Defendants' severance-damages theory was improper under the Access Act; new trial warranted because of erroneous jury instruction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., 544 U.S. 528 (U.S. 2005) (regulatory takings framework and lack of set formula)
- Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (U.S. 1978) (multifactor analysis for regulatory takings)
- Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Dept. of Environmental Protection, 130 S. Ct. 2592 (U.S. 2010) (littoral property rights and state-law integration (note: reporter citation provided; official reporter used))
- Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (U.S. 1992) (regulatory takings with bundle-of-rights concept)
- Weiswasser v. State, Dept. of Transp., 149 N.J. 320 (N.J. 1997) (severance damages scope in partial takings)
- Van Nortwick I, 260 N.J. Super. 555 (App. Div. 1992) (diminution of access generally non-compensable; severance damages discussed)
- Van Nortwick II, 287 N.J. Super. 59 (App. Div. 1995) (on-site damages discussed; distinction from condemnation-induced changes)
- Dikert, 319 N.J. Super. 310 (App. Div. 1999) (severance damages limitations in partial condemnations)
- Phillipsburg, 240 N.J. Super. 529 (App. Div. 1990) (developer viability and value impact in takings)
- Karam v. N.J. Dept. of Environmental Protection, 308 N.J. Super. 225 (App. Div. 1998) (bundle-of-rights and takings context)