STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEP VS. NORTH BEACH 1003,LLC,STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEP VS. SHANIN SPECTER, ETALSTATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEP VS. THOMAS R. KLINESTATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEP VS. ROBERT S. HEKEMIAN,ET AL.Â STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEP VS. RICHARD CAROLAN, ETAL.STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEP VS. JEANETTE F.FRANKENBERGSTATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEP VS. BEVERLY T. CAMMARANO QUALIFIED PERSONAL RESIDENCE TRUSTSTATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEP VS. BARBARA J. WELDONSTATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEP VS. COLLEEN M. ROWE, ETAL.STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEP VS. KEVIN KLINGERT, ETAL.Â STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEP VS. PATRICIA ROBERTSTRUST STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEP VS. DAVID CASTELBLANCO,ET AL.Â STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEP VS. RICHARD MALOUF, ETAL.Â STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEP VS. FREDERICK SMITH, ETAL.STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEP VS. MICHAEL VANKRALINGENSTATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEP VS. DENNIS LA PLANTE, ETAL.Â STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEP VS. COURTNEY M. ALESSO,ET AL.Â STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEP VS. MINALKUMAR A. PATELLIVING TRUSTÂ STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEP VS. NEIL KAHANOVITZ, ETAL.STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEP VS. JILL P. GILESREVOCABLE TRUSTNINA RITTER VS. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEPSTATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEP VS. RAYMOND BRAUN, ETAL.STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEP VS. THOMAS BUCKLEY, ETAL.Â STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEP VS. GERARD LOSURDO, ETAL.Â (L-3067-15,L-3071-15, L-3077-15, L-3066-15,L-3069-15,L-2919-15, L-3289-15, L-3286-15, L-3420-15,L-3410-15, L-3319-15, L-3287-15, L-3285-15, L-3438-15,L-0442-16, L-0444-16, L-0443-16, L-3206-15, L-3205-15,L-3288-15,L-2949-15, L-3204-15, L-3292-15, L-3275-15, OCEAN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(CONSOLIDATED), 166 A.3d 239

Background

After Superstorm Sandy, Congress authorized and funded coastal protection projects; the Army Corps required state partners to secure necessary property interests for construction and maintenance.
The New Jersey DEP, under Executive Order No. 140, partnered with the Army Corps to obtain easements for two shore-protection projects (Long Beach Island and Manasquan–Barnegat projects); many owners voluntarily conveyed easements but 23 refused.
DEP appraised the properties, sent offers for perpetual easements that included construction, periodic renourishment, maintenance rights, and public access/use, and then filed condemnation complaints when negotiations failed.
Property owners moved to dismiss, arguing DEP lacked statutory authority to condemn lesser interests (easements), could not take perpetual easements, and could not include public-access rights; some owners also alleged DEP failed to engage in bona fide negotiations under the Eminent Domain Act (EDA).
The trial court denied dismissal, held DEP has authority to condemn lesser interests for shore protection and to include public access in easements, found the DEP engaged in bona fide negotiations, entered final judgments appointing commissioners to fix compensation, and dismissed a separate declaratory-judgment action as premature.

Issues

Issue	DEP's Argument	Owners' Argument	Held
1. Does DEP have statutory authority to condemn property interests for shore protection?	Statutes (N.J.S.A. 12:3-64 and 12:6A-1) authorize DEP to acquire lands "in the discretion of the department" for waterfront improvements and shore protection.	Statute authorizing acquisition "in fee simple" limits DEP to fee simple takings only, and municipalities (not DEP) traditionally handle shore protection.	Yes. DEP has statutory authority to condemn property interests for shore protection; the fee-simple language does not preclude lesser interests.
2. Can DEP condemn a lesser interest (easement) rather than fee simple?	EDA and N.J.S.A. 12:3-64, read together, permit condemning "a lesser title"; EDA defines property as any interest in land.	Easements are not authorized; statute references fee simple and therefore limits takings.	Yes. The EDA and the enabling statute contemplate takings of lesser interests, including easements.
3. Can DEP take perpetual easements and include public access/use rights?	DEP may take perpetual easements when necessary; Army Corps funding conditions require public access, and public-trust doctrine supports public use of publicly funded dry-sand areas.	Perpetual easements are improper; public-access easements effectively create public beaches on private land without authority.	Yes. DEP may take perpetual easements and include public access/use where necessary for publicly funded shore-protection projects, subject to just compensation.
4. Did DEP satisfy EDA pre-litigation requirements (appraisal and bona fide negotiations)?	DEP conducted appraisals, invited owners to accompany appraiser, provided appraisal and offer letters, and engaged in communications; owners failed to cooperate or supply credible contrary valuation.	DEP did not provide adequate notice/appraisal access, truncated negotiations, refused sufficient time for owners' appraisals, and thus failed bona fide negotiations.	Yes. The record supports that DEP complied with the EDA and engaged in bona fide negotiations; where owners failed to cooperate or only disagreed with valuations, condemnation could proceed.

Key Cases Cited

City of Long Branch v. Jui Yung Liu, 203 N.J. 464 (discussing public trust ownership and uses of foreshore and dry sand)
O'Neill v. State Highway Dep't, 50 N.J. 307 (public trust principles regarding tidal lands)
Archer v. State Dep't (DCED), 107 N.J. Super. 77 (App. Div. 1969) (holding predecessor agency could condemn for shore protection; court read statute broadly)
Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp. Comm. of Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366 (standard of review for statutory questions)
Town of Kearny v. Disc. City of Old Bridge, Inc., 205 N.J. 386 (recognizing N.J.S.A. 20:3-20 contemplates takings of less than fee simple)
Borough of Merchantville v. Malik & Son, LLC, 218 N.J. 556 (condemnor may condemn less than fee simple; bona fide negotiation obligations explained)
Merin v. Maglaki, 126 N.J. 430 (statutory interpretation begins with plain language)
Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Ins. Co. of Am., 65 N.J. 474 (standard for reviewing factual findings)
Carroll v. State by Commissioner of Transp., 123 N.J. 308 (condemnor's pre-litigation disclosure/negotiation duties under EDA)
Housing Authority of New Brunswick v. Suydam Investors, L.L.C., 177 N.J. 2 (purpose of EDA pre-litigation procedures and commissioners' role in valuing takings)