WASHINGTON COMMONS v. Jersey City
416 N.J. Super. 555
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2010Background
- May 20, 2004 Board conditioned approval of a 68-unit building on seven additional units becoming affordable artist live/work units to be conveyed to the City or its designated agent for rental to low/moderate income artists.
- The Board’s memorializing resolution did not fix a price; it stated terms and conditions were to be negotiated by the parties.
- Controversy arose over whether the seven units were to be donated to the City or sold to the City at cost; plaintiff argued sale at cost ($463,235.29 per unit).
- Washington Commons I (filed Feb. 2007) challenged the City’s failure to purchase at cost and to issue occupancy certificates; the Law Division dismissed as time-barred and for lack of exhaustion.
- Appellate Division affirmed, noting issues of exhaustion and the Board’s May 20, 2004 resolution interpretation; Washington Commons II was later dismissed as time‑barred and precluded by res judicata.
- In 2009 the City moved to enforce a Law Division order requiring conveyance of seven units for $1; the Law Division granted enforcement, which Washington Commons appealed as improper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May a municipal action be enforced by motion when no pending action exists? | Washington Commons argues enforcement motion was improper without a pending action or appropriate predicate relief. | City contends expedited relief is appropriate given lengthy litigation. | Enforcement order vacated; improper without pending action. |
| Whether the price per unit fixed at $1 was a negotiable term | Price was a negotiable term under the May 20, 2004 resolution. | Price per unit was fixed at $1 and not negotiable. | Price fixed at $1; not a negotiable term. |
| Whether the law-of-the-case doctrine barred relitigation of price and conveyance issues | Issues were not resolved by the prior decisions; need full litigation. | Law-of-the-case and prior appellate rulings preclude relitigation of these issues. | Law-of-the-case applied; relitigation barred. |
| Whether the Board’s November 8, 2007 clarification altered the parties’ rights | Clarification changed the Board’s position and the terms of conveyance. | Clarification merely reaffirmed existing understanding that price was fixed at $1. | Clarification consistent with prior rulings; no change in enforceable rights. |
| Whether the City exhausted administrative remedies and proper procedural channels | Administrative remedies and board interpretations should be analyzed before court action. | Immediate enforcement is warranted to resolve long-standing disputes. | Procedural prerequisites not satisfied; required action via proper complaint; enforcement vacated. |
Key Cases Cited
- Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp. Comm. of Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366 (1995) (trial court interpretations of law not entitled to deference; de novo review of legal conclusions)
- Myron Corp. v. Atl. Mut. Ins. Corp., 407 N.J. Super. 302 (App.Div. 2009) (de novo review of court rules and enforcement orders)
- Allendale Nursing Home, Inc. v. Borough of Allendale, 141 N.J. Super. 155 (Law Div. 1976) (enforcement of variances/conditions via injunctive relief or other actions)
- SMB Assocs. (Anchoring Point) v. N.J. Dep't of Envtl. Prot., 264 N.J. Super. 38 (App.Div. 1993) (law-of-the-case principles and preclusion in administrative disputes)
- State v. Cusick, 116 N.J. Super. 482 (App.Div. 1971) (relitigation of issues previously determined; early appellate respect for prior merits)