Posted on June 8, 2008 by David Snyder

Withdrawal of Funds Deposited in Court Waives Right to Challenge Condemnation in New Jersey

The Superior Court of New Jersey has ruled that a property owner that withdraws the “estimated just compensation” deposited into court waives its right to challenge the condemnation.

In Township of Piscataway v. South Washington Ave., LLC., the Township of Piscataway condemned a 75 acre farm to preserve it for open space. In New Jersey, condemnors initiate a condemnation action by filing a complaint and also file a “declaration of taking” either at the time the complaint is filed or some time thereafter. In this case, the property owners challenged the condemnation when the Township filed its complaint. While that challenge was pending, the Township filed its declaration of taking and deposited its estimate of the fair market value of the property – known as “estimated just compensation” or “EJC” – into court. The property owners withdrew the money but continued the challenge to the condemnation.

The New Jersey Superior Court held that a condemnee who withdraws the EJC funds is barred from asserting any other than those relating to the amount of compensation owed to the condemnee. The Court explained that “having accepted the benefit” of the funds, the condemnee cannot now challenge the taking.

Tags: ,
Posted on June 7, 2008 by David Snyder

Pennsylvania Court Upholds Condemnation of Strip Club

The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania recently upheld the condemnation of a strip club for the use of a Charter School. The property, located in the City of Chester, Delaware County, Pennsylvania, was located in an area certified as blighted. The property owner challenged the condemnation primarily on the basis that the project would allegedly benefit the private developer retained for the project. Therefore, the property owner argued, the taking violated the Fifth Amendment’s requirement that condemnations must be for a “public use.”

The Commonwealth Court rejected the property owner’s argument and restated the principal that “a taking is proper if the benefit to the public is primary and any benefit to a private individual is only incidental.” In this case, the Court found the Charter School and the elimination of blight were “public uses” and the fact that the developer may profit from the project does not negate those public uses.

Tags: , , ,