Dr. & Mrs. John Petrozzi v. City of Ocean City , 433 N.J. Super. 290 ( 2013 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-1633-11T4
A-1677-11T4
DR. & MRS. JOHN PETROZZI;
DR. & MRS. PHILIP LoPRESTI;
MR. & MRS. JACK DOUGHERTY;
APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION
MR. NICHOLAS TALOTTA &
MR. THOMAS L. PAGANO; October 28, 2013
MR. & MRS. KURT ASPLUNDH;
MR. & MRS. MICHAEL C. COYLE; APPELLATE DIVISION
MR. & MRS. ANDREW BERENATO;
MR. & MRS. THOMAS PESCI;
MR. & MRS. EDWARD HALES;
MR. & MRS. ROBERT KOONTZ;
MR. & MRS. HARRY BARBIN;
MR. & MRS. R. MARSHALL PHILIPS
and MS. ARLENE DIACO; MS. RUTH E.
ADLAM; MR. & MRS. DANIEL F.
AMOROSO; MS. MARTHA L. ASPLUNDH; MR.
BRETT A. BOAL & MS. LISA MARI
SHEPPARD; MR. & MRS. JOSEPH E.
BUONOMO; MR. & MRS. JEFFREY P.
CARPENTER; MR. & MRS. LARRY
CARRON; MR. HENRY COCCO; MR. &
MRS. DAVID P. DEGLER; MR. PETER
DEPAUL; MR. RONALD J. DiMEDIO;
MR. & MRS. DONALD F. DWYER; MR.
DENNIS ENGLE, MS. LYNN ENGLE & MR.
RICHARD RUTT; MR. & MRS. GROVER
FRIEND; MS. CHRISTINE HANNON;
MR. & MRS. FRANK IACUBUCCI; MR. &
MRS. JOHN JOHNSON; MR. & MRS. DAVID M.
McLAUGHLIN; MR. VICTOR J. MAGGITTI,
JR.; MR. & MRS. JOSEPH M. MARTOSELLA;
MR. & MRS. EUSTACE MITA; MOONRUN
ASSOCIATES, LLC (a/k/a Mumma Family);
MR. & MRS. WILLIAM L. MOPPERT;
MS. VERONICA MORTELITE; DR. & MRS.
JAMES J. NICHOLSON; MR. & MRS. THOMAS
PAGANO; MR. & MRS. DAVID E. PANICHI;
3808 WESLEY AVENUE, LLC (a/k/a
Powers Family); MR. & MRS. RICHARD A.
RAND; MR. DAVID A. RAND POA;
WILLIAM ROSINI & OCEAN ASSOCIATES;
MR. JAMES D. SCULLY, JR. & M.A.
SCULLY; MS. MAUREEN D. SMITH; MR.
CARL W. STRICKLER; MR. & MRS. RICHARD
SYKORA; MR. STEPHEN B. TANNER; MS.
MARGARET WALTERS; MR. & MRS. G. WILLIAM
FOX,
Plaintiffs,
MR. & MRS. DANIEL T. HUGHES;
and MR. AND MRS. NICHOLAS J.
TALOTTA,
Plaintiffs-Respondents,
v.
CITY OF OCEAN CITY, a municipal
corporation; within Cape May
County, State of New Jersey,
Defendant-Appellant,
and
the DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION, or its assigns, a
governmental agency formed by the
State of New Jersey,
Defendant.
___________________________________________________________
DR. & MRS. JOHN PETROZZI;
DR. & MRS. PHILIP LoPRESTI;
MR. & MRS. JACK DOUGHERTY;
MR. NICHOLAS TALOTTA &
MR. THOMAS L. PAGANO;
MR. & MRS. DANIEL T. HUGHES;
MR. & MRS. KURT ASPLUNDA;
MR. & MRS. MICHAEL C. COYLE;
MR. & MRS. ANDREW BERENATO;
2 A-1633-11T4
MR. & MRS. THOMAS PESCI;
MR. & MRS. EDWARD HALES;
MR. & MRS. ROBERT KOONTZ;
MR. & MRS. HARRY BARBIN;
MR. & MRS. R. MARSHALL PHILIPS
and MS. ARLENE DIACO; MS. RUTH E.
ADLAM; MR. & MRS. DANIEL F.
AMOROSO; MS. MARTHA L. ASPLUNDH; MR.
BRETT A. BOAL & MS. LISA MARI
SHEPPARD; MR. & MRS. JOSEPH E.
BUONOMO; MR. & MRS. JEFFREY P.
CARPENTER; MR. & MRS. LARRY
CARRON; MR. HENRY COCCO; MR. &
MRS. DAVID P. DEGLER; MR. PETER
DEPAUL; MR. RONALD J. DiMEDIO;
MR. & MRS. DONALD F. DWYER; MR.
DENNIS ENGLE, MS. LYNN ENGLE &
MR. RICHARD RUTT; MR. & MRS.
GROVER FRIEND; MS. CHRISTINE
HANNON; MR. & MRS. FRANK IACUBUCCI;
MR. & MRS. JOHN JOHNSON; MR. & MRS.
DAVID M. McLAUGHLIN; MR. VICTOR J.
MAGGITTI, JR.; MR. & MRS. JOSEPH M.
MARTOSELLA; MOONRUN ASSOCIATES, LLC
(a/k/a Mumma Family); MR. & MRS.
WILLIAM L. MOPPERT; MS. VERONICA MORTELITE;
DR. & MRS. JAMES J. NICHOLSON; MR. &
MRS. THOMAS PAGANO; MR. & MRS. DAVID E.
PANICHI; 3808 WESLEY AVENUE, LLC
(a/k/a Powers Family); MR. & MRS.
RICHARD A. RAND; MR. DAVID A.
RAND POA; WILLIAM ROSINI & OCEAN
ASSOCIATES; MR. CARL W. STRICKLER; MR.
& MRS. RICHARD SYKORA; MR. AND MRS.
NICHOLAS J. TALOTTA; MS. MARGARET
WALTERS; and MR. & MRS. G. WILLIAM FOX,
Plaintiffs,
MR. & MRS. EUSTACE MITA;
MR. JAMES D. SCULLY, JR. &
M.A. SCULLY; MR. STEPHEN B. TANNER;
and MS. MAUREEN D. SMITH;
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
3 A-1633-11T4
CITY OF OCEAN CITY, a municipal
corporation; within Cape May
County, State of New Jersey, and
the DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION, or its assigns, a
governmental agency formed by the
State of New Jersey,
Defendants-Respondents.
______________________________________________
Argued September 9, 2013 – Decided October 28, 2013
Before Judges Parrillo, Harris and Kennedy.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Law Division, Cape May County,
Docket No. L-218-05.
Michael P. Stanton argued the cause for
appellant (A-1633-11)/respondent (A-1677-11)
Ocean City (McCrosson & Stanton, P.C.,
attorneys; Dorothy F. McCrosson, of counsel
and on the brief).
Frank L. Corrado argued the cause for
appellants (A-1677-11) Mita, Scully, Tanner
and Smith (Barry, Corrado & Grassi, P.C.,
attorneys; Mr. Corrado, on the briefs).
Kenneth A. Porro argued the cause for
respondents (A-1633-11) Hughes and Talotta
(Wells, Jaworski & Liebman, L.L.P.,
attorneys; Mr. Porro, of counsel and on the
brief; Spencer J. Rothwell, on the brief).
Matthew T. Kelly, Deputy Attorney General,
argued the cause for respondent (A-1677-11)
New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection (John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney
General, attorney; Melissa H. Raksa,
Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Mr.
Kelly, on the briefs).
4 A-1633-11T4
The opinion of the court was delivered by
PARRILLO, P.J.A.D.
These back-to-back appeals, consolidated for purposes of
this opinion, present recurrent issues facing shore communities
and their residents. In A-1677-11, we are asked, primarily, to
determine whether a municipality's failure to perform its part
of easement agreements with owners of beachfront properties is
due to reasonably unforeseen circumstances beyond its control so
as to be relieved of its contractual duty, and, if so, whether
these homeowners are nevertheless left without a remedy. In A-
1633-11, we determine, where municipal liability has been
established, the proper measure of damages for the loss
occasioned by the municipality's breach. Collateral issues
concern the viability of the homeowners' inverse condemnation
claims against the municipality and the State, through its
Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), and whether
certain plaintiffs had established their ownership of affected
beachfront property.
By way of background, prior to 1987, Ocean City did not
have a significant dune system to provide shore protection and,
instead, relied upon dunes that were naturally created. To
rectify the problem, in 1989, Ocean City participated in a beach
5 A-1633-11T4
replenishment and dunes restoration program with a cost-sharing
ratio involving the State and federal government.
Before pumping sand from the sea to create the dune system,
however, the Army Corps of Engineers required that Ocean City
either own the beach or have access rights where the sand was to
be placed. Thus, since a portion of the area identified for the
dune system was privately owned, Ocean City would have to either
acquire easements from beachfront property owners, or pursue the
more time-consuming process of condemnation. Ocean City chose
the former course.
To ease property owners' concerns over their beachfront
views, beginning on April 26, 1991, Ocean City proposed
easements containing a restriction that the municipality would
construct and maintain the dune system with a height limitation
of no greater than three feet above the average elevation of the
bulkhead (i.e., twelve feet) in the block in which the property
was located. Although the 1991 regulations promulgated pursuant
to the Coastal Area Facility Review Act (CAFRA), N.J.S.A. 13:19-
1 to -21, did not require a municipality to seek a CAFRA permit
from DEP for dune maintenance, nevertheless a series of State
Aid Agreements entered into between Ocean City and the State
6 A-1633-11T4
since 1987 required the municipality to obtain the agency's
written authorization before commencing a dune maintenance.1
From May 1, 1992 to December 8, 1995, Ocean City acquired
the necessary easements, including the three-foot height
restriction,2 from individual beachfront property owners. Not
surprisingly, between 1992 and 2000, natural accretion caused
areas of the dunes to grow in height and width, and the affected
1
Specifically, paragraph 4 of the 1987 State Aid Agreement
provided that "[t]he municipality shall not undertake any
mechanical manipulation including[,] but not limited to[,]
bulldozing, grading, scraping, of the beach and dune areas
unless written authorization is received from the Division of
Coastal Resources."
2
The Perpetual Easement Deed stated:
As a further consideration for the
grant of this easement, the Grantee [Ocean
City] covenants that it shall perform, allow
or arrange for the following:
. . . .
(3) Dunes created pursuant to this
grant shall not exceed the average
elevation of the bulkhead in Block by
more than three (3) feet. The Grantee
shall construct and maintain the dune
system in a fashion to comply with this
height limitation.
In addition, Ocean City agreed to maintain beach access over the
dunes by creating an eight-foot access way mid-block to the
ocean and an open twenty-foot wide pathway adjacent to and
parallel with the existing bulkheads. The easements obtained by
plaintiffs or their predecessors in title were all obtained in
1992.
7 A-1633-11T4
property owners began requesting that Ocean City comply with the
dune maintenance provision in their easement agreements. By
this time, however, by virtue of CAFRA amendments effective July
19, 19943 that included dune construction and maintenance as a
regulated activity, Ocean City was required to apply for a CAFRA
permit prior to performing dune maintenance to alter the size or
height of any dunes within the municipality.4
Consequently, on May 29, 2002, Ocean City filed with DEP a
CAFRA permit application to reduce the height of existing sand
dunes by mechanical excavation to an elevation of three feet
above the twelve-foot height of the existing adjacent bulkhead.
The agency deemed the application administratively complete, but
on May 17, 2005, denied the permit for non-compliance with
governing regulations. We affirmed the agency's action in an
unpublished opinion. City of Ocean City v. New Jersey Dep't of
Envtl. Protection, A-5199-06 (App. Div. September 26, 2008).
3
An amendment to N.J.S.A. 13:19-5 provided that "[a] permit
. . . shall be required for . . . [a] development located in
the coastal area on any beach or dune." L. 1993, c. 190, § 5.
This amendment was approved on July 19, 1993 and stated that it
"shall take effect one year from the enactment date of this
act." Ibid. Thus, a CAFRA permit was required for dune
maintenance after July 19, 1994.
4
In fact, several easements were executed after the effective
date of the July 19, 1994 CAFRA amendments, including those
involving plaintiffs-respondents in A-1633-11.
8 A-1633-11T4
Contemporaneously, on May 2, 2005, individual Ocean City
property owners filed a complaint in the Law Division against
Ocean City alleging, among other things, that Ocean City
breached its easement agreements by not maintaining the height
limitation on the beachfront dunes, causing the property owners
to lose their view, access and privacy. On October 4, 2005,
they filed an amended complaint naming additional plaintiffs and
DEP as an additional defendant, alleging that DEP "had full
knowledge, participated and agreed to the dunes project in
question." A second amended complaint added, among other claims
against Ocean City and DEP, a cause of action for inverse
condemnation.
Out of the original ninety-five individual plaintiffs
representing sixty-three beachfront properties, by time of trial
only twenty-five plaintiffs remained, representing seventeen
properties, including the six appellants in A-1677-11 and the
four respondents in A-1633-11. Ocean City was the lone
defendant, the court having dismissed, on summary judgment
motion, plaintiffs' breach of contract claims against DEP,
because DEP was not a party to the easement agreements, and
plaintiffs' inverse condemnation claim, because plaintiffs had
not established a regulatory taking and had not lost
9 A-1633-11T4
substantially all of the beneficial use of the totality of their
properties.
A bifurcated bench trial was held on liability and damages.
As to the former, the only remaining claims against Ocean City
were breach of the easement agreements and inverse condemnation.
At the conclusion of the eight-day trial on liability, the Law
Division dismissed the inverse condemnation claims of all
plaintiffs as well as the breach of contract claims of all5 but
the four plaintiffs who had entered into easement agreements
with Ocean City after the effective date — July 19, 1994 — of
the CAFRA amendments. Those four plaintiffs, each two of whom
own a beachfront condominium in the same two-unit, two-story
structure in Ocean City and who are respondents in A-1633-11,
proceeded to a three-day damages trial, at the conclusion of
which the court awarded $70,000 to the first-floor occupants
(Mr. and Mrs. Daniel Hughes) and $35,000 to the second-floor
occupants (Mr. and Mrs. Nicholas Talotta).
5
The breach of contract claims of two of these plaintiffs, Mr.
and Mrs. Eustace Mita, were dismissed as well on the ground they
failed to prove ownership of the affected beachfront property.
10 A-1633-11T4
As to liability, in dismissing the claims of the six
plaintiffs who are appellants in A-1677-11,6 the court found that
the 1994 CAFRA amendments rendered impossible Ocean City's
performance under the easement agreements pre-dating the
effective date of those amendments and, therefore, relieved the
municipality of its contractual obligations. Finding
performance excused and no contractual breach, the court held
Ocean City was not liable to plaintiffs for damages, especially
since they received the benefit of added storm protection as a
result of the dune creation. The court also dismissed
plaintiffs' inverse condemnation claims against Ocean City on
the same grounds it had previously rejected identical claims
against DEP, namely that neither DEP nor Ocean City physically
appropriated plaintiffs' properties and that plaintiffs had not
shown substantial loss of use required for a compensable
regulatory taking.7
6
With respect to the Mitas, the court additionally found these
appellants did not have riparian ownership of the area on which
the dunes were constructed.
7
The court stated:
Under general principles a property owner is
barred from any claim to a right of inverse
condemnation unless deprived of all or
substantially all of the beneficial use of
the totality of [the] property as the result
of excessive police power regulation.
(continued)
11 A-1633-11T4
These six plaintiffs now appeal the dismissal of their
breach of contract and inverse condemnation claims, seeking
liability judgments in their favor. They argue, alternatively,
that even if Ocean City were discharged of its contractual
duties, plaintiffs are nevertheless entitled to restitution as
an equitable remedy to compensate them for the benefit they
conferred on the municipality. Plaintiffs also contend that the
1994 CAFRA amendments, which prevented Ocean City from reducing
the height of the dunes seaward of their property and therefore
interfered with their ocean views and reduced the value of their
beachfront dwellings, effected a regulatory taking of their
property without just compensation.8
As to those four plaintiffs (respondents in A-1633-11) who
executed easement agreements after the July 19, 1994 effective
date of the CAFRA amendments, the court found municipal
liability because Ocean City was on notice at that time that it
could be barred from dune adjustment, and therefore the
(continued)
[Orleans Builders & Developers v. Byrne, 186
N.J. Super. 432, 446 (App. Div.), certif.
denied, 91 N.J. 528 (1982) (citing Penn
Central Transp. Co. v. New York City, 438
U.S. 104, 127, 98 S. Ct. 2646, 2661, 57 L.
Ed. 2d 631, 650 (1978)).]
8
Additionally, the Mitas contend the court erred in finding
their lack of ownership.
12 A-1633-11T4
impossibility defense did not apply. As such, following a
damages trial at which both sides presented expert appraisal
testimony, the court, finding their methodologies flawed,
nevertheless awarded $70,000 to the first-floor residents of a
beachfront condominium building and $35,000 to the second-floor
owners. Ocean City appeals from this judgment, arguing that
respondents' failure to offer competent expert proof quantifying
the effect of loss of beach views on the value of their real
property precludes an award of compensatory damages.
We first address the issues raised in A-1677-11.
I. A-1677-11
Plaintiffs argue that Ocean City, having entered into the
easement agreements solely by virtue of authority delegated by
the Legislature, is in effect the State's alter ego and agent
and, therefore, should not be allowed to assert the defense of
impossibility based on what are, in essence, its own actions in
rendering those contracts ineffective. And, even if considered
a separate entity, Ocean City is still not entitled to the
defense because the State's disapproval of Ocean City's permit
application was reasonably within the municipality's
contemplation when it promised plaintiffs it would limit dune
height. We disagree.
13 A-1633-11T4
"Impossibility or impracticability of performance are
complete defenses where a fact essential to performance is
assumed by the parties but does not exist at the time for
performance." Connell v. Parlavecchio, 255 N.J. Super. 45, 49
(App. Div.), certif. denied, 130 N.J. 16 (1992). "Even if a
contract does not expressly provide that a party will be
relieved of the duty to perform if an unforeseen condition
arises that makes performance impracticable, 'a court may
relieve him of that duty if performance has unexpectedly become
impracticable as a result of a supervening event.'" Facto v.
Pantagis, 390 N.J. Super. 227, 231 (App. Div. 2007) (quoting
Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 261 comment a (1981)); see
also M.J. Paquet, Inc. v. N.J. Dep't of Transp., 171 N.J. 378,
390-91 (2002).
The basis of the defense is "the presumed mutual assumption
when the contract is made that some fact essential to
performance then exists, or that it will exist when the time for
performance arrives." Duff v. Trenton Beverage Co., 4 N.J. 595,
605 (1950) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The
inquiry, therefore, is whether the condition "is of such a
character that it can reasonably be implied to have been in the
contemplation of the parties at the date when the contract was
made." Ibid. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
14 A-1633-11T4
In other words, the parties must not have reasonably
foreseen the change that rendered the contract performance
impossible or impracticable. As expressed in the Restatement:
Where, after a contract is made, a party's
performance is made impracticable without
his fault by the occurrence of an event the
non-occurrence of which was a basic
assumption on which the contract was made,
his duty to render that performance is
discharged, unless the language or the
circumstances indicate the contrary.
[Restatement (Second) of Contracts, supra, §
261.]
Specifically when dealing with a subsequent government act,
"[i]f the performance of a duty is made impracticable by having
to comply with a domestic or foreign governmental regulation or
order, that regulation or order is an event the non-occurrence
of which was a basic assumption on which the contract was made."
Restatement (Second) of Contracts, supra, § 264.
To be sure, a party cannot render contract performance
legally impossible by its own actions, Creek Ranch, Inc. v. New
Jersey Turnpike Authority, 75 N.J. 421, 432 (1978), as
plaintiffs allege Ocean City did here. However, Ocean City, as
promisor, neither caused non-performance of its promise nor
reasonably contemplated the change in the law that rendered its
performance impossible or impracticable.
15 A-1633-11T4
As to the former, the mere conferral by the Legislature of
the power to contract, N.J.S.A. 40:48-1.2; N.J.S.A. 40:43-1;
N.J.S.A. 40A:12-4(a); Becker v. Adams, 37 N.J. 337, 340 (1962),
does not make the State the contracting party. On the contrary,
it is undisputed that the State was not a party to the easement
agreements, which were negotiated, drafted and executed by the
municipality and agreed to by the individual property owners.
Moreover, as we found in our earlier opinion affirming the
agency's denial of Ocean City's permit application, DEP neither
endorsed, condoned nor approved the dune maintenance height
restriction in those easement agreements. City of Ocean City,
supra, slip. op. at 11.
Although Ocean City, as a subdivision of the State, derived
its authority to contract from the State, it does not follow
that the municipality was acting as an agent of the State when
it entered into the easement agreements with its oceanfront
residents. Clearly, Ocean City was acting in its (and its
residents') own best interests when it sought to obtain
easements to create and maintain dunes along its coast, just as
the State was acting in the best interests of all its citizens
when it sought to include, through the 1994 CAFRA amendments,
dune construction and maintenance as regulated activities
requiring a permit from DEP. Undeniably, Ocean City had no
16 A-1633-11T4
control over the legislative enactment, which required the
municipality to submit to a formal application and approval
process, over which Ocean City also had no control. Obviously
then, the entity that contracted and the entity that rendered
performance thereunder impracticable are separate and distinct.
Not only were the CAFRA amendments and DEP's subsequent
disapproval of Ocean City's permit application beyond the
municipality's control, they were also not reasonably
foreseeable events. As noted, while a series of State Aid
Agreements governing funding for Ocean City's beach
replenishment projects required DEP's authorization to reduce
the height of the dunes, under 1991 CAFRA regulations then in
effect, no CAFRA permit was required and Ocean City was free to
engage in beach maintenance activities without submitting an
application to the agency. Indeed, given the mutual goals of
beach replenishment and dune creation shared with the State, it
was entirely reasonable for the municipality to assume that it
would be permitted to carry out the three-foot height
restriction and thus fulfill its dune maintenance obligations to
plaintiffs, who allowed Ocean City access to their beachfront
property to create the dunes in the first instance. And even
after adoption of the CAFRA amendments on July 19, 1993, it was
still reasonable for Ocean City to conclude that it would obtain
17 A-1633-11T4
a DEP permit, especially considering the fact that the
legislation provided a waiver of the permit process for grading
and excavating dunes. N.J.S.A. 13:19-5.3.9
Having excused Ocean City's performance as impossible or
impracticable, the trial court found no liability for damages.
With this latter ruling, we part company. In our view, the
court erred in concluding that because Ocean City did not breach
the contract, plaintiffs are not entitled to monetary relief.
"Where one party to a contract is excused from performance
as a result of an unforeseen event that makes performance
impracticable, the other party is also generally excused from
performance." Facto, supra, 390 N.J. Super. at 233-34; see also
Restatement (Second) of Contracts, supra, §§ 237, 239, 267.
Even though the non-performing party is not in breach because
the impracticability doctrine discharges the duty, "'it cannot
demand something for nothing from the other party.'" Facto,
supra, 390 N.J. Super. at 234 (quoting 14 Corbin on Contracts, §
9
N.J.S.A. 13:19-5.3 provides:
The commissioner may waive the permit
requirement for development . . . for any
development that involves the grading or
excavation of a dune by a governmental
agency if the commissioner finds that such a
waiver is warranted as a result of a storm,
natural disaster or similar act of God.
18 A-1633-11T4
78.2 (Perillo Rev. 2001)). As the Restatement makes abundantly
clear, a contractual impracticability does not render the
performing party remediless:
(1) In any case governed by the rules
stated in this Chapter, either party may
have a claim for relief including
restitution under the rules stated in §§ 240
and 377.
(2) In any case governed by the rules
stated in this Chapter, if those rules
together with the rules stated in Chapter 16
will not avoid injustice, the court may
grant relief on such terms as justice
requires including protection of the
parties' reliance interests.
[Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 272
(1981).]
Here, the parties agreed upon an exchange of performances
and because of events not reasonably foreseen, Ocean City's part
of the exchange cannot now take place. Yet the fact remains
plaintiffs surrendered their right to compensation in reliance
on Ocean City's promise to protect their ocean views. Absent
that reliance, Ocean City would have had to pay plaintiffs for
depriving them of their views. If Ocean City may retain the
benefit of this bargain despite its failure to perform its
promise — even if performance was impracticable — without
consequence, the municipality would reap a windfall at
plaintiffs' expense and plaintiffs would have given "something
for nothing." Facto, supra, 390 N.J. Super. at 234 (quoting 14
19 A-1633-11T4
Corbin on Contracts, supra, § 78.2). Equity, however, demands
some relief for plaintiffs and, therefore, a hearing to
determine a fair and just restitutionary amount is warranted.
The question remains how to measure damages for restitution
in this case. Obviously, the fixing of an appropriate
restitutionary amount must consider the value of that which
plaintiffs have been deprived, including loss of, or
interference with, their ocean views due to the accretive
effects. But offset against the burdens suffered by plaintiffs
are the potential gains conferred by the partial consideration
performed by Ocean City to date, namely the non-speculative,
reasonably calculable benefits arising from the municipality's
dune project. These may include the added wave/storm surge
protection afforded by the accretive effect of the dunes. See
Borough of Harvey Cedars v. Karan, 214 N.J. 384, 416 (2013). We
emphasize that the remedy we grant is an equitable one, and not
a substitute for eminent domain, for which a jury trial is not
appropriate.
Thus, all plaintiffs, save the Mitas, are entitled on
remand to a hearing to determine a fair and just restitutionary
amount for performing their part of the bargain with Ocean City.
As noted, in fixing the appropriate level of compensation, the
20 A-1633-11T4
court should consider, upon the requisite proofs, all the
factors we have previously identified.
As for the Mitas, for the reasons expressed by the trial
judge in his written opinion of September 9, 2010, we find they
have failed to prove by competent credible evidence their
riparian rights in the easement area and therefore affirm the
dismissal of their complaint against defendants in its entirety.
Suffice it to say, originating from the State, "a riparian grant
is a conveyance in fee simple of real property[;] [a]s such,
without specific mention in the deed or other evidence that the
parties intended its inclusion, a riparian grant will not pass
as appurtenant to another district parcel." Panetta v. Equity
One, Inc., 190 N.J. 307, 309 (2007). In other words, a riparian
grant must be explicit in a real estate conveyance and the Mitas
presented no documentary proof expressly and definitively
supporting their claim.
As the trial judge noted here:
It may well be that at some point some of
the oceanfront owners['] predecessors in
title received a grant; but if that grant
was not passed on in the chain of title then
it remains a separate parcel. The required
riparian ownership only adheres in the
initial transaction with the State. A
riparian grant is the conveyance of real
property divided from the uplands by a fixed
boundary, no different from any other
conveyance of land.
21 A-1633-11T4
The Mitas were not a party to the original easement dated
March 10, 1992, and failed to establish a chain of title through
which they received a riparian grant. Specifically, the Mitas
offered no deed by which they took title from the grantor (the
Maffuccis) on the perpetual deed of easement to Ocean City,
which "expressly acknowledged ownership of the beachfront
property and that included a metes and bounds description of the
property as part of the deed of easement." In fact, the only
document produced by the Mitas was a 2007 deed from grantor
Eustace Mita, who had purchased the property on June 1, 1996, to
himself and his wife Suzanne Mita as grantees. While the
document refers to a riparian grant, there is, as noted, no deed
in this record by which the Mitas obtained title from the
grantor on the deed of easement.10 The Mitas did produce a
survey describing the property in issue, but did not explain its
source and therefore the document does not definitively
establish any riparian grant to the Mitas. Nor does their
unsubstantiated claim that Ocean City "has assessed property
10
When the Mitas' counsel asked Mr. Mita who owned the property,
he replied "my wife and I are the owners through a trust."
22 A-1633-11T4
taxes on the beachfront lot against the Mitas and their
predecessors."11 As the trial judge properly noted:
[T]he [c]ourt cannot rely upon the issuance
of tax bills as proof of ownership based
upon the record. Proof of the ownership, as
indicated, would be available by title
search and deed or survey. Any of these
would have been acceptable. That evidence
was not produced for [the Mitas].
Because we have found the remaining plaintiffs-appellants
entitled to a restitutionary hearing, we need not dwell on their
alternative claim to compensation. Simply stated, plaintiffs
claimed a right to inverse condemnation by a "regulatory
taking," which they were barred from asserting unless deprived
of all or substantially all of the beneficial use of their
property by virtue of governmental regulations. Orleans
Builders & Developers v. Byrne, 186 N.J. Super. 432, 446 (App.
Div.), certif. denied, 91 N.J. 528 (1982); see also Penn Central
Transp. Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104, 127, 98 S. Ct. 2646,
2661, 57 L. Ed. 2d 631, 650 (1978). As our Supreme Court has
stated:
Diminution of land value itself does not
constitute a taking. Similarly, impairment
of the marketability of land alone does not
effect a taking. . . . A regulatory scheme
will be upheld unless it denies all
11
The Mitas did not produce any tax documents. During trial,
when asked if he pays a "tax bill for the property extending to
the ocean," Mr. Mita responded, "I don't know."
23 A-1633-11T4
practical use of property, or substantially
destroys the beneficial use of private
property, or does not allow an adequate or
just and reasonable return on investment[.]
[Gardner v. N.J. Pinelands Comm'n, 125 N.J.
193, 210-11 (1991) (internal quotation marks
and citations omitted).]
The trial judge, here, found that the subject properties
diminished in market value only between fifteen to thirty-five
percent, and therefore rejected plaintiffs' inverse condemnation
claim because plaintiffs "still maintain[ed] beneficial use of
much of their property." No one disputes the court's factual
finding, to which we defer, and his legal conclusion is
unassailable. See Bernardsville Quarry v. Borough of
Bernardsville, 129 N.J. 221, 239-40 (1992) (finding no taking
where the property value decreased from $34,000,000 to
$2,700,000; a 92% decrease); In re Loveladies Harbor, Inc., 176
N.J. Super. 69, 73 (App. Div. 1980), certif. denied, 88 N.J. 501(1981) (finding no taking where a regulation left a property
owner able to develop only 25% of his property, stating there
was still "substantial potential use"). Therefore, plaintiffs'
claims of inverse condemnation against Ocean City and DEP were
properly dismissed as plaintiffs failed to demonstrate they were
deprived of "all or substantially all of the beneficial use" of
their properties. Orleans Builders, supra, 186 N.J. at 446.
24 A-1633-11T4
II. A-1633-11
Having found Ocean City liable to four plaintiffs, namely
two couples who each own in condominium form a unit in a two-
unit, two-story beachfront dwelling, the judge proceeded to a
three-day bench trial to determine the amount of damages to
which each plaintiff was entitled. The hearing produced the
following undisputed facts. The Hughes plaintiffs bought the
entire duplex, built in 1962, in 1974 along with other investors
and took title to the first-floor unit in 1981. The Talottas
purchased the second-floor unit in 1987. At the time, there
were no dunes in front of the property as the area was
essentially flat during the 1970's and 1980's. Both plaintiffs
have riparian rights out to the high water line.
The perpetual easement deed executed between the
plaintiffs' condominium association and Ocean City on May 2,
1995, well after the CAFRA amendments, acknowledged, as part of
the consideration, the benefit to be received from construction
of the sand dune system for shore erosion control. As with all
other plaintiffs, the easement was also subject to certain
conditions, namely: (1) the owners would have mid-block access
to the beach over any dune created not to exceed eight-feet in
width; (2) there would be a twenty-foot-wide pathway running
parallel to the ocean; and (3) most notably, for present
25 A-1633-11T4
purposes, the dunes created would not exceed an average
elevation of three feet two inches above the bulkhead. Ocean
City expressly represented to plaintiffs that if they did not
grant a perpetual easement, the municipality would proceed to
condemnation through eminent domain proceedings.
Ocean City complied with the height requirement for several
years, until about 1995 when there appeared significant changes
in dune structure and plantings. In fact, the last measurement,
from April 2007, concluded the dune was 6.224 feet above the
three-foot two-inch limit at the north dune point and 4.44 feet
above the limit at the south dune point. Consequently, these
plaintiffs, along with others, sued for loss of breeze, loss of
access, and loss of ocean view. At the conclusion of the bench
trial, the judge found no damages for loss of breeze due to lack
of evidence and no damages for loss of access because, as part
of the bargain, Ocean City built a pathway along the property.
This much is not in dispute or an issue here.
The core issue at trial was loss of view and its valuation.
Actually, it was undisputed that these plaintiffs suffered a
loss of view, as the trial judge observed first hand in his two
visits to the site in question. Where the plaintiffs and the
municipality parted company was the amount of damages attributed
to this loss, as all agreed that ocean view has value and the
26 A-1633-11T4
deprivation or diminution of view is compensable if the market
recognizes such loss.
On this issue, plaintiffs' expert Robert Gagliano, a
certified appraiser, employed the sales comparison approach,
which he described as an "appraisal procedure in which the
market value of a property is estimated by direct comparison and
analysis of the sales of similar substitute properties."
Gagliano originally appraised each of the two units at
$1,000,000.12 Then to establish the effect of growing dune
height on the market value of a first-floor condo unit, Gagliano
set up two classifications, comparing plaintiffs' units to pre-
2000 sales and post-2000 sales, noting that issues associated
with elevated dune height did not become apparent until after
2000.
Gagliano identified seven properties where the first and
second floor units were sold between 1987 and 2000 as comparable
although he did not obtain access to any of them to verify their
views of the ocean. He also made no adjustments as he would
normally have done in an appraisal process, such as conditions
12
The original $1,000,000 appraisal was based on sales of seven
properties — all first-floor condominium units — considered
comparable that took place between February 17, 2006 and January
31, 2008. Gagliano provided adjustments for date of sale
(timing), condition/quality/age of the properties; room count;
gross living area; and construction quality.
27 A-1633-11T4
of sale, date of transaction and physical characteristics.
Gagliano established a value difference for the seven properties
between 1.10% and 15.52% solely based on the gross sales price
difference of the first floor and the second-floor without any
adjustments for view, age, construction or condition. A median
of 6.96% was obtained from these comparisons.
Gagliano also identified six properties sold after 2000.
Once again, he made no adjustments for design, quality,
condition, or view and simply relied on gross sales price. He
arrived at a median difference in value between first floor and
second floor units of 21.33%.
Gagliano subtracted the median value difference of 6.96%
for sales between 1987 and 2000 from the median value difference
of 21.33% for post-2000 sales to reach a result of 14.3%,
rounded up to 15%, which he then concluded was the percentage
(15%) impairment of value based upon the height of the dunes and
assumed loss of view. Gagliano therefore estimated the loss in
value of the Hughes' first-floor property to be $150,000 after
applying the 15% calculation to the original appraisal value of
$1,000,000. Gagliano arrived at the same loss in value for the
28 A-1633-11T4
Talotta's second-floor unit after applying the 15% calculation
to the appraisal value of $1,000,000.13
Ocean City's appraiser, Paul Johnson, used a methodology
valuation that was limited to the reduction in value of the
structure on the property. He attributed no loss of value to
the land itself. Johnson concluded that any diminution would be
limited to the life of the building on the property, which he
opined was nine years. Johnson found a higher loss in value for
the second-floor unit than the first-floor unit, determining a
diminution in value of $1,800 for Hughes and $3,000 for Talotta.
The trial judge rejected both analyses as "flawed." He
criticized Gagliano's methodology for failing to factor in the
usual adjustments and failing to evaluate the height of the
dunes in front of, and the view from, any of the properties
considered "similar."14 The judge also faulted Gagliano's
13
However, when Talotta complained to Gagliano that his property
was more valuable than that of Hughes, Gagliano revised the
value of the Talotta property to $1,210,000 and after applying
the 15% factor, arrived at a loss of value of $180,000.
14
Specifically, the judge found:
The weakness in the appraisal is in part
based upon not having more detailed
knowledge of the view from each property
which of course is the charge he was given
in terms of valuation; i.e., to estimate the
impact of dune growth and loss of view on
the value of the property. Therefore his
(continued)
29 A-1633-11T4
application of the 15% impairment factor to both first and
second floor properties when the loss of view is greater for the
former.
The judge similarly criticized Johnson for
"invert[ing]" the values and finding a higher loss for the
second-floor unit than the first-floor unit. But even more
fundamentally, the judge disagreed with Johnson's belief that
diminution in value is limited to the nine-year life of the
obsolete building on plaintiffs' property, finding instead "that
view affects land value and not just structure value."
Having faulted both approaches, the judge nevertheless
found plaintiffs' loss of view compensable and that the
severance analysis employed in City of Ocean City v. Maffucci,
326 N.J. Super. 1 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 162 N.J. 485(1999), an eminent domain case, was "appropriate to evaluate the
breach of contract damages for violation of the Easement
Agreement" because if there had been no easement agreement,
there would have been condemnation by eminent domain.
In Maffucci, a first-floor oceanfront property owner at
2825 Wesley Avenue, six blocks north of plaintiffs' property in
the 3600 block of Wesley, would not agree to a $1 easement for a
(continued)
appraisal differentials are weak at their
very foundation.
30 A-1633-11T4
50' by 80' strip of beach. 326 N.J. Super. at 4-5.
Consequently, Ocean City decided to take the property by eminent
domain. Id. at 4. A jury trial ensued after the condemnation
commissioners declared just compensation to be only $1.00. Id.
at 5. Over Ocean City's objection, the trial judge allowed the
jury to consider evidence of loss of access and view. Id. at
13. The jury returned a verdict of $1.00 for the easement and
$37,000 for severance damages, i.e., compensation for the
diminution in value of the property remaining after the
"taking." Ibid.15
We upheld the verdict on appeal. Finding that the loss of
ocean view and access are elements for which severance damages
may be awarded, id. at 18, we held that there was evidence to
support the conclusion that the Maffuccis lost their ocean view,
beach access and privacy, id. at 14. As to valuation, while we
recognized that "the amount of the severance damages occurring
as a result of the taking, could not be calculated with any
degree of accuracy or fairness[,]" id. at 15, we nevertheless
ruled that "where only a portion of a property is condemned, the
15
The Maffuccis' expert, a real estate broker, had estimated
total severance damages at $100,000; $75,000 was damage to the
first floor and $25,000 was damage to the second floor. He
based his opinion on before and after sales using the before and
after sales of comparable properties. He attributed 60% to loss
of view; 20% to loss of access; 10% to loss of use; and 10% to
loss of privacy. Id. at 6.
31 A-1633-11T4
measure of damages includes both the value of the portion of
land actually taken and the value by which the remaining land
has been diminished as a consequence of the partial taking."
Id. at 18 (citing State, by Comm'r of Transp. v. Silver, 92 N.J.
507, 513 (1983)). To determine the value of the property
remaining after the partial taking, we found that:
[A]n examination of all of the
characteristics of such remaining property
after the time of the taking, as opposed
solely to facts in existence at or
immediately before condemnation, is
inescapable. Therefore, in the case of a
partial taking, the market value of property
remaining after a taking should be
ascertained by a wide factual inquiry into
all material facts and circumstances — both
past and prospective — that would influence
a buyer or seller interested in consummating
a sale of the property.
[Id. at 19 (quoting Silver, supra, 92 N.J.
at 515).]
Here, applying Maffucci's severance analysis, the trial
court quantified plaintiffs' respective damages, reasoning:
In spite of the inadequate appraisal
testimony by the experts, the Court is not
constrained from making an award for loss of
view. It does not take an expert to arrive
at the conclusion that view has value. The
best and most expensive seats in the theatre
are close up with the best view. The best
and most expensive regular seats at major
league baseball are near home plate and
along the first and third base lines close
up to the field. At football games, we hope
to be at or close to the fifty (5[0]) yard
line.
32 A-1633-11T4
We also know intuitively that built
into the value of oceanfront property is the
quality of the view of the beach and ocean
beyond. The closer to the beach, the higher
the rent and the higher the purchase price
for similar properties. Therefore, if a
contract provides protection for that view
as in the Easement Agreement, failure to
protect it is a breach of contract.
Valuation of the breach is the issue. The
award of damages need not be precise based
on an expert opinion. Here the Court makes
the award based on a number of factors. The
decrease in market value is one such factor.
The Court finds that the increase of dune
height and loss of view caused thereby
negatively affects market value. The Court
does not accept the determinations of either
expert. However, the differential in first
floor and second floor values on the ocean
reflect in part the views. The height of
the dunes impacts the ground level property
substantially more than the second floor
property regardless of the value of the
respective units. However, the width of the
dunes toward the ocean also may affect value
and that is not compensable and is not a
breach of this contract. That width
increases the distance to the usable beach
for sunbathing and swimming. The first
floor property has suffered the most severe
loss of view because it is a 1962 home built
at ground level and not raised up to full
zoning height. That loss may or may not be
temporary. Clearly, new construction,
including nearby this property, is at a
greater height so even the first floor of
living area would enjoy better views if so
constructed hereafter. The Perpetual
Easement Deed runs with the land so
longevity can be a factor. However, dune
protection comes and goes. The nature of
our coast in New Jersey sometimes restores
view by taking away dune protection. The
property owners here are long time
oceanfront property owners – Hughes since
33 A-1633-11T4
1974 and Talotta since 1987 and have
maintained ownership during the entire
period of conflict with the City.
The Hughes' claim results in a
compensable loss of view for the first floor
unit and common elements of $70,000.
The Talotta claim results in a
compensable loss of view for the second
floor unit and common elements of $35,000.
On appeal, Ocean City contends that plaintiffs are not
entitled to an award of compensatory damages for diminution in
the value of their properties because having rejected both
experts' analyses, there was no competent evidence upon which
the court could ascertain the loss. We disagree.
In the first place, it is beyond question that plaintiffs
suffered a loss of ocean view, that such a loss has value, and
that the loss is compensable. Both experts agreed to at least
as much, and the documentary, photographs and testimonial proofs
leave no room to doubt these facts. Moreover, the analytical
framework used to measure the damages espoused in Maffucci,
supra, was adopted by the trial judge in this case. And
governed by that standard, the judge assessed the expert proofs
and found them wanting, which he was free to do. Cnty. of Ocean
v. Landolfo, 132 N.J. Super. 523, 528 (App. Div. 1975); see also
Trenton v. John A. Roebling Sons Co., 24 N.J. Super. 213, 219
(App. Div. 1953) ("The determination of the weight to be given
34 A-1633-11T4
to the statements of expert witnesses in the first instance is
for the hearing tribunals, and that weight depends upon their
candor, intelligence, knowledge, experience, and especially
[upon] the facts and reasoning which are the foundation of their
opinion.").16
While we agree with the trial judge's critique of the
expert proofs and his adoption of the Maffucci methodology, we
are unclear as to how he otherwise arrived at the severance
damages awarded to plaintiffs in this case. Although the judge
stated that he considered the decline in market value caused by
the loss of ocean view as one of several factors, he failed to
mention how that decline was quantified and failed to identify
the other factors taken into account in his valuation. Perhaps
the court, in its embrace of the Maffucci approach, also took
note of the values ascribed therein, given the proximity of the
properties to the two units involved here. But we question
whether that was indeed the case, as we do the propriety of such
reliance.
16
Plaintiffs' expert failed to observe the view from the
"comparable" properties and made no adjustments in the "before
and after" comparison sales to account for differences in
quality, area and condition, among other attributes. Ocean
City's appraiser's methodology was also flawed as he relied on
the reduction in value of the structure and not the property,
even though dune height undoubtedly affects the property value.
35 A-1633-11T4
To be sure, "[f]indings by the trial judge are considered
binding on appeal when supported by adequate, substantial and
credible evidence." Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Ins.
Co., 65 N.J. 474, 484 (1974). Our appellate function, on the
other hand, is a limited one:
we do not disturb the factual findings and
legal conclusions of the trial judge unless
we are convinced that they are so manifestly
unsupported by or inconsistent with the
competent, relevant and reasonably credible
evidence as to offend the interests of
justice, and the appellate court therefore
ponders whether, on the contrary, there is
substantial evidence in support of the trial
judge's findings and conclusions.
[Ibid. (internal quotation marks and
citations omitted).]
However, "[i]t is important that a trial court make
specific findings, particularly when faced with a complex
financial valuation question, so that the parties and reviewing
court may be informed of the rationale underlying the court's
conclusion." Orgler v. Orgler, 237 N.J. Super. 342, 358 (App.
Div. 1989); see also Esposito v. Esposito, 158 N.J. Super. 285,
291 (App. Div. 1978). Because the trial court here failed to
make specific findings as to its damages awards, we are
constrained to remand the matter for further explication of its
fact determinations and conclusions of law. However, before
rendering any further explication of its rationale, we suggest
36 A-1633-11T4
that, as with the remand hearing ordered for the other
plaintiffs in A-1677-11, the remand judge allow further proofs
of valuation, consistent not only with Maffucci's analytical
framework, but as well with the admonition in Borough of Harvey
Cedars v. Karan that "the quantifiable decrease in the value of
their property -- loss of view -- should [be] set off by any
quantifiable increase in its value -- storm-protection
benefits[.]" 214 N.J. at 418. Along with any "non-speculative,
reasonably calculable benefits from the dune project," id. at
387, the remand judge should inquire "into all material facts
and circumstances . . . that would influence a buyer or seller
interested in consummating a sale of the propert[ies]" in
question. Maffucci, supra, 326 N.J. Super. at 19.
In A-1677-11, affirmed in part, reversed and remanded in
part.
In A-1633-11, remanded.
37 A-1633-11T4