Real Estate & Property Law

Contamination in the condemnation process

By Alan Ackerman

NJ.com

Last week, a state Superior Court judge in Union County directed Getty Petroleum Marketing Inc. and Power Test Realty, two New York companies, to pay the state more than $866,932 for the cleanup, which included removing eight underground fuel-storage tanks that had oozed benzene, xylene, methyl tertiary ether and ethyl benzene into the soil for years, according to state Attorney General Anne Milgram.

"Substantial public dollars were invested in the clean-up of this property, and it's only fair that the responsible parties ... should pay," Milgram said in a press release. To clean the property, state crews removed 6,300 cubic yards of soil.

Arguing the companies had been "unjustly enriched" after receiving a fair market value for their polluted properties, the state filed the suit in 2006 seeking compensation.

The Schools Development Authority acquired the Newark Avenue property in October 2003 through eminent domain, only to have tests later reveal the presence of numerous hazardous substances in the soil, according to the Attorney General's Office. 

This is a fine example of why an owner must be extremely careful in drafting any sales documents arising out of a potential eminent domain proceeding.  It also reflects the vexing issues of dealing with contamination in the condemnation process when land is taken for a public use.

Full post as published by National Eminent Domain Blog on September 07, 2009 (boomark / email).