Real Estate & Property Law

NJ Law Journal's Summary Of The Klumpp Oral Arguments (The "Bizarre Condemnation")

By Robert Thomas (inversecondemnation.com)

Calling the case "tempestuous," the New Jersey Law Journal (via law.com) summarizes this week's New Jersey Supreme Court oral arguments in Klumpp v. Borough of Avalon, No. A-49-09 (certification granted Nov. 10, 2009). See Michael Booth, Town's Taking of Beachfront Property Without Compensation Tested at Court (Mar. 24, 2010).

In Klummp v. Borough of Avalon, A-49-09, a trial judge found and an appeals court agreed that an inverse condemnation of beach property resulted from Avalon's passing of shore-protection regulations after a 1962 Nor'easter leveled the house once standing there.

The borough built sand dunes and vacated access roads to the property, but Edward and Nancy Klummp kept paying taxes -- albeit for miniscule amounts. No condemnation case was filed nor was notice given of a taking.

Not until 1997, when they sought permits to rebuild, did Avalon assert the Klummps were no longer the owners, which led them to sue for damages and for ejectment.

The lower courts, though finding due process woefully lacking, held Avalon had acuired "equitable" ownership that bested the Klummps' mere legal title.

On Monday, the Klummps' lawyer implored the court to void the acquisition as an unconstitutional taking. "Here, there has been no effort to comply with the Eminent Domain Act or provide just compensation," said Richard Hluchan, of Hyland Levin in Voorhees.

"Avalon is clearly trespassing, and the Court should eject the borough from the property," he said.

The New Jersey Law Journal earlier called the decision "a bizarre condemnation."

We live blogged the oral arguments here, and posted the briefs here.

Full post as published by inversecondemnation on March 24, 2010 (boomark / email).