The New Jersey Supreme Court upheld Seaside Park’s use of eminent domain to seize a privately owned motel.
In a 6–1 decision released Monday, the state’s highest court ruled that municipalities do not have to specify a property’s future public use before authorizing condemnation.
Seaside Park passed an ordinance in April 2022 authorizing the acquisition of the Desert Palm Inn, owned by Shree Jyoti LLC.
A subscription is required to read this story.Subscribe now to continue.
The ordinance said that the acquisition would “promote and protect the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the Borough,” and that it would serve the public. However, it did not identify a specific use for the site.
The borough alleged that it had attempted to negotiate with Shree Jyoti before filing a condemnation complaint on July 19, 2022. Under eminent domain law, governments may seize private property for public use but must pay fair market value.
Shree Jyoti challenged the condemnation, arguing the ordinance failed to specify a public use.
The trial court sided with Shree Jyoti and dismissed the complaint.
The borough then filed an amended complaint identifying the public use, in part, as public parking with electric vehicle charging infrastructure.
Shree Jyoti challenged again, but this time the trial court denied the company’s motion.
The Appellate Division agreed with that decision. The court held that neither the Eminent Domain Act nor the Local Lands and Buildings Law required an ordinance to specify the public use.
On appeal to the Supreme Court, Shree Jyoti argued that the case demonstrated a “take it now and decide a use later” approach, which it said would undermine statutory and constitutional law.
The company also claimed that it was deprived of the opportunity to meaningfully challenge the seizure at the appropriate stage of the process.
Additionally, Shree Jyoti alleged that the lower courts’ ruling conflicted with a recent case involving Jackson Township’s use of eminent domain. The Appellate Division ruled that Jackson improperly used eminent domain when it condemned two privately owned parcels as part of a land swap with a developer. The state Supreme Court later upheld the decision.
Seaside Park argued that it had complied with all requirements and that Shree Jyoti had failed to participate in the negotiation process despite repeated attempts by the borough and its appraiser to contact Shree Jyoti.
The Supreme Court held that the borough did not violate the law. The court noted that the borough disclosed the intended public use when it filed its amended complaint and made timely efforts to contact Shree Jyoti throughout the process.
Writing in dissent, Justice John Hoffman agreed that state law does not require municipalities to include a specific public use in a condemnation ordinance.
However, he wrote that Seaside Park failed to “turn square corners” — a legal standard requiring good-faith dealing — by refusing to disclose the property’s intended use before the ordinance was adopted.
The court said it was not deciding whether the borough could have acted “with greater candor or efficiency, but whether the law required it to do so at the time.”
The ruling could give municipalities more flexibility as to when they specify the intended public use of a property during condemnation proceedings.
The Seaside Park borough council and an attorney representing Shree Jyoti did not respond to a request for comment.