Township of Readington v. Solberg Aviation Co.

- Twp. of Readington v. Solberg Aviation Co., No. A-3964-15T4, 2019 WL 994105 (N.J. App. Div. March 1, 2019)(Unpublished)
- State: New Jersey
- Procedural Status: Case concluded.
- Date: 2019
- Keywords: Arbitrary and capricious; bad faith; eminent domain; open space; public purpose.
- Summary of Facts and Issues: The Solberg Aviation Company (Solberg) owned a 726-acre airport property in Readington Township. The property contained a 102-acre facilities area that included the runways, hangars, and a terminal building. The bulk of the property was composed of farmland, forest and wetlands. As early as the late 1960's, the Township opposed efforts to expand the airport. This opposition culminated in a referendum and resulting condemnation action brought by the Township in 2006 to acquire the development rights in the 102-acre facilities area and the fee interest in the 624-acre balance of the property for a purchase price of $21.4 million. The stated reasons for the condemnation were to protect open space. Solberg challenged the condemnation in court.
- Holding(s): The trial court initially granted summary judgment for the Township. But the Appellate Division reversed and remanded for a trial. The trial court then held a trial and found for Solberg, ruling that the open space rationale was a pretext for the Township's true purpose of limiting the airport's economic viability and expansion. The Township appealed. The second time around, the Appellate Division affirmed the trial court. Although the appellate court noted that open space is a perfectly valid reason to exercise eminent domain authority (citing Mount Laurel Township v. Mipro Homes, 379 N.J. Super. 358 (N.J. App. Div. 2005), in this case it was a bad faith excuse for the true purpose of opposing the airport. The appellate court issued its decision without prejudice to the Township's ability to pursue a future eminent domain action concerning portions of the Solberg parcel that was suitable in scope and not tainted by bad faith motives.
- Notes and Analysis: This case demonstrates that condemning authorities must be forthright in justifying their reasons for a taking, and that a purported open space rationale can be rejected under the right circumstances.