New Jersey Supreme Court Obliterates the Distinction Between Special and General Benefits, and Allows the Offset of the Latter Against Just Compensation for a Partial Taking

Word has just reached us that The New Jersey Supreme Court has decided to follow the lead of California, and reversed the Appellate Division’s decision in in the Harvey Cedars v. Karan case.

It has held that where  a partial taking for a beach replenishment project diminished the value of the remainder of the subject property, but simultaneously increased its value because the replenishment would make the subject land less vulnerable to high tides, the added fair market value of the remainder could be considered in offset against the decrease in fair market value caused  by the condemnor’s destruction of the owner’s view, without regard whether such an increase would be classified as a special or general benefit under prior law.

For the New Jersey Supreme Court opinion click here

Update. For the New York Times writeup of this case, see Kate Zernike, Court Sides With Town on Price of Views Lost to Dune, N.Y. Times, July 9, 2013 — click here