The New Jersey Supreme Court may have unanimously struck down Jackson Township’s controversial land swap, but the battle over what happens to the land is suddenly getting much bigger, FAA News has learned.
Less than two months after the state’s highest court ruled that Jackson unlawfully used eminent domain to seize two privately owned properties and hand them to Mordechai Eichorn - another private developer - the original property owners are now fighting on two separate fronts to unwind what happened while their appeal was making its way through the courts.
And there is a remarkable new wrinkle: while the legality of Jackson’s condemnation was still being litigated — and after the Appellate Division had already ruled that the Township lacked authority to take the properties — developer Bellevue Estates, LLC (owned by Eichorn) went before the Jackson Township Planning Board seeking approval for a major residential development encompassing the disputed land.
The Planning Board approved it.
Now, the property owners who defeated Jackson Township at the Supreme Court — have filed an entirely new lawsuit seeking to wipe that approval off the books.
The Supreme Court's smashing defeat for Jackson
As previously reported here on FAA News, Jackson Township attempted an unusual maneuver: it condemned two lots - which were privately owned - not because the Township intended to use those properties for a public purpose, but so that it could transfer them to Bellevue Estates in exchange for other property Bellevue Estates owned (and had gotten approved for a school campus).
The Supreme Court unanimously rejected the arrangement.
Chief Justice Stuart Rabner wrote that neither New Jersey's Eminent Domain Act nor its Local Lands and Buildings Law authorized Jackson to condemn one person's property simply to use it as bargaining material to acquire somebody else's property for public use. The Court memorably described the condemned properties as effectively serving as “currency” in the exchange.
The Court also pointed to the troubling nature of a government-compelled transfer “from private owner to private developer”, warning that such arrangements can raise the question whether “a private purpose was afoot” and could potentially lead to abuse.
And the rebuke did not end with the legality of the condemnation.
The Supreme Court agreed that Jackson Township had “not act[ed] forthrightly or fairly” with the owners, invoking the longstanding rule that government must “turn square corners” and deal with property owners with “compunction and integrity.”
There was, however, one rather large practical problem.
Jackson had already transferred the properties to Bellevue Estates while the case was being appealed.
Because that transfer had already occurred, the Supreme Court sent the cases back to Ocean County Superior Court Judge Francis Hodgson to determine the appropriate remedy.
The owners wasted little time.
On July 29, the property owners filed motions asking Judge Hodgson to dismiss Jackson's condemnation actions and revest title to the properties in their original owners.
Their motion goes considerably further than simply dismissing the old lawsuit. It asks Hodgson to declare Jackson's conveyance of the lots to Bellevue Estates “void ab initio” and to revest title in the original property owners as it existed when Jackson filed its Declaration of Taking. The motion also seeks over $60,000 in monetary damages and expenses resulting from the Township's actions.
The owner's position is straightforward: Jackson cannot defeat the statutory right to get the property back simply because it transferred the property to somebody else while the condemnation remained under appellate review.
The owners argue that permitting that result would essentially give a condemning government a roadmap for avoiding reversal — seize property, transfer it before the appeal is finished, and then claim it is too late to return it.
According to their brief, any dispute Bellevue Estates has over receiving property from Jackson that Jackson ultimately had no authority to condemn is a dispute between Bellevue Estates and Jackson Township — not a burden that should be placed upon the original owner.
And Jackson could be getting a legal bill
The owners are also seeking reimbursement for the expense of fighting Jackson all the way through the appellate courts.
Their fee application - over $60,000 in monetary damages and expense - argues that the Eminent Domain Act requires reimbursement of reasonable costs and attorney, appraisal and engineering fees when a court ultimately determines that the condemnor cannot acquire the property.
Thus, the Supreme Court victory may ultimately cost Jackson more than simply returning the land.
But Bellevue Estates isn't giving up the property quietly
Enter Bellevue Estates.
On September 9, the developer filed a motion seeking permission to intervene in the condemnation litigation — placing itself directly into the battle over what Judge Hodgson should now do with the properties.
Its proposed order asks Hodgson to grant intervention under Rules 4:33-1 and 4:33-2.
That move puts the post-Supreme Court dispute into sharp focus.
The original owners say the condemnation failed, title must revest, and Jackson's intervening transfer cannot defeat that remedy. Bellevue Estates, meanwhile, is the entity presently claiming an interest derived from that very transfer and is now seeking a seat at the table before Hodgson decides whether to unwind it.
The post-remand motions are presently returnable October 9 before Judge Hodgson.
But while everyone prepares to fight over who owns the land, an entirely separate development has now emerged.
Wait — the disputed land already got development approvals?
According to a brand-new prerogative-writ complaint filed Friday, September 11, the property owners say Bellevue Estates pursued a major development application encompassing the disputed properties while the condemnation litigation was still working its way through the courts.
And the timeline alleged in the complaint is eye-opening.
The Appellate Division had already ruled on January 31, 2025 that Jackson lacked authority to condemn these properties.
On March 4, 2025, attorneys for the owners wrote to Jackson demanding that title be restored. They also specifically requested that Township officials and land-use boards not act upon applications by Bellevue Estates involving the properties while the dispute remained unresolved. According to the new complaint, neither Jackson nor Bellevue Estates responded.
Nevertheless, Bellevue Estates later submitted an application covering a large assemblage of property that included the contested lots.
And this wasn't some minor application.
The developer sought preliminary and final major subdivision and site-plan approval for 135 proposed lots, including 118 new single-family homes, 15 stormwater-basin lots, a recreation lot, a three-story building containing 12 affordable-housing units, and a two-story 8,088-square-foot clubhouse/community building with a 4,044-square-foot basement, along with roads, utilities, parking, recreation and stormwater improvements.
The timing gets even more interesting
According to the complaint, a Planning Board attorney had issued a “Jurisdictional Determination for Title Concerns” on January 28, 2026.
Yet the application was deemed complete on March 13 — more than a year after the Appellate Division had ruled against Jackson and just days before the Supreme Court heard oral argument.
The Planning Board then conducted its hearing on June 15, 2026, and unanimously approved the application with two design waivers.
The complaint alleges that someone from the public actually raised the land-swap and eminent-domain litigation during the hearing — but neither the Board nor its attorney addressed it.
Then came perhaps the strangest coincidence in this entire saga.
Supreme Court in the morning. Planning Board at night.
At approximately 10:10 a.m. on July 20, the New Jersey Supreme Court released its unanimous opinion affirming that Jackson's condemnation of these properties was unlawful.
That very evening, according to the new lawsuit, the Jackson Planning Board adopted Resolution 2026-22, formally memorializing Bellevue Estates' development approval.
The resolution stated that Bellevue Estates possessed “a proprietary interest at the premises herein described.”
But according to the complaint, the resolution said nothing about the condemnation litigation, nothing about the Appellate Division's published ruling, nothing about the land swap and nothing about the Supreme Court decision issued earlier that same day.
That omission now forms the centerpiece of the newest court fight.
The property owners' new complaint names the Jackson Township Planning Board and Bellevue Estates as defendants.
Their basic theory is that Bellevue Estates could only seek development approval if it possessed a legally enforceable interest in the property.
But, they contend, its purported ownership of their properties came exclusively through Jackson's condemnation and subsequent land swap — the very transaction the appellate courts ultimately held could not lawfully be accomplished.
Therefore, the owners argue, Bellevue Estates had no enforceable proprietary interest in their properties, did not qualify as a “developer” under the Municipal Land Use Law with respect to those parcels, and the Planning Board lacked authority to approve the application as presented.
The complaint goes further, alleging that Bellevue Estates knew about the Appellate Division's published decision before the Planning Board acted but failed to disclose it to the Board. The owners allege, upon information and belief, that the omission was intentional and enabled the application to proceed without confronting the uncertainty surrounding Bellevue Estates' title. Those remain allegations in the newly filed complaint and have not yet been adjudicated.
The new lawsuit contains four counts attacking Resolution 2026-22 from several directions.
Among other relief, the owners ask Superior Court to declare that Bellevue Estates lacks valid title or development rights over their properties, declare that the Planning Board lacked jurisdiction to grant the approvals, vacate Resolution 2026-22, and enjoin development activity on their properties under that resolution.
Their constitutional argument connects the new lawsuit directly back to the Supreme Court's decision: allowing Bellevue Estates to develop the disputed properties, they contend, would effectively give continuing force to the very taking that the Supreme Court unanimously invalidated.
As the complaint puts it, construction could materially alter the disputed properties before the remand court even determines how to restore the owners after their Supreme Court victory.
The fourth count separately accuses the Planning Board of acting arbitrarily, capriciously and unreasonably by finding that Bellevue Estates possessed a proprietary interest without grappling with the appellate decisions that directly called that interest into question.
Those allegations, too, are newly filed claims. The Planning Board and Bellevue Estates have not yet had their opportunity in the new action to answer them.
One Supreme Court decision — now two battles
The result is an extraordinary legal situation.
The first battle is back before Judge Hodgson in the original condemnation cases: Does the Supreme Court victory mean the original owners get title to their land back, notwithstanding Jackson's transfer to Bellevue Estates? And what does Jackson now owe them for the failed condemnation?
Bellevue Estates is trying to intervene in that fight because whatever Hodgson decides could directly affect the land the developer received.
The second battle is the brand-new prerogative-writ case: Can Bellevue Estates retain a major development approval covering property whose acquisition through Jackson Township was invalidated by the state's highest court?
The answer could determine much more than who technically holds title on paper.
Bellevue Estates already has Planning Board approval for a substantial residential project. The original owners are now asking Superior Court not merely to return their land, but to prevent that development approval from becoming the lasting consequence of a condemnation that the New Jersey Supreme Court has already declared unlawful.
In other words, the Supreme Court answered the first big question: Jackson could not take these owners' land simply to use it as currency in a deal with another private developer.
Now Judge Hodgson and the Superior Court face the messy aftermath: Who gets the land back, what happens to the developer that received it, what happens to the development approvals obtained in the meantime — and how completely can the courts put the pieces back where they were before Jackson's unlawful taking?
To join the FAA News community click here. It's a private group. No one will see your number.
No comments:
Post a Comment