Another Big Condemnation Win for Bathgate, Wegener & Wolf’s Peter Wegener as the Appellate Court Upholds a $964,000 “Just Compensation” Verdict for Bay Pointe Dunes H.O.A.
On November 4, 2024, a ruling from the NJ Appellate Court upheld a jury’s reward of just compensation for $964,000 for a property owned by the Bay Pointe Dunes Homeowners Association, Inc. (Bay Pointe). The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) had taken an easement through the power of eminent domain to construct a dune and berm system to protect coastal communities from storm damage. The easement caused the property to be limited in its use as a beach only, and Bay Pointe would be prohibited from using the property as a “commercial use” or selling the property for “private use.” The total award of “Just Compensation” including interest will be approximately $1,180,000.
At trial the DEP’s expert argued that the amount for just compensation was a pithy $6,300. The expert retained by Bathgate, Wegener & Wolf on behalf of Bay Pointe argued the correct amount was $1,450,000. After a protracted trial, the jury ultimately awarded Bay Pointe with an amount of $964,000 as the proper amount for just compensation.
In a unanimous decision, the Appellate Court upheld the jury’s verdict on all counts. Most importantly, the court rejected the DEP’s argument that Bay Pointe’s expert used an “Easement Impact Chart” for damage calculations which was really the work of another, non-testifying expert. The Court held that Bay Point’s expert never mentioned that the Chart had initially been a template of another expert’s work, and thus “never referenced a study or author by name or tried to bootstrap that opinion to bolster [his] own” opinion. The court held that Bay Point’s expert thus adopted the Chart as his own. The Chart was used as proof of Bay Point’s expert’s own conclusions without mentioning where the template came from, the chart could be used to support his own testimony.
The court also strongly rejected claims that comments made by Bay Pointe’s counsel, Peter Wegener, at the summation of trial were “improper” or “inflammatory”. The Court held that counsel is allowed “broad discretion” and “latitude” in summation of a trial, and “counsel may draw conclusions even if the inferences that the jury is asked to make are improbable…” The Court posited that “defense counsel’s summation represented fair comment on the trial evidence.”
We commend the court for its ruling and thank the court for affirming what is well known in the condemnation world: Peter Wegener is the very best. He may be known as a bulldog in court when it comes to his client’s rights, but he is “fair,” and tactical. Peter’s broad knowledge base of condemnation law and his unique ability to maneuver in a court of law has added this case to the stack of dozens of other Appellate Court victories in favor of Bathgate, Wegener & Wolf’s clients. Nicholas L. Leider, assisted Mr. Wegener at the trial as associate counsel.
To discuss your situation with a respected New Jersey eminent domain attorney, contact Peter H. Wegener, Co-Founding Partner of the Firm and Chair of the Firm’s Eminent Domain Practice, at 732-363-0666 Ext. 220 or send him an email at pwegener@bathweg.com.
