Remember Klumpp v. Borough of Avalon, 997 N.J. 390 (N.J. 2010)? That the case in which the New Jersey Supreme Court held that the six year statute of limitations on inverse condemnation claims did not begin to run until 2005, when the Borough began claiming that a taking occurred, even though it physically took the property in 1965. We detailed the opinion here.
The New Jersey Law Journal described the Appellate Division‘s opinion — which held that the government can assert inverse condemnation in order to take property without compensation — as the “bizarre condemnation.” How that argument came to be is a long story which we detailed in this post so we won’t recount it here.
It looks like the New Jersey Supreme Court’s opinion is not quite the last chapter in the story.
filed this cert petition, asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review Questions Presented,, among others:
1. Whether the law as applied to this case conflicts with U. S. v. Clarke, which held that formal condemnation is the condemnor’s way to acquire title and that inverse condemnation is for property owners to obtain just compensation not for the condemnor to obtain title?
2. Whether the two trial court, two appellate division decisions and three supreme court orders denied Petitioners due process by retroactively applying N.J. decisional law that did not interpret N.J.S.A.. 2A:14-1 to include inverse condemnation for a taking of property without due process or just compensation until 1996?
3. Whether the New Jersey Supreme Court denied of Petitioners’ right to equal protection guaranteed by the 14th amendment by failing to grant equity to Petitioners based on Klumpp v. Avalon decided June 22, 2010, before denying Petitioners’ appeal on June 30, 2010 and motion for reconsideration on October 7, 2010?
4. Whether the recent N. J. Appellate Division solution for a due process lack of notice problem in Harrison Redevelopment Agency v. DeRose should be utilized to protect Petitioners’ right to due process?
There are a total of five questions presented.