Category: William Wolf

Plaintiffs are the owners of two contiguous lots. The regulations prohibited owners of adjacent lots from selling their lots as separate building sites unless each lot contained at least one acre of developable land. Because the plaintiffs’ two lots did not each contain one acre of developable land, the plaintiffs effectively had to merge their two lots into a single lot in order to build a house. Plaintiffs, therefore, claimed the land use regulations caused them to incur an economic injury by reducing their land holdings to a single buildable lot.

For an inverse condemnation claim based on the application of a land use regulation to be viable a land owner must prove they have been deprived of all economically beneficial or productive use of their land. Alternatively, a property owner must prove the regulation interfered with their investment-backed expectations for their property. It is difficult to prove either one of those elements of adverse economic impact.

In Murr, the Supreme Court concluded that the plaintiffs had not proved their case. The basis of that decision was the Court’s conclusion that the plaintiffs’ two contiguous lots should be evaluated as a single parcel of property. Once those lots were merged, it was impossible for the property owners to establish they lost all economically beneficial or productive use of their land because they still owned a buildable and valuable lot. Plaintiffs were incapable of proving their reasonable economic expectations had been thwarted because, despite the land use regulation, they could develop their property as a home site.

Murr is likely to have an impact on regulatory based inverse condemnation claims in New Jersey. It is not uncommon for property owners to hold contiguous lots in a single name. Issues arise when government approvals are sought for one or more of those lots. This situation frequently occurs when adjacent lots are sold to a purchaser who wants to develop and resell the lots for more than one house.

If you have any questions regarding the impact of Murr v. State of Wisconsin on eminent domain, condemnation, inverse condemnation or land use and zoning regulations, please call William J. Wolf, Esq. at 732-363-0666 or send an email to wwolf@bathweg.com

Mr. Wolf has represented clients in condemnation and inverse condemnation cases.
Mr. Wolf is a Senior Fellow of the Litigation Counsel of America, he has been designated as a Super Lawyer and AV Preeminent® for many years.  Mr. Wolf has been certified by the American Institute of Appellate Practice as an appellate specialist.

Photo by Abdul Zreika on Unsplash

According to published reports, that swimmer came in contact with a portion of a metal boat lift. It is believed that electric current used that metal object as a pathway into the water.

According to the Electric Drowning Prevention Association, contact with an electric current on a metal object that protrudes into water can cause muscle paralysis that can lead to death by drowning. The presence of electricity in the water can also lead to the injury or death of people who attempt to rescue the drowning swimmer.

Frequently, the source of the electricity is related to a power source on a dock or a boat moored in a marina. There is, however, an alternative source that can be easily overlooked. That potential source is known as stray current.
​
Stray current refers to the flow of electrical current into the water, ground or metal objects. That flow of current can be caused by an imbalance in an electrical system or flaws in wiring or electrical components.

The source of stray current can be located far from an object, a swimming pool, or a body of water that appears to be the site at which a person experienced a shock. As a result, stray current as the potential source of an accident or a fatality can be easily overlooked. Thus, when an injury is caused by electrical shock, it is sometimes necessary to expand the scope of the investigation to other areas on or off the location at which the accident occurred.

William J. Wolf, Esq. has represented clients in cases involving stray current and electromagnetic fields. In each instance, Mr. Wolf was able to obtain favorable jury verdicts for his clients.

If you have any questions regarding the impact of stray current, electromagnetic fields, electrocution or other personal injuries, please call William J. Wolf, Esq. at 732-363-0666 or send an email to wwolf@bathweg.com.

Mr. Wolf is a Senior Fellow of the Litigation Counsel of America, he has been designated as a Super Lawyer and AV Preeminent® for many years.  Mr. Wolf has been certified by the American Institute of Appellate Practice as an appellate specialist.

There are two (2) ways that property can be taken by the government.  The most common way is through the invocation of the government’s power of eminent domain also known as condemnation. The other way property can be taken by the government is through inverse condemnation. This indirect way of taking property occurs in two (2) ways.  One way is very obvious because it consists of the government physically occupying property without permission from the property owner.  The other less obvious way is through the regulation of property which adversely effects the use or value of a parcel of property.  In order for the regulation of property to result in a constitutionally forbidden taking of property, it must deprive the property owner of substantially all of the beneficial use of the land.
​
In the case of Murr v. State of Wisconsin, the United States Supreme Court is being asked to consider an inverse condemnation claim involving two (2) adjacent lots that are jointly owned.  After those lots were purchased, a land use or zoning regulation was adopted that changed the amount of developable land that was required in order to build a house.  A house, therefore, could not be built on either lot.  But if the two (2) lots were combined into a single lot then one house could be built.In Murr, the landowners contend the land use or zoning regulation made each of their lots unbuildable because neither one had the minimum developable area required by that regulation.  They, thus, argue they had a claim for inverse condemnation.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court disagreed.  The state court concluded that because the lots were in joint ownership they merged into a single lot which met the minimum developable area for a house.  As a result, the inverse condemnation claim was dismissed because the property owners had not been deprived of substantially all of the beneficial use of their property.

If the United States Supreme Court agrees with the ruling of the Wisconsin court regarding lot merger, the property owners will not be successful with their inverse condemnation claim.  That result will occur because they will not have lost substantially all of the beneficial use of their land because a house could be constructed on the single larger lot created by the merger of the two (2) adjacent parcels.

Claims for inverse condemnation based on land use regulations have been the subject of many court decisions in New Jersey.  Such claims are still being litigated.  For instance, there is currently a dispute between property owners and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (“NJDEP”) over development permits for two (2) adjacent oceanfront lots.  NJDEP has taken the position that the common owners are not entitled to permits to build two houses even though the property owners have separately paid the real estate taxes for those adjacent jointly-owned lots.
​
The lesson to be learned from Murr is to avoid taking title to adjacent property in the name of the same owner.  The better practice is to keep title to the lots in different names so the government cannot claim that adjacent parcels of property merged into a single lot.

If you have any questions regarding the impact of Murr v. State of Wisconsin on eminent domain, condemnation, inverse condemnation or land use and zoning regulations, please call William J. Wolf, Esq. at 732-363-0666 or send an email to wwolf@bathweg.com.  Mr. Wolf is a Senior Fellow of the Litigation Counsel of America, he has been designated as a Super Lawyer and AV Preeminent® for many years. Mr. Wolf has been certified by the American Institute of Appellate Practice as an appellate specialist.

The 2015 Annual Report of the Monmouth Conservation Foundation lists 64 sites it has helped to preserve as open space. William J. Wolf, a partner with the law firm of Bathgate Wegener & Wolf, P.C. represented the owners of 5 of those sites:

 

1. Langeveld Dutch Bulb Company Tract, Freehold Twp. – Completed 1990, 375 acres;
2. Hauser Farm, Aberdeen Twp. – Completed 2012, 22 acres;
3. Sacco Trust, Upper Freehold Twp. – Completed 2012, 55 acres;
4. Fariello, Aberdeen Twp. – Completed 2014, 33 acres; and
5. Fariello 2, Aberdeen/Marlboro Twps. – Completed 2015, 30 acres.

​The preservation of open space is a critical public necessity particularly in a densely populated state such as New Jersey where land for open space and recreation is a precious commodity. Because of the current regulatory climate it might not be feasible to develop land that, in the past, would have been converted to homes and various types of commercial activities. Preserving land for recreation and open space constitutes an enterprise that melds those seemingly disparate objectives. Open space preservation and conservation permits the public to benefit by preserving land while simultaneously allowing property owners to monetize their land, and, sometimes, to enjoy a variety of tax benefits and advantages.

Assisting a client who wishes to participate in a land preservation or open space project entails unique skills and experience. Such a project requires a lawyer to have a background in environmental law, regulatory permitting, land development, land valuation and taxation. The land preservation attorneys of BWW have the multi-faceted background and the experience to assist clients who want to participate in a land preservation or open space project.

For many years the land preservation attorneys of BWW have assisted clients in dealing with numerous governmental entities and private organizations to preserve thousands of acres of land as open space. Those preservation projects have included the State of New Jersey, The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, Monmouth County, Ocean County, New York-New Jersey Baykeeper, Monmouth Conservation Foundation and The Trust for Public Land. Through the efforts of the land preservation attorneys of BWW thousands of acres of land have been preserved as open space or are undergoing consideration for preservation.

Some land preservation, conservation and open space projects involved acquisition by public entities or private foundations. Other matters included easements or revised zoning to permit clustered development balanced by preserved acreage and farmland preservation. As a result of these endeavors, BWW land preservation attorneys have generated millions of dollars for our clients while simultaneously preserving thousands of acres of land as open space.

The land preservation attorneys at BWW have also had involvement with evaluating the potential of linking land preservation, open space and farming with group homes for autistic residents. This unique concept melds the desire to preserve farmland with the dignity associated with independent living.

BWW land preservation attorneys have been representing clients in land preservation, conservation and open space matters throughout the State of New Jersey including clients with land in Monmouth County, Ocean County and elsewhere.

Additional information regarding Mr. Wolf’s representation of clients in land preservation transactions and information regarding the background of the Bathgate Wegener & Wolf land preservation attorneys who have represented clients throughout New Jersey including Ocean County, Monmouth County and Sussex County is available here. 

Mr. Wolf is a Senior Fellow of the Litigation Counsel of America, he has been designated as a Super Lawyer and AV Preeminent® for many years and he was selected to be listed in the Best Attorneys of America. Mr. Wolf has been certified, by the American Institute of Appellate Practice, as an appellate specialist.

An appellate court recently clarified the affordable housing obligation of New Jersey municipalities. In Re Declaratory Judgment Actions Filed by Various Municipalities, County of Ocean, Pursuant to The Supreme Court’s Decision in In Re Adoption of N.J.A.C., 221 N.J. 1 (2015), N.J. Super. App. Div. (Fasciale, J.A.D.) addressed whether a municipality was obligated as a “separate and discrete” component of its fair share obligation to calculate its fair share of affordable housing between 1999 and 2015 (the “gap period”).  The Court held that a municipality did not have to make a separate calculation of its obligation during the gap period.  The Court ruled a municipality was not required, by the Fair Housing Act of 1985 (“PHA”), to retroactively make that calculation.  Instead, the Court concluded, the fair share obligation during the gap period should be included in a municipalities’ current obligation to provide affordable housing.  The Court reasoned that any change in the methodology used to calculate the fair share housing obligations of municipalities during the gap period should be left for consideration by the Governor and the Legislature.
William Wolf, a partner in Bathgate, Wegener & Wolf, P.C. has significant experience dealing with land use and planning issues.  Mr. Wolf currently serves as special litigation counsel for several municipalities.  Mr. Wolf has represented numerous developers and property owners.

Mr. Wolf is a Senior Fellow of the Litigation Counsel of America, he has been designated as a Super Lawyer and AV Preeminent® for many years and he was selected to be listed in the Best Attorneys of America.  Mr. Wolf has been certified, by the American Institute of Appellate Practice, as an appellate specialist.

On May 31, 2016, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its opinion in United States Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co., Inc.  That opinion has significance because it addresses a jurisdictional determination made by the ACOE.The Clean Water Act prohibits the discharge of material into the waters of the United States.  That prohibition can affect the remediation or development of property that is adjacent to water bodies or wetlands.

In order to ascertain if the movement of soil will affect waters of the United States it is necessary to obtain a jurisdictional determination from the ACOE.  A definitive decision as to whether wetlands or a water body constitute waters of the United States is binding on the ACOE and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for five years.

In Hawkes the Supreme Court held that an ACOE jurisdictional determination constitutes a final administrative decision which is appealable to a Federal District Court.  That decision, thus, eliminates the requirement that before appealing an aggrieved party must exhaust all administrative remedies such as the lengthy and expensive process of applying for a permit to fill property or discharge material into waters of the United States.

William Wolf, a partner in Bathgate, Wegener & Wolf, P.C. has significant experience dealing with the ACOE.  For instance, Mr. Wolf represented a property owner that had been charged with filling wetlands and discharging material into federal waters.  That activity required legal defense of an enforcement action in the United States District Court.  Recently, Mr. Wolf, on an appeal, obtained a reversal and a remand of a decision of the ACOE denying permits for a proposed municipal marina under the Clean Water Act and the Rivers and Harbors Act.  As a result of that remand and a long administrative process the ACOE eventually issued the necessary permits for the marina.  Mr. Wolf is currently providing legal representation in relation to a commuter ferry terminal which will require permits from the ACOE.  Mr. Wolf is advising another client on a project that may also require ACOE permits.

Mr. Wolf represents property owners, developers and municipalities in all aspects of development, redevelopment and remediation involving state and federal permits.  If you have questions regarding the Hawkes opinion or ACOE permits please contact Mr. Wolf at 732-363-0666.

If you have been injured by a product you purchased or were using you should do the following:

1. Photograph the product;
2. Photograph the area in which the incident occurred;
3. Gather photographs of the product and the area in which the accident occurred that predated the incident;
4. Gather all documents that came with the product such as the operating instructions, warranty information and the product brochure.  If you were harmed by a prescribed medication or over-the-counter product, preserve the container, doctor’s written instructions regarding usage and the package insert;
5. If you purchased the product gather the sales receipt, your cancelled check, credit card statement and other documents establishing the purchase;
6. Do not throw the product away;
7. Do not attempt to repair or alter the product;
8. Record the names, addresses, telephone numbers and email addresses of witnesses;
9. Cooperate with all medical care professionals; and
10. Call an attorney who has handled product liability claims.

Attorneys at BWW have a great deal of experience with product liability cases.  Please contact us if you want further information regarding an injury related to a product.  All preliminary consultations regarding product liability claims are free of charge.
​
William J. Wolf of Bathgate Wegener & Wolf, P.C. successfully sued an electrical utility in a case involving electro-magnetic fields (EMF) and in another case involving stray current. Mr. Wolf has also handled asbestos litigation and a lawsuit that involved the failure of components in facilities that used sophisticated processes for waste disposal which resulted in a post-trial settlement of almost $17 million.

Mr. Wolf is a Senior Fellow of the Litigation Counsel of America, he has been designated as a Super Lawyer and AV Preeminent® for many years and he was selected to be listed in the Best Attorneys of America.  Mr. Wolf has been certified, by the American Institute of Appellate Practice, as an appellate specialist.

Photo by Kenan Reed on Unsplash

A mammoth mixed use project is being developed in Sayreville, New Jersey.  According to published reports 400,000 vehicles a day currently pass that site. The Sayreville site is within a few miles of Carteret which is in the process of obtaining permits to build a ferry terminal.The synergies between a project of the magnitude of the Sayreville site with ferry service between Carteret and New York are likely to be significant.  The lower sales tax in New Jersey will create an incentive for weekend shoppers to travel from New York City. Reverse weekday commuting is also feasible.  Trans-model linkage by busses or vans creates an easy connection between the Sayreville site and Carteret.

It is estimated that when the Sayreville project has been completed 221 million people per year will drive by that property.  That traffic volume emphasizes the need for the commuting alternatives provided by a ferry.  The current concern about deteriorating transit infrastructure highlights the need for alternatives to trains, cars and busses.

William J. Wolf of Bathgate Wegener & Wolf, P.C. has been retained by the Borough of Carteret in Middlesex County to represent it in initiating ferry service between Carteret and Manhattan.  Because Carteret controls a significant portion of its waterfront, it is uniquely situated to provide ferry service as a viable alternative to rail and highway access to Manhattan not only to its residents but to travelers who would otherwise commute by car, train or bus.  It is anticipated that ferry service will act as a catalyst for the redevelopment of the Carteret waterfront.

The Carteret ferry project is only one of several municipal infrastructure and redevelopment projects that Mr. Wolf has been retained to handle.  In addition to the ferry project, Mr. Wolf is currently working on a municipal marina, airport and commercial redevelopment projects in Middlesex County and Monmouth County.

Mr. Wolf is a Senior Fellow of the Litigation Counsel of America, he has been designated as a Super Lawyer and AV Preeminent® for many years and he was selected to be listed in the Best Attorneys of America.  Mr. Wolf has been certified, by the American Institute of Appellate Practice, as an appellate specialist.

Photo by Adrien Olichon on Unsplash

Public projects, including ones undertaken by the New Jersey Department of Transportation (“NJDOT”), can have significant public impacts.  Construction of even a simple NJDOT project can involve areas of public concern such as temporary disruptions of existing travel patterns and environmental impacts.Because of the varied interests that can be impacted by NJDOT projects, it is necessary to solicit public comment and to keep the public informed as the design and construction of the project progresses. To ensure adequate dissemination of information and to encourage public input, it is frequently necessary for the sponsor of a project to engage a project facilitator.  The role of a public facilitator is multifaceted and includes disseminating critical project information by publishing public notices, devising a public information center and organizing public meetings.  At various steps in the project schedule a project facilitator arranges various opportunities for the project sponsor and NJDOT to solicit public comments on the benefits associated with the project, the design of the project, alternative analysis and societal impacts.  Utilizing various modes of communication the public facilitator is able to generate the depth of public involvement that is necessary to cause transportation projects to reflect societal needs and perspectives.William J. Wolf, of Bathgate Wegener & Wolf, P.C. has many years of experience guiding project sponsors through NJDOT project development that included public dissemination of project information associated with the role of project facilitator.  Mr. Wolf’s many years of experience with NJDOT projects has given him broad insights into the dissemination of information associated with the role of a project facilitator for NJDOT projects.  If a project is being undertaken that can benefit from the broad dissemination of information to facilitate public education and comment Mr. Wolf can be contacted at 732-363-0666 or wwolf@bathweg.com.

Mr. Wolf is a Senior Fellow of the Litigation Counsel of America, he has been designated as a Super Lawyer and AV Preeminent® for many years and he was selected to be listed in the Best Attorneys of America.  Mr. Wolf has been certified, by the American Institute of Appellate Practice, as an appellate specialist.

Photo by Shivendu Shukla on Unsplash

Historically New Jersey has been linked to Manhattan and Staten Island by ferries.  With the advent of rail and trans-Hudson tunnels that historic ferry network was abandoned.  During the past decades ferry service between Manhattan and New Jersey has been restored.  Today trans-Hudson ferry service and service from Monmouth County, New Jersey have been firmly established.  Those ferry routes have become very successful.Exasperated with delayed trains and time wasted in traffic congestion, commuters have ardently embraced ferries.  Travel by ferry is much more comfortable then the alternatives provided by trains, buses and cars.  More importantly, ferry arrival times are more consistent because those boats are not delayed by the conditions that make road and highway travel so prone to congestion and delays.

For a fraction of the time it will take to plan, design and build a new rail tunnel additional ferry service between New Jersey and Manhattan can be operational.  Very importantly, ferries provide the type of redundancy that is necessary during interruptions in rail and road travel.

A ferry terminal can serve as the center for a transit village. The fact that a ferry terminal can serve as a redevelopment catalyst for underdeveloped or brownfields properties has been acknowledged by several municipalities and regional planning organizations.

William J. Wolf of Bathgate Wegener & Wolf, P.C. has been retained by the Borough of Carteret in Middlesex County to represent it in initiating ferry service between Carteret and Manhattan.  Because Carteret controls a significant portion of its waterfront, it is uniquely situated to provide ferry service as a viable alternative to rail and highway access to Manhattan not only to its residents but to travelers who would otherwise commute by car, train or bus.  It is anticipated that ferry service will act as a catalyst for the redevelopment of the Carteret waterfront.

The Carteret ferry project is only one of several municipal infrastructure and redevelopment projects that Mr. Wolf has been retained to handle.  In addition to the ferry project, Mr. Wolf is currently working on a municipal marina, airport and commercial redevelopment projects in Middlesex County and Monmouth County.

Mr. Wolf is a Senior Fellow of the Litigation Counsel of America, he has been designated as a Super Lawyer and AV Preeminent® for many years and he was selected to be listed in the Best Attorneys of America.  Mr. Wolf has been certified, by the American Institute of Appellate Practice, as an appellate specialist.

Photo by Polina Sushko on Unsplash