West Park Ave., Inc. v. Township of Ocean
224 A.2d 1, 48 N.J. 122, 1966 N.J. LEXIS 154 (1966)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Payments made to a municipality under an illegal and consciously unlawful demand are considered involuntary and recoverable under the doctrine of duress, even if the payor did not first pursue legal action, especially when the official conduct is egregious and the payor is under business compulsion or fear of retaliation.
Facts:
- Plaintiff, West Park Ave., Inc., acquired 60 lots from Leon Massar, which were part of a subdivision plan in Ocean Township.
- After completing a model home and erecting advertising signs, municipal officials informed West Park Ave., Inc. that it could not use billboards or receive further building permits or certificates of occupancy.
- Municipal officials demanded West Park Ave., Inc. pay $300 per house to the Board of Education for school system capital improvements and additional school construction.
- West Park Ave., Inc. feared its project would stall during a period of litigation and sensed a danger of hostile enforcement of ordinances bearing upon home construction, leading it to yield to the demand.
- Municipal counsel prepared written agreements for the $300 payments, with one executed in February 1959 for some lots and another in April 1960 for the remaining lots.
- West Park Ave., Inc. paid a total of $17,700 to the defendants between July 1959 and October 1961.
- Prior to closing on the lots, West Park Ave., Inc.'s attorney ordered a tax search which revealed an entry for "$300 open as per contract with the Board of Education" relating to the previous owner, Massar.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff, West Park Ave., Inc., sued defendants, Ocean Township and its Board of Education, in the trial court (Law Division of the Superior Court) to recover $17,700, alleging the payments were made under duress.
- The trial court found that the payments were unwillingly made but held they were 'voluntary' in law and thus unrecoverable because plaintiff ought to have sued to restrain the municipality from pressing its illegal demand.
- Plaintiff appealed the trial court's decision.
- The Supreme Court of New Jersey certified plaintiff’s appeal before argument in the Appellate Division.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a developer's payment of an illegal exaction demanded by a municipality for school capital improvements, made under business compulsion and fear of official retaliation, constitute an unrecoverable voluntary payment, even if the developer did not first challenge the demand in court?
Opinions:
Majority - Weintraub, C. J.
No, payments made under an illegal and consciously unlawful demand by a municipality, when the payor acts under business compulsion and fear of official retaliation, do not constitute unrecoverable voluntary payments simply because the payor did not first challenge the demand in court. The court found that the municipality's demand for payments for school capital improvements lacked statutory authorization and was therefore illegal, a point conceded by the defendants. The Legislature only authorized municipalities to require developers to install improvements that peculiarly benefit the developed land, not to impose charges for general public services like schools, which are traditionally supported by general taxation. The municipality made this unlawful demand with a consciousness of its unlawfulness, intentionally refraining from adopting an ordinance and instead using spurious 'agreements' to achieve its ends. While the doctrine of duress typically requires proof of no immediate and adequate legal remedy, the court emphasized that the nature and degree of wrongfulness of the payee's conduct can be the decisive factor. Here, the wrong of the municipality was so palpable that it would be against good morals to allow them to argue that the plaintiff was not 'valiant enough' to litigate immediately. Duress exerted by those clothed with official authority requires less evidence of compulsion. The court also rejected the defense of laches, stating that the action was a conventional legal claim brought within the statute of limitations, and furthermore, laches is not available to a conscious wrongdoer. The municipality could not claim prejudice from the delay when it knowingly engaged in wrongful conduct.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the doctrine of duress, particularly when applied to payments extorted by governmental entities. It establishes that a high degree of wrongfulness by the payee, especially a municipality knowingly acting outside its authority, can overcome the traditional requirement for the payor to demonstrate a lack of immediate legal remedies. The ruling discourages governmental overreach and unlawful demands disguised as voluntary agreements, ensuring accountability for such actions and providing a pathway for recovery of funds for victims of official compulsion. It reinforces that municipalities must operate within their statutorily granted powers concerning developer exactions.
