Case Law Bonnieview Homeowners v. Woodmont Builders

Bonnieview Homeowners v. Woodmont Builders

Document Cited Authorities (92) Cited in (83) Related

Jeffrey B. Wagenback, Esq., Stephen W. Smithson, Esq., Jaan M. Haus, Esq., Riker, Danzig, Scherer, Hyland & Perretti LLP, Morristown, NJ, for Plaintiffs.

Lee Henig-Elona, Esq., Gage Andretta, Esq., Wolff & Samson PC, West Orange, NJ, for Defendants Woodmont Builders, L.L.C., Woodmont Court at Montville, L.L.C., Donald Witmondt; Associated Sales, Inc.; David Mandelbaum and Karen A. Mandelbaum; Nathan Mandelbaum; Ronald G. Targan and Judith Targan; Anita S. Koralek; Leslie J. Koralek, as Co-Trustees under the Anita S. Koralek Living Trust.

Gregory J. Coffey, Esq., Richard J. Dewland, Esq., Coffey & Associates, Morristown, NJ, for Defendant Montville Township.

OPINION

DeBEVOISE, Senior District Judge.

This matter involves a dispute over the environmental contamination of an area of land in Montville, New Jersey, where a fruit orchard was operated in the mid-twentieth century and which was later developed into a residential neighborhood. The Bonnieview Homeowners Association, L.L.C. ("Bonnieview") and members of that association, the Individual Plaintiffs,1 (collectively, "the Plaintiffs") assert various causes of action arising out of that environmental contamination against Woodmont Builders, L.L.C. ("Woodmont Builders"); Woodmont Court at Montville, L.L.C. ("Woodmont Court") (together, "Woodmont Properties"); Donald Witmondt (together with Woodmont Properties, "Woodmont"); Associated Sales, Inc. ("Associated Sales"); David Mandelbaum, Karen A. Mandelbaum, Nathan Mandelbaum, Ronald G. Targan, Judith Targan, Leslie J. Koralek and Richard W. Koralek as Co-Trustees under the Anita S. Koralek Living Trust (together, the "Individual Defendants"); and Montville Township ("Montville").

Woodmont, Associated Sales and the Individual Defendants (together, the "Woodmont Defendants") assert counterclaims against the Plaintiffs. The Woodmont Defendants also assert a cross-claim against Montville.

The original complaint in this case was filed on September 12, 2003. The Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint ("FAC") on February 15, 2005. On August 19, 2009, after the parties had already filed their motions for summary judgment, the Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"), which added Donald Witmondt, the managing member of Woodmont Builders and Woodmont Court and president of Associated Sales, as a defendant. Because Mr. Witmondt was not a party to the action at the time these motions were briefed and argued, the court will not grant judgment against Mr. Witmondt on any counts at this time, but will grant summary judgment dismissing counts against Mr. Witmondt if appropriate. Additionally, although the operative complaint in this matter when these motions for summary judgment were filed was the FAC, the court will address these motions as directed to the SAC, given that the SAC is now the operative complaint. The SAC is, in any case, substantially the same as the FAC except for the addition of Mr. Witmondt as a defendant.

The court is aware that, at one time, Woodmont Court and the Plaintiffs were engaged in arbitration. While the court is unaware of the status of that arbitration, both the Plaintiffs and Woodmont Defendants consented to the inclusion of Woodmont Court in these proceedings for summary judgment (see Pls.' Opp'n Br. 64) and the court will proceed accordingly.

The Woodmont Defendants and Montville now move for summary judgment to dismiss all counts of the SAC. The Plaintiffs move for partial summary judgment on some counts of the SAC and to dismiss the Woodmont Defendants' counterclaims and two of the defenses pled in their Answer. For the reasons set forth below, the Woodmont Defendants' motions will be granted in part and denied in part; Montville's motion will be granted; and the Plaintiffs' motions will be granted in part and denied in part.

I. BACKGROUND
A. The Property

The land that is the subject of this litigation was originally comprised of approximately 130 contiguous acres in the Township of Montville, Morris County, New Jersey ("the Property"). Bonnieview Farms, which is not a party to this litigation, owned and operated the Property for agricultural purposes, including as a fruit orchard, from 1941 until it was abandoned some time prior to 1970. In 1970, the Individual Defendants obtained title to the Property. Mr. David Mandelbaum testified that when the Individual Defendants purchased the Property it was not being farmed, but that he knew it had been previously used as an apple orchard. He also testified that the land was not farmed from the time that the Individual Defendants purchased the Property until approximately 1988. Sometime after 1988, a portion of the Property was used for foresting. A June 27, 1989 letter from William Roe, the consulting forester at the Property, reflects that he had been managing the property since 1975, at which time he completed an "inventory and plan." This document also reflects that there was a timber sale at the Property in 1977.

The Woodmont Defendants maintain that the Property was never used for agriculture other than foresting during the time that the Individual Defendants owned it and that the Individual Defendants were not aware of any environmental problems on the Property during the time they owned it. The Plaintiffs dispute this contention based on the fact that in 1989, David Mandelbaum submitted an Application for Farmland Assessment to the State of New Jersey which stated both that the entire Property was used for "fruit crops" and that the entire Property was used for "woodland products." The Defendants argue that the listing of "fruit crops" on the Farmland Assessment was in error and that the Property could not have been used for both fruit crops and woodland products at the same time.2

In 1998, at the request of the Department of Planning & Development of the County of Morris (in which Montville Township is located), former defendant Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc. ("PBS & J"), an environmental consulting firm, performed an environmental assessment of the Property and issued a Phase I Environmental Assessment report, dated April 1998. The report included a review of aerial photographs of the site from various years between 1939 and 1991. The report stated that the Property "was forested in all the photographs viewed" and that the eastern portion "contained rows of trees, indicating that the area may have been a tree nursery, while the western portion was naturally occurring forest." (Certification of Stephen Smithson, May 14, 2009 (hereafter, "May 14 Smithson Cert."), Ex. G at 3.) The report revealed that the Property had assorted debris on it, such as tires, wood and metal debris, cement, household debris, abandoned vehicles, hot water heaters, refrigerators, and empty aboveground storage tanks and drums, but did not mention any of the hazardous substances at issue in this case or possible soil contamination. (Id. at 12-14.) The report concluded that "none of the observed debris was considered hazardous, [but] additional material in lower layers could be classified as such." (Id. at 21.) While no sampling was recommended at the time, the report stated that "when the debris is removed, the lower layers should be carefully examined." (Id.)

In 1999, Montville engaged former defendant Princeton Hydro, LLC ("Princeton"), an environmental consulting firm, which provided a report dated May 10, 1999. That report did not mention any discharge of pesticide constituents or other contaminants onto the soil and did not recommend any action with respect to the alleged contaminants.

B. Sale of the Property and Construction of the Individual Plaintiffs' Homes

At some point prior to October 1997, Woodmont Builders entered into an agreement with David Mandelbaum, Nathan Mandelbaum, Ronald Targan and the Estate of Adolph Koralek whereby Woodmont would develop the Property for the construction of single family dwellings houses, the proceeds of the sale of which would be shared by the parties to the agreement. On or around September 24, 1998, the Montville Township Planning Board approved an application to construct a residential subdivision on a 30-acre portion of the Property. On February 10, 1999, Montville acquired an approximately 100-acre portion of the Property from the Individual Defendants for use as "open space" (hereafter, the "Open Space Parcel").3 On June 18, 2000, Woodmont Court acquired the remaining 30-acre portion of the Property (hereafter, the "Residential Lots") from the Individual Defendants and thereafter began construction of a residential subdivision. The Plaintiffs allege that Woodmont did not conduct any due diligence before acquiring the residential lots. Mr. Witmondt, however, testified that, in purchasing the Residential Lots, Woodmont Court relied upon the review by PBS & J and the fact that Montville's Board of Health reviewed the lots in connection with the proposed residential development. (Witmondt...

4 cases
Document | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division – 2018
N.J. Dep't of Envtl. Prot. v. Exxon Mobil Corp.
"...and one to recover damages from the NJDEP, or Spill Compensation Fund, [N.J.S.A.] 58:10–23.11k." Bonnieview Homeowners Ass'n v. Woodmont Builders, L.L.C., 655 F.Supp.2d 473, 503 (D.N.J. 2009). Appellants have not asserted a claim under either section. Except for the right to contribution, o..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania – 2011
Kdh Elec. Sys., Inc. v. Curtis Tech. Ltd.
"...many of which strike the Court as both vague and mere “puffery” rather than statements of fact. See Bonnieview Homeowners Ass'n v. Woodmont Builders, LLC, 655 F.Supp.2d 473, 516 (D.N.J.2009) (dismissing fraudulent misrepresentation claim because statements were vague and puffery). Similarly..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey – 2021
Giordano v. Solvay Specialty Polymers USA, LLC
"...is required to maintain such a claim, and Plaintiffs’ complaint is silent on this issue. See Bonnieview Homeowners Ass'n v. Woodmont Builders, L.L.C., 655 F. Supp. 2d 473, 504 (D.N.J. 2009) (granting summary judgment to defendants on the plaintiffs’ Spill Act claim for "clean up and removal..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington – 2013
Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc.
"...court to Gaglidari v. Denny's Restaurants, Inc., 117 Wash.2d 426, 815 P.2d 1362, 1369 (1991) and Bonnieview Homeowners Ass'n v. Woodmont Builders, LLC, 655 F.Supp.2d 473, 511 (D.N.J.2009). These cases are inapposite. Here, Microsoft is arguing that Motorola's course of conduct, of which see..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial
4 books and journal articles
Document | Consumer Protection Law Developments (Second) - Volume II – 2016
State Consumer Protection Laws
"...are regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 2369. See Bonnieview Homeowners Ass’n v. Woodmont Builders, L.L.C., 655 F. Supp. 2d 473, 507-08 (D.N.J. 2009) (seller’s ads that residential lots were on “natural homesites” and “great place to raise children” were nonactionable puffer..."
Document | Consumer Protection Law Developments (Second) - Volume II – 2016
Table of Cases
"...2001), 1236 Bonn v. Haubrich, 366 N.W.2d 503 (Wis. Ct. App. 1985), 1184 Bonnieview Homeowners Ass’n v. Woodmont Builders, L.L.C., 655 F. Supp. 2d 473 (D.N.J. 2009), 1015 Booth v. Appstack, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40779 (W.D. Wash. 2015), 296 Booth v. Gutterman, 2012 WL 1994668 (Mass. Su..."
Document | - – 2014
CERCLA Liability
"...was a factor in the parties’ thinking with respect to the transaction”); Bonnieview Homeowners Ass’n v. Woodmont Builders, LLC, 655 F. Supp. 2d 473, 493 (D.N.J. 2009) (rejecting the argument that parties were arrangers because there was “no evidence that [defendants] took intentional steps ..."
Document | State Consumer Protection Law – 2022
New Jersey
"...that medications are regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 19. See Bonnieview Homeowners Ass’n v. Woodmont Builders, 655 F. Supp. 2d 473, 507-08 (D.N.J. 2009) (seller’s ads that residential lots were on “natural homesites” and a “great place to raise children” were nonactionab..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI

Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
4 books and journal articles
Document | Consumer Protection Law Developments (Second) - Volume II – 2016
State Consumer Protection Laws
"...are regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 2369. See Bonnieview Homeowners Ass’n v. Woodmont Builders, L.L.C., 655 F. Supp. 2d 473, 507-08 (D.N.J. 2009) (seller’s ads that residential lots were on “natural homesites” and “great place to raise children” were nonactionable puffer..."
Document | Consumer Protection Law Developments (Second) - Volume II – 2016
Table of Cases
"...2001), 1236 Bonn v. Haubrich, 366 N.W.2d 503 (Wis. Ct. App. 1985), 1184 Bonnieview Homeowners Ass’n v. Woodmont Builders, L.L.C., 655 F. Supp. 2d 473 (D.N.J. 2009), 1015 Booth v. Appstack, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40779 (W.D. Wash. 2015), 296 Booth v. Gutterman, 2012 WL 1994668 (Mass. Su..."
Document | - – 2014
CERCLA Liability
"...was a factor in the parties’ thinking with respect to the transaction”); Bonnieview Homeowners Ass’n v. Woodmont Builders, LLC, 655 F. Supp. 2d 473, 493 (D.N.J. 2009) (rejecting the argument that parties were arrangers because there was “no evidence that [defendants] took intentional steps ..."
Document | State Consumer Protection Law – 2022
New Jersey
"...that medications are regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 19. See Bonnieview Homeowners Ass’n v. Woodmont Builders, 655 F. Supp. 2d 473, 507-08 (D.N.J. 2009) (seller’s ads that residential lots were on “natural homesites” and a “great place to raise children” were nonactionab..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
4 cases
Document | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division – 2018
N.J. Dep't of Envtl. Prot. v. Exxon Mobil Corp.
"...and one to recover damages from the NJDEP, or Spill Compensation Fund, [N.J.S.A.] 58:10–23.11k." Bonnieview Homeowners Ass'n v. Woodmont Builders, L.L.C., 655 F.Supp.2d 473, 503 (D.N.J. 2009). Appellants have not asserted a claim under either section. Except for the right to contribution, o..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania – 2011
Kdh Elec. Sys., Inc. v. Curtis Tech. Ltd.
"...many of which strike the Court as both vague and mere “puffery” rather than statements of fact. See Bonnieview Homeowners Ass'n v. Woodmont Builders, LLC, 655 F.Supp.2d 473, 516 (D.N.J.2009) (dismissing fraudulent misrepresentation claim because statements were vague and puffery). Similarly..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey – 2021
Giordano v. Solvay Specialty Polymers USA, LLC
"...is required to maintain such a claim, and Plaintiffs’ complaint is silent on this issue. See Bonnieview Homeowners Ass'n v. Woodmont Builders, L.L.C., 655 F. Supp. 2d 473, 504 (D.N.J. 2009) (granting summary judgment to defendants on the plaintiffs’ Spill Act claim for "clean up and removal..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington – 2013
Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc.
"...court to Gaglidari v. Denny's Restaurants, Inc., 117 Wash.2d 426, 815 P.2d 1362, 1369 (1991) and Bonnieview Homeowners Ass'n v. Woodmont Builders, LLC, 655 F.Supp.2d 473, 511 (D.N.J.2009). These cases are inapposite. Here, Microsoft is arguing that Motorola's course of conduct, of which see..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex