Curzi v. Raub
| Citation | 415 N.J.Super. 1,999 A.2d 1182 |
| Parties | Melody CURZI, Plaintiff-Respondent/Cross-Appellant,v.Raymond L. RAUB, III, and Gail A. Raub, husband and wife, Defendants-Appellants/Cross-Respondents,andE. Barbara Lorentz Farley, the Estate of Robert Farley, deceased, James Swick, Esq., with Power of Attorney for E. Barbara Lorentz Farley, James Swick, Esq., as Trustee for the Estate of Robert Farley, all Individually, Jointly and Severally, Defendants.Dennis Losco and Patricia Losco, h/w, and Nicholas Tauriello and Caroline Tauriello, h/w, Plaintiffs,andSophie G. Hendershot and James L. Hendershot, William F. Wright and Rosalie Wright, h/w, Plaintiffs-Respondents/Cross-Appellants,v.Raymond L. Raub, III, and Gail A. Raub, Defendants-Appellants/Cross-Respondents.Raymond L. Raub, III, and Gail A. Raub, husband and wife, Third-Party Plaintiffs,v.Melody Curzi, D. Scott Curzi, and Richard G. Hardison, Third-Party Defendants. |
| Decision Date | 30 July 2010 |
| Court | Superior Court of New Jersey |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
William L. Handler argued the cause for appellants/cross-respondents (George R. and William L. Handler, attorneys; William L. Handler, of counsel and on the briefs).
D. Scott Curzi, Phillipsburg, argued the cause for respondents/cross-appellants Melody Curzi, Sophie G. and James L. Hendershot, and William F. and Rosalie Wright (Curzi Law Offices, attorneys; Mr. Curzi, on the briefs).
Eileen P. Kelly, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for amicus curiae State Agriculture Development Committee (Anne Milgram, Attorney General, attorney; Lewis A. Scheindlin, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Ms. Kelly, on the brief).
Before Judges LISA, BAXTER and ALVAREZ.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
LISA, P.J.A.D.
The primary issue in this appeal deals with jurisdiction under the Right to Farm Act (Act) N.J.S.A. 4:1C-1 to -10.4, in the context of a private nuisance claim. Defendants Raymond L. Raub, III (Raub) and his wife Gail A. Raub own a 34 acre farm straddling Harmony and Lopatcong Townships in Warren County. In addition to that property, Raub also conducts farming operations on about 120 contiguous acres he leases from the State.
Plaintiffs are five sets of homeowners who live adjacent to Raubs' farm, some in Harmony and some in Lopatcong. In two separate actions, which were consolidated in the trial court, plaintiffs asserted various claims against the Raubs, including nuisance claims related to farming activities. Plaintiffs alleged that Raub intentionally created these nuisances with the purpose to harass them. The Raubs moved to either dismiss these claims or transfer them to the Warren County Agriculture Development Board (Board) pursuant to N.J.S.A. 4:1C-10.1 a, which provides that “[a]ny person aggrieved by the operation of a commercial farm shall file a complaint with the applicable county agriculture development board ... prior to filing an action in court.” The trial court agreed with plaintiffs that the nature of the Raubs' alleged intentional tortious conduct was clearly beyond the purview of the Act and should be decided by a jury. The court further reasoned that the nuisance claims “cannot be separately heard by the agricultural board in this case because they are intertwined into a larger dispute,” referring to plaintiffs' other claims involving trespass, removal of trees on plaintiffs' properties, and the validity of an access easement to a portion of the Raubs' property. The court concluded that “[i]n the context of this larger dispute, it is clear that the basis for a cause of action for nuisance is clearly unrelated to agricultural practice.” The court therefore denied the Raubs' motion.
A jury trial resulted in favorable verdicts for some plaintiffs on some claims. Included were compensatory damage awards of $10,000 each to the Hendershots and the Wrights for nuisance caused by Raubs' lining up of box trailers end-to-end along their property lines; the Wrights were also awarded $40,000 in punitive damages. Raub had presented evidence that he used the trailers for the storage of hay harvested from the adjoining field, that this was the only practical place to put the trailers, and that he did not put them there to harass his neighbors. The jury also awarded Curzi nominal damages of $500 for trespass, $20,000 compensatory damages for unauthorized removal of trees from her property, and $20,000 in punitive damages. The jury returned no cause verdicts on various other claims, including some pertaining to other conduct by Raub allegedly constituting intentional nuisance arising out of farming activities. Finally, the jury found that the disputed “Deed of Easement” created a valid right-of-way for Raub to access the portion of his property he was subdividing.1
In the months following the verdict: (1) the court denied the Raubs' motion to vacate the awards to the Hendershots and the Wrights for lack of jurisdiction (which the court treated as a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict); (2) the court conducted an abatement hearing regarding the trailers and ordered that Raub place them at least 100 feet from the Wright-Hendershot property line and screen them with six-foot evergreen trees at ten-foot centers; and (3) the court sua sponte, without prior notice to the parties and without a motion for remittitur having been made, reduced the Wright's punitive damage award from $40,000 to $20,000, and reduced Curzi's punitive damage award from $20,000 to $10,000.
During the trial court litigation, two proceedings were conducted by the Board regarding the trailers. The first was several months after the June 25, 2004 commencement of the litigation, but before Raubs' motion to dismiss or transfer the nuisance claims to the Board. Raub successfully sought a site-specific determination that his use of the trailers constituted an acceptable agricultural management practice. The second was to consider Lopatcong's summons charging that Raub's placement of the trailers constituted a setback violation. Hearings were held in the months preceding the jury trial of November 27 to December 20, 2006. The Board issued its dispositional resolution after the jury verdict but before the trial court addressed the Raubs' post-trial motion, conducted the abatement hearing, or reduced the punitive damage awards. The Board concluded that the trailers did not violate Lopatcong's setback ordinance and were a generally accepted agricultural practice. It allowed their continued use and placement near the property line. However, the Board limited the number of trailers to seven (from about fifteen that had been there) and required a buffer of three-foot evergreen trees on six-foot centers. In both proceedings, the Board found that the Raubs operated a “commercial farm” as defined in the Act.
The Raubs did not appeal from any aspect of the award to Curzi. They concede, as they did in the trial court, that the trespass, unauthorized tree removal, and easement claims are not implicated by the Act and the trial court had jurisdiction over those claims. Nor do they challenge the propriety of the jury awards of nominal, compensatory, and punitive (as reduced by the court) damages to Curzi. Indeed, they have paid Curzi the full amount of the judgment in her favor.
The Raubs appeal from the monetary awards to the Hendershots and the Wrights and the corresponding abatement order. They contend, as they have all along, that the court erred in refusing to transfer jurisdiction of plaintiffs' nuisance claims to the Board. We agree. An allegation of intentional nuisance is not sufficient to remove a private nuisance claim from the purview of the Act. Whether Raub's use and placement of the trailers constituted an acceptable agricultural practice was reasonably debatable and was a determination the Board has primary jurisdiction to make. We therefore vacate the money judgments in favor of the Wrights and the Hendershots and the abatement order. We remand to the trial court with the direction that an order be entered transferring these claims to the Board.
Curzi and the Wrights cross-appeal from the reduction of their punitive damages award. In light of our disposition of the Raubs' appeal, this issue is moot as to the Wrights. For the reasons we will discuss, we remand this issue to the trial court as to Curzi for reconsideration.
Curzi, the Wrights, and the Hendershots cross-appeal from the portion of the judgment, pursuant to the jury's verdict, finding a valid access easement for Raub to the portion of his property he was subdividing.2 They argue that the jury's verdict is against the weight of the evidence and violates the ownership rights of private property owners. Our review of the record satisfies us that the jury's verdict on this issue is amply supported by the evidence. Cross-appellants' arguments on this point lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion R. 2:11-3(1)(E), and we affirm on this portion of the cross-appeal.
The Raubs bought the farm in 1997. Raub had grown up on a farm in Harmony and he worked on farms for many years before engaging in other business pursuits in 1979. Prior to 1997, the prior owners had farmed the land for many years with rather minimal activity, and apparently there were no problems with the neighbors. Until 1999, the prior owners continued farming the land, under a lease with the Raubs, as the Raubs refurbished the farmhouse and farm buildings, and began to make other modifications to the property in anticipation of their planned farming operations. During this time, Raub brought several trailers containing equipment, tools, materials, and the like onto the property. Over the next few years, Raub began purchasing more trailers because he expected to be “in the active hay business” and needed storage. Trailers were a cheaper alternative to a barn. They also had the benefit of mobility and could be moved to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pritchett v. State
...punitive damage's amount was mandated by statute, it was independent of the State's untimely post-trial motion. See Curzi v. Raub, 415 N.J. Super. 1, 28 (App. Div. 2010) (noting "the trial judge possessed the authority to reduce the judgment amounts notwithstanding that the [defendants] had......
-
McCarthy v. Care One Management, LLC
...... conduct," and authorizes the court to "reduce . . . or eliminate the award" if appropriate. See Curzi v. Raub , 415 N.J.Super. 1, 28 (App. Div. 2010) (stating. that the statute "gives the judge an affirmative. obligation to see that ......
-
Novak v. Cnty. of Warren
...with defendant that the well-established doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is appropriate here. See Curzi v. Raub, 415 N.J. Super. 1, 20-21 (App. Div. 2010); Borough of Haledon v. Borough of N. Haledon, 358 N.J. Super. 289, 301-02 (App. Div. 2003). Our Supreme Court has reco......
-
Estate of Burns v. Care One at Stanwick, LLC
...court will retain jurisdiction, stay the action, and allow for the agency's determination of that aspect. See generally Curzi v. Raub, 415 N.J. Super. 1, 20-21 (App. Div. 2010). In this case we need not decide whether it is exclusive or primary jurisdiction that the Department of Health wou......
-
New Jersey Register, Volume 45, Issue 12, June 17, 2013
...the Committee, where no CADB exists, determines that it has jurisdiction to hear the Right to Farm case. In response to Curzi v. Raub, 415 N.J.Super. 1 (App. Div. 2010), proposed new N.J.A.C. 2:76-2.8(c) sets forth public notice requirements that generally follow those set forth in the Muni......