Oldfield v. Stoeco Homes, Inc., A--73

Decision Date03 March 1958
Docket NumberNo. A--73,A--73
PartiesWinifred C. OLDFIELD, et vir, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. STOECO HOMES Inc., et al., Defendants-Respondents.
CourtNew Jersey Supreme Court

W. Louis Bossle, Camden, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Robert K. Bell, Ocean City, for defendant-respondent Stoeco Homes, Inc.

George H. Bohlinger, Jr., Trenton, for defendant-respondent, Ocean City (John E. Boswell, Ocean City, attorney).

Albert B. Melnik, Camden, for defendant-respondent Seaboard Fidelity Co. (Hermann, Melnik & Lowengrub, Camden, attorneys).

The opinion of the court was delivered by

BURLING, J.

This is a proceeding in lieu of prerogative writ. Suit was instituted by plaintiffs, residents and taxpayers of the City of Ocean City, with the object of having several resolutions of the City of Ocean City extending the time for performance of certain conditions in a deed declared invalid, and for the further relief of having lands owned by the defendants forfeited and returned to the city. The parties defendants are Stoeco Homes, Inc., the purchaser from Ocean City, Workshop, Inc., a subsequent grantee of a portion of the land from Stoeco, and Seaboard Fidelity Company, Workshop's mortgagee, and the City of Ocean City.

From an adverse determination in the Superior Court, Law Division, plaintiffs prosecuted an appeal. Prior to hearing in the Appellate Division, we certified the cause on our own motion.

The facts are not in dispute and have been stipulated by the parties. This stipulation, together with the exhibits and the additional testimony of three witnesses, the mayor of Ocean City, a city commissioner and a corporate officer (secretary) and stockholder of Stoeco comprise the evidence in the case.

In 1951 Ocean City held title to a large number of lots of undeveloped land in a low lying area of the city. The locale of the lots is roughly divisible into two large segments, with Bay Avenue forming a dividing line between east and west. The western segment, in which the city owned several hundred lots, extends from Bay Avenue on the east to the bay thorofare on the west from 18th Street on the north to 24th Street on the south. The eastern segment, in which the city owned some 653 lots, is bounded by Bay Avenue on the west, Haven Avenue on the east, 20th Street on the north and 34th Street on the south. It is the lots in the eastern segment which are the subject matter of this litigation.

The topography of the entire area is an essential factor in this case. What little there is in the record concerning the western segment indicates that, although it was below grade and required fill, it was generally higher and necessitated less fill in order to raise the grade to the existent levels in the remainder of the city than the eastern segment. It was also situated nearer the bay and conceded to be commercially more valuable.

The eastern tract consisted largely of mosquito breeding swamp and meadow lands with salt ponds interspersed and required extensive filling and grading before the land could be utilized for residential or other productive uses.

Stoeco was desirous of acquiring the lots owned by the city in the western segment, and as part of a general plan of redevelopment it conceived of the idea of acquiring the lots owned by the city in the eastern segment also. Ocean City, recognizing that an extensive redevelopment of these swampy areas would benefit the community, indicated its willingness to sell the lots, with the exception of 226 lots in the eastern tract which it desired to retain.

After receiving minimum bids for the two groups of lots, Ocean City advertised both tracts of land for public sale on February 14, 1951, setting forth in the advertisement various terms and conditions with which the vendee was to comply. At the sale Stoeco was the only and therefore the highest bidder for both the eastern and western groups of lots, bidding $10,525 for the former and $100,000 for the latter. The sales were duly confirmed by two resolutions of the municipality dated February 16, 1951, and final settlement was made on both sales on June 29, 1951. Throughout the sales were treated as separate transactions and no question is raised in this case concerning Stoeco's performance of the conditions imposed by the deeds to the lots on the western side.

While the deed from Ocean City to Stoeco contained various conditions and restrictions, the core provisions around which this dispute centers are:

'(a) Within one (1) year from the date of this Deed, the party of the second part shall fill all of the following listed lots of land now owned by the party of the first part and which are not being conveyed.

(Here follows a list of lots by lot number and block number.)

'(b) Within one (1) year following the date of this Deed, the party of the second part shall fill all of the lots of land sold to said party of the second part as a result of this sale.'

'(d) All such lands shall be filled to at least the now established and existing grades of the City of Ocean City, New Jersey for the areas and lots to be filled.'

'The City of Ocean City reserves the right to change or modify any restriction, condition or other requirements hereby imposed in a manner agreeable to or as permitted by law.

'A failure to comply with the covenants and conditions of paragraphs (a), (b) and (d) hereof will automatically cause title to all lands to revert to the City of Ocean City; and a failure of any other restrictions and covenants may cause title to revert to the City as to any particular land, lot or lots involved in any violation.'

Thus, Stoeco was required to fill and grade not only the lots sold to them by the city, but also the lots retained by the city.

Some of the blocks did not contain all the lots making up the block, so that in order to complete its holdings Stoeco purchased between February and November of 1951, 137 lots from various individuals for a total price of $20,020. Shortly after settlement Stoeco entered into a contract with the Hill Dredging Company to hydraulically fill the two areas purchased by Stoeco. With materials dredged from two new lagoons on the west side, the Dredging Company between September and December of 1951 filled hydraulically a large portion of the west side and a small portion of the east side. At this stage serious difficulties were encountered by Stoeco in the performance of its undertakings. Stoeco's original scheme contemplated that five lagoons located on the west side should be dredged and the materials removed would be employed to fill the eastern side of Bay Avenue. It quickly became apparent however, that the material dredged from the lagoons was not of sufficient quality to be used as fill; it contained too high a quantity of mud and silt. In fact, Stoeco was compelled to acquire an island from a private source to use as a spill area in order to dispose of the substandard substances dredged from the lagoons. These unfavorable dredging conditions, not originally contemplated, created serious engineering and financial problems for Stoeco.

By June 29, 1952, one year after obtaining the deed, Stoeco had still not completed the substantial portion of filling and grading, nor had it done so by February of 1953. Ocean City, more interested in redevelopment than declaring a default, passed a resolution on February 20, 1953 to change and modify the terms and conditions of the sale of land. The city relied upon N.J.S.A. 40:60--51.2 and N.J.S.A. 40:60--51.5 as the wellspring of its authority, following the procedure as to publication of notice, public hearing and passage outlined. Plainiffs were not present at the Commissioners' meeting to object to the passage of the resolution.

The general import of the resolution was that Stoeco was to be given until December 31, 1954 to complete the filling and grading of all lots purchased between Bay and Haven Avenues and 20th and 24th Streets. The resolution further provided that Stoeco was to fill to city grade all the lots in the area retained by the city, and that Stoeco was to execute and deliver a deed to be held in escrow on the conditions set forth in the resolution.

The deed concluded:

'If the purchaser is not in default on December 31st, 1954, the City may consider, by any method then permitted by law, the terms and conditions by which the purchaser may be permitted to retain title to the lots between 24th and 34th Street and the plan of filling and development of the lots therein;'

Thereafter on March 6, 1953 Stoeco conveyed the lots in the area between Bay and Haven Avenues and 20th and 22nd Streets to Workshop, Inc. Workshop trucked in fill for the area at a cost of approximately $58,000. Thereafter Workshop, under an agreement with Stoeco, erected 23 homes on the tract it had acquired. All these homes were sold, the sales prices totalling $262,100. The stipulation of facts contains the following recital:

'None of the individuals who purchased homes from Workshop, Inc. have been made parties to this litigation and it is agreed that any judgment of the court should not affect the rights of any of these individuals.'

Workshop, in order to finance the construction, mortgaged a portion of the tract it had received from Stoeco to defendant Seaboard Fidelity Company, for $82,000.

Ocean City, by December 31, 1954, accepted the filling of the area between Bay and Haven Avenues and 20th and 24th Streets as substantially completed. On December 30, 1954, Ocean City passed the second of the disputed resolutions, again following the procedures as to publication of notice, public hearing and passage provided by N.J.S.A. 40:60--51.2 and N.J.S.A. 40:60--51.5. This resolution extended the time for performance of the original conditions of the sale as to land between 24th and 30th Streets until January 1, 1958, and as to the lots between 30th and 34th Streets until January 1, 1960. The resolution...

To continue reading

Request your trial
32 cases
  • United States v. Stoeco Homes, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • May 23, 1974
    ...had not improved the area as rapidly as the conveyance contemplated, and that there should be a forfeiture. See Oldfield v. Stoeco Homes, Inc., 26 N.J. 246, 139 A.2d 291 (1958). After that litigation terminated in its favor Stoeco resumed its development, but with a revised plot plan. No ch......
  • Palisades Properties, Inc. v. Brunetti
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • February 24, 1965
    ...express statutory power to execute the Fort Lee-Sealantic contract imposing the restrictive covenants. Cf. Oldfield v. Stoeco Homes, Inc., 26 N.J. 246, 261--262, 139 A.2d 291 (1958); Hendlin v. Fairmount Const. Co., 8 N.J.Super. 310, 339, 72 A.2d 541 (Ch.Div.1950); N.J.S.A. 40:60--51.2. The......
  • Jersey City Redevelopment Agency, (JCRA) v. Tug and Barge Urban Renewal Corp.
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court
    • February 16, 1987
    ...type is well known in real property law. Lehigh Valley R.R. Co. v. Chapman, 35 N.J. 177, 171 A.2d 653 (1961); Oldfield v. Stoeco Homes, Inc., 26 N.J. 246, 139 A.2d 291 (1958) and Hagaman v. Bd. of Ed. of Tp. of Woodbridge, 117 N.J.Super. 446, 285 A.2d 63 (App.Div.1971). Such a restriction i......
  • Kent v. Borough of Mendham
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division
    • July 9, 1970
    ...have been held to qualify for relaxation of the rule. See Schack v. Trimble, 28 N.J. 40, 145 A.2d 1 (1958); Oldfield v. Stoeco Homes, Inc., 26 N.J. 246, 139 A.2d 291 (1956); McKenna v. N.J. Highway Authority, 19 N.J. 270, 116 A.2d 29 (1955); Catalano v. Pemberton Tp. Bd. of Adjustment, 60 N......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT