By declaring that Malik's letter did not trigger the need for further negotiations, LB asserts that the Appellate Division placed “a substantial burden on condemnees to use very specific and special language when responding to condemnation offers or else lose the opportunity to enjoy the bona fide negotiations that New Jersey considers essential to a true award of just compensation.” It maintains that the Appellate Division opinion on this issue is in direct conflict with County of Morris v. Weiner, 222 N.J.Super. 560, 537 A.2d 752 (App.Div.), certif. denied,111 N.J. 573, 546 A.2d 501 (1988), and misconstrues State by Commissioner of Transportation v. Carroll, 123 N.J. 308, 587 A.2d 260 (1991).

At a minimum, the condemning authority is required to provide the owner of record with a copy of all appraisal reports relied upon in making the offer so there can be an appreciation by the condemnee of the value basis on which the offer is made. Cnty. of Morris v. Weiner, 222 N.J.Super. 560, 564, 537 A.2d 752 (App.Div.), certif. denied,111 N.J. 573, 546 A.2d 501 (1988).

"[F]urnishing the condemnee with a copy of the appraisal is merely the minimum threshold to good faith negotiations[.]" County of Morris v. Weiner, 222 N.J. Super. 560, 564 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 111 N.J. 573 (1988). In addition to requiring a written offer supported by an appraisal, N.J.S.A. 20:3-6 provides:

This provision serves "'to encourage public entities to acquire property without litigation[,] . . . thereby saving both the public and the condemnee the expense and delay of court action.'" 769 Assoc., LLC, supra, 198 N.J. at 538 (quoting Cnty. of Morris v. Weiner, 222 N.J. Super. 560, 565 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 111 N.J. 573 (1988)). The Eminent Domain Act further imposes on a government entity seeking condemnation the "overriding obligation to deal forthrightly and fairly with property owners in condemnation actions."

See also State, by Com'r of Transportation v. D'Onofrio, supra, (reasonable disclosure of all appraisals in the condemning authority's possession is an element of bona fide negotiations). In Morris County v. Weiner, 222 N.J. Super. 560, 537 A.2d 752 (App. Div. 1988), certif. denied, 111 N.J. 573, 546 A.2d 501 (1988), the condemning agency wrote a letter to defendants expressing its desire to acquire the property, stating that defendants should contact plaintiff to negotiate. Defendants' counsel contacted plaintiff, rejecting plaintiffs offer, arguing that there had been a recent extension of bank mortgage financing on the subject property and a recent contract for sale which included a sales price well in excess of the amount the condemning agency was willing to offer.

denied, 111 N.J. 572, 546 A.2d 500 (1988), the owners had not been given either of the State's two appraisals or an explanation of how the State's offer had been calculated. In Morris County v. Weiner, 222 N.J. Super. 560, 565, 537 A.2d 752 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 111 N.J. 573, 546 A.2d 501 (1988), the court determined that where there was "concrete and highly credible evidence" of a higher value, i.e., a recent bank mortgage appraisal and a third-party offer, the State's duty to negotiate will go beyond furnishing its appraisal and making its offer. Here, one reason for the trial court's conclusion that no bona-fide negotiations had occurred was the State's use of the "one-price" offer method, which that court viewed as making negotiations impossible.

Whether the negotiations between a condemnor and a property owner satisfy the mandates of the EDA is a fact-specific question, which should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. County of Morris v. Weiner , 222 N.J.Super. 560, 567, 537 A. 2d 752 (App. Div.)certif. denied , 111 N.J. 573, 546 A. 2d 501 (1988). Generally, a condemnor and the condemnee should deal with each other in a forthright manner.

Failure to supply the appraisals and explain how the offered compensation was calculated is fatal. Whispering Woods, supra, 222 N.J.Super. at 9, 535 A.2d 968; County of Morris v. Weiner, 222 N.J.Super. 560, 564-65, 537 A.2d 752 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 111 N.J. 573, 546 A.2d 501 (1988); County of Mams v. 8 Court St.Ltd., 223 N.J.Super. 35, 37, 537 A.2d 1325 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 111 N.J. 572, 546 A.2d 500 (1988). Here, DVL made a one-price offer to James.

The purpose of N.J.S.A. 20:3-6 is "to encourage public entities to acquire property without litigation[,] . . . thereby saving both the public and the condemnee the expense and delay of court action." County of Morris v. Weiner, 222 N.J.Super. 560, 565, 537 A.2d 752 (App.Div.) (citing Borough of Rockaway v. Donofrio, 186 N.J.Super. 344, 353-54, 452 A.2d 694 (App.Div. 1982)), certif. denied, 111 N.J. 573, 546 A.2d 501 (1988).

The purpose of N.J.S.A. 20:3-6 is "to encourage public entities to acquire property without litigation . . . thereby saving both the public and the condemnee the expense and delay of court action. . . ." County of Morris v. Weiner, 222 N.J. Super. 560, 565 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 111 N.J. 573 (1988) (citing Borough of Rockaway v. Donofrio, 186 N.J. Super. 344, 353-54 (App.Div. 1982)); see City of Atlantic City v. Cynwyd Invs., 148 N.J. 55, 71 (1997) (commenting that purpose of statutorily-required negotiations is to encourage settlements and voluntary acquisition of property allowing condemnor and condemnee to avoid expense and delay of litigation). Rule 4:73-1 sets forth the requirements for a condemnation complaint.