Judge: Wildwood Must Repay Morey’s Legal Fees

WILDWOOD ─ According to a recent ruling by Superior Court Judge Nelson Johnson, Wildwood must pay $16,000 in legal fees to Stephen Nehmad, attorney representing The Morey Organization Inc., after Johnson had found that the city “violated a New Jersey statute” regarding ownership of a section of beach east of Mariner’s Landing Pier.
Jack Morey, of The Morey Organization (TMO), emphasized “How we despise quarreling with the City of Wildwood,” although Mariner’s Beach was found not to be in the city’s possession.
According to an executive summary, Wildwood was required to concede that it “Had no basis for claiming ownership.” After Johnson found the city’s position “contrary to the law and the city,” the ruling was issued Oct. 23.
In a release dated Oct. 29, Commissioner Peter Byron responded to the ruling on behalf of the city: “Ownership of all beach parcels came up as an issue during the drafting of the Beach Redevelopment plan. The city planner questioned ownership of the beach parcel east of the Mariner’s pier and we determined it was best to have a court rule on the matter.”
Byron, who oversees beach revenue and services, also commented on Wildwood’s response to paying the legal fees: “Although the ruling is the city pay $16,000 for legal fees to get this court order, that is dwarfed by the $27,000 in revenue we have already received this year from the beach.”
As the city’s redevelopment plan moves forward, an increase of $200,000 is expected. “Now that this determination has been made,” stated Byron, “We can move forward with passing the Beach Redevelopment plan which will be a huge benefit to the taxpayers by generating even more revenue for the city.”
In a memorandum of decision by Johnson, a few items of background shed further light on the dispute and reason for his ruling.
The city expressed interest in constructing a beach bar on a section of beach separate from Mariner’s Beach in 2013. However, the New Jersey Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) denied the city a liquor license.
TMO and Wildwood then began discussing the possibility of Morey building a beach bar on Mariner’s Beach proper. In light of that idea, the city would have to pass an ordinance permitting the sale of alcohol on Morey property.
Mary D’Arcy Bittner, city solicitor, informed Stephen Fram, vice president and general counsel for TMO that since Mariner’s Beach resides on the “beach” and not in the “pier” zone, no legislation could be adopted.
According to the memorandum, “The discussion between Bittner and Fram ultimately went awry and it was the city’s position that it owned Mariner’s Beach and TMO did not.”
After extensive discussions with the state, Nehmad sent a letter to Bittner Nov. 17, 2014 “Advising her of TMO’s ownership of Mariner’s Beach.” Nehmad also informed Bittner “If TMO was forced to file litigation to settle the ownership issue; his office would also be pursuing frivolous litigation sanctions.”
TMO proceeded with an action to Quiet Title. The city filed an answer which TMO “demanded to be withdrawn within 28 days.” The answer was dismissed with prejudice, as stated in the memorandum, on motion for summary judgment and Morey brought a motion before the court, seeking counsel fees.
The city defended its position, saying that even if the questions asked by Wildwood, concerning the title, were “unwarranted,” the questions should not “give rise to sanctions because there was no frivolous filings with the court.”
Bittner also stated “When the quiet title action was filed, there was no attempt to prolong or increase the costs of the action. Rather, the answer was a non-contesting answer.” The city also wanted proof of litigating in “bad faith in order to warrant sanctions.”
Fram had the following response to Byron’s comments concerning Johnson’s ruling:
“In awarding sanctions against the city and its solicitor, Judge Johnson found that we provided the city with all of the information it needed, well before a lawsuit was filed, to understand that we owned the beach east of our pier and that the city had absolutely no basis for claiming ownership. 
“We paid to purchase this property, we paid taxes to the city on it every year and both the city and the state had previously acknowledged that we owned it. The city was cautioned that the position it was taking was irresponsible and that we would seek sanctions against it and the city solicitor if they raised a cloud on our ownership and forced us to go to court.”
Fram continued, “We are shocked at Pete Byron’s suggestion that, that was any legitimate benefit to the city in forcing us to file a lawsuit and for both the city and our company to incur legal fees. You don’t have to be an attorney to understand that it is wrong to falsely claim you own someone else’s property. And it is also wrong to abuse the legal system by making arguments that are frivolous.
“Public officials have a responsibility to respect property rights, to refrain from taking bad faith positions for the purposes of harassment, and to spend public money sensibly and responsibly. They cannot waste public funds on personal vendettas or agendas. ‘Inexcusable’ is pretty strong but the judge hit the nail on the head when he used that word in describing how the city proceeded here. We are deeply disappointed at the conduct engaged in by the city and at Pete Byron’s lame attempt to justify it,” Fram concluded.
To contact Rachel Rogish, email rrogish@cmcherald.com.