N.J. Model Civil Jury Charge 9.13

9.13 CONDEMNATION - MACHINERY 1 (Approved 4/96)

Sometimes, when property with a bu ilding is condemned, the owner moves

out all his or her personal property including machines. Nevertheless, sometimes

an owner cannot easily move the machiner y. Even if he or she could, the

machinery might be of little value to the owner as used equipment compared to its

value to a buyer of the land, building and machinery together. If the building and

the machinery are meant to be used together, that is, if the machinery is an integral

and essential part of the building, the owner must be paid for both. The question

you must answer is whether the mach inery and the building form a single

functional unit. Does the machinery form an integral and valuable part of the use

to which the property is put? If it does and the value of the building is

1 Special problems of valuation come up when the property taken is the site of a business. For a

cautionary note concerning the non-compensability of such speculative or incidental business

losses as good will, loss of profits, and the like, see Housing Auth. of Newark v. Norfolk Realty

Co., 71 N.J. 314, 323 (1976); State v. Cooper Alloy Corp., 136 N.J. Super. 560 (App. Div. 1975).

In general, losses to property are compensable; losses to business conducted on the property are

not. The Relocation Assistance Act, N.J.S.A. 20:4-1 et seq., which authorizes payment for certain

such expenses, does not affect the condemnation proceeding. Such payments are in addition to

the just compensation established in the condemnation proceeding. N.J.S.A. 20:4-18.

substantially enhanced by the machinery then the property owner should be paid

for that value.2

If a building and the machinery in it form such a functional unit and a buyer

would pay substantially more for the pr operty with the equipment in place, you

would expect the owner to sell the land, building and machinery together at a price

that reflects that increased value. Therefore, the fair market value of the entire

property would include the increase in value caused by the presence of the

machinery.

2State v. Gallant, 42 N.J. 583, 590 (1964); Housing Auth., Borough of Clementon v. Myers,

115 N.J. Super. 467, 472 (App. Div. 1971). Often presented is the question of whether the

machinery cannot be removed without serious injury to itself or the building or is specially

designed or adapted to the building to the extent that removal from the building would make it

essentially worthless. See Town of Montclair v. D’Andrea, 138 N.J. Super. 479 (App. Div. 1976).

See also N.J.S.A. 20:3-2(d); 20:4-4(a)(2).