Joseph Marcantuone and Robert Gieson owned a shopping center in which one of the spaces was always leased as a dry cleaner. Eventually, the city of East Orange, New Jersey, took the property by eminent domain in order to expand the facilities for a school located next to the shopping center. In performing due diligence, the city learned that solvents from the dry cleaner operations had made their way into the soil beneath the property. The city asked that Messrs. Marcantuone and Gieson pay over $200,000 for the cleanup. Can they be held liable for what the dry cleaner tenants did?

Question

Javon Mclean

Business

1 October, 09:36

Joseph Marcantuone and Robert Gieson owned a shopping center in which one of the spaces was always leased as a dry cleaner. Eventually, the city of East Orange, New Jersey, took the property by eminent domain in order to expand the facilities for a school located next to the shopping center. In performing due diligence, the city learned that solvents from the dry cleaner operations had made their way into the soil beneath the property. The city asked that Messrs. Marcantuone and Gieson pay over $200,000 for the cleanup. Can they be held liable for what the dry cleaner tenants did?

+4

Answers (1)

Know the Answer?

Reagan Roth · Answer 1

Right now marcantuone and robert gieson ought not be held at risk for what the drycleaner inhabitants did. Because there was no release of perilous substance during their ownership. The chlorinated dissolvable pollution issue right now the aftereffect of dry cleaning activity led preceding the condemnee's acquisition of the property. There was no proof of a release of unsafe substance during the time of condemnee's ownership. The sullying was not found until after the condemner had procured the title to the property in the judgement activity.

As indicated by the spill demonstration the obligation is vested on a condemner who bought debased property and didn't attempt any assessment or examination at the hour of procurement.