Bill Text: NJ A4847 | 2016-2017 | Regular Session | Introduced
Bill Title: Authorizes award of reasonable costs and attorney fees to farmers prevailing in certain farm management disputes.
Spectrum: Slight Partisan Bill (Democrat 3-1)
Status: (Engrossed - Dead) 2017-06-29 - Received in the Senate, Referred to Senate Economic Growth Committee [A4847 Detail]
Download: New_Jersey-2016-A4847-Introduced.html
Sponsored by:
Assemblyman BOB ANDRZEJCZAK
District 1 (Atlantic, Cape May and Cumberland)
Assemblyman ERIC HOUGHTALING
District 11 (Monmouth)
Assemblyman ADAM J. TALIAFERRO
District 3 (Cumberland, Gloucester and Salem)
SYNOPSIS
Authorizes award of reasonable costs and attorney fees to farmers prevailing in certain farm management disputes.
CURRENT VERSION OF TEXT
As introduced.
An Act concerning attorney fees and costs in certain farm management disputes and amending P.L.1998, c.48, and supplementing Title 4 of the Revised Statutes.
Be It Enacted by the Senate and General Assembly of the State of New Jersey:
1. Section 5 of P.L.1998, c.48 (C.4:1C-10.1) is amended to read as follows:
5. a. Any person aggrieved by the operation of a commercial farm shall file a complaint with the applicable county agriculture development board or the State Agriculture Development Committee in counties where no county board exists prior to filing an action in court.
b. In the event the dispute concerns activities that are addressed by an agricultural management practice recommended by the committee and adopted pursuant to the provisions of the "Administrative Procedure Act," P.L.1968, c.410 (C.52:14B-1 et seq.), the county board shall hold a public hearing and issue findings and recommendations within 60 days of the receipt of the complaint.
c. In the event the committee has not recommended an agricultural management practice concerning activities addressed by a complaint, the county board shall forward the complaint to the committee for a determination of whether the disputed agricultural operation constitutes a generally accepted agricultural operation or practice. Upon receipt of the complaint, the committee shall hold a public hearing and issue its decision, in writing, to the county board. The county board shall hold a public hearing and issue its findings and recommendations within 60 days of the receipt of the committee's decision.
d. Any person aggrieved by the decision of the county board shall appeal the decision to the committee within 10 days. The committee shall schedule a hearing and make a determination within 90 days of receipt of the petition for review.
e. The decision of the State Agriculture Development Committee shall be binding, subject to the right of appeal to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court. Any decision of a county agriculture development board that is not appealed shall be binding.
f. When a respondent prevails in an action brought pursuant to this section because the commercial agricultural operation, activity, practice or structure is found to be entitled to the irrebuttable presumption established in section 7 of P.L.1983, c.31 (C.4:1C-10), the board, the committee, or the court, as applicable, shall award reasonable costs and attorney fees to the prevailing respondent unless the complainant demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the claim was brought in good faith.
A respondent seeking an award under this section shall submit an application to the board, committee, or court, as appropriate, detailing the costs and attorney fees incurred in the defense of the complaint. If the board, committee, or court determines by clear and convincing evidence that the claim was not brought in good faith, the board, committee, or court shall determine if the costs and attorney fees, or a portion thereof, are reasonable, and shall issue an order requiring the complainant to pay the reasonable costs and attorney fees to the respondent.
(cf: P.L.1998, c.48, s.5)
2. (New section) a. Notwithstanding any provision in this title to the contrary, there shall exist a presumption that the taking of wildlife by a farmer that is in accord with all State and federal laws, rules, and regulations shall not constitute a violation of any provision of this title involving alleged cruelty to, or inhumane treatment of, an animal.
b. In any civil action brought pursuant to R.S.4:22-26 in which the respondent prevails by asserting the presumption in subsection a. of this section as a defense, the court shall award reasonable costs and attorney fees to the prevailing respondent unless the complainant demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the claim was brought in good faith.
A respondent seeking an award under this section shall submit an application to the court detailing the costs and attorney fees incurred in the defense of the complaint. If the court determines by clear and convincing evidence that the claim was not brought in good faith, the court shall determine if the costs and attorney fees, or a portion thereof, are reasonable, and shall issue an order requiring the complainant to pay the reasonable costs and attorney fees to the respondent.
3. This act shall take effect immediately and shall apply to all actions commenced after the effective date of this act.
STATEMENT
This bill would permit a farmer who prevails in a civil case, where the farmer is engaged in lawful farming activities under the "Right to Farm Act," the opportunity to collect reasonable costs and attorney fees against the complainant if the complainant cannot show by clear and convincing evidence that the claim was brought in good faith. The bill further clarifies that wildlife management activities undertaken by a farmer that are in accord with State and federal law are presumed to not constitute animal cruelty and that a farmer may collect reasonable costs and attorney fees against a complainant in a civil animal cruelty action if the complainant cannot show by clear and convincing evidence that the claim was brought in good faith.
This bill will protect farmers against vexatious litigation that challenges normal farm management practices. The bill seeks to discourage frivolous litigation by placing a burden on the complainant to demonstrate that the complaint was brought in good faith in order to avoid paying costs and attorney fees and to separately clarify the fact that wildlife management practices on farms that conform to federal and State law do not constitute animal cruelty.
