January 2020

Planet-of-the-apes-statue-of-liberty-blu-ray-disc-screencap-hd-1080p-05

We gave up long ago expecting rationality and straight-up-the-middle narratives when it comes to cases about beaches and beach access. People get kind of nuts about that for some reason. We get why. Who doesn’t love a beach? Even a beach that could serve as the location if Planet of the Apes is re-made again. Don’t believe us? See this recent video. Or this story with a picture from the 1980s. 

But we overcame our usual reluctance to dive into these stories for the latest in a case we’ve been following, as it wound the way from California’s trial and appeals courts, to the U.S. Supreme Court on a (denied) judicial takings cert petition, to the California legislature which was threatening to condemn and buy the property, to a recent unreported California appellate decision affirming a finding of no public easement, and now this, a recently-filed complaint against…

Continue Reading California Coastal Comm’n: We’re Suing Evil Rich Guy Who Is Blocking Access To The Forbidden Zone (Even Though Court Just Ruled The Other Way On The Same Issues In A Similar Case)

A very short opinion we’ve been meaning to post for a while.

In Hickman v. Ringgold County, No. 19-0123 (Nov. 6, 2019), the Iowa Court of Appeals considered property owners’ claim that the taking of their land to create a access road for the neighboring concrete plant was not a valid public use. Seemed like a pretty good claim. After all, Iowa prohibits economic development takings:

“public use” or “public purpose” or “public improvement” does not mean economic development activities resulting in increased tax revenues, increased employment opportunities, privately owned or privately funded housing and residential development, privately owned or privately funded commercial or industrial development, or the lease of publicly owned property to a private party.

Iowa Code § 6A.22(2)(b).

And, in the type of testimony that would make every municipal lawyer cringe, a county supervisor admitted the taking was “to further develop the economics of the county”…

Continue Reading “That said…” A Prohibited Economic Development Taking Is OK If It Is For A Road

One does not simply walk to nashville

You can also fly, drive, or bike to the upcoming 37th Annual ALI-CLE Eminent Domain & Land Valuation Litigation Conference. in Nashville. Limited space still available, so don’t delay further and register now. We’re on track to record attendance, so you don’t want to miss the best nationally-focused three-day program on our area of law.

Takings, Knick, compensation, appraisals … and a bit of fun thrown in. We have many new attendees, and many new speakers, too.  Continue Reading (Nearly) Last Chance To Join Us In Nashville For ALI-CLE’s Eminent Domain Conference

The holding of the Indiana Court of Appeals in City of Kokomo v. Estate of Newton, No. 19A-PL-1321 (Dec. 18, 2019) is deceptively simple: if a party does not own a formal interest in the property being taken, evidence of the damages which it incurred as a result of the condemnation isn’t relevant to the calculation of just compensation. 

That’s workable as a black-letter rule, we suppose. But what about the very common situation where, due to circumstances, someone with an obvious stake in property being taken had not formalized that interest prior to the condemnation? 

That appears to have been the situation in Newton, where the two condemned properties had been owned by real-party-in-interest (Bradley Newton)’s mother at the time of her death. The properties were used by a company she also owned, Kokomo Glass. When she died, her son Wesley became the owner of the two parcels…

Continue Reading If You Want To Claim An Interest In A Condemnation Award, Formalize The Interest

Okyoda

It’s 2020, so out with the old, in with the new.

We like any opinion that starts off with “[t]he facts giving rise to this appeal are complicated but do not require a lengthy recitation.” Because that signals the opinion writer has done the hard work, because in order to explain complicated facts in a simpler way, the writer must have focused only on the critical facts (unlike a lot of brief and opinion writers). For that reason, we started off the New Year diving into the Supreme Court of Kansas’ opinion in GFTLenexa LLC v. City of Lenexa, No. 119278 (Dec. 6, 2019). It’s about the old problem of who is entitled to be compensated when property subject to multiple interests is taken. 

Here are the “complicated” facts: Oak Park owned land. It leased it to Centres. Centres, in turn, subleased it to Bridgestone for a tire shop. Later…

Continue Reading Kansas: Tenant With An Interest In Property Who Knew It Was Being Condemned Is Precluded From A Later Inverse Claim