February 2022

CedarpointPRELcoverpage

Thank you to the editors over at The Practical Real Estate Lawyer for publishing my missive on Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent blockbuster regulatory takings decision (and for letting me post a copy of the article here so it is available even if you are not a PREL subscriber). And you know this, but I’m going to disclose it again: my law firm represented the property owner in that case, so yes, I do have a viewpoint; take that into account while reading. 

By the way, you might consider becoming a subscriber. The journal publishes just what the title suggests it does – practice-oriented articles about dirt lawyering. Good stuff.

Thomas, Common Sense and Common Law: Defining “Property” in Cedar Point v. Hassid, 38 Prac. Real Estate Law…

Continue Reading New Article: Common Sense and Common Law: Defining “Property” in Cedar Point v. Hassid

IMG_20170323_142813

Sorry about the headline, but come on, man! We have to use clickbaity headlines every now and then to get your attention. Here’s the latest in a case we’ve been following.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court of Canada heard oral arguments in Annapolis Group Inc v. Halifax Regional Municipality, a case involving “de facto expropriation,” or what we in the U.S. might think of as a regulatory taking.

We watched the livestream (along with a few of our northern colleagues), and if you missed it, the recording of the (2-hours and 30-minutes!) arguments can be found here — in English, with simultaneous French translation, if you want to have some extra fun.

Screenshot 2022-02-17 at 07-50-43 Supreme Court of Canada - SCC Case Information - Webcast of the Hearing on 2022-02-16 - 3[...]

Yes, there really are that many Justices
and lawyers on the argument

The Supreme Court is considering whether Halifax’s refusal to approve Annapolis Group’s development applications (consistent with its residential zoning, more specifically “future serviced development”) on …

Continue Reading Important Developments In Canada (No, Not That!): Supreme Court Hears Argument In “Takings” Case

Screenshot 2022-02-15 at 07-42-11 Eminent Domain Reports - Publications IRWA

Check this out: the International Right of Way Association’s Real Estate Law Committee produces twice-a-year reports “which contain summaries of eminent domain decisions and legislation within the United States.” (This is the “international” right of way association, so that last qualifier is important.)

And what is really nice is that they make the report available. 

We’re posting it here because we’re one of the co-authors. The laboring oars on this are really Brad Kuhn and Jullian Friess Leivas (both from the Nossaman firm), but they were kind enough to ask me for some input.

Brad and Jillian wrote up more at the California Eminent Domain Report.

The report is short, and doesn’t have a lot of fluff. Just what you wanted.Continue Reading IRWA’s Summary Of Major Eminent Domain Cases & Legislation (June-Dec 2021)

PXL_20220127_144224442

After a two-year absence in which we went remote, in the last week of last month (our usual spot on the calendar, between the playoffs and Super Bowl), we once again met in-person for the American Law Institute-CLE Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation Conference.

Approximately 200 lawyers, judges, legal scholars, appraisers, law students, right-of-way agents, relocation experts, property owners, and other related professionals gathered in-person–yes, in-person–at the Scottsdale (Arizona) Resort at McCormick Ranch, to get reacquainted, learn stuff, and renew ties last made in-person in Nashville in 2020. In addition to the live attendance, we also welcomed about 50 remote colleagues, who joined the live webstream.

This was the 39th edition of the Conference, one of the most-established and successful conferences in the ALI-CLE stable of programs.

To those who joined us – thank you. This conference reminded us of why this program is so…

Continue Reading 2022 ALI-CLE Eminent Domain And Land Valuation Litigation Conference, Scottsdale: You Should Have Been There!

Before we go further into the Ninth Circuit’s opinion in Ballinger v. City of Oakland, No. 19-16-550 (Feb. 2, 2022), this disclosure: this is a case in which our law firm represents the property owners. So take that into account as you read our take on the case.

The Ballingers own a home in Oakland, California, and were called away for a year while on active duty with the military. They rented their home with a one-year lease. Oakland makes property owners who want to move back into their own homes at the expiration of a lease to pay tenants a “relocation fee.” The Ballingers paid $6.5k to the tenant for the relocation fee, and sued the city for, inter alia, a physical taking of their money, and for an unconstitutional exaction of their home. The district court dismissed for failure to state a claim because the …

Continue Reading CA9: We Reject Legislative/Administrative Distinction In Exactions, But City Requirement That Owners Pay Tenant To Move Back Into Their Home Isn’t A Taking