2023

Today’s post is by our Pacific Legal Foundation colleague Kady Valois, writing about last week’s opinion by the Florida District Court of Appeal (Second District) in Lake Lincoln, LLC v. County of Manatee, No. 2D21-2826 (Jan. 13, 2023),

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Divide and Conquer (Or Not): Florida’s Test
For The Regulatory Takings Larger Parcel

by Kady Valois

It is highly likely that anyone who follows this blog, at least as religiously as I do, groaned when the Supreme Court issued its decision in Murr v. Wisconsin, 137 S.Ct. 1933 (2017). After all, what could be more accessible and pro- private property than creating a balancing test within a balancing test and expanding the “parcel as a whole analysis” to encompass not only the regulated property but also any other property owned by the plaintiff (in the case of the Murr family, a parcel abutting the property they asserted was…

Continue Reading Guest Post – Kady Valois, “Divide (Or Not) and Conquer: Florida’s Test For The Regulatory Takings Larger Parcel”

We really want you there…

One (nearly) last reminder that there’s still time to register for your space at the 40th ALI-CLE Eminent Domain & Land Valuation Litigation Conference, February 1-4, 2023, in Austin. In the past several years, we have sold out due to the conference room capacity and the conference hotel block. But there’s still space, although we are nearly full. So register now – don’t delay any further! 

Here’s the brochure with the complete agenda, schedule, and faculty listing. But to tempt you, here are some of the highlights of the program:

  • Everything Old is New Again: Why Today’s Practitioners Need to Understand the Original Meaning of the Takings and Just Compensation Clauses
  • When the SWAT Team Comes (No) Knocking: Police Power Takings

  • Private Utility Takeovers – Lessons From a 67 Day Trial

  • “Contraband”: How Property Rights Helped Pave the Way for Civil Rights

  • Valuation

…
Continue Reading (Nearly) Last Call: There’s Still Time To Join Us For The 40th ALI-CLE Eminent Domain & Land Valuation Litigation Conference, Feb 1-4, Austin

Chop_park
Saturday in the park…I think it was the Fourth of July

Here’s the latest on a case we’ve been following, about the blocking off of a neighborhood in Seattle and making it a no-go zone for those whom the takeoverers wanted to keep out.

Yes, the CHOP/CHAZ case is still a thing. [And before we go on a disclosure: our law firm is participating as amicus curiae in the case.]

Business owners in the zone sued the City in federal court, alleging that the government actively aided or facilitated the takeover, or at minimum did nothing to end it. Claims asserted include Due Process, Takings, and state and local law claims. The takings claim was based on two theories: first, that the City facilitated a physical invasion by third parties of plaintiffs’ properties; second, that the City action or inaction resulted in a loss of access by plaintiffs and their…

Continue Reading Federal Court: Seattle Facilitating Downtown Takeover Takings Claim Is Going To Trial

Screenshot 2023-01-13 at 14-15-26 Search - Supreme Court of the United States

Here at inversecondemnation.com, we were all set to call it a week and take a break from posting until Monday.

But SCOTUS had other ideas.

In this Order issued today, it agreed to review Tyler v. Hennepin County, No. 22-166, a case and an issue we’ve been following closely.

The Questions Presented by the petition:

Hennepin County confiscated 93-year-old Geraldine Tyler’s former home as payment for approximately $15,000 in property taxes, penalties, interest, and costs. The County sold the home for $40,000, and, consistent with a Minnesota forfeiture statute, kept all proceeds, including the $25,000 that exceeded Tyler’s debt as a windfall for the public. In all states, municipalities may take real property and sell it to collect payment for property tax debts. Most states allow the government to keep only as much as it is owed; any surplus proceeds after collecting the debt belong…

Continue Reading Lucky Friday The Thirteenth: SCOTUS Grants New Takings And Excessive Fines Case

When we first read the U.S. Court of Appeals’ opinion in PEM Entities, LLC v. County of Franklin, No. 21-1317 (Jan. 5, 2023), our reaction was one of skepticism. After all, at first blush, the court seemed to have concluded that in order to possess a property right protected by the Takings Clause, the owner needs first to prove it is a “vested” under state law.

That struck us as waaaay wrong. Yes, vesting under state law gets you a separate property interest, but failure to vest under state law does not mean you don’t otherwise possess Takings Clause “private property.” So what gives, Fourth Circuit?

Well, it turns out that despite us being ready to render a hearty j’accuse at the court, the outcome was a product of the claims made by the property owner (as they often are).

The opinion is short enough that it makes…

Continue Reading CA4: Property Owner Isn’t “Vested” So No Takings Property

PXL_20221211_163406631.MP

We continue our series on the 100th anniversary of the mother lode of takings case, Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393 (Dec. 11, 1922), with this short essay recently published in the “Notice & Comment” feature of the Yale Journal on Regulation.

In “A Landmark Centennial From a Land Marked By the Past,” our law firm colleague Sam Spiegelman tells us why the Mahon case – despite some weathering over the past century – still is important:

For property-rights advocates, Pennsylvania Coal has become both a blessing and a curse. Though it subjects governmental abuses and overregulation to constitutional scrutiny, in practice it has proven too easy to manipulate in favor of government overreach. Why is this? Because Holmes’s “too far” formula focused on the extent of the of harm to the aggrieved individual. But without his saying more, the Supreme Court ran in…

Continue Reading Mahon At 100: “A Landmark Centennial From a Land Marked By the Past” (Sam Spiegelman, Yale J. Reg.)

Neither snow nor …

Details, including registration here. Or download the print brochure.

In the recent past, we’ve sold out, so don’t miss out. We recently opened up a new room block, so there’s still time.

Come, join your colleagues for 3+ days of the best eminent domain and related programming. And, of course, all the fun Austin has to offer.

Program Brochure, 40th ALI-CLE Eminent Domain & Land Valuation Litigation Conference, Austin, Texas, Feb 1-… b

Continue Reading From The Mahon Property: Your Invitiation To The 40th ALI-CLE Eminent Domain Conference, Austin (Feb 1-4)

Unsurprisingly there isn’t a lot there in the majority opinion in Bowers Dev. LLC v. Oneida Cnty. Indus, Dev. Agency, No. 2022-00744 (Dec. 23, 2022) (this is from the New York courts after all, which don’t seem to write long opinions), but we’re posting it so you can compare the majority with the dissent.

Majority: agency’s power to take is limited by the terms of the delegation of eminent domain power (for “commercial” facilities), and here, eminent domain is being used to take property for a parking lot for a hospital. That isn’t a “commercial” use. Slip op. at 2 (“While OCIDA’s determination and findings indicate that the subject property was to be acquired for use as a surface parking lot, the record establishes that, contrary to respondents’ assertion, the primary purpose of the acquisition was not a commercial purpose. Rather, the property was to be acquired because it …

Continue Reading NY Appellate Division: A Hospital Parking Lot Isn’t An Authorized Reason To Take

Here’s one that’s holding over from 2022, but we wanted to make sure to post because it’s a good reminder that when you settle a case, you settle the case.

Wyoming is one of those jurisdictions that has one of those “I want it back” provisions, where if property is not actually used for X years after it is acquired by the government, the owner may ask for it to be returned. In Wyoming, the term is 10 years:

If a public entity acquires property in fee simple title under this chapter but fails to make substantial use of the property for a period of ten (10) years, there is a presumption that the property is no longer needed for a public purpose and the previous owner or his successor may apply to the court to request that the property be returned to the previous owner or his successor upon…

Continue Reading Wyoming: When You Settle An Eminent Domain Fight By Waiving All Future Claims, You Can’t Take Advantage Of A Reclaim Statute

You know the “amortization” doctrine: when an existing legal use is declared illegal, the government can avoid a takings claim by slowly phasing out the use, supposedly to allow the owner to recoup investment. The doctrine is established in Maryland by Grant v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 129 A.2d 363 (Md. 1957), where the court held that amortization works if the time and uses allowed are reasonable.

Not all jurisdictions take that approach, however. For example, in Pennsylvania Northwest Distributors, Inc. v. Zoning Hearing Bd., 583 A.2d 1372 (Pa. 1991), the Pennsylvania court held “[a] lawful nonconforming use establishes in the property owner a vested property right which cannot be abrogated or destroyed, unless it is a nuisance, it is abandoned, or it is extinguished by eminent domain.”

In In re Mangisteab, No. 2022-93 (Dec. 20, 2022) (unpub.), the Appellate Court of Maryland (fka…

Continue Reading Md App: If You Want To Overturn The Amortization Doctrine, Take It Upstairs