Eminent Domain | Condemnation

Subscribe to Eminent Domain | Condemnation via RSS

Here’s a short one for your just compensation files. In County of Dakota v. Cameron, No. 19HA-CV-09-3756 (Mar. 26, 2012), the Minnesota Court of Appeals held that Minnesota’s “minimum compensation” statute, “is ambiguous and that statutory intepretation is appropriate.” Slip op. at 7. The statute provides:

When an owner must relocate, the amount of damages payable, at a minimum, must be sufficient for an owner to purchase a comparable property in the community and not less than the condemning authority’s payment or deposit under section 117.042, to the extent that the damages will not be duplicated in the compensation otherwise awarded to the owner of the property. For the purposes of this section, “owner” is defined as the person or entity that holds fee title to the property.

The court defined “comparable property” according “to its common usage,” meaning something “similar or equivalent.” It rejected the property…

Continue Reading Minn App: Relocation, Comparable Property, And Minimum Compensation

Last we checked in, the case we’ve been referring to as the “bizarre condemnation” (Klumpp v. Borough of Avalon) was decided by the unanimous New Jersey Supreme Court in favor of the property owners, and remanded to the trial court for a determination of the compensation owed to the property owners, who had their land taken by the Borough in 1965. 

A few days ago, the trial court issued its decision, concluding that the compensation owed to the property owners were owed the fair market value of the property in 1965 ($5,400) plus interest at 8-9%, for a total of $284,802. The property owners claimed the value of what they lost was considerably more, since the Borough offered other property owners whose properties were taken different beachfront parcels in exchange, but never notified the Klumpps of that option. If they had been able to acquire …

Continue Reading The Bizarre Follow Up To New Jersey’s “Bizarre Condemnation”

Here’s the final cert stage brief (Petitioner’s Reply) in River Center LLC v. Dormitory Auth. of the State of New York, No. 11-922 (cert. petition filed Jan. 23, 2012), the case in which a Manhattan property owner and developer is challenging the compensation awarded by New York courts for a taking near Lincoln Center. This brief responds to the Dormitory Authority’s Brief in Opposition (posted here).

The Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause will be eviscerated if the government is able to water down the Just Compensation guarantee to the point of meaninglessness. Property rights require vigilant enforcement of both the Takings and Just Compensation Clauses, and the instant petition provides a perfect vehicle for the reinvigoration of the latter.

Br. at 2. We filed an amicus brief supporting the property owner on behalf of Owners’ Counsel of America, posted here.

New York’s Appellate Division denied…

Continue Reading Petitioner’s Reply Brief In Manhattan Eminent Domain Case: Time To Reinvigorate The Just Compensation Clause

Here’s one for your California readers. You know Proposition 13, the provision in the California Constitution that limits property tax increases, and allows reassessment of value only upon a change of ownership, and you either love it or hate it: to some it insulates property owners from being forced out of their homes by uncontrolled property taxes, to others it is responsible for the downfall of California as the Golden State.

A property owner’s acquisition of replacement property for property taken in “eminent domain proceedings” in which the taken property is acquired by a “public entity,” is not a “change of ownership.” But what about when new property is purchased to replace property sold under threat of condemnation to a private developer who is teamed up with a government redevelopment agency — is that a “change of ownership” such that the property is assessed at current market rates?

In …

Continue Reading Cal App: Sale To Private Redeveloper Under Threat Of Condemnation Is A “Change Of Ownership” Under Prop 13

Here’s the BIO in in River Center LLC v. Dormitory Auth. of the State of New York, No. 11-922 (cert. petition filed Jan. 23, 2012), the case in which a Manhattan property owner and developer is challenging the compensation awarded by New York courts for a taking near Lincoln Center.

The Appellate Division denied the owner the right to present and have considered evidence about the valuation of the property because the court held that in order to be admissible, the property owner must be able to show the use it claims is the highest and best use is “established as reasonably probable and not a ‘speculative or hypothetical arrangement in the mind of the claimant,'” and that these plans will “come to fruition” in the near future.

The property owner, represented in the Supreme Court by Harvard lawprof Laurence Tribe, argues in its cert petition that the …

Continue Reading BIO In SCOTUS Just Compensation Case

ALI-ABAIn case you missed attending in person back in January, the annual eminent domain law conference (ALI-ABA’s Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation) is now available on CD, mp3, and DVD here.

I was on the faculty, and along with Professor David Callies presented a session on The Role of Hawaii’s Unique Property Law in the U.S. Supreme Court’s Takings Cases. In addition to our session, there were presentations on such topics as Redevelopment in California, how to talk to juries about Just Compensation, Landlord and Tenant Issues in Eminent Domain, the latest in Highest and Best Use. And more.

Get your yearly CLE fix, including ethics credits, all for a great price. You can also purchase individual sessions,Continue Reading ALI-ABA Eminent Domain Conference 2012 Now On DVD & CD

Here’s the latest chapter in the Skyland Shopping Center saga that has given us Franco v. National Capital Revitalization Comm’n, 930 A.2d 160 (D.C. 2007) and several other reported opinions (DeSilva v. District of Columbia, No. 10-CV-1069 (Feb. 24, 2011); Rumber v. District of Columbia, 487 F.3d 941 (D.C. Cir. 2007); Franco v. District of Columbia, 3 A.3d 300 (D.C. 2010); Rumber v. District of Columbia, No. 09-7035 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 26, 2010) (per curiam); and Oh v. National Capital Revitalization Corp., 7 A.3d 997 (D.C. 2010)).

The latest opinion from the D.C. Court of Appeals, Franco v. District of Columbia, No. 11-CV-734 (Mar. 15, 2012), is the appeal after remand of the 2007 Franco decision, which recognized that property owners may object to a taking on the grounds that the proffered public use is really a pretext hiding private benefit.

We…

Continue Reading D.C. App Again Weighs In On Kelo And Pretext

Court-appointed appraisers awarded $7.5 million for the taking of property once used as a  shopping mall, but being used as an office park at the time of the taking. The property owner challenged the award, and at trial sought to exclude tax appeal documents from two years earlier, in which it estimated the value of four of the five buildings taken as $2,650,000. The owner asserted the tax appeal was not relevant because it did not involve the entire property taken, and besides, it only filed the appeal to force the government to abide by its plan which was supposed to freeze property taxes (but it didn’t). The government argued that the appeal was admissible as an admission against interest. The trial court admitted the evidence, and the jury came back with a verdict of $6.95 million.

On appeal, the Kansas Supreme Court affirmed. In Kansas City Mall Assoc., Inc. …

Continue Reading Kansas: Owner’s Claims In Property Tax Appeal Are Admissible In Later Eminent Domain Action

The city takes property for a bike trail. It deposited estimated compensation in court, and sought and obtained immediate possession. The owner disputed whether the city had the power to take his land, but the trial court rejected these arguments. The owner filed an interlocutory appeal on the public use and necessity issues. The city moved to dismiss for lack of appellate jurisdiction: the valuation phase of the trial was not finished, so there was no final judgment and it was too early to appeal. 

The Arkansas Supreme Court agreed. Thomas v. City of Fayetteville, No. 11-930 (Mar. 15, 2012). Because the issue of compensation remained for the trial court to determine, the judgment allowing the taking was not final. Piecemeal appeals are generally not favored, and the court refused to adopt the property owner’s call for an exception because disallowing the appeal would “divest him of a substantial…

Continue Reading Arkansas: Public Use Determinations Not Immediately Appealable

In Miller v. FW Commercial Properties, LLC, No. 105066 (Mar. 9, 2012), the Kansas Supreme Court held that a lawyer who represents a party in a condemnation case is not entitled to recapture his or her legal fees from another party’s condemnation award because the lawyer is not a “party in interest” in the case.

KDOT condemned Armendariz’s land. The petition also listed the Britts as interested parties, because they claimed they owned one of Armendariz’s tracts by virtue of adverse possession, and had filed a quiet title action. Eventual award for this tract: $18,000, which is $11,000 more than KDOT’s original offer.

Amendariz was not represented by a lawyer until after the award (he appealed the valuation, and contests the adverse possession lawsuit). The Britts were represented by a lawyer in the condemnation, and a different lawyer in the quiet title action. The Britts’s condemnation lawyer informed their…

Continue Reading Kansas: Lawyer Not A “Party In Interest” In Condemnation Case