Inverse condemnation

Subscribe to Inverse condemnation via RSS

Here’s what we’re reading today:

  • “Flash Boys and the Transportation Corridor Act” – from the North Carolina Land Use Litigator blog, some thoughts about the recent NC Supreme Court decision that we described as a “muddled hash.” This is the one in which the court denied class certification to the claims of 800+ property owners whose land has been blighted by the Map Act, a statute that allows the NC DOT to prohibit the development of parcels where the DOT wants to put a future highway. In a recent story on the case by North Carolina Lawyers Weekly, we said this about the case: “‘I’ve read the decision a couple of times since it was published and it still is kind of inexplicable to me,’ he said in a phone interview.’It’s somewhat frustrating because you can’t quite figure out what the court’s analysis is and where that leaves

…
Continue Reading Thursday Round-Up: NC Beltway Blight Case, Precondemnation Entry Statute Unconstitutional, Why Buy Land You Can Get For Free?

The North Carolina Supreme Court has issued its opinion in Beroth Oil Co. v. North Carolina Dep’t of Transportation, No. 390PA11-2 (Apr. 11, 2014). That’s the case which we’ve been following about the class-action worthiness of of a case in which the N.C. DOT effectively blighted a huge swath of land by identifying it as a future highway, and then doing mostly nothing to acquire it, even though by virtue of a parcel’s identification on the map, the owner was prevented from obtaining building permits, or undertaking other development of the land.

The Supreme Court briefs are posted here, and we also recently posted NCDOT’s summary of the effect of a “protected corridor,” which is the DOT’s way under North Carolina’s Map Act of keeping property that it wants for future highways from being developed in the interim (we thought it should be called a “taking”). More background on the case here…

Continue Reading N.C.: “Map Act” Inverse Cases Must Be Prosecuted Individually, Not As A Class

Here’s the latest from the Federal Circuit, a decision involving regulatory takings, the big auto bailout, and the nature of property rights. A&D Auto Sales, Inc. v. United States, Nos. 13-5019, 13-1520 (Apr. 7, 2014)

In the TARP and the related bankruptcy cases, the federal government bailed out the two big American auto manufacturers, General Motors and Chrysler. Part of the $55 billion assistance deal required GM and Chrysler to terminate the franchises of many dealerships. Not surprisingly, those dealerships didn’t care for the idea that their businesses were not “too big to fail,” and objected in the Court of Federal Claims to the idea that they should be sacrificed to the greater good with a takings claim against the federal government. 

Although the automakers were already reducing their dealer ranks over time and GM’s initial viability plan had included additional dealer terminations, the government determined that…

Continue Reading Fed Cir: Big Auto Bailout Could Be A Taking

Check out this Power Point presentation, sent our way by a North Carolina colleague. It’s an explanation by the NC Department of Transportation of a “protected corridor,” a “[t]emporary restriction on development placed upon properties located within a proposed highway alignment.”

And what, pray tell, is the purpose of this protected corridor? To allow the NCDOT breathing room to come up with an orderly plan of development or something similar that is often used to justify moratoria? No, to “[h]elp[] insure availability of proposed locations for large-scale projects…”

In other words, to stop development in anticipation of NCDOT eventually — maybe, someday — condemning the land for a highway.

You see, those darn developers, they keep building subdivisions in the path of our future beltways (the nerve), so we have this plan to protect the land so we might eventually take it at reduced acquisition and relocation…

Continue Reading What Is A Protected Corridor? A Taking, Or At Least It Should Be

Remember the Lost Tree case? That’s the one where the Federal Circuit concluded that a single parcel owned by the plaintiff was the relevant parcel against which the impact of the Corps of Engineers’ denial of a § 404 wetlands dredge and fill permit is to be measured. The court overturned a Court of Federal Claims decision which concluded the relevant parcel was that single plot plus an additional nearby lot, plus “scattered wetlands in the vicinity” also owned by the same owner. 

The case got remanded to the CFC, which now has issued its opinion determining the loss of economic value caused by the denial of the 404 permit. The CFC concluded that the “after” value was $27,500, and the “before” value was $4,245,388, a diminiution in value of a whopping 99.4%. Lost Tree Corp. v. United States, No. 08-117L (Fed. Cl. Mar. 14, 2014).

The court held that…

Continue Reading CFC: Denial Of Wetlands Dredge And Fill § 404 Permit = Taking = $4.2M Just Compensation

It’s Friday, so we’re slacking a bit on the blogging. But our colleagues at the Nossaman firm have given us a couple of good pieces for our reading enjoyment.

  • First is “9th Circ. Simplifies Enviro Process For Transit Projects,” by Robert D. Thornton. If his name sounds familiar, it’s because he’s the lawyer who represented the City and County of Honolulu in its succcessful defense of a federal lawsuit. The Ninth Circuit and the District Court recently sided with the City on the project (see our summary of the Ninth Circuit and the District Court rulings), and the plaintiffs have stated that they are not going to seek further review. In other words, this is probably the final substantive chapter in the major legal challenges to the Honolulu rail project. Mr. Thornton notes that the decision is one “of national importance for transit and highway projects” because

…
Continue Reading Worth Reading – The Last Word On Honolulu Rail, And 2013 Eminent Domain Year In Review

Professor Richard Epstein shares his insight about the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent 8-1 decision in Marvin M. Brandt Revocable Trust v. United States, No. 12-1173 (Mar. 10, 2014).

The issue in the case was whether the federal government retained an “implied reversionary interest” when it issued railroad patents to private landowners, or whether these grants were subject only to a railroad easement. The Court concluded they were easements, which means that they were extinguished when the railroad ceased using them as railroads. 

Professor Epstein joined an amicus brief filed in support of the property owners in the case, which argued that a contrary ruling would violate “the special need for certainty and predictability where land titles are concerned.” 

Listen to the podcast here. Or go to this page and follow the link from there. 

Related articles
SCOTUS Benchslap: Railroad Right Of Way Is An Easement, Just Like We Said A Long

…
Continue Reading Professor Epstein On SCOTUS Rails-To-Trails Decision

This is a longer post, but we think it’s worthy of your time. That’s because even though there’s a lot going on in the opinion by the California Court of Appeal in Property Reserve, Inc. v. Superior Court, No. C067758 (Mar. 13, 2014), it cuts through much of the unnecessary doctrinal fog surrounding takings law, especially the U.S. Supreme Court’s bizarre ripeness requirement first enunciated in Williamson County Regional Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172 (1985).

The Bottom Line

Although the entire thing is worth reading (44 pages of majority opinion, followed by 46 pages of dissent), if we had to pick out one passage as the takeaway, here it is: 

Eminent domain authority must be exercised in strict conformity to the constitutional protections and procedures that limit its operation. If a condemnor intends to take private property or intends to perform actions that will result…

Continue Reading Cal App States The Inconvenient Truth: There’s No Substitute For Eminent Domain – Gov’t Must Condemn First If It Wants To Enter Land

In addition to the initial media coverage of and commentary about the Supreme Court’s 8-1 decision in Marvin M. Brandt Revocable Trust v. United States, No. 12-1173 (Mar. 10, 2014) rendered earlier this week, there has been more, mostly focused on the final lines of Justice Sotomayor’s solo dissent:

By changing course today, the Court undermines the legality of thousands of miles of former rights of way that the public now enjoys as means of transportation and recreation. And lawsuits challenging the conversion of former rails to recreational trails alone may well cost American taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars.

Dissent at 8 (emphasis added).

What she was getting at, of course, was the fact — not stated anywhere in the majority opinion but made clear by the amicus briefs — that by holding that the interest granted was only an easement and did not revert to the United States…

Continue Reading Brandt: No Free Ride For Rails-To-Trails

Here are some reports and commentary on the Supreme Court’s opinion in Marvin M. Brandt Revocable Trust v. United States, No. 12-1173 (Mar. 10, 2014).

Continue Reading Brandt Round-Up