Just Compensation | Appraisal

Subscribe to Just Compensation | Appraisal via RSS

Do you really need an excuse to visit Seattle? If you do, and want to earn some CLE credit while you’re at it, check it out the brochure for the upcoming Eminent Domain seminar on May 18, 2017. This is a one-day program that focuses on the hot topics in our area of law. We’ll be speaking about “Changes in National Public Policy” and the latest developments in eminent domain and takings law. 

Agenda and full registration information here. 

Come, join us. 

7th Annual Eminent Domain Seminar, Seattle, Washington, May 18, 2017 

Continue Reading Seattle Eminent Domain Conference, May 18, 2017

Here’s the third amicus brief filed in support of our cert petition in Bay Point Properties, Inc. v. Mississippi Transportation Commission, a case asking whether the Just Compensation Clause prohibits a court from instructing an inverse condemnation jury that it must value taken property as if it was burdened by a highway easement which the jury found as a matter of fact had been abandoned. 

This brief was submitted by a stellar group of public interest organizations and legal scholars: Cato Institute, the NFIB Small Business Legal Center, Reason Foundation, Southwest Legal Foundation, NARPO (the National Association of Reversionary Property Owners), the Property Rights Foundation of America, and Professor James Ely (property and easement expert), Shelley Ross Saxer (land use and takings), and Ilya Somin (eminent domain, among other subjects).

The brief, authored by Thor Hearne and his Federal Takings team, Cato’s Ilya Shapiro, and…

Continue Reading SCOTUS Amicus Brief: Forcing The Jury To Pretend A Terminated Easement Still Encumbered Land Violated Just Comp Clause

Here’s another amici brief (on behalf of the Virginia Institute for Public Policy, and Owners’ Counsel of America, authored by takings/SCOTUS superstar Michael Berger) supporting the cert petition we filed last month which asks the U.S. Supreme Court to review a decision of the Mississippi Supreme Court. Here’s the amicus brief which Pacific Legal Foundation filed earlier. 

This post has the background on the case and issues.

The VIPP/OCA brief argues:

1. It is important for the Court to reassert the primacy of federal law as determining the baseline protection provided to private property owners by the 5th and 14th Amendments. Although the issue should not be at large, a number of courts — as exemplified by the Mississippi Supreme Court — are seeking to secure for themselves the right and the power to redefine property in such a way as to confiscate private property for the use of…

Continue Reading Another Amici Brief Supporting SCOTUS Cert Petition: “Ordering The Jury to Return A Verdict For Peanuts Instead Of Millions” Violates Just Comp Clause

Here’s the amicus brief, filed yesterday by Pacific Legal Foundation is support of the cert petition we filed last month which asks the U.S. Supreme Court to review a decision of the Mississippi Supreme Court.

First, some background. In 2005, Hurricane Katrina destroyed “Toll Project No. 1,” the U.S. Highway 90 crossing of Bay St. Louis, Mississippi. The bridge had been partially built on Petitioner Bay Point’s property pursuant to a highway-purpose easement granted to the State in 1952 by Bay Point’s predecessor-in-title. After the hurricane, the Mississippi Transportation Commission removed what was left of the bridge. The destruction of the bridge and the removal of the remnants discontinued the specific use authorized by the easement, and Bay Point should have immediately recovered unencumbered possession. Instead, MTC built an entirely new bridge in a different location, and converted the majority of the former highway easement into a public recreational park.…

Continue Reading New SCOTUS Amicus Brief: Just Compensation Is Determined By Courts, Not Legislatures

When most jurisdictions reacted to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S 469 (2005), they — naturally being aghast at the result — adopted legislation that either purported to make it easier on landowners, or harder on condemnors. Understandable, as the public uproar which Kelo caused has yet to settle down completely even a decade later.

But not Louisiana. Oh no, that state’s legislature apparently decided that Kelo was a good opportunity to make it harder for a property owner to recover compensation. We’re not even going to pretend to understand all that is going on in South Lafourche Levee District v. Jarreau, No. 2016-C-0788 (Mar. 31, 2017),  with its differences between “expropriation” and “appropriation,” compensation measured by “full extent of the loss” versus merely “just compensation,” and the like. Louisiana, after all, can be a whole ‘nother brand of law, sometimes.…

Continue Reading La: “Something is wrong” – Post-Kelo Amendments Reduced Compensation For Levee Servitudes From “Full Extent Of The Loss” To Fair Market Value

Another one (short) from the Kansas Supreme Court, this time a straight takings case, and not inverse condemnation. 

In Pener v. King, No. 114850 (Mar. 24, 2017), the court tackled several issues in a case involving KDOT’s taking of land for highway project. Part of the taking required KDOT to take down the owner’s fences. The owner argued that he should be separately compensated for the cost to replace the fencing. The Supreme Court held that the just comp award included the fencing, and that it wasn’t a separately value taking. The “unit rule” means that property is valued as a whole, not piece by piece. 

The court also rejected the owner’s argument that the just compensation verdict wasn’t supported by the evidence (we will let you read that on your own, if interested), and then concluded by affirming the trial court’s denial of an award of attorneys’…

Continue Reading Kansas: Cost Of Replacing Fence On Condemned Property Isn’t Separate, But Part Of Just Comp Award

2012-02-06_11-19-58_634

Here’s a case you should be following which involves both public use and just comp issues, now before the Louisiana Supreme Court.

The case is an appeal in an expropriation case from a quick-take of a Mississippi River docking facility downriver from New Orleans. The Port took the entire VDP facility, made no change in how the property was used, and eventually turned over operation of the facility to a “hand-picked” private operator.

In St. Bernard Port, Harbor & Terminal District v. Violet Dock Port, Inc., LLC, No. 2016-CA-0096 (La. Ct. App. Dec. 14, 2016), the Louisiana Court of Appeals, over a strong dissent, rejected the owner’s arguments that the Port could not take the property for economic development, the taking was for private benefit, and the argument that the Port was really taking the property in order to obtain VDP’s contracts with the Navy. The court also…

Continue Reading Eminent Domain Case To Watch: Violet Dock Port (Louisiana S Ct)

West Virginia Dep’t of  Transportation v. Newton, No. 16-0325 (Mar. 7, 2017) was the second time that case had come before the West Virginia Supreme Court. As we noted here (“DOT Should Not Have Mined Privately Owned Limestone Without Owner’s Permission“), the court held that the the Department of Highways should have instituted eminent domain proceedings before it started removing Ms. Newton’s limestone from her land. After she prevailed in her mandamus action, WVDOH did so. 

As a result of the condemnation action, Newton was awarded nearly $1 million in compensation, and $250k in attorneys’ fees for the mandamus and condemnation actions under the Uniform Relocation Act, which is incorporated into West Virginia law. The URA provides for fee shifting when an owner is forced to initiate a claim for compensation.

WVDOH appealed, arguing that hey, we condemned Newton’s property (after she won her mandamus action), so…

Continue Reading W Va: Relocation Act Attorneys’ Fees Required Where Owner Sues To Compel Condemnation

Can there be a more “Florida” name for a municipality than “Sunny Isles Beach?” Opinion may differ of course, but we think this one may take the prize.

That diversion aside, here’s today’s case. In City of Sunny Isles Beach v. Cavalry Corp., No. 3D15-1420 (Jan. 25, 2017), the Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed an eminent domain judgment and an award of just compensation, concluding that the trial court was within its discretion when it allowed the landowner to present evidence of “conceptual” site plans to establish the property’s highest and best use.

The city took property for a bridge, and “[f]or all the years since the current owner acquired title to the property and before, there has been no effort by an owner to develop the canal property.” Slip op. at 3. But at trial, the owner “contended at trial, based upon conceptual site plans prepared by one of its…

Continue Reading Fla App: Highest And Best Use Doesn’t Require Owner Have More Than “Conceptual Plans”

Here’s the cert petition we filed today in an eminent domain case out of Mississippi. 

Rather than go on about what the case is about, here are the Questions Presented:

An inverse condemnation jury determined the Mississippi Transportation Commission (MTC) ceased using a highway-purpose easement granted to it in 1952 by Petitioner’s predecessor-in-title for a specific bridge, “Toll Project No. 1,” the U.S. Highway 90 crossing of Bay St. Louis. In 2005, Hurricane Katrina destroyed the bridge. MTC removed Toll Project No. 1 and built an entirely new bridge in a different location, and converted the majority of Petitioner’s land into a public recreational park. This discontinued the specific use authorized by the easement, and Petitioner should have immediately recovered unencumbered possession. The jury determined MTC’s new uses were not highway purposes within the 1952 easement, and MTC had taken Petitioner’s property. The court, however, instructed the jury to calculate…

Continue Reading New SCOTUS Just Comp Cert Petition: Can Jury Value Property As If Burdened By Extinguished Easement?