Just Compensation | Appraisal

Subscribe to Just Compensation | Appraisal via RSS

ALI-CLE-2016-masthead

We’re now only a bit more than two weeks away from the 2016 Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation – Condemnation 101 Conference, which runs from January 28-30, 2016, in Austin, Texas. 

As we’ve noted here earlier, we think that this is going to be a fantastic conference that will cover a lot of ground, and the hot topics of the day. Here’s the full agenda for the program. If you are not familiar with the conference or have not attended recently, we’ve undergone some formatting changes lately, but are still bringing the best faculty and topics to bear. Here’s a summary of last year’s San Francisco conference, to give you an idea of how we’ve updated the programs, while keeping the best elements and traditions unchanged.  

This is the first time the conference has been held in Austin, and thus far, the registration figures are doing exceedingly…

Continue Reading ALI-CLE Eminent Domain Conference, Austin, TX – Nearly Here, But There’s Still Time To Register

An interesting post at Honolulu journalist Ian Lind’s blog, “City’s explanation of discrepancies in real property tax assessments don’t satisfy,” commenting on a recent piece in the Honolulu Star-Advertiser about the City and County of Honolulu’s method for appraising residences for property tax purposes (“Home price, taxable value can diverge“). 

If appraisal of real property is more art than science, then appraisal of property for property tax purposes is more like graffiti than art.Continue Reading City’s “Mass Valuation” For Property Taxes

Another one in our year-end opinion rush.

In Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University v. Villavaso, No. 2014-CA-1277 (Dec. 23, 2015), the Louisiana Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s view of just compensation after a bench trial, in a case about LSU’s taking of property being used for a parking lot in New Orleans. The court concluded that the verdict was a choice between the property owner’s appraiser and LSU’s, which was “a pure credibility call.” Slip op. at 9. And you know what that means when an appellate court says such things: affirmed.

The court also upheld the verdict regarding business losses, and the lower court’s ruling that the owner was entitled to compensation both for the taking of the land, as well as the value of the parking business. Same result on LSU’s claim that the trial judge erroneously prohibited one of LSU’s…

Continue Reading La App: Trial Court’s Ruling On Value “A Pure Credibility Call”

S062766

Here’s one in which we’ve been waiting for the ball to drop, since we filed an amicus brief in the case. Unfortunately, the result in State of Oregon v. Alderwoods (Oregon), Ltd., No. SC062766 (Dec. 31, 2015) wasn’t as hoped for, but looking for silver linings, was a lot less bad than it could have been.

Bottom line is that the Oregon Supreme Court concluded that a property owner does not have a right of direct access to a highway, only a right of reasonable access. Thus, when a project to improve Highway 99 cut off Alderwoods’ driveways on Highway 99, it was not a taking of access because Alderwoods still had access to Highway 99 via a driveway on Warner Avenue:

The above cases demonstrate three governing principles regarding the common-law right of access of a property owner to an abutting public road. First, it is well…

Continue Reading Oregon: Cutting Off Direct Highway Access Is OK, Provided Property Isn’t Totally Landlocked

ALI-CLE-2016-masthead

Here’s our second day of highlights from the upcoming American Law Institute-CLE Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation / Condemnation 101 Conference, which will be held in Austin, Texas, from January 28-30, 2016.  

This is the first time the conference has been to Austin, and we’re hoping for a good turnout. Here’s the full agenda for the program. 

  • We especially focused on the ethics component this year, and are looking forward to the session on “Ethics: Tips and Traps for the Eminent Domain Practitioner” at the first plenary session on the second day, taught by Jamila A. Johnson (Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt, Seattle), Robert B. Neblett, (Jackson Walker L.L.P., Austin). and Joseph V. Sherman (Waldo & Lyle, P.C., Norfolk, Virginia). 
  • Pipeline takings are a huge issue, and we’ve got the lawyers on the very tip of the spear on these cases. “Pipelines and Energy

…
Continue Reading More On The Upcoming ALI-CLE Eminent Domain Conference (Austin, Jan 28-30, 2016)

ALI-CLE-2016-masthead

We’re exactly one month away from the 2016 Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation / Condemnation 101 Conference, which runs from January 28-30, 2016, in Austin, Texas. 

Together with our friends and colleagues Joe Waldo, Jack Sperber, and Andrew Brigham, we think we’re put together a pretty good program that covers a lot of ground. This is the first time the conference has been to Austin, and we’re hoping for a good turnout. 

Here’s the full agenda for the program. 

If you have not already signed up, there is more than enough room, and there’s still time.

If you haven’t yet pulled the trigger, we’d like to convince you to come. So over the next few days, we’re going to be posting highlights from the agenda, featuring our stellar faculty.

  • We’ll start off with a talk welcoming us to the city by Austin Mayor Steve Adler

…
Continue Reading Counting Down To The ALI-CLE Eminent Domain Conference (Austin, Jan 28-30, 2016)

A quick one from the Georgia Court of Appeals. In Fincher Road Investments, LLLP v. City of Canton, No. A15A1290 (Nov. 13, 2015), the court held that a condemnee was entitled to recover attorneys’ fees and costs when the condemnor abandoned a taking, and was entitled to recover just compensation for the temporary cloud which the condemnation placed on the property.

This started as a quick-take, and the City deposited $787,400 with the court, after which the court declared that the City had title. The owner objected to the taking itself, and to the amount of compensation. After the court denied the owner’s petition to set aside the taking, the owner appealed. The court of appeals held the trial court should have considered certain facts about the timing of notice of the condemnation. When the case was remanded, the City told the trial court it no longer wanted the…

Continue Reading Ga App: Property Owner Entitled To Temporary Takings Damages In Addition To Attorneys’ Fees When Condemnor Drops Case

Here’s the recently-published brochure with more details about the ALI-CLE Eminent Domain and Land Valuation LItigation conference, set for Austin in January 2016. 

In the coming days and weeks, we’ll be posting more details about the conference. Our co-planning chairs Joe Waldo, Jack Sperber, and Andrew Brigham have assembled a great agenda, taught by the usual stellar faculty. If eminent domain, appraisal, or land use is your thing, you really should attend. 

33d Annual ALI-CLE Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation Conference, Jan. 28-30, 2016, Austin, TX

Continue Reading ALI-CLE Eminent Domain And Land Valuation Conference: Full Brochure

Here’s the amicus brief we filed today on behalf of our Owners’ Counsel of America colleagues in Livingston v. Frank, No. 15-470 (cert. petition filed Oct. 9, 2015). That’s the case in which the Florida District Court of Appeal held that the interest generated by quick-take deposits is not the private property of the condemnee, and therefore it is not a taking when the clerk of the court gives 90% of the interest to the condemnor.

Our brief argues that the Florida court rewrote the rules of who owns the deposit in order to save the statute which allows the clerk to give the interest on the deposit to the condemnor. There’s a strong “judicial takings” flavor to the brief, even though we don’t think it’s necessary for the Court to go down that path expressly in order to take the case and reverse.  

Here’s the Summary…

Continue Reading New SCOTUS Amicus Brief: There’s No IOU’s In Eminent Domain – Quick-Take Deposit Belongs To The Property Owner

As we noted here, the government is taking the property belonging to a Nevada family which is immediate adjacent to the infamous super-secret “Area 51” site.

For more details on the story, read “The Unlikely Struggle of The Family Whose Neighbor is Area 51.” It tells the history of the property, the alleged past misdeeds of the government, and the family’s current eminent domain struggles which are now in the valuation phase. It’s a great read.

The most interesting tidbit? The family’s lawyers have demanded a jury trial. In a federal taking.  We all know that you don’t get a jury in a federal condemnation. But why not? The demand for a jury isn’t necessarily a crazy one, as this other case — which also seeks a jury in a federal inverse condemnation action — shows.  

For more, see this story from the Las Vegas Sun.Continue Reading Valuation And “The Area 51” Taking