Just Compensation | Appraisal

Subscribe to Just Compensation | Appraisal via RSS

Here’s the transcript of Wednesday’s argument in Arkansas Game & Fish Comm’n v. United States, No. 11-597 (cert. granted Apr. 2, 2012).

BLUF (Bottom Line Up Front): we’re predicting the property owner win with a minimum six-Justice majority (perhaps more), with a narrowly drawn opinion vacating the Federal Circuit’s conclusion that temporary flooding can never be a taking. Whether the Court adopts a new test to determine whether a taking occured when the government purposefully floods land, however, is up in the air.

The petitioner was represented by James Goodhart, who led off the argument by attacking the Federal Circuit’s conclusion, arguing for a rule that a taking occurs whenever a “direct physical invasion” results in a “substantial intrusion” on a property interest, and that the duration of the invasion is not relevant. That’s a restatement of the existing per se rule that any physical invasion that…

Continue Reading Of Picnics And Floods: Oral Arguments In SCOTUS Takings Case, Part I

In the op-ed piece “Eminently reasonable,” Brooklyn lawprof David Reiss writes that “using the power of eminent domain to restructure underwater mortgages is constitutional, beneficial and administratively feasible.”

Local governments across the country are considering an innovative use of eminent domain. They propose to condemn underwater mortgages (those that exceed the fair-market value of the home) in their communities and restructure them so that home­owners can afford their payments and so that the new mortgage is for less than the fair market value of the property. If this proposal is implemented, the local government will pay the owner of mortgages of “underwater” homes the fair market value for the mortgages. The local government will then restructure each mortgage by reducing the principal amount owed to be in line with a mortgage that would be appropriate for the fair market value of the home. This will result in lower…

Continue Reading “Eminently Reasonable,” Or Desperate Times Breed Desperate Measures?

August 31, 2012 was a big day in the Texas Supreme Court for takings and condemnation lawyers. The court issued three major opinions in our favorite area of law. The first involves a question of public use, the second inverse condemnation, and the third valuation. Trifecta.

Instead of putting our gloss on the opinions, we’ll just post them and excerpts of the summaries from the Supreme Court of Texas Blog.

  • City of Austin v. Whittingthon, No. 10-0316 – From the Supreme Court of Texas Blog: “This is a potentially major takings case about when government can take property for private (rather than public) benefit. The City of Austin took a parcel of land in downtown that was, in short order, folded into a private development. A jury concluded that this taking was made in bad faith, and the court of appeals agreed. Divided 7-2, the Texas Supreme

…
Continue Reading Big Takings Day In The Texas Supreme Court

Today’s American Banker has a story on the latest development in the let’s-use-eminent-domain-to-take-underwater-mortgages scheme: the Federal Housing Finance Agency has sent a strong shot across the bow of local governments contemplating such a move (e.g., San Bernadino, Chicago, even Berkeley):

Uh, don’t.

Full statement here, or below. The American Banker story is unfortunately behind a paywall, so we can’t bring it to you here, but we do have the highlights from a trio of Owners’ Counsel of America commentators who are quoted, us included:

“San Bernardino County cannot condemn federal property,” said Gideon Kanner, professor of law emeritus at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles and a longtime eminent domain expert. The FHFA is “a federal agency and the Feds can take the property of a state or city but the state or a local entity cannot take federal property.”

Robert Thomas, an attorney at the…

Continue Reading “Hey Look, Free Money!” Fed Agency Has Problems With The Plan To Take Underwater Mortgages

This past week was the ABA Annual Meeting in Chicago. These things can often be endurance contests where you’re rushing from one meeting to another (is this the Executive Committee meeting or the Council meeting?), and it’s often hard to tell the players without a scorecard.

Sprinkled among these unexciting-but-productive sessions are the real meat of the Annual Meeting, the CLE sessions. Some are interesting and fun (but pretty useless as CLE). Others are timely. Some are just plain weird. But never let it be said that the State and Local Government Law Section (the one that we are active in) doesn’t put on relevant programming: two of the featured CLE’s this past week were of particular interest to our readers, one about eminent domain, and the other about the takings case currently pending before the U.S. Supreme Court (which will be argued on October 3, 2012).…

Continue Reading Summary Of Flood Takings CLE – Lawprofs And Lawyers Discuss Pending SCOTUS Case

20120803_134704
Here are the cases and links that I discussed at today’s ABA session on eminent domain:

  • Kelo – Remember the holding of the case: the Court majority rejected the petitioners’ call to adopt a blanket rule that all takings supported only by claims of economic development violate the Public Use Clause of the Fifth Amendment. In declining to adopt the rule, the Court left open challenges based on lack of a comprehensive plan, claims that the advanced public use is a pretext to hide a predominant private purpose, and the old “A-to-B” private taking.
  • City of Stockton v. Marina Towers LLC (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) – The case in which the court held that the city’s resolution of necessity was so “nondescript [and] amorphous,” and “so vague, uncertain and sweeping in scope that it failed to specific the ‘public use’ for City sought acquisition of the property.”

…
Continue Reading Resources From Today’s ABA Eminent Domain Session

For those who listened in to the just-concluded “Recent Developments in Eminent Domain” teleconference, thank you. Here are the links to the cases and briefs that we discussed that were not included in your written materials. Also, click on the link above to order the audio CD of the program if you missed out.

  • Are interlocutory public use determinations immediately appealable? Some courts say no. Others say yes. 
  • More on the California Supreme Court’s opinion validating the legislature’s elimination of redevelopment agencies. Follow the issue at the California Eminent Domain Report. 

Continue Reading Links From Today’s Eminent Domain Teleconference