Just Compensation | Appraisal

Subscribe to Just Compensation | Appraisal via RSS

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

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

Here are the other two amicus briefs in support of the petitioner in River Center LLC v. Dormitory Auth. of the State of New York, No. 11-922 (cert. petition filed Jan. 23, 2012).

That’s 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…

Continue Reading Amicus Briefs In Manhattan Just Compensation Case

Today, on behalf of Owners’ Counsel of America, we filed this amicus brief in River Center LLC v. Dormitory Auth. of the State of New York, No. 11-922.

Did you know that when the U.S. Supreme Court began applying the rights in the Bill of Rights to the states (aka “selective incorporation”) that it started with the Just Compensation Clause? See Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. City of Chicago, 166 U.S. 226 (1897). Was that a sign that the Court believed the right to the “full and perfect equivalent” in value when property is taken “for public use” is more important than other rights in the Bill of Rights? Maybe not, but it is a reminder than a vast majority of eminent domain cases do not involve the Public Use issues that have captured the public’s attention in the wake of Kelo v. City…

Continue Reading New Amicus Brief: A Property Owner Need Not Have Development Plans To Show Highest And Best Use

Today’s post is authored by colleague Thor Hearne, who regularly represents property owners in the Court of Federal Claims, the Federal Circuit, and the Supreme Court. He recently joined us on the faculty of the ALI-ABA eminent domain program in San Diego, and spoke at the 2011 Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Conference in Beijing.

He’s familiar to our readers who have followed his success in “rails to trails” cases in the CFC. Thor reports on the latest developments in those cases below.

———————————————————————————————————-

Last week, Senior Judge Loren A. Smith of the Court of Federal Claims issued his opinion in the Trails Act taking case, Buford v. United States, __ Fed. Cl. ___ (Slip Op. February 7, 2012), 2012 WL 401607. Judge Smith’s decision was the 16th decision from this Court in the past year finding the government liable for taking citizens’ land underlying an abandoned railroad…

Continue Reading Guest Post: DOJ’s Rails-to-Trails Strategy Fails

Most of the cert petitions about eminent domain in recent years have focused on the “public use” side of the equation, and not on the “just compensation” side. That’s not surprising, since the Kelo issue (the power to take) has been the object of intense public interest, so much so that as eminent domain lawyers, we no longer pass under the public radar. (We say “most” since there have been a few petitions on the compensation issue, all denied. Here for example.)

But now comes this cert petition (River Center LLC v. The Dormitory Authority of the State of New York, No. 11-922 (cert. petition filed Jan. 23, 2012)) which presents three questions focused directly on the Just Compensation Clause. It’s a case we’ve been following as it worked its way up through the New York state court system, and it is now ripe for U.S. Supreme Court …

Continue Reading New Cert Petition: Just Compensation For Development Potential, Inequitable Precondemnation Activities