BLOG: Condemnation Law
Underwater Mortgages – At the Bottom of the Sea?
Here is an excellent recent article on the propriety of attempting to use eminent domain to “take” underwater mortgages in various places around the country. Entitled “Eminent Domain for Underwater Mortgages: Already on the Way to the Bottom of the Sea of Bad Ideas” , our Owners Counsel of America colleague Dwight Merriam summarizes what’s wrong with... Read More
From the Virgin Islands – Quick Take Not Reviewable on Appeal
One way to imagine being on the island of St Thomas is to read an opinion of the Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands. This “vacation” is work related because it is a condemnation case. The case is Beachside Associates, LLC v. Virgin Islands Water and Power Authority and was published on June 30, 2015.... Read More
Horne v. Dept. of Agriculture: Private Property Rights Trump Government's Raisin Reserve
The U.S. Supreme Court (“SCOTUS”) recently delivered its decision in Horne v. Dept. of Agriculture on the issue of the reserve requirement for raisins under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 (“AMA”). Our fellow Owners Counsel colleagues from New York and California, Michael Rikon and Robert Thomas, have kept a close watch on the... Read More
Two Takings Approved Over Owners' Objections
Two recent decisions in New Jersey once again addressed good faith negotiations that are required of condemning authorities prior to commencing condemnation litigation. In County of Morris v. Randolph Town Center Assocs., L.P., the property owner appealed the lower’s court’s decision arguing that the condemning authority failed to fully disclose certain aspects of the project in its appraisal, and... Read More
Dropping the Ball: Another "Oops" Moment for the Condemnor
Last week, a New Jersey Superior Court judge granted a landowner’s summary judgment motion to dismiss the Township of Lakewood’s (“Township”) condemnation actions. In Tp. of Lakewood v. Garzo, the Township instituted four condemnation actions after designating areas as being “in need of” redevelopment. The Township initially believed that it had owned the subject properties... Read More
California Appellate Court Remands Case for Award of Fees and Costs to Owner's Counsel
Under California law, if the Court finds that the government’s final settlement offer was unreasonable and the property owner’s demand was reasonable, the Court is permitted to award the property owner its litigation expenses. So, after exchange of appraised valuations of $3.8M (government) and $10,875 (owner), the government offered to settle the case for $5M... Read More
Virginia DOT Verdict Reversed
Following up on our post here on the Ramsey v. Commissioner case, the Virginia Supreme Court recently reversed a jury verdict in favor of DOT that would have required the owner to repay a portion of the initial offer monies. The Court ruled that it was error for the trial court to have precluded the owner... Read More
Will the Latest New Jersey Supreme Court Property Rights Decision Revive the Redevelopment Market?
Last week, a divided New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that condemning agencies do not have to prove that properties within an area “in need of redevelopment” have a deleterious effect on the surrounding area in order for those properties to be taken via eminent domain. The 3-2 majority opinion, authored by Justice Barry Albin, concluded... Read More
Townsend v Pierre: Expert Opinion Fails Where Contrary to Undisputed Record Evidence
The New Jersey Supreme Court decided Townsend v. Pierre on March 12, 2015. It was not a condemnation case but is relevant to any civil litigation involving expert witnesses. The case arose out of a terrible accident involving a motorcycle and an automobile. The motorcycle t-boned the car and the motorcyclist died. The decedent’s estate brought... Read More
