We’re not going to pretend that we can actually read what the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico’s opinion in Administración de Terrenos de Puerto Rico v. Ponce Bayland Enterprises, Inc., No. CC-2019-212 (June 29, 2021) says. It’s in Spanish and we don’t know Spanish. Wish we did, truly.
But hey, that’s what Google Translate
Our thanks to our friends and colleagues at the ABA Section of Real Property, Probate & Trust Section’s Land Use and Environmental Group for inviting us to a discussion of the latest and greatest decisions of interest.
We only had an hour together, so naturally could not cover everything of interest (indeed, we reserved a
In which we pay a return visit to Clint Schumacher’s Eminent Domain Podcast to catch up with Clint about our new gig, Cedar Point (briefly, since the opinion came down the day we recorded the podcast), just compensation and attorneys’ fees, assessing severance damages in appraisals supporting jurisdictional offers, public use
More good takings news, hot off the press.
Before Cedar Point came down last week, we were all set to let you know about the Eleventh Circuit’s opinion in South Grande View Dev. Co., Inc. v City of Alabaster, No. 18-14044 (June 21, 2021), in which the court affirmed a jury verdict that
For your Monday reading, Amnon Lehavi, Temporary Eminent Domain, 69 Buff. L. Rev. 683 (2021). From the Abstract:
Times of emergency call for drastic measures. These steps may include the physical takeover of privately-owned assets by the government for a certain period of time and for various purposes, aimed at addressing the state of emergency. When will such acts amount to a taking, and what compensation should be paid to the property owner? How do temporary physical appropriations during times of emergency diverge, if at all, from temporary takeovers in more ordinary times?
The doctrinal and theoretical analysis of potential temporary takings has been done mostly in the context of non-physical government intervention with private property, such as when a local government imposes a temporary moratorium on land development until a certain condition is met. This Article focuses, however, on less investigated scenarios of temporary physical takeovers or other forms of government invasions. It seeks to identify the differences between a temporary invasion and a permanent occupation of property considered a per se taking under the Loretto rule. In so doing, this Article argues that while the alleged distinction between prevention of public harm and promotion of public benefit often proves untenable in evaluating whether a permanent government measure constitutes a taking, it might make more sense in exploring temporary acts.
Temporary eminent domain—referring here to various types of acts amounting to time-limited physical takings, even if not initially recognized as such by the government—may diverge from permanent eminent domain in yet another key element: identifying the basis for just compensation. Under long established (although often criticized) rules, compensation for a permanent taking is based on identifying the “fair market value” of the rights taken, while ignoring the effects that the public use for which the underlying asset is taken might have on the property’s long-term value.
The allegedly parallel metric used in the case of temporary takings,one of “fair rental value,” may often prove inadequate, both practically and normatively. This Article argues that because of unique aspects of temporary physical takings, legal rules on compensation should often seek to identify lost profits or actual damage. Moreover, in some cases, in which there is a direct relation between the pre-appropriation use of the asset and its post-appropriation use by the government, just compensation might also be based on a certain portion of the value of the public use. This is especially so when the time-sensitive value of the asset during such public use is particularly high. On this point, the Article offers an analogy to rules pertaining to compulsory licenses for patents.
Check it out.
Continue Reading New L. Rev. Article: “Temporary Eminent Domain”
Here’s the latest in a case we’ve been following. It’s not exactly a “new” cert petition, but one which we missed when it was filed back in February.
This one comes up via the Court of Federal Claims and the Federal Circuit, with the latter vacating the CFC’s award of partial compensation
You might think that a statute the legislature adopted to allow more recovery than under constitutional takings law, that requires the DOT to pay landowners whose lands abut a change-of-grade project for the value of “any damages to said lands occasioned by such change of grade,” would include the situation where the DOT converted a
A private pipeline did what pipelines often do: it started negotiating with property owners for the property needed, but at the same time pressed forward. It reached agreement with some owners, others not. It filed “expropriation” lawsuits (for it is in Louisiana that our scene lies). It started to build, even before judgments of expropriation.
Two very interesting law review articles (essays) by well-known property experts are now available in the Notre Dame Law Review:
Like a lot of jurisdictions, Kentucky allows (or requires upon demand) the jury to view property being taken by eminent domain. In Kentucky, it’s a matter of statute, which requires the court to allow a jury view upon the demand of any party, unless “unusual or extreme circumstances” are present.
