Update: More thoughts from Rick Rayl and Brad Kuhn (California Eminent Domain Report) here.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Here’s a decision at the intersection of eminent domain valuation and unconstitutional exactions from the California Court of Appeal (Fourth District). In City of Perris v. Stamper, No. E053395 (Aug. 9, 2013) the court held that…
Whoa, that was fast: in a case argued on August 2, 2013, and decided on August 9, 2013 (that’s one week from orals to opinion, folks), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Village of Maineville v. Salt Run, LLC, No. 12-4379 (Aug. 9, 2013), held that the property owner/plaintiff forfeited*…
Today’s the first day of the ABA Annual Meeting in San Francisco, so we haven’t had time to do more than scan the Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, filed yesterday in San Francisco federal court, challenging the plans of Mortgage Resolution Partners and the City of Richmond, California to take underwater mortgages by…
From The Mayor (G): we’re “[t]aking these troubled loans off the hands of the [predatory] banks … and we’re paying them fair market value.” The video just gives you a whole lot of confidence that they know what they’re doing, does’t it?
The elephant in the room Her Honor doesn’t address about one big reason…
That story about Richmond, California starting down the path of using eminent domain to take underwater mortgages is taking on a life of its own. Here’s the latest.
Before we bombard you with links to the most recent commentary and stories, here’s some backstory. Remember how we said this was taking on an “Occupy” flavor…
Here’s what we’re reading today:
…
Update: Here’s more from the San Francisco Chronicle. As you read this and other stories on the issue, this begins to take on an “occupy” tone and a let’s-stick-it-to-the greedy-lenders flavor. Not a good sign for a considered use of eminent domain.
————————————————————–
Like a visiting relative, the proposal to…
Remember that decision by the California Court of Appeal which held that the City of San Jose’s “inclusionary housing” exaction was subject only to low-level scrutiny and not the nexus-and-proportionality requirment?
Well, after Koontz, you should not be surprised that the decision has been taken to the next higher level and the California Building…
More about Horne v. USDA. More here, from Reason (who produced the video).
Here’s the Complaint in the case mentioned.
This really was a “blockbuster” Term for the Supreme Court and takings law: no less than three cases (and four, maybe five, if you expand it slightly to include property-owner favorable cases such as Lozman and last term’s Sackett), and as Gideon Kanner noted recently, the CLE sessions are flying fast and furiously.
