▪ Inverse Condemnation, Eminent Domain, and Development Agreements

West Hawaii Today has posted a story on an ongoing eminent domain case:

Counsel for the developer William Meheula Jr. said inverse condemnation can only be proven if the defendants admit that the government is taking possession of the private property for a public purpose. The Coupe case claims the lack of public purpose for taking the 3-acre strip of land for the highway.

Meheula said Oceanside was not opposing the Coupe's claims regarding public purpose and would address those during the trial, but said it was not appropriate to argue inverse condemnation at the same time.

However, Robert Thomas, counsel for the defendants, who counter sued the county to block the eminent domain proceedings, said there are no Hawaii Supreme Court cases that can be used to support Meheula's claims.

If they do not prevail, the Coupe's attorneys are also arguing "blight of summons damages," which compensates a landowner in a condemnation action for the damages resulting from the government's delay in paying the full cash equivalent of the property taken on the day of summons.

Full story here (free registration may be required).