Eminent Domain Report

As an eminent domain attorney, a litigated outcome nearly always comes with the satisfaction (or devastation) of realizing that you have won or lost.  Sure, sometimes the jury splits (in fact, that probably happens most of the time), but the result can be placed in the context of the settlement negotiations that took place leading to the trial.

A verdict much better than the settlement possibility feels like a "win" and a verdict much worse than an offered settlement understandably feels like a "loss."  It's really pretty simple.

But I have not had enough decisions to have empirical ...

If you've ever watched the show Shark Tank on ABC, you know that many individuals value their businesses much higher than their business' numbers suggest.  It's human nature:  you focus on the upside and tend to ignore the blemishes or risk areas.  As Kevin O'Leary -- "Mr. Wonderful" -- would say, the numbers tell the story, because it's all about the money. 

Mr. Wonderful's it's-all-about-the-numbers concept also holds true in the valuation of businesses in the eminent domain context:  the jury's task is supposed to be a sober inquiry into values, ignoring ...

Yes!  And two separate groups recently learned this fact the hard way.  On April 17, the Eastern District of California issued two separate decisions dismissing two separate inverse condemnation claims with prejudice because the plaintiffs did not have an independent property interest in the subject property.  In Abarca v. Merck & Co. (E.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2012) Case No. 1:07-cv-0388, a group of minor plaintiffs and a group of non-owner landscape plaintiffs filed an action against the County of Merced, the Merced Irrigation District, and Merced Drainage District ...

My partner Brad Kuhn and I spoke yesterday at the IRWA Chapter 1 Valuation Conference.  Our topic involved large-scale acquisitions, and what makes them different from a typical, single-parcel acquisition.  As always, the Conference was well attend.  And as always, both the panelists and the audience are made up of a great cross-section of the top right of way practitioners in Southern California.  This mix often leads to some great discussions -- and yesterday was no exception.

One of the questions that arose during our presentation involved the fairly recent requirement that agencies ...

About two years ago, I embarked on a path to start blogging about eminent domain issues.  At the time, I didn't read a lot of blogs (OK, I probably didn't ready any blogs).  I also had little idea where the path would lead me, and I certainly had no clue what it might mean for my practice. 

Now, I follow several other blogs and have a much better sense about how it all works.  So much so, apparently, that I've been asked to sit on a panel at an upcoming PLI Conference Lawyers' Guide to Using Social Media for Professional and Client Development 2012.  Truth be told, I'm inclined to think that all the ...

It's common practice for government agencies and property owners to reach an agreement on the acquisition of property without the use of eminent domain.  Agencies understand the negative connotation of condemnation, along with the litigation costs involved, and right-of-way agents typically make strong efforts to negotiate a voluntary purchase.  Acquisitions are usually resolved by the parties' entering into a standard right of way contract or purchase agreement.  But once the eminent domain action is filed, attorneys like to resolve the case through the entry of judgment -- as ...

The demise of redevelopment world tour continues!  Gale's been speaking away up north at the IRWA, the Appraisal Institute, and various other organizations, and Rick and I have been trying to do our part to keep up down here in Southern California.  So, here we go again -- this time down in San Diego, and we hope you'll join us.  We promise to use some new materials and give some updates on the status of pending clean-up legislation and how the redevelopment agency winding up process is playing out in California. 

The details:  we'll be speaking to the San Diego Chapter of the International ...

A few months ago, I had a property owner call me and explain he had recently sold his property to a utility company under threat of eminent domain.  He took the sale proceeds and invested the money in a comparable replacement property.  When he applied to transfer his Proposition 13 base year value to the replacement property, the County assessor denied his request.  The assessor explained that because the sale under threat of eminent domain was not to a public entity, it did not fall within the exception that allows for a transfer of the base year value.

I was a bit surprised by the assessor's ...

By now, loyal followers of this blog are well versed in the whys and wherefores of redevelopment's demise.  You know all about the 30+ year struggle between the state and cities over allocation of property tax revenues.  The impact on the State's budget caused by Proposition 98, the creation of ERAFs and Propositions 1A and 22 in the new millennium are by now old hat.  You can recount by heart the story of the rise and fall of the alternative voluntary redevelopment program that was ABx1 27 and the Supreme Court’s decision in California Redevelopment Assn v. Matosantos.

But what does all of ...

 Here's some news making headlines this week in the eminent domain community:

• The Base Year Transfer Rule Under Threat of Eminent Domain:  A new published California Court of Appeal decision -- Duea v. County of San Diego -- came out yesterday addressing whether a property owner can transfer their base year value to a replacement property when the owner sells its property to a private developer under threat of eminent domain.  The Court held that the owner had some procedural missteps which doomed the case, but also went on to hold that this type of transfer does not qualify for a base year ...