Eminent Domain Report

According to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the answer is a definitive yes. 

Generally speaking, Pullman abstention permits a federal court to stay a federal claim to allow a state court to resolve a state issue that could either eliminate or narrow the scope of the federal claim. In order to invoke Pullman abstention, the federal claim must also touch on a sensitive area of social policy and involve an undecided question of state law.

In Gearing v. City of Half Moon Bay, the Gearings asserted that under California’s Housing Crisis Act and California legislation passed ...

One of the issues that comes up frequently in eminent domain is whether the proceeds a property or business owner will receive from the government is treated as ordinary income, capital gains or is exempt from federal and/or state taxes. And when eminent domain attorneys get that question, they almost always start with the largely unhelpful response of “it depends.” But it really does depend on exactly what the money is, how the property was held, how the money will be used and whether we are talking about state or federal taxes. 

Now, I could spend a lot of time trying to walk through all ...

A recent article from Border Report, "Tijuana residents holding out for more money, slowing construction of border crossing," caught my attention.  Not only because we're advising on the border crossing project on the U.S. side, but also because it raises an interesting valuation issue.

According to the article, property owners in eastern Tijuana, where the new port of entry is going to be built, are holding up the project by demanding more money for their land.  Specifically, the owners want to be paid what the land will be worth once the border crossing is built instead of current value.  These increased payment demands ... 

Join us on November 16th from 1:00 to 2:00 p.m. PT as we discuss “Partial Acquisitions: Project Benefits and Mitigation Strategies Related to Offsetting Severance Damages.” We are excited to host this webinar along with our guest speakers, Alison Roach and Robert Caringella from Jones, Roach & Caringella, Inc.

During this webinar, we will provide:

• A legal primer on severance damages in partial acquisitions;
• An in-depth review of the legal standards granting condemning entities the ability to offset severance damages with project benefits; and
• An examination of case studies ...

Despite undertaking due diligence, a buyer of real estate may miss pre-existing property damage or a public improvement that was installed without permission or right.  Does the new buyer have a cause of action for a taking -- or inverse condemnation -- for such pre-existing conditions?  The answer is most likely no, as purchasing property does not include the transfer of a takings claim, which remains with the owner of the property absent a clear intent to assign the claim.  A recent case in Los Angeles Superior Court, Ncp Imperial v. State of California (2022 Cal. Super. LEXIS 60513), highlights ... 

Please join us on November 4^th as we present “Changes in the Law - Eminent Domain and Infrastructure Update” during the 2022 Right of Way Consultants Council’s (ROWCC) Fall Membership Meeting in Las Vegas, NV. During this session, we’ll discuss key U.S. cases and legislation, pending and adopted, from the last year that impact the eminent domain and right of way industries. Additionally, we will discuss ... 

Local government agencies sometimes enact short-term building moratoriums for certain areas to further assess changes in land use patterns or slow growth.  Those moratoriums imposed across a large area usually do not constitute a taking.  But what if a moratorium is imposed solely and specifically as to a singled-out property?  Does that moratorium give rise to a taking?  According to a recent court of appeal opinion, the answer is no, at least when that moratorium is imposed as a penalty against the property owner for violating local building codes.

Background

In Lemons v. City of Los ...

An update to our original 2011 post

As we have previously discussed, downzoning (changing the zoning designation for property from a more intensive use to a more restrictive use) can possibly rise to the level of a regulatory taking, depending on each individual situation. A recent case, FFV Coyote LLC v. City of San Jose, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 195036, analyzed this issue at the motion to dismiss stage and concluded that the plaintiffs had sufficiently plead a Fifth Amendment regulatory takings claim to survive a motion to dismiss.

Background

Plaintiffs own property in San Jose ...

When public projects are being constructed, surrounding property owners typically experience construction impacts, such as noise, dust, fumes, vibration and road detours.  Typically, absent a physical taking of property, those construction impacts are not compensable under an inverse condemnation claim unless the property owner experiences a direct, substantial, and peculiar impact.  While this has generally been the law in California for quite some time, a recent published California Court of Appeal decision, Today’s IV, Inc. v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan ...

In the most recent biannual report from the Real Estate Law Committee of the International Right of Way Association, we collaborated with Robert Thomas and Ajay Gajaria to examine numerous cases at local, state and federal levels from January to the end of May 2022 that are of interest for professionals in the right-of-way industry.

In the report we also take a brief look at pending, failed and adopted legislation, while also providing updates on federal funds that have been or have yet to be allocated through the recent Infrastructure Bill. The report also provides a breakdown of ...