Navigation

Archive | Eminent Domain Abuse

August 7, 2014

Second Department Precludes Interior Appraisal Inspection

Recently, we blogged about a California case, Property Reserve, Inc. v. Superior Court, 224 Cal. App. 4th Dept 828 (2014), wherein the California Third District of Appeal ruled that entry statues which allowed discovery , testing, and inspection of property which was being considered in a condemnation proceeding were unconstitutional. The case was also the subject of a recent New York Law Journal article published on June 24, 2014. New York has very similar pre-condemnation entry authorizations in its Eminent Domain Procedure Law. The column noted that Property Reserve did not… read more

By
Posted in Condemnation Procedures, Eminent Domain Abuse, Entry Statutes, New York, Recent cases
Read more > 0

June 27, 2014

New York City to the Rescue- Council Members Seek to Use Eminent Domain to Condemn Underwater Mortgages

At a press conference on the steps of City Hall, City Council members and housing advocacy groups called on the Mayor to help homeowners who are at risk of foreclosure. Such help would come in the form of using eminent domain to “buy back mortgages where homeowners owe more than their houses are worth.” According to a CBS report on June 25, 2014, “under the proposed plan, City government would purchase the mortgages from banks and refinance them to match the home’s value to prevent foreclosure.” According to the report,… read more

By
Posted in Continuing Legal Education, Eminent Domain Abuse, Future of the law, Mortgage seizures, New York, Uncategorized
Read more > 0

June 26, 2014

California Supreme Court Grants Review in Property Reserve Case

In our June 5, 2014 posting we reported a significant California Case, Property Reserve, Inc v Superior Court, 224 Cal. App. 4th 828 (2014). In Property Reserve, the Third District California Court of Appeal ruled that entry statutes are unconstitutional when the activities for which entry is sought constitute an intentional taking of property without the full protections offered by a condemnation action. For separate reasons, the Court of Appeal found that both the geological and environmental studies would effect a taking or intentional damage of property; thus the filing… read more

By
Posted in Eminent Domain, Eminent Domain Abuse, Entry Statutes, Future of the law
Read more > 0

June 19, 2014

Condemnors Acting Badly, Another Installment

It is a straight forward concept. If you exercise your power of eminent domain, you must, under our Federal and State Constitutions, pay just compensation. Section 101 of the Eminent Domain Procedure Law (“EDPL”) states that it is the purpose of the EDPL “to assure that just compensation shall be paid to the persons whose property rights are acquired by the exercise of the power of eminent domain.” The same provision requires payments to property owners to be expedited. The policy, set forth in section 301 requires the condemnor to… read more

By
Posted in Eminent Domain Abuse, Title vesting, Trade fixtures, Valuation
Read more > 2

June 5, 2014

California Court of Appeals Holds Entry Statute Unconstitutional

In a recent case, Property Reserve, Inc. v Superior Court, 224 Cal.App.4th 828 (2014), the Third District California Court of Appeal ruled that entry statutes are unconstitutional when the activities for which the entry is sought constitute an intentional taking of property without the full protections afforded by a condemnation action. More specifically, the Court ruled that the pre-entry condemnation statutes, (found in Code of Civil Procedure sections 1245.010 et seq.) violate the takings provisions of article I, section 19 of the California Constitution. These entry statutes were enacted in 1976 and… read more

By
Posted in Challenging condemnation, Eminent Domain, Eminent Domain Abuse, Future of the law, Recent cases
Read more > 0