Takings

Arkansas Game & Fish Comm’n v. United States, 637 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011), held that deviations by the Army Corps of Engineers from a flood management plan that resulted in temporary flooding of riverfront property did not constitute a taking of property without just compensation but might constitute a tort for which compensation could be sought. The flood management plan exists because the riverfront property is subject to flooding in the first place and it is intended to alleviate that. The doctrinal issue likely to be the focus of the Supreme Court’s ruling is whether temporary flooding constitutes a taking of property. Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District, 77 So. 3d 1220 (Fla. 2011), held that the state of Florida did not take the landowner’s property when it proposed to allow the owner to dredge the property on condition that several exactions were met. The owner refused …

Supreme Court takes certiorari in two takings cases Read More »

The Federal Circuit ruled in Kam-Almaz v. U.S. 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 12581 (Fed. Cir. 2012), that there was no unconstitutional taking of property when an individual’s computer was seized and examined at an airport immigration and customs station and returned with the hard drive damaged, resulting in the loss of irretrievable business records.The court held that property seized “pursuant to the police power” is not taken “for public use” within the meaning of the takings clause. Government can seize property for law enforcement purposes without implicating the takings clause, even if the property is thereby destroyed.

In conformity with the rule prevailing in most states, a New Jersey trial court held that an innocent owner whose property was damaged as a result of a lawful police search has no right to compensation under the takings clause. Simmons v. Loose, 2011 N.J. Super. LEXIS 16 (2011).

A court in Massachusetts has held that no compensation is due when a city takes a private sewer system. North Adams Apartments, L.P. v. City of North Adams, 2011 Mass. App. LEXIS 41 (App. Ct. 2011). The court held that the transfer of title from the private owner to the city caused the owner no pecuniary loss; indeed, it benefited the owner by transferring maintenance obligations from the owner to the city. The court also noted that developers frequently created sewer hook-ups and then voluntarily (and without compensation) sought to transfer title to the municipality. Although one might think that loss of control of the sewer connections would constitute a property loss, the court’s factual finding was that there was no reduction in fair market value of the property and no economic value to the land owner in retaining ownership of the sewer connections.

In Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 130 S.Ct. 483, 175 L.Ed.2d 305, 2009 U.S. LEXIS 7593, 2010 WL 2400086 (June 17, 2010), the Supreme Court held that the Florida Supreme Court did not effect an unconstitutional taking of property when it held that a state-funded beach renewal project did not take property rights in violation of the state constitution’s takings clause. The state had funded beach renewal projects to deposit new sand on eroded beaches; once that occurred, the statute set a fixed boundary between public rights in the restored lands and private property rights in the upland; that fixed line was placed where the mean-high tide line had been prior to the restoration project. The Court unanimously held (8-0, with Justice Stevens not participating) that the Florida statutory program as interpreted by the Florida Supreme Court did not constitute a taking of of any …

Florida beach renewal program not a taking; Supreme Court fails to resolve judicial takings issue Read More »

In a split 3-2 decision, Kaur v. N. Y. State Urb. Dev. Corp., 2009 WL 4348472, (N.Y. App. Div. Dec. 3, 2009), an appellate court in New York found a defective process of determining that a neighborhood was blighted and thus the taking was for the private purpose of helping Columbia University rather than the public purpose of redeveloping a blighted neighborhood. read article. This occurred only a couple of weeks after New York’s high court, the Court of Appeals, held in Goldstein v. N.Y. State Urb. Dev. Corp., 2009 WL 4030939 (N.Y. Nov. 24, 2009), strongly reaffirmed (in a 6-1 decision) that property can be taken for economic development purposes under the state constitution to remove urban blight and that courts should generally defer to legislative determinations of when blight exists. read article