Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

stevenleser

(32,886 posts)
53. But that is not what happens in eminent domain. Properties are not auctioned. There is caselaw on
Mon Jul 23, 2012, 12:58 PM
Jul 2012

this. The owner/lienholder get fair market value at that time and the definition of fair market value in these cases is very favorable to the owner/lienholder.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain#Compensation

CompensationAmerican courts have held that the preferred measure of "just compensation" is "fair market value", i.e., the price that a willing but unpressured buyer would pay a willing but unpressured seller for the subject property under ordinary circumstances, with both parties fully informed of the property's good and bad features.[15] Also, this approach takes into account the property's highest and best use (i.e., its most profitable use) which is not necessarily its current use or the use mandated by current zoning if there is a reasonable probability of zone change.

This approach has been severely criticized because it omits from consideration a variety of incidental economic losses that a taking of land inflicts on its owners. The most egregious example of such losses is provided by the American rule that denies any compensation to owners of businesses that are destroyed when land on which they are located is taken, and the business cannot relocate. A small minority of states have provided by statute that at least some business losses are compensable.

Also, attorneys' and appraisers' fees are not recoverable (except in Florida) so the owners of the taken property never recover the full value of the taken land, even if they prevail in the valuation trial, because a part of their recovery must be used to pay those lawyers and appraisers. Some states do provide for limited recovery of such litigation expenses, typically when the owners' recovery substantially exceeds the amount of the condemnor's pretrial offer or the evidence presented by the condemnor at trial by a specified percentage. Also, when a condemnation action is abandoned, the owners are typically entitled (by statute) to be paid reasonable attorneys' and appraisers' fee they had to incur in defending the condemnation action.

When payment of compensation is delayed, the owner of the taken land is entitled to receive interest on the award of compensation, that accrues from the time of taking to the time of payment. The interest must be reasonable, so that when prevailing market rates of interest exceed the statutory rate (as in inflationary times), the former has to be used.

.
.
.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

K&R LiberalEsto Jul 2012 #1
nice! nashville_brook Jul 2012 #2
They were talking about doing this here last week. Major Hogwash Jul 2012 #3
Ha Ha HA! Taibbi making shit up again. His "serious challenge" does not have banned from Kos Jul 2012 #4
Yes, it does. It's called 'taking action' on behalf of the PEOPLE this time, rather than the sabrina 1 Jul 2012 #9
Although banks have already let it be known that truedelphi Jul 2012 #11
Yes, but as the article points out, if this works the Banks will be back sabrina 1 Jul 2012 #20
Well thought out response. truedelphi Jul 2012 #37
GREAT!! Then depositers will use LOCAL CREDIT UNIONS 99th_Monkey Jul 2012 #24
How about we run them out of the country. Zalatix Jul 2012 #33
Zalatix, I have no problem with that notion. truedelphi Jul 2012 #38
Interesting, my girl-friend is having a similar problem, getting an attorney to represent her sabrina 1 Jul 2012 #42
"Debt makes all participants clinically insane". jtuck004 Jul 2012 #43
Very interesting comments to ponder. truedelphi Jul 2012 #63
Our dad's dads paid the car company, the builder (who got a loan, but his money was on the line), jtuck004 Jul 2012 #66
Students can pay their extortionate loans by mail or online. aquart Jul 2012 #47
What you say is very true, but I think what the truedelphi Jul 2012 #67
No, "taking action" is not a defendant! banned from Kos Jul 2012 #13
Lol, you were expected. sabrina 1 Jul 2012 #22
+1 million! Zalatix Jul 2012 #34
You're even less coherent than usual. n/t girl gone mad Jul 2012 #28
Wait, you're defending Corzine and Blankfein? truebrit71 Jul 2012 #61
Assuming, rhetorically, that you are correct... Hissyspit Jul 2012 #15
I support Obama and Taibbi is lying about him banned from Kos Jul 2012 #18
I look to your posts for amusement. Too funny. DCKit Jul 2012 #29
What was the lie, Sherlock? nt Bonobo Jul 2012 #32
I guess you view the criminal rat bastard Geithner truedelphi Jul 2012 #39
Yah. Geithner not being hanged is a constant sorrow to me. aquart Jul 2012 #48
Can you please tell me what is the lie? idwiyo Jul 2012 #50
you never did say what the lies was, despite many requests librechik Jul 2012 #57
You really are just a one-trick pony aren't you...? truebrit71 Jul 2012 #60
Dios mio. marmar Jul 2012 #40
I'd like to point out that an under-appreciated genius made a similar suggestion 2 1/2 years ago: Orrex Jul 2012 #5
Wow, that was brilliant, Orrex. You were ahead of the game. And it was a very good question at the sabrina 1 Jul 2012 #8
You are a person ahead of your time, orrex. Good job! truth2power Jul 2012 #10
+1 to Orrex! Poll_Blind Jul 2012 #19
But the post didn't address the point made by TexasObserver. Is TexasObserver right? AnotherMcIntosh Jul 2012 #25
The fair market value of a foreclosed home is often a tiny fraction of its full sale value Orrex Jul 2012 #27
But that is not what happens in eminent domain. Properties are not auctioned. There is caselaw on stevenleser Jul 2012 #53
Okay, then require banks to maintain vacant properties in livable condition Orrex Jul 2012 #56
You cannot single out someone in a law like that, it would have to apply to all property owners. stevenleser Jul 2012 #58
You'd only be applying it to people who vacate properties and don't maintain them. Orrex Jul 2012 #59
I proposed a Federal govt bailout offer of all stevenleser Jul 2012 #62
Now that's a proposal that I can get behind Orrex Jul 2012 #65
Damn. You called it. Well said! Zalatix Jul 2012 #35
Can not the city claim them as abandoned property kemah Jul 2012 #6
How would the current homeowner be protected EmeraldCityGrl Jul 2012 #12
Then they might have to tear them down. Spitfire of ATJ Jul 2012 #14
If it proves effective, prepare for a major push to make it illegal. Marr Jul 2012 #7
Fight back and force them to prove ownership klook Jul 2012 #16
You are correct, using MERS, the Banks removed any records of ownership from municipal record sabrina 1 Jul 2012 #21
That could actually be a problem for this. drm604 Jul 2012 #23
They could take the banks to court and do what many home-owners are doing now, demand to see sabrina 1 Jul 2012 #30
See Harpers magazine, Jan. 2012 klook Jul 2012 #36
This message was self-deleted by its author EmeraldCityGrl Jul 2012 #17
Kick, sweet kick. Fire Walk With Me Jul 2012 #26
Go Matt!!! 99th_Monkey Jul 2012 #31
I missed this yesterday. Ruby the Liberal Jul 2012 #41
Still trying ProSense Jul 2012 #44
Bravo, Mr. Taibbi, Bravo! EvolveOrConvolve Jul 2012 #45
White House Skeptical of Plan NJCher Jul 2012 #46
It looks like it's Geithner who, no surprise, has a problem with the plan. sabrina 1 Jul 2012 #55
It might be worth our while to try and change Mr Obama's mind truedelphi Jul 2012 #64
K & R !!! WillyT Jul 2012 #49
K&R idwiyo Jul 2012 #51
du rec. nt xchrom Jul 2012 #52
Awesome! The people taking matters into their own hands. Zorra Jul 2012 #54
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Matt Taibbi: From an Unli...»Reply #53