A Canadian company is buying ITC for a staggering $11.3 billion.

If an agency values a property in a condemnation at an amount lower than the assessment, the owner can present the assessment to the jury.  However, the agency is not allowed to introduce evidence of the assessed value. 

SCOTUS held that an act regulating the commercial market for raisins in part by requiring farmers to deliver a portion of their crop to the government constitutes a taking requiring payment of just compensation, notwithstanding any interest that the farmer retains in the sale of those raisins or the benefits that the farmers receive through the regulation of the raisin market.  In doing so, SCOTUS refused to recognize a distinction between the public’s interest in personal versus real property. SCOTUS also reasserted that physical appropriations of private property by the government are more readily proven to be takings than regulatory takings.

ITC has suggested that a property owner can avoid an immediate condemnation if ITC is allowed to remove certain trees.  However, ITC has not promised to avoid ever condemning.  ITC cannot avoid eventually condemning the property because it must expand upon the property rights it currently enjoys in order to comply with federal regulations.  If ITC removes the trees now, as a result of a voluntarily grant provided by the property owner, ITC will avoid paying significant just compensation for those trees when it eventually condemns. This is called a “salami tactic.”

Underlying fee property owners and not the United States are entitled to the fee simple interest in an abandoned railroad easement.

The Michigan Supreme Court refused to review a published opinion issued by the Michigan Court of Appeals upholding a successful verdict and the requirement that the County pay significant interest on the judgment.

Before filing an eminent domain lawsuit, an agency must submit a good faith offer identifying both the rights they seek to acquire and the just compensation being offered.  Since agencies are entitled to gather information to support a good faith offer, it is best to retain counsel as soon as possible.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court, relying on United States Supreme Court rulings that apply in all states, recognized that low, frequent flights over property may be compensable even if they do not deprive the owner of substantially all beneficial use of the property.  This applies even when pilots deviate from established flight paths.

Property owners must fully understand the rights being acquired from them to avoid nasty surprises later.  In some instances, property owners can reduce the impact of onerous easements.

If people are forced to move from their home by condemnation, they may be entitled to additional benefits including payment of 125% of just compensation, a payment to offset future property tax increases, and moving benefits.  Property owners are always entitled to reimbursement of reasonable expert fees and generally entitled to reimbursement of their attorney fees.

Homes are incompatible with Runway Protection Zones at the end of runways. If the governmental attempts to acquire only an easement, Michigan law allows a property owner to demand that their entire property be purchased.

Court of Appeals upheld a jury verdict awarding $470,000 in just compensation, where the condemning authority offered only $49,500.  The Court of Appeals also upheld an award of statutory interest of approximately $100,000.