Rate-of-development ("ROD") ordinances -- coupled with confiscatory land use regulations -- are intended to (and do) depress the Fair Market Value of undeveloped parcels. This allows the government's land thieves to sweep up land at prices far below what they would have to pay in a condemnation proceeding. They can either repeal the regulations or begin eminent domain proceedings so people will get the full value of their property.
In 2006, and so far in 2007, the State's land thieves increased their offers, paying $46,000± for lots in many subdivisions -- which doesn't match what people are paying for ROGO lots -- but it's better than 2005's $35,000. The State paid out $31.8 million for 815 unbuildable Keys properties in 2006 (average $39,086), and $7.6 million for 363 parcels in 2006 (average $21,070.)
A few landowners have really rung the bell. A colleague accepted $220,000 from the State for an unbuildable IS lot on Middle Torch Key. (We told them that must mean the lot is worth at least $500,000.) That's still the highest price the State has paid for a platted lot to date, and was the 7th largest check the State wrote in 2006 (for unbuildable Keys property, that is).
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Friday, October 12, 2007
Judge Dismisses Shands; Beyer and McCole Next
Today we learned Judge Audlin dismissed the regulatory taking case Shands v City of Marathon on a Statute of Limitations defense. Shands involves an offshore island that was the subject of confiscatory regulations enacted in 1986. The City's counsel knows better. In City of Key West v. Berg (1995), Mr. Burke took Shands' position and prevailed.
To prevent judicial invalidation of its 1986 regulations, the County adopted an "escape clause" and called it a "beneficial use determination." A landowner cannot sue for a taking until he or she applies for a BUD and is unsuccessful. This "ripeness" process was established by the Supreme Court in Williamson County v. Hamilton Bank (1985), and Shands Plaintiffs requested a BUD, got turned down, and sued Marathon for Just Compensation.
We have two cases pending against Marathon that are in the same posture as Shands; Beyer and McCole. I bet they will be summarily dismissed, as they are before the same judge. I suspect he will dismiss at least two other pending "taking" cases before 2007 ends. Six taking cases thrown out in the judge's first year on the bench! I will also bet that at least five of the six dismissals will be reversed; very possibly all six. There appears to be a bias here that would reasonably cause most "taking" plaintiffs to move for his disqualification.
[Shortened 10/17/07 by JSM.]
To prevent judicial invalidation of its 1986 regulations, the County adopted an "escape clause" and called it a "beneficial use determination." A landowner cannot sue for a taking until he or she applies for a BUD and is unsuccessful. This "ripeness" process was established by the Supreme Court in Williamson County v. Hamilton Bank (1985), and Shands Plaintiffs requested a BUD, got turned down, and sued Marathon for Just Compensation.
We have two cases pending against Marathon that are in the same posture as Shands; Beyer and McCole. I bet they will be summarily dismissed, as they are before the same judge. I suspect he will dismiss at least two other pending "taking" cases before 2007 ends. Six taking cases thrown out in the judge's first year on the bench! I will also bet that at least five of the six dismissals will be reversed; very possibly all six. There appears to be a bias here that would reasonably cause most "taking" plaintiffs to move for his disqualification.
[Shortened 10/17/07 by JSM.]
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
October 2007 Litigation Updates
Our leading case is Galleon Bay v. Monroe County et al. It was tried to a jury in June 2006. The jury returned a verdict of $3 million, as the Fair Market Value on the date of trial. We moved for a new trial because of the incompetent testimony of the County's appraiser, Trent Marr, who concluded the property was only worth $500,000 as a trap storage site, while Galleon Bay's expert appraised the property at over $5.5 million. The trial judge, Chief Judge Richard Payne, granted Galleon Bay's motion for a new trial. The State and County appealed the new trial order -- lost -- and the Third DCA sent the case back for a new trial. However, Judge Payne retired and his successor, David Audlin, has shown a propensity for throwing out Judge Payne's decisions. It remains to be seen whether Galleon Bay can get a fair trial before Judge Audlin. For details, go to http://www.mattsonlaw.com/.
Our number two case this month is Collins, et al. v. Monroe County et al., an 11-Plaintiff case that was filed in November 2004. This case was also before Judge Payne before he retired at the end of 2006. Judge Payne had entered a partial summary judgment on liability, in favor of the Collins plaintiffs, and the case was set for a jury trial in June 2007. In late May 2007, Judge Audlin summarily dismissed the Collins case. Collins is on appeal to the Third DCA in Miami, with Appellants' Initial Brief due Nov. 4.
Earlier this year we filed a class-action regulatory taking case, Lightner, et al v. Monroe County et al., for adopting confiscatory regulations on Big Pine and No Name Keys. There are about 2,000 potential class members. The case was transferred to Judge Jones in Key West. We have an agreement with the County's counsel allowing us to amend the Complaint to include a challenge to the constitutionality of the confiscatory regulations.
We have two regulatory taking cases pending against the City of Marathon, Beyer v. Marathon and McCole v. Marathon, and another one pending against the County, Sutton v. Monroe County. And we are working on Complaints in two more, Gutierrez v. Monroe County et al, and Evanoff's v. Islamorada et al.
This list does not even attempt to identify the approximately 30 landowners for whom we are trying to schedule "Beneficial Use" hearings. We almost had 23 of those hearings set for the first week in October, but they were scheduled too late and had to be postponed.
Our number two case this month is Collins, et al. v. Monroe County et al., an 11-Plaintiff case that was filed in November 2004. This case was also before Judge Payne before he retired at the end of 2006. Judge Payne had entered a partial summary judgment on liability, in favor of the Collins plaintiffs, and the case was set for a jury trial in June 2007. In late May 2007, Judge Audlin summarily dismissed the Collins case. Collins is on appeal to the Third DCA in Miami, with Appellants' Initial Brief due Nov. 4.
Earlier this year we filed a class-action regulatory taking case, Lightner, et al v. Monroe County et al., for adopting confiscatory regulations on Big Pine and No Name Keys. There are about 2,000 potential class members. The case was transferred to Judge Jones in Key West. We have an agreement with the County's counsel allowing us to amend the Complaint to include a challenge to the constitutionality of the confiscatory regulations.
We have two regulatory taking cases pending against the City of Marathon, Beyer v. Marathon and McCole v. Marathon, and another one pending against the County, Sutton v. Monroe County. And we are working on Complaints in two more, Gutierrez v. Monroe County et al, and Evanoff's v. Islamorada et al.
This list does not even attempt to identify the approximately 30 landowners for whom we are trying to schedule "Beneficial Use" hearings. We almost had 23 of those hearings set for the first week in October, but they were scheduled too late and had to be postponed.
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Rent-to-Buy
It's one thing for a law professor to suggest the "rent-to-buy" compensation formula for regulatory takings; it gets a lot better when a Judge of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims ("CFC") adopts the formula in an Opinion.
CFC Judge Victor Wolski entered an Opinion and Order on August 10, 2007, in Gary Bailey v. United States, published at 2007 U.S. Claims LEXIS 261, in which he validated the "rent-to-buy" compensation formula proposed by Assoc. Prof. (now Distinguished Professor) Gregory Stein (Univ. Tenn. College of Law) in his 1995 law review article, "Pinpointing the Beginning and Ending of a Temporary Regulatory Taking," 70 Wash. L. Rev. 953 (Oct. 1995).
Judge Wolski's Opinion puts to rest the government's contentions, in Collins and Galleon Bay, that compensation for a regulatory taking (in Florida) is the Fair Market Value on the date the regulation "took" the property, plus interest until payment is made.
We have consistently argued that, under Florida law, "regulatory taken" property is valued "as of the date of trial, or when title transfers, whichever comes first," unless the government has "ousted" the landowner by fencing the property or building a prison, canal, or railroad track on it.
What the "rent-to-buy" compensation formula means is easily understood. After a regulation has been determined, by a court, to have "taken" the property, the government is liable to the owner for "rent," based on market rates in the geographic area, from the date of the taking until the date the government acquires the full, fee-simple, interest in the property. That can occur either at the time of a condemnation trial, or when a court "order of taking" issues after the government deposits a check for the property's "estimated value" in the Court registry.
To complete the transaction, the government then must pay the owner the Fair Market Value of the property as of the date of the condemnation trial, or as of the date of an "order of taking," if the government has already made a "good-faith deposit" of the Fair Market Value.
That is how Florida Eminent Domain law works; the State and County are having a cow over what they decry to be "two takings" when there should only be one. That is why this Blog is entitled Grand Theft: Property.
Judge Wolski's 53-page Opinion and Order can be downloaded from the CFC's website, at http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Wolski/07/WOLSKI.BAILEY081007.pdf
CFC Judge Victor Wolski entered an Opinion and Order on August 10, 2007, in Gary Bailey v. United States, published at 2007 U.S. Claims LEXIS 261, in which he validated the "rent-to-buy" compensation formula proposed by Assoc. Prof. (now Distinguished Professor) Gregory Stein (Univ. Tenn. College of Law) in his 1995 law review article, "Pinpointing the Beginning and Ending of a Temporary Regulatory Taking," 70 Wash. L. Rev. 953 (Oct. 1995).
Judge Wolski's Opinion puts to rest the government's contentions, in Collins and Galleon Bay, that compensation for a regulatory taking (in Florida) is the Fair Market Value on the date the regulation "took" the property, plus interest until payment is made.
We have consistently argued that, under Florida law, "regulatory taken" property is valued "as of the date of trial, or when title transfers, whichever comes first," unless the government has "ousted" the landowner by fencing the property or building a prison, canal, or railroad track on it.
What the "rent-to-buy" compensation formula means is easily understood. After a regulation has been determined, by a court, to have "taken" the property, the government is liable to the owner for "rent," based on market rates in the geographic area, from the date of the taking until the date the government acquires the full, fee-simple, interest in the property. That can occur either at the time of a condemnation trial, or when a court "order of taking" issues after the government deposits a check for the property's "estimated value" in the Court registry.
To complete the transaction, the government then must pay the owner the Fair Market Value of the property as of the date of the condemnation trial, or as of the date of an "order of taking," if the government has already made a "good-faith deposit" of the Fair Market Value.
That is how Florida Eminent Domain law works; the State and County are having a cow over what they decry to be "two takings" when there should only be one. That is why this Blog is entitled Grand Theft: Property.
Judge Wolski's 53-page Opinion and Order can be downloaded from the CFC's website, at http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Wolski/07/WOLSKI.BAILEY081007.pdf
Monday, October 8, 2007
Who will pay?
This is my first post on this Blog. After running a one-sided blog for a few months on my 10-year old website, http://mattsonlaw.com/, I decided to try a format that allows for exchanges of ideas with clients, friends (and adversaries), and people who are just looking for information on regulatory taking issues.
My law practice in the Florida Keys is devoted -- almost 100% -- to regulatory taking claims (though I do take on other land use matters). At this point in my career, I like focusing on "taking" litigation, but I enjoy bashing government at every opportunity, whether on vested rights claims, constitutional issues, or other interesting or complex matters.
If successful in the takings area, I will put myself out of business. Sooner or later, the time will arrive when someone has to pay Florida Keys landowners for the thousands of parcels that are being turned into parkland by confiscatory regulations. When that time comes, will it be the Monroe County taxpayers? Or will the State of Florida come up with the cash? If there is no money, the government will have to throw in the towel and let everyone use their property (what a novel thought). That might cause me to consider retiring.
My law practice in the Florida Keys is devoted -- almost 100% -- to regulatory taking claims (though I do take on other land use matters). At this point in my career, I like focusing on "taking" litigation, but I enjoy bashing government at every opportunity, whether on vested rights claims, constitutional issues, or other interesting or complex matters.
If successful in the takings area, I will put myself out of business. Sooner or later, the time will arrive when someone has to pay Florida Keys landowners for the thousands of parcels that are being turned into parkland by confiscatory regulations. When that time comes, will it be the Monroe County taxpayers? Or will the State of Florida come up with the cash? If there is no money, the government will have to throw in the towel and let everyone use their property (what a novel thought). That might cause me to consider retiring.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
