the guts of takings
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/15/2019 The Guts of Takings
1/8
THE GUTS OF TAKINGS
BY ANTHONY J. FEJFAR, ESQ., COIF
COPYRIGHT 2004 BY ANTHONY J. FEJFAR, ESQ., COIF
In my mind, the most interesting aspect of Land Use is the Takings
clause of the United States Constitution. The Fifth Amendment provides that
private property shall not be taken by the government except for public use and
upon the payment of just compensation. Interestingly, the origin of the Takings
clause has been traced to the English Constitution, Magna Charta, of the year 1250,
or so. In that document, Warin Fitzgerald, presumably a royal, and his
supporters, required that Prince John of England agree to the requirements of
Magna Charta. Prince John only agreed after having been defeated in the Battle of
Runnymeade. In Magna Charta is found the Freemans clause, which states that a
Freeman cannot be divested of property without a judgment of his peers sitting as a
jury, at law. Both the American Constitutions due process clause, as well as the
taking clause, find their origin in this document.
-
8/15/2019 The Guts of Takings
2/8
Now, in the typical case, say where the government wants to build a road, the
government brings an eminent domain action against the private property owners
whose land they need for the construction of the road. Expert witnesses are called
upon to assess the value of the real property in question, and then a judge or a jury
decides, in accordance with the United States Constitution, that reasonable
compensation must be paid to those giving up their property.
It is possible, however, that in an extraordainary case, the government takes
a piece of someones real property without paying for it. In such a case, the
landowner must bring an action, essentially in quantum meriut, under the takings
clause, for the reasonable value of the property taken. In the old days, such an
action for damages was typically captioned an inverse condemnation proceeding.
The idea was that the government had to be forced in a sense to condemn the
property, and then pay for that taking. However, since the Lucas case, where the
term taking was used, and the phrase inverse condemnation was not, it is my
judgment that an action for the reasonable value of property taken, under the United
States Constitution, can be denominated a takings action, without the older
phraseaology.
-
8/15/2019 The Guts of Takings
3/8
Interestingly, if the taking action is brought against state or local
government, there is some case authority (the Hamilton Bank case) for the
proposition that the claimant must exhaust hae local and state remedies first, before
bringing an action in Federal Court. It appears that in Federal Court, the claim
must be pursued in either the local Federal District Court, or in the Federal Court of
Claims, in Washington, D.C.
Given this possibility of not being able to initially pursue a takings claim in
Federal Court, initially, I suggest that the takings claimant file simultaneously in
both State and Federal Court, and then file a motion for a stay of proceedings in
Federal Court until the matter is dealt with one way or another in State court. In
this way, if for some reason the statute of limitation was in danger of running, the
claimant would have protection from that possibility in Federal Court by the prompt
joint filing of the claim.
-
8/15/2019 The Guts of Takings
4/8
The standard for a taking is a very interesting one. The early cases only
allowed compensation for a taking when there was an actual physical invasion of
the real property itself. While in the latter part of the nineteenth century, the early
takings cases, Mugler and Hadachek, both seemed to indicate the possibility of a
taking based on governmental regulatory action, in fact in both those cases the
governments action was upheld as not constituting a taking on the ground that the
state had the right to reasonably regulate real property to avoid harmful uses or
effects, under its police powers.
In the Mahon coal case, Justice Holmes, however, stated that while the
state may regulate real property, when a regulation has gone too far then a taking
requiring reasonable compensation must be found. In Mahon, the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania through its legislature, had enacted a statute which regulated the
tunnel mining of coal with the intent to stop subsidence, that is, the caving in of
property below ground which then results in the collapse of surface buildings into
the chasm created by the subsidence.
-
8/15/2019 The Guts of Takings
5/8
Holmes held that a legally seperable interest, the subsidence estate, was
completely taken, and therefore compensation had to be paid. Justice Brandeis,
dissenting, on the other hand, argued that the entire fee simple estate, including
surface, mineral, and other rights, had to be taken into account when looking at the
severity of the regulation, not just the subsidence estate.
The law didnt change all that much until the Lucas case. In Lucas,
Justice Scalia wrote that if there was a total deprivation of economic value, and, the
regulation in question did not fit into the category of a tradition tort of nuisance,
then a taking was present, and reasonable compensation must be paid.
Interestingly enough, the Court suggested that the common law of nuisance might
possibly develop, or put another way, perhaps be discovered as already existing
anew. In this way, state nuisance law or the equivalent thereof, could still be
applied in such a way as to provide an exception to a takings claim.
-
8/15/2019 The Guts of Takings
6/8
The thing to remember about Lucas, however, is that it only applies in
the narrow instance of a complete and total deprivation of economic value.
Ironically, I suspect that such an occurrence was not present even in the Lucas case
itself. For some reason the trial court held that a environmentally regulated beach
front lot had a value of zero dollars, period. I, on the other hand, suspect that the
lot was worth at least $15,000 to $20,000, for recreational purposes, or, certainly
to expand the area available for beach and swimming use by either of the adjoining
houses on the beach.
In the absence of a Lucas case, I suspect that the appropriate standard to
be applied is that found in the Penn Central case. In Penn Central the Court
balanced economic harm and reasonable investment backed expectations of the
claimant against the governmental interest to be accomplished. In other words, the
greater the governments need, and the importance of that need, the more likely it
is that the government will not have to pay compensation. On the other hand, the
greater the harm to the claimant, the more likely that compensation would have to
be paid.
-
8/15/2019 The Guts of Takings
7/8
Now, keep in mind, consistent with earlier case law, that when a zoning
regulation as applied to an undeveloped piece of land, does not completely zone the
use of the land out of existence, then there is no taking. As long as the land can be
viably used for anything, there is no taking, even if there is a loss in value relative
to what was originally paid.
Now, the interesting thing about a taking, is that under the B & O
railroad case, the government is only required to pay reasonable compensation.
The Court did not specify any particular formula for such a determination. But
what about this. Say Joe buys a lot for $1,000,000. Then the government comes
along as zones the land for conservation, so that no development is possible. Joe
then argues to the court that he was planning to build a house on the lot, and the fair
market value of the lot with the house would have been $2,000,000.
-
8/15/2019 The Guts of Takings
8/8
Now, Joe says that he is entitled to the full $2,000,000, as a taking,
representing the highest and best use of the property. Joe has an interesting
argument, and I suppose a lot of lawyers make such an argument, and a lot of
judges buy into it. It is my position, however, that in this case, Joe has
miscalculated his damages for the taking. Keep in mind that the lot in question in
empty. Obviously, if the zoning allowed development, the owner of the lot would
be paying the price of construction, not the government. Naturally, the situation
should be exactly the same in the case of a taking. Thus, if the cost of building
the house was $800,000, then the two million dollar final fair market value of the
lot with house must be discounted by the cost of construction, therefore leaving a
net compensable value for takings purposes of $1, 200,000, not the higher two
million dollar amount
Now, more could be said about takings, but I suspect this is enough.
Pleasant Dreams.
Bibliography: Wright and Gitelman, Land Use