Takings & Inverse Condemnation

By Glen C. Hansen

Lost Tree Village Corp. v. United States, ___ F.3d ___, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 690 (Fed.Cir. 2013). Between 1968 and 1974, Lost Tree Village Corporation (“Lost Tree”) purchased approximately 2,750 acres of property on Florida’s mid-Atlantic coast, which included a barrier island on the Atlantic Ocean. That property included 4.99 acres now known as Plat 57, which is part of the entire peninsula known as the Island of John’s Island. From 1969 through the mid-1990s, Lost Tree developed approximately 1,300 acres it purchased into the upscale gated residential community of John’s Island. The development was made in a piecemeal manner, and not as a master-planned community.

Continue Reading US Army Corps Denies A §404 Permit: Can A Takings Claim Be Based On Consideration Of The Economic Affect On the Wetlands Parcel Only?

By Cori Badgley

In Gutierrez v. County of San Bernardino (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 831, the appellate court grappled with the application of the “reasonableness” takings test that applies to flood control projects. The court concluded that the county acted reasonably, and therefore, there was no taking.

Continue Reading A Series of Unfortunate Events… That are Not Compensable under Inverse Condemnation

By Cori M. Badgley 

In City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 210, plaintiffs argued that the city’s actions of purchasing properties in areas near the LAX airport and then demolishing the buildings constituted inverse condemnation of adjacent properties owned by plaintiffs. The court, however, was not persuaded, and plaintiffs’ suit was dismissed.

Continue Reading That’s the Way the Buildings Crumble: City’s Purchase and Demolition of Adjacent Buildings is Not a Taking

By Cori M. Badgley

In order to avoid having your takings claim dismissed, your timing has to be just right. Unfortunately for Colony Cove Properties, LLC (“Colony Cove”), the timing was off, and its takings claim was dismissed by the court for being both too late (facial challenge) and too early (as-applied challenge).

Continue Reading Timing is Everything: Ninth Circuit Dismisses Takings Claims for Being Both Too Late and Too Early

By Cori Badgley

In 2009, a three-judge panel for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals made a controversial determination that a rent control ordinance relating to mobilehome parks constituted a regulatory taking. (See “Take This! Wealth-Transfer under Rent Control Ordinance Constitutes a Regulatory Taking.”) In 2010 in Guggenheim v. City of Goleta (December 22, 2010, No. 06-56306) __ F.3d __ (“Guggenheim II”), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals sitting en banc reversed its previous decision, holding that the plaintiffs had no distinct investment-backed expectations when they purchased the property. Therefore, the rent control ordinance did not constitute a taking of their property.

Continue Reading You Get What You Pay For: Rent Control Ordinance Upheld by Ninth Circuit

Abbott & Kindermann’s Annual Land Use, Real Estate, and Environmental Law Update

Reserve your seat for one of three seminars taking place in 2011.

In January and February 2011 Abbott & Kindermann, LLP will present its annual complimentary educational program for clients and colleagues interested in current land use, environmental, and real estate issues affecting commercial and residential development, real estate acquisition, easements, leasing and property acquisition, and mining.  In addition, the following hot topics for 2011 will be discussed:

  • Global Warming: CEQA Guidelines, Mandatory Reporting, AB 32 
  • Water Supply Assessments
  • CEQA Litigation: Exemptions, Setting the Baseline, Alternative Analysis & Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
  • Subdivision Map Extensions
  • Interpreting Development Agreements
  • Agricultural Land Mitigation
  • New General Permit Under Clean Water Act

Abbott & Kindermann, LLP will be presenting its annual program at three California locations, Sacramento, Modesto and Redding. Details for the seminars are below. We hope you can join us and look forward to seeing you there.

Modesto Conference

  • Date: Thursday, January 20, 2011
  • Location: Double Tree Hotel Modesto, 1150 Ninth Street
  • Registration: 12:30 p.m. – 1:00 p.m.
  • Program: 1:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.

Redding Conference 

  • Date: Tuesday, February 8, 2011
  • Location: Hilton Garden Inn Redding , 5050 Bechelli Lane
  • Registration: 12:30 p.m. – 1:00 p.m.
  • Program: 1:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.

Sacramento Conference

  • Date: Friday, February 11, 2011
  • Location: Sacramento Hilton Arden West, 2200 Harvard Street
  • Registration: 8:30 a.m. – 9:00 a.m. with continental breakfast
  • Program: 9:00 a.m. – 12:00 noon

There is no charge for the programs and MCLE and AICP CM credits are available. 

An RSVP will be required as space is limited. To reserve a spot, call our office at (916) 456-9595. When calling, please specify which conference you will be attending.

Abbott & Kindermann’s Annual Land Use, Real Estate, and Environmental Law Update

Reserve your seat for one of three seminars taking place in 2011.

In January and February 2011 Abbott & Kindermann, LLP will present its annual complimentary educational program for clients and colleagues interested in current land use, environmental, and real estate issues affecting commercial and residential development, real estate acquisition, easements, leasing and property acquisition, and mining.  In addition, the following hot topics for 2011 will be discussed:

  • Global Warming: CEQA Guidelines, Mandatory Reporting, AB 32 
  • Water Supply Assessments
  • CEQA Litigation: Exemptions, Setting the Baseline, Alternative Analysis & Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
  • Subdivision Map Extensions
  • Interpreting Development Agreements
  • Agricultural Land Mitigation
  • New General Permit Under Clean Water Act

Abbott & Kindermann, LLP will be presenting its annual program at three California locations, Sacramento, Modesto and Redding. Details for the seminars are below. We hope you can join us and look forward to seeing you there.

Modesto Conference

  • Date: Thursday, January 20, 2011
  • Location: Double Tree Hotel Modesto, 1150 Ninth Street
  • Registration: 12:30 p.m. – 1:00 p.m.
  • Program: 1:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.

Redding Conference 

  • Date: Tuesday, February 8, 2011
  • Location: Hilton Garden Inn Redding , 5050 Bechelli Lane
  • Registration: 12:30 p.m. – 1:00 p.m.
  • Program: 1:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.

Sacramento Conference

  • Date: Friday, February 11, 2011
  • Location: Sacramento Hilton Arden West, 2200 Harvard Street
  • Registration: 8:30 a.m. – 9:00 a.m. with continental breakfast
  • Program: 9:00 a.m. – 12:00 noon

There is no charge for the programs and MCLE and AICP CM credits are available. 

An RSVP will be required as space is limited. To reserve a spot, call our office at (916) 456-9595. When calling, please specify which conference you will be attending.

By Leslie Z. Walker

In a case with a curious procedural posture, the Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, ruled that the Department of Water Resources is a “Person” for the purposes of Fish and Game Code section 2080 and thus is prohibited from taking an endangered or threatened species under the California Endangered Species Act (Fish & Game Code, § 2050 et seq.) Kern County Water Agency v. Watershed Enforcers (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 969.

Continue Reading Department of Water Resources is a “Person” for Purposes of the California Endangered Species Act

By Cori M. Badgley

Adam Bros. Farming, Inc. (“Adam”) has spent many years and a lot of money battling the County of Santa Barbara (“county”) over its wetlands delineation that covered land farmed by Adam. The saga began in California superior court, in which Adam brought suit claiming violations of the federal Equal Protection, Due Process and Takings clauses and seeking damages and declaratory and injunctive relief. The superior court found the takings claims were not ripe, and Adam amended its complaint to eliminate those claims. At trial, the court awarded Adam declaratory and injunctive relief and a jury awarded Adam damages. On appeal, the appellate court eliminated the damages, but upheld the declaratory and injunctive relief, holding that the wetlands delineation was contrary to law. See $5 Million Judgment Against Santa Barbara County Overturned by Appellate Court.

Continue Reading The Adam Bros. Farming Saga Ends at the Ninth Circuit