Unlike certain “unalienable rights” granted to citizens under the United States Constitution, property interests are traditionally understood to have been created by a number of independent sources such as statutes, ordinances, or contracts. The general concept of property itself is construed as the group of rights inhering in the citizen’s relation to the physical thing, such as the right to possess, use and dispose of it.

Modern courts, however, acknowledge that the traditional notion of property interests encompass a variety of other valuable interests, such as intangible and incorporeal rights (e.g., leases, easements, right-of-ways, and mortgages) or other uses which extend well beyond the historic norms of property to establish an entirely legitimate claim to certain additional land use entitlements as well.

What is an “Exaction”?

The term “exaction” is when a condition for development is imposed on a parcel of land which requires the developer to mitigate anticipated negative impacts of the development. An exaction may include some sort of mandatory dedication of real property for impact fee payments, sewer or water utility connection fees, or public use of land for a park, school, or transportation facility or expansion anticipated for certain related infrastructure improvements.

The Doctrine of “Unconstitutional Conditions”

Continue Reading What Are My Private Property Rights in Florida Against Unlawful Land Development Exactions?

In something of a rarity, an appellate court has written an opinion in favor of a property owner bringing a claim under The Bert J. Harris, Jr., Private Property Rights Protection Act.

In Ocean Concrete, Inc. v. Indian River County, Board of County Commissioners, the Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court order denying relief to a property owner under the Bert Harris Act. As the Fourth District explained, in order to obtain relief under the Bert Harris Act, a plaintiff has to show

a specific action of a governmental entity has inordinately burdened an existing use of real property or a vested right to a specific use of real property.”

Bert Harris Act in a Nutshell

Continue Reading Appellate Court Rules in Favor of Florida Property Owner Under Bert Harris Act

If you’re a regular reader of this blog (and I hope you are, or will become one!), you will know that many of my posts, over the years, have to do with property rights. An important component of property rights is valuation of the property right taken, or at stake. Today, as part of my series with local appraisers, I am interviewing Matt Simmons, an appraiser and principal with the firm of Maxwell, Hendry & Simmons, LLC.

Carlos: What do appraisers do?

Matt: At the core, we value the bundle of rights inherent in real property. We typically determine the value through application of one or more commonly accepted approaches to value: the Sales Comparison, Cost, or Income approach. But within each approach the nuance of the overall rights remains the value driver. The acronym DUE encompasses the fundamental rights most fee simple real property possesses. These are the rights of disposition, use, and exclusion. When an action (governmental or otherwise) impacts one of these rights, the value of the property is almost always impacted.

Carlos: What made you want to become an appraiser?

Matt: Like many professionals, I was introduced to the profession through a friend. I began working in appraisal data entry when I was 19 and gained my initial trainees license the following year. I’ve always had an interest in real estate and the opportunity to analyze properties, solve complex valuation issues, and build a real estate centered business is incredibly rewarding.

Carlos: How do you work with attorneys in property rights cases?

Continue Reading Meet the Appraiser: Matt Simmons

What do they have in common? Nothing…except that when I was getting a new set of tires put on my car, I had time to read Murr v. Wisconsin, the recent U.S. Supreme Court 40-page decision in a property rights case involving a regulatory takings analysis.

Facts

The facts of the case are pretty simple. The Murrs purchased Lots E and F separately in the 1960s, transferring Lot F to a family plumbing business, but keeping ownership of Lot E in their own names. The Murrs transferred Lot F to their kids in 1994 and Lot E to the kids in 1995. The lots each had less than one acre available for development. The Murr kids brought the lots under common ownership (in other words, the kids owned both lots, unlike the parents, who owned one lot through a company and the other lot as individuals).

Once under common ownership, state and local rules forbidding separate sale or development of the lots came in to play. The Murr kids wanted to sell Lot E as part of an improvement plan for both lots, and requested variances from the local zoning authority. The zoning authority denied the variance request, and the state courts affirmed the denial of the variance request.Continue Reading A New Set of Tires and the Latest Supreme Court Case on Property Rights

diamond-158431_1280In the film “Snatch,” made by British director Guy Ritchie (former husband of Madonna), there are a lot of moving parts: an 86 karat diamond, an underground boxing match, a robbery gone awry, a chew toy eaten by a dog, and a host of characters from London’s underworld bearing unusual names like Turkish,

Property Rights Flickr Kax VorpalLet’s take these in reverse order.

Do you own real estate?

If the answer is “Yes,” then you should care because you, as a property owner, hold a number of property rights, known as a “bundle of sticks.” If the government, or a private entity with the power of condemnation, infringes on one or more of your property rights, then you may have a claim for inverse condemnation, if certain other factors are met.

What is “inverse condemnation?”

Continue Reading What is Inverse Condemnation and Why Should You Care?

Wedding Rings with Gay Symbols.As the laws change, we strive to share how they will affect our clients and readers of this blog. Thus, we are pleased to share the following guest post by Florida Bar Board Certified Wills, Trust and Estate Planning Attorney Eric Gurgold.

On June 26, 2015 the Supreme Court of the United States, in Obergefell v. Hodges, Director, Ohio Department of Health, in a five to four opinion ruled to allow same sex marriages in every state. The Court held that the 14th Amendment requires a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize the marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out of state. The Court said the 14th Amendment concepts of due process and equal protection require states to treat same sex couples the same as opposite sex couples with regard to the fundamental right of marriage. The ruling does not apply to civil unions or other arrangements where the couple is not lawfully married.

Effect on Homestead ProvisionsContinue Reading Impact of the Supreme Court’s Ruling on Same Sex Marriages on Homestead and Property Rights

Spring is in the air, which means our elected state officials are in Tallahassee diligently considering, debating, and hopefully, actually reading thousands of proposed bills. The 60-day regular session began on Tuesday, March 8, and there are several draft bills that may have an effect on developers, property owners, and professionals involved in real estate and land development. Jay Brady, who covers state and local government issues for Gulf Coast Business Review, recently wrote an informative article regarding some of these bills, entitled “Business Bills to Watch.” It’s an excellent collection of proposed bills that deserve attention from the business community.

Continue Reading Top 10 Growth Management, Land Use & Property Bills Proposed for the 2011 Florida State Legislative Session