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

The story behind this new cause of action

gavel.jpgThis legislation expands the Bert J. Harris Jr., Property Rights Protection Act (which we have recently discussed here and here) and codifies the 2013 United States Supreme Court’s Koontz decision. Following the Koontz case, a local government’s power to condition the approval of proposed development by demanding property or monetary exactions has been significantly curtailed.

Effective October 1, 2015, Florida has crafted a new cause of action under Section 70.45, Florida Statutes, which will provide relief for property owners who have been subjected to such an unlawful exaction.

How it worksContinue Reading New Florida Law Benefits Property Owners Subjected to Unlawful Exactions