what is &quot;just compensation&quot; during eminent domain? The United States government uses eminent domain to seize private land for public use in exchange for "just compensation", but would the landowner be compensation for the structures on the land being seized? The United States government describes "just compensation" as: Just Compensation is the fair market value of a parcel of property that must be paid to a landowner who has had his or her property taken by the government. The idea in many courts in relations to eminent domain that the landowner's lifestyle should not suffer injustice indirect results of eminent domain. United States v. Commodities Trading Corp. Quote: "when market value has been too difficult to find, or when its application would result in manifest injustice to owner or public." If a farmer had recently built a barn (within the past year) that cost 45,000 dollars (paid for from a loan), on a piece of property that was originally 10,000 dollars(not paid for from a loan), but the market only values the property with the barn at 35,000 dollars, is the government only responsible for paying the market value if they decide to seize this land through eminent domain? Eminent domain: the right of a government or its agent to expropriate private property for public use, with payment of compensation. The legal background of eminent domain
If a farmer had recently built a barn (within the past year) that cost 45,000 dollars (paid for from a loan), on a piece of property that was originally 10,000 dollars(not paid for from a loan), but the market only values the property with the barn at 35,000 dollars, is the government only responsible for paying the market value if they decide to seize this land through eminent domain? Yes. The fact that you owe more on debt secured by condemned property than it is worth does not entitle you to more compensation, although the fact that the bank was recently willing to lend that much is strong evidence that its fair market value is more than the value of the loan, unless there was a corrupt or non-economic reason for it to make the loan. United States v. Commodities Trading Corp. is concerned with situations where property is difficult to value (e.g. thinly traded derivatives contracts), or where property is not of a kind that derives its value primarily from market transactions (e.g. family photographs or grave sites). But, real property with a purely economic function, like a barn used by a farmer for farming, does not fit in either of those categories. It is easily appraised. And, it is common for people to make improvements to real property that doesn't return $1 in fair market value for every $1 spend on it. But, eminent domain is not based upon book value. Now, it is important to note that the fair market value of the property that is taken itself is not the only thing that is valued in an eminent domain hearing. An eminent domain hearing also considers the impact that the property taken has on the property that is not taken. For example, suppose that while the going fair market value of a comparable barn on a comparable amount of real estate is $35,000, but it is the only barn at the farm which is useless without a replacement barn on the premises, and it costs $70,000 to build a replacement in the less than ideal conditions of the remaining land (for example, maybe the farmer has to build a bridge over a river to access the only other part of his land suitable for building a barn at a cost of $35,000 in addition to $35,000 to build the new barn itself). In that case, the eminent domain award would be more than $70,000, but probably less than $105,000 (most likely $80,000, with $10,000 being for the land and $70,000 for the replacement barn that needs to be built to preserve the value of the rest of the farm). Impact on the value of property not taken comes up a lot in eminent domain cases involving highway construction. The linked law firm's website illustrates many of the kinds of compensation for harm to the residual caused by a physical taking that are frequently awarded.
Most U.S. states provide zero compensation of any kind in this situation, although there are a few states that are exceptions. (Far more states provide compensation from conviction to release for a wrongfully convicted person.) Even in those few states that provide compensation to acquitted defendants, the compensation is typically set by statute and is frequently much less than what a middle class person would earn and certainly does not capture the full extent of the defendant's economic loss.
Every lot on the subdivision is and always will be acquired “through the Developer” Unless the developer still owns it. Somebody is the heir or assignee of the Developer - that’s who you need to seek approval from. Even if the Developer was at some point a company that got liquidated, the right of being the Developer would transfer to the creditors of that company.
There is a special exception in 17 USC 105: Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise. In the definitions, A “work of the United States Government” is a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties.
The fire department is entirely within its rights, which are the same as any other property owner. The fact that property is owned by a governmental body does not mean that members of the public can't be excluded that property. Some governmental property is public, but lots of it is private, and this would usually include most parts of fire department property. As long as you have not been denied any access to a public road by this fence, there is nothing improper about it. Anyone can walk through their parking lot, park their car there, meet friends, whatever, This is almost surely inaccurate. The fire department does not have to allow members of the public to have any access to their property and probably would demand that most of the uses you describe stop if they interfered in any way with the performance of its duties.
Summary: More information needed, but I have listed out some legal claims available to homeowners when they have similar concerns. There are several issues here which need elaboration before deciding if you can take legal action. The first is: "the destroyed some vegetation on my street." If the by "my street" you mean that the street is part of your property, you may sue the builders for trespass and/or damage to property. If the street isn't your property, but the vegetation is your property, you may sue them for destruction of your property. What you are probably looking for, however, is a prohibitive injunction. This is a court order forcing the builders to avoid doing something, e.g. An order forcing them to avoid using roads adjacent to your property. To obtain such an injunction you will have to prove that what they are doing is violating your rights, is somehow harmful to you or your property, or inevitably will do either of those things. One way to demonstrate this is if you can show that you have a claim under nuisance, or damage to property, or trespass. On the description you have given us, there isn't enough to say your rights are being violated, or that your property has come to harm or will come to harm because of their actions. You should also be aware of claims under nuisance. Nuisance is when someone is doing something that prevents you from "peaceful enjoyment of your land". It appears from your question that the actions of these builders have, in your mind, done this. However there are several aspects that have to be satisfied for this to amount to private nuisance: What the builder are doing must be a "continuing state of affairs." They may have annoyed you by trampling over vegetation, but if this is a "one-off" event, it is unlikely to amount to nuisance. A reasonable person must find the conduct to interfere with the enjoyment of their land. That is to say: it isn't enough that their conduct is making you unable to enjoy your land peacefully, you have to show that any reasonable person in the same situation would find this conduct unacceptable. Finally, the context of your neighbourhood matters: if the behaviour is something expected in a residential area, then it will not amount to a nuisance. For example, heavy drilling in an industrial location will not amount to a nuisance, while the same may do so in a normally quiet neighbourhood.
In the vast majority of jurisdictions, unpaid property taxes give rise to a lien that runs with the land. So, the new owners have an "in rem" responsibility to pay those taxes that can be collected against them solely by foreclosing on the tax lien and seizing the property if the tax isn't paid. Whether the previous owners also have any responsibility for the unpaid property taxes depends on state law which varies and on the terms of the real estate purchase and sale contract and deed in the transaction. Where I live, the real estate buyer is protected against a surprise tax bill once the sale is done in two main ways. First, the title company provides insurance against unpaid real estate taxes and will deduct any potential unpaid real estate taxes from the funds provided to the seller at closing unless the country treasurer has verified in writing to them that there are no real estate tax arrears for that parcel of property. Second, if the property is conveyed by a warranty deed that does not exclude a warranty that there are no property tax liens in existence for the relevant years, then the buyer has a right to sue the seller for the unpaid back taxes if that warranty turns out not to be true. Almost all sales of real property for full consideration between unrelated parties are carried out by a general warranty deed of this type that doesn't exclude property tax liens except for the current calendar year. If there is no title company involved in the transaction and/or the property is not conveyed by a warranty deed (e.g. it is conveyed by a quitclaim deed), then you could still avoid this risk by checking with the county treasurer to see if any back property taxes are owed on the parcel being sold and getting a certification in writing from the county treasurer of that fact, before agreeing to close on the sale. The title insurance company, or you, if there is no title insurance company, should also check the county real estate records normally maintained by a county clerk or recorder, to confirm that the seller really owns the property sold and that it has not been sold in a tax sale which would eliminate the back tax obligation but which would also mean that the seller no longer owns the property.
Generally speaking, the police will not return property known to be stolen to someone other than the owner of the property, even if it is illegally seized in a search that violates the 4th Amendment. While stolen property is not strictly speaking, contraband, it also isn't something that the person who would seek its return would be entitled to reclaim. This is particularly true when, in a circumstance like this where the motorcycle's ownership can be confirmed with a VIN number on file with a government agency linking the VIN number to the true owner of the vehicle, so the fact that it is stolen can be confirmed with great certainty. If the police do not return the property voluntarily, which they would not do, the person in possession of it would have to bring a suit for possession against the police who are in possession of it. In the face of a civil lawsuit to regain custody of the property from the police after they failed to return it, the police could insist that the true owner be joined to the action and could also raise the issue of unclean hands or similar defenses. A court filing claiming property known to be stolen by someone who is not the true owner would also provide evidence of the stolen property charge that would probably not be tainted "fruit of the poisonous tree" and instead, would be treated as an independent confession to the crime that was dismissed for lack of evidence after the original seizure under the 4th Amendment exclusionary rule.