Do certain laws result in a &#39;taking?&#39; Some time back the city of Denton Texas passed a law outright banning all fracking. I believe this law was passed by a referendum of voters who voted for it. Some investors holding property and mineral rights held property inside the city limits of that city with the specific intent of eventually drilling or fracking in order to recoup their investment. Since the new law prevents those investors from doing so, and since the new law makes the sale of those assets to others who might also want to do the same, effectively lowering the worth of those assets, does this law results in a 'taking' of the property?
No, lowering the value of a asset does not constitute a "taking" of the property. The investors can still exercise their property and mineral rights, they are merely restricted from performing fracking. You mentioned drilling; as far as I am aware, the ordinance only prevents fracking, which I believe is a practice of inserting water in a well to force oil to the surface. There are several older techniques such as drilling and pumping that where developed centuries ago that could be used, that as I recall are not banned. For another example: Say you had a car that got low gas mileage, but was desirable because despite this it had low running and maintenance costs. If the government (federal, state or local) passes a sufficiently high excise tax on gasoline, the running costs of the car may exceed it's competitors, causing it to lose value: this would not be considered "taking" your car either, since you own the same exact vehicle.
The technical difference is that theft is illegal, and adverse possession is not. I'm assuming you're talking about why there's a difference. Historically, there are two basic reasons for adverse possession. First, land lasts for a very long time, and a sale is generally invalid unless the seller has valid title. That means that no property title is secure, because someone could always come out of the woodwork with a claim that your great-great-great-grandfather threw their great-great-great-grandfather off the land 300 years ago. Not only is all land title insecure, but you might not even be able to defend such a claim (do you know the history of your land for the past 300 years?) Adverse possession, then, is a way to let people know no one else can claim title to their land based on something so long ago no one remembers properly. Even with modern public land registries (which did not always exist), this situation can still arise if someone mistakenly believes that they own some land and starts using it. The second reason is that if someone isn't doing anything with the land for a long time, and someone else is doing something useful with it, the government would rather give it to the person doing something useful. People who lose property through adverse possession are unwilling to take the extremely minor steps needed to keep their property. It tends to move land from totally nonproductive users to productive users, and then keeps those nonproductive users from kicking out people who improved the land and keeping the improvements. The notion that leaving something for too long removes your right to claim it is not restricted to real estate. Almost everything in law has a time limit of some sort.
A statutory instrument that exceeds the limits of the enabling Act is void. For example, an Act that enables the executive to make regulations about companies would not support a regulation that purported to affect companies and partnerships. There are two controls in place: regulations must be tabled in Parliament and any MP can call for the regulation to be debated and voted down. anyone affected by the regulation can go to court to oppose it - there are lots of things they can argue including that the regulation overreaches its enabling Act.
Possibly In most contracts, the parties sign in their capacity as people (or agents for other people). However, some contracts are signed in the capacity as the owner of a piece of land and the contract transfers with the land. The liability rests with the current owner and, if unpaid, creates a lien over the property. These are particularly common in contracts with utilities or where the contract involves the a structure on the land. Surprise, surprise, the situation you describe involves both. You need to refer back to your contract for the land as these types of contracts are usually disclosed (unless they are a function of local law because everyone just knows - I don't know anything about Pa. law on this) and the original contract with the gas company. Your settlement may have also involved you paying a figure to purchase the gas in the tank as at the date of settlement. For example, in new-south-wales, council rates and water rates attach to the land as a matter of law and the vendor pays the purchaser for any amount they have paid in advance (or vice-versa if they are in arrears). Electricity and piped gas don't; the vendor ends their account on or before settlement and the buyer opens a new account on or after settlement and each pays for their own use. Propane for portable bottles doesn't but for fixed installations does as a matter of contract with the gas company.
Your question seems to be about abandoned property and whether Missouri’s statute on disposing of property after a tenant abandons his/her property applies. See Mo. Rev. State. Ann. § 441.065 (“Abandonment of premises, disposition of remaining property.”) Assuming there was no agreement (in writing or orally) for the 19 year-old to pay rent, he was most likely a guest and not a tenant. As a guest, landlord-tenant laws, would not apply to the property that that was left at the nice family’s house. The definitions section of Missouri’s landlord-tenant statutes (and common sense) support this analysis. See Mo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 441.005. Therefore, the issue them becomes did the 19 year abandon his property? To that question, I think the answer is yes. Missouri Courts have defined the test for “abandoned property” in Herron v. Whiteside, 782 S.W.2d 414, 416 (Mo. App. W. Dist. 1989), stating: Abandonment is the voluntary relinquishment of ownership so that the property ceases to be the property of any person and becomes the subject of appropriation by the first taker. Wirth v. Heavey, 508 S.W.2d 263, 267 (Mo.App.1974). Abandonment of property requires intent plus an act. Id. A sufficient act is one that manifests a conscious purpose and intention of the owner of personal property neither to use nor to retake the property into his possession. Id. Intention to abandon may be inferred from strong and convincing evidence and may be shown by conduct clearly inconsistent with any intention to retain and continue the use or ownership of the property. Herron, 782 S.W.2d at 416. So to synthesize that passage from Herron, the court is saying that there is a 2 part test for determining if property is abandoned. Did the person intend to abandon the property? Did they commit some act to show this intention? If the answer is yes, to both, they the “first taker” or person that gets possession after the property is abandoned is the new owner. Here, it seems that the 19 year-old intended to abandon the property. He left without explaining why and stated that he would not unload the property if the nice family tried to return it (implying he would not accept the property back). Looking at the second part, him moving without giving notice, and telling the nice family that he won’t accept delivery of the property are both acts showing his intent to abandon the property.
You are free to ask them to stop. If they do, great. If they don’t, you legal options depend on if they are legally able to make such noise at that time or not. I am not familiar with UK law but typical laws give wide powers to the owners of infrastructure to construct/repair it. Again, typically, permits may be required but exceptions exist for urgent work. If they have such a permit (or don’t need one) your legal options are nil. If they don’t you can go to court seeking an injunction to stop them until they do.
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.
Not in the state of California. California law prohibits discrimination based on source of income; only discrimination based on amount of income is allowed. See the California Government Code, section 12955. It is not even legal to indicate a preferred source of income in the advertisement; landlords may ask prospective tenants about the source of income, but may not discriminate or indicate preference for a particular source (provided it's a lawful source). Also, you can't really force a city to re-zone based on "I'll make sure this bad thing doesn't happen." If the city doesn't want to re-zone, they won't re-zone. You have no right to force them to re-zone; this is especially true when the property was purchased under those zoning rules (if the buyer didn't like them, they didn't have to buy).