"CB" (jrcb)
10/24/2018 at 18:35 • Filed to: Criminal Law Civil Law
2
9|
"CB" (jrcb)
10/24/2018 at 18:35 • Filed to: Criminal Law Civil Law | 2
| 9 |
“We’re offering fair market value for the land, keeping in mind that the value has been reduced due to the flooding.” “The flooding is because you built a dam without consulting us 70 years ago! That’s why we’re here!” “So, are you taking the offer or not?”
ImmoralMinority, my kudos to you for being able to do civil law, because man is it hard.
The Dummy Gummy
> CB
10/24/2018 at 19:10 |
|
Government don’t care, l aw of eminent domain succckkkkkkkkss and gets abused.
RPM esq.
> CB
10/24/2018 at 19:10 |
|
I honestly can’t tell whether you’re trying to damn ImmoralMinority with faint praise or you’re sincerely impressed by this negotiating tactic, but either way I mostly want to hear what the counteroffer from the flood victim’s side was, out of professional curiosity.*
* AKA the reason lawyers never get seated on juries.
Dr. Zoidberg - RIP Oppo
> RPM esq.
10/24/2018 at 19:19 |
|
You big boys and your big boy jobs. GUFFAW
|
CB
> RPM esq.
10/24/2018 at 19:21 |
|
Oh, it was just a scenario we had to act out as part of training. The counteroffer was “are you fucking with us right now? No, we want our land back” followed by, basically “well we can’t un-flood it”. As you can tell, I’m not good at this.
It was based on a real scenario that even after 40 years, still hasn’t been resolved.
And that was legit kudos to him, because hot damn is civil law difficult.
and 100 more
> CB
10/24/2018 at 19:22 |
|
Tex ass, ftw.
|
RPM esq.
> CB
10/24/2018 at 19:42 |
|
Fair enough. I obviously don’t know the facts, the parties, or the law applicable to the real scenario or the simulation, but it may help frame your approach to remember that you’re really just using the law as a tool to solve a problem of economics. The flooding (or rather, the lost property value that resulted) is a negative externality that somebody’s going to end up bearing the cost of, and if I own the flooded property I’m going to make damn sure it’s borne by either whoever caused the flooding or whoever insured against the risk of flooding. If I caused the flooding I’m just trying to split that cost as much as possible with somebody else to whatever extent the law allows.
And no, it ain’t easy, but often it’s interesting!
|
RPM esq.
> The Dummy Gummy
10/24/2018 at 19:45 |
|
The legal term for “government don’t care” is “ sovereign immunity.”
Manwich - now Keto-Friendly
> CB
10/24/2018 at 22:05 |
|
“well we can’t un-flood it”
“Actually we could...”
Joe6pack
> CB
10/25/2018 at 21:06 |
|
I deal with this fairly regularly. Ordinarily, the land owner would have been compensated at the time the dam was built either through a an agreement or condemnation.
If this property owner wasn’t compensated, but felt they were somehow damaged (for instance they were adjacent to the project) , they could file an inverse condemnation. Then it comes down to whether or not they can demonstrate legitimate impacts. If both parties agree there are damages, then it’s a matter of negotiating the level of compensation.
In most of the cases I deal with, it comes down to compensation. Most condemnees understand that the project is going to happen one way or another. Sometimes we finish the project way before the case settles. Usually it just comes down to the money. As for the value of the property, it comes down to highest and best use in the before condition (before the project).