Articles Posted in Real Estate Law

Books stacked on a desk with a lawyer's gravel.Pre-judgment interests are accrued interests on judgment amounts. Eminent domain is when the government “takes” private property for the public’s use and then owes fair and just compensation to the original private property owners. An eminent domain award is the court-ordered judgment amount that is based on the fair market value of the property owed to the private property owner. 

Generally speaking, eminent domain awards must be paid out to the private property owner before a property’s title can be transferred or the government can take physical possession of the property. Read on to understand what both pre-judgment interests are and eminent domain awards contain.

What is a pre-judgment interest?

Image of Gavel, and Constitution for blog image. ​​Can a property owner sue for inverse condemnation when the government refuses to permit development? Underwood Law Firm, P.C.In certain situations, it is possible for a property owner to sue the government for inverse condemnation when the government refuses to permit development and that refusal results in a “taking” under the United States constitution. 

If the city, state, or federal government refuses to permit development, it must take away all or substantially all the reasonable use of the property in order to form the legal basis for an inverse condemnation lawsuit. Then, the basis for inverse condemnation is formed on the basis of the government’s refusal to permit development, and this can be a powerful legal remedy for property owners.

The lack of reasonable use of the property is viewed with consideration of all of the impact on the personal landowner’s land in order to substantiate an inverse condemnation claim against the government. 

A big house facade with a garden on its lawn
Everyone agrees that there is a shortage of affordable housing in California. There are many possible solutions to this problem, one of the solutions was the Legislature’s passage of AB 1486.

What is the purpose of the Surplus Land Act?

Government Code section 54220 sets the stage for the other provisions of the Surplus Land Act.

A lawyer's desk with scales in front and a lawyer's signing a paperwork behind it.
The acquisition of private property for eminent domain usually proceeds on a long timeline. Before the government actually uses eminent domain to acquire private property, there is a substantial amount of planning. During the pre-condemnation period, which can stretch for years, a governmental entity often has the opportunity to make land use decisions about the property that it intends to acquire.

While there is nothing out of the ordinary with making land use decisions pending condemnation, per se, it can become problematic when those decisions lower the value of the land that will eventually be taken. In those situations, there is a question about whether the property owner in that situation can recover from the diminution in value.

Unreasonable Delay is Compensable

A lawn or vacant lot fronting a big house across.
When there is so much real estate to buy in California, it may not be clear why anyone would benefit from purchasing surplus land in the first instance. After all, it requires going through a negotiation process with a public entity and may take longer than other land purchases. There are some drawbacks to buying “surplus land” from a public entity. The question, then, is whether there are any benefits to buying surplus land.

Are there any ways that buying Surplus Land is beneficial?

Government Code section 54225 provides that any public agency disposing of surplus for “low- and moderate-income housing purposes may provide for a payment period of up to 20 years in any contract of sale or sale by trust deed for the land. The payment period for surplus land disposed of for housing and low- and moderate-income families may exceed 20 years. Still, the payment period shall not exceed the term that the land is required to be used for low- or moderate-income housing.”

A chess board where the king fell down
In many ways, partition actions are relatively straightforward. Generally, in a partition action, the two property owners cannot agree on its use, and one of the owners asks the court to sell the property so each can go their separate ways.

The question arises of whether one of the two persons actually owns the property in the first instance. When there is a question of whether one of the parties is an owner, can you contest the title in a partition action? The answer is “yes,” as one of the primary purposes of a partition action is a determination of title.

Generally, at trial, the court must determine whether the plaintiff has the right to partition. (CCP § 872.210(a).) A question of ownership of property, as presented in a partition action, may be one of fact or law, depending on whether the determination of the issue involves a decision on conflicting facts or the application of the law to a stated set of facts. (Lieb v. Superior Court (1962) 199 Cal.App.2d 364.)

Aerial image of a wide portion land in a city
The revised Surplus Land Act contains negotiation requirements to encourage the sale of surplus public land. Also, the law makes it more likely that the land will ultimately be developed for as much housing as possible. Prior to entering negotiations, however, AB 1486 requires that the agency selling the surplus land must first give notice.

Government Code section 54222 states that “Any local agency disposing of surplus land shall send, prior to disposing of that property or participating in negotiations to dispose of that property with a prospective transferee, a written notice of availability to all of the following [list of persons]. (emphasis added.)”

By the use of the mandatory term shall, this section mandates notification and therefore ensures that the widest possible array of interested persons will be able to compete to develop the surplus land.

Wide array of land with a stream in the middle.
Everything old is new again. Or so it seems. Sometimes a new thing really is new. In this case, the question is whether the new Surplus Land Act is truly as big of a change as touted. After all, there was a Surplus Land Act before, and there’s a Surplus Land Act now. What’s the big deal?

New Designation Requirements

One small but powerful change is that AB 1486 requires an entity disposing of surplus land to send a notice of availability to the Department of Housing and Community Development (the “Department”) rather than upon written request. This is part of the new “master list” requirements whereby the Department is now required to maintain a master list of available surplus land available. (see Gov. Code § 54222(a)(2).) By requiring each entity to send the information to the Department instead of requiring the Department to request such information, AB 1486 makes it easier for prospective purchasers to understand what is available.

Landscape image of a wide land in the field
The purpose of this article is to address the goals that California’s Surplus Land Act was designed to accomplish.

The article will address the prior version of the Surplus Land Act, the changes to definitions made in 2019, and provide a big-picture perspective on its aims.

In 2019, the California Legislature re-made the Surplus Land Act in significant ways. Just three of those ways are addressed here.

Aerial view of land as a background image with texts about eminent domain
As if eminent domain is not bad enough, after you’ve gone through the process, the government wants to tax you on the land it made you sell. Savvy property owners, however, can limit their tax liabilities through the use of a 1031 exchange process.

Can a property owner limit the effects of eminent domain?

Internal Revenue Code section 1033 permits the owner of property taken by eminent domain to avoid income tax liability by purchasing qualified replacement property within a specified time following the condemnation.

Contact Information