Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I disagree. It's not the value of what they TAKE. It's how much the taking reduces the value of your property. Sometimes, a relatively small taking will have a drastic impact on the value of what remains.
For example, suppose the street widening is going to take the front yard of your house right up to the porch steps. The value of the land taken may not be very much, but the taking sure as hell ruined the value of what you have left. Who would want a house with ZERO front yard?
The property owner is entitled to compensation for DAMAGES to what he currently owns, not the value of the miniscule amount of property that they take. "Damages" is defined as the difference in market value between what you own NOW and what you have left after the taking. Been there. Done that. Got the tee shirt.
In the majority of condemnation cases, I believe that oldtrader is correct: the landowner is compensated for the value of the land being taken. While I do agree that there can be unique circumstances whereby a small taking will render a more significant change in value, those situations seem to be rather rare. As with everything involving real estate, the details will matter.
Assuming that the OP is correct in the amount that is to be taken (and, of course, that needs to be verified), that means that only about 2.3% of her land will be taken. Depending especially on the configuration of the lot, it is unlikely that such a small taking will result in a more major reduction in value.
A .75-acre lot could measure exactly 110' by 297'...or it could be many other configurations. Oldtrader gave one example, but if the lot had 110 feet of frontage, the amount taken would still be less than 7 feet.
To the OP: I don't believe that you will need to hire either an appraiser or an attorney. You can prepare yourself to do so, but wait until you receive the City's offer before making any decision on that. I would suspect that either an attorney or an appraiser would cost you a few hundred dollars. The fact that you will be paid 150% of the value being taken certainly helps. (Michigan has a similar provision whereby if land involving a principal residence is taken through condemnation for a public use, then payment of at least 125% of the fair market value is required to be paid.)
Just to clarify... in regards to the "damages"... does an attorney or an appraiser determine that amount?
The City will make their offer based upon an appraisal. (I would't necessarily call it "damages".) If you can play hardball, you may be able to get them to raise their initial offer so that they don't have the expense of taking you to court. That's where an attorney might be able to help you. If you and the City can't reach an agreement, a Court would determine the amount to be paid, based upon the evidence provided by both sides. Taking it to court is a time and expense which I don't believe you need.
Last edited by jackmichigan; 03-17-2021 at 08:45 AM..
In the majority of condemnation cases, I believe that oldtrader is correct: the landowner is compensated for the value of the land being taken.
Old Trader is NOT correct for the situation of when a part or portion of a piece of property is taken. If the WHOLE property is taken, then the fair market value of the taking is the "damages". However, when they take only a PORTION of the property, the "damages" is the difference in value between the initial whole property and the value of what's left. Even an alteration in the "usage" of a property can and will be considered as "damages".
I've been through this before and I've researched it enough to know that I'm right. The "value" of what is taken is not the issue. The issue is the "damages" that the property owner suffers as a result of the government's taking. I could give you multiple examples, but I suggest you look it up yourself.
The City will make their offer based upon an appraisal. (I would't necessarily call it "damages".) If you can play hardball, you may be able to get them to raise their initial offer so that they don't have the expense of taking you to court. That's where an attorney might be able to help you. If you and the City can't reach an agreement, a Court would determine the amount to be paid, based upon the evidence provided by both sides. Taking it to court is a time and expense which I don't believe you need.
I did the search for you. Took me less than 30 seconds to find this explanation:
"the government acquiring your property for a public use must compensate its owner by paying “just compensation.” Just compensation is typically measured in one of two ways, either 1) it is the “fair market value” of the property taken by the government if the government takes an entire property; or 2) it is the fair market value of the property taken plus the loss in value to the rest of your property if the government takes only a portion of your property."
This is the same thing I have been saying except he called it "just compensation" and I called it "damages". They are essentially the same thing when used in this context.
Im realizing this now, you are correct. I have 0.75 of an acre and i think they might want 750 square ft. Using only the assessed value of the land i dont think its feasible to hirer an attorney. I live in a state where eminent domain says 150% for fair market value. I also live on a fixed income, hand to mouth.
Nobody threw out a ballpark figure on what an attorney or an appraisal costs... someone said earlier in this thread thats its 1000s of dollars for appraisal which i find hard to believe.
11 years ago I paid $695 plus fees for a home appraisal for a second mortgage on my house. The house was assessed for under $200K which was cheap where I lived at the time. He appraised the lot and house but it was not elaborate such as eminent domain. Prices will range greatly based on the area, lot size, additional work the appraiser needs to do such as research, their knowledge and expertise, etc. It's not a one size fits all kind of thing. Even a BigMac at McDonald's will vary in the same town a few miles apart.
I did the search for you. Took me less than 30 seconds to find this explanation:
"the government acquiring your property for a public use must compensate its owner by paying “just compensation.” Just compensation is typically measured in one of two ways, either 1) it is the “fair market value” of the property taken by the government if the government takes an entire property; or 2) it is the fair market value of the property taken plus the loss in value to the rest of your property if the government takes only a portion of your property."
This is the same thing I have been saying except he called it "just compensation" and I called it "damages". They are essentially the same thing when used in this context.
I've been respectful of your posts and now you're starting to come off as being derisive. There's no need for that even if we happen to disagree on this one issue. I don't doubt that from your experience you believe that the value of the loss is only determined one way. From my experience, I think the methodology that you suggest is less used than is a simple valuation of the land lost--especially in cases where the land in question is such a small portion of the overall property and unlikely to have cumulative negative impacts beyond the land value.
From a Constitutional perspective, the fundamental requirement in a governmental taking is that there be "just compensation", meaning a landowner is supposed to be compensated for their loss. It matters little whether a property is taken in whole or in part; just compensation is supposed to be paid. (And, of course, it is not always the case that just compensation is paid. That's why we have courts.)
I've worked rather extensively with governmental entities acquiring partial interests in entire properties, fee acquisitions to portions of properties, and outright purchases of entire properties. All of those governmental acquisitions have been based upon appraisals. Many have included the types of before-and-after appraisals which you have noted, but most appraisals have simply been used to estimate the value of the specific land in question.
One of the primary problems which needs to be acknowledged is that appraisals are not an exact science. They are opinions of value; they are estimates of value; and they are essentially theoretical best-guesses as to what a property would likely sell for on the open market.
Doing a before-and-after valuation appraisal is more complicated--and therefore subject to more variation--than a more straightforward simple appraisal of land. It also generally costs more. From a practical standpoint, I believe that is why most of the governmental entities that I've worked with tend to avoid those types of valuation methods whenever possible, regardless of what some definition found on the internet might suggest.
I've been respectful of your posts and now you're starting to come off as being derisive. There's no need for that even if we happen to disagree on this one issue. I don't doubt that from your experience you believe that the value of the loss is only determined one way. From my experience, I think the methodology that you suggest is less used than is a simple valuation of the land lost--especially in cases where the land in question is such a small portion of the overall property and unlikely to have cumulative negative impacts beyond the land value.
From a Constitutional perspective, the fundamental requirement in a governmental taking is that there be "just compensation", meaning a landowner is supposed to be compensated for their loss. It matters little whether a property is taken in whole or in part; just compensation is supposed to be paid. (And, of course, it is not always the case that just compensation is paid. That's why we have courts.)
I've worked rather extensively with governmental entities acquiring partial interests in entire properties, fee acquisitions to portions of properties, and outright purchases of entire properties. All of those governmental acquisitions have been based upon appraisals. Many have included the types of before-and-after appraisals which you have noted, but most appraisals have simply been used to estimate the value of the specific land in question.
One of the primary problems which needs to be acknowledged is that appraisals are not an exact science. They are opinions of value; they are estimates of value; and they are essentially theoretical best-guesses as to what a property would likely sell for on the open market.
Doing a before-and-after valuation appraisal is more complicated--and therefore subject to more variation--than a more straightforward simple appraisal of land. It also generally costs more. From a practical standpoint, I believe that is why most of the governmental entities that I've worked with tend to avoid those types of valuation methods whenever possible, regardless of what some definition found on the internet might suggest.
Best regards. YMMV.
I didn't mean to be disrespectful of you. It was that you kept insisting (or strongly implying) that the only thing that matters is the value of the land being taken when, in fact, that's often the LEAST consideration on many residential type properties where there is only a "partial" taking.
So, since you didn't seem willing to do any research, I did it myself. Took only a few seconds to find and I posted it for you and a link to where you could read the whole thing. Now if you want to continue to insist that you are right and the experts who wrote the link (and numerous others just like it) are wrong... well, I don't know what to tell you.
Of course there are appraisals, and often quite a bit more than that. A person needs a good lawyer if they are going to contest what the City/State offers them. I've been through all that personally. I've been through the process of essentially picking a "jury" of peers to decide who is right... the property owner or the state. I've presented my case to this "jury", and did so quite successfully. That's why I said that I've been there and done that. Been through the whole process.
I just didn't think it was necessary to go into all the details of what might happen because it could take me hours to explain it all... and likely a huge number of the people reading it wouldn't understand or care anyway since they'll never be involved with it.
So, the best advice I could give the OP is to get a good lawyer who knows how this stuff works. Things like appraisals, challenging the State's offer, and stuff like that can come later if necessary.
There are so many different answers here and once again, as is too often common on CD, people post what they know or believe they know about the situation in areas with which they are familiar. Eminent Domain laws would most frequently be under the purview of state law, of which there are least fifty; considering overriding local statutes could bring the arena into the hundreds. Even quoting statements from a particular law firm is pointless unless there is information that the OP's property is in the same jurisdiction. Simple things, like what will the widening accomplish will matter, at least in some places. Does it simply make two lanes a bit broader or change a road from a two lane residential street to a four lane artery?
A person needs a good lawyer if they are going to contest what the City/State offers them.
Again I am taking about a small portion of land, so small that paying a lawyer is not feasible. How would the process work WITHOUT a lawyer or appraisal?
Again I am taking about a small portion of land, so small that paying a lawyer is not feasible. How would the process work WITHOUT a lawyer or appraisal?
Do you know exactly how much the city/state proposes to take? Do you know how much they plan to give you for this taking? Do you think that losing that small portion of property is going to have much of an effect on the desirability or value of the remaining property?
Look at these questions from the viewpoint of a potential buyer of the remaining property. If it would have a considerable effect on how much you would pay for what's left in your opinion, then it would likely have a similar affect on what someone else would pay. The law says that you are entitled not only to the value of what's taken, but also any decrease in value (in excess of the small amount they pay you for the small part taken) on the remaining property.
"Questions arise when the condemning authority acquires less than all of the property. In this instance, just compensation is determined by valuing all of the owner’s property before the taking (larger parcel) and subtracting the value of the property that the owner has left after the taking (remainder). This calculation is known as the federal rule. The state rule provides a different calculation method, but the just compensation amount remains the same."
So the question comes down to how much you are being offered and how competent you think you will be to handle the situation without legal representation. You MIGHT be entitled to legal expenses also.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
