No End Run Around The Constitution

In his latest column for Daily Journal, Manatt Appellate Senior Counsel  discussed a recent takings case in Town of Apex v. Rubin in which a property owner challenged a North Carolina town’s taking on the ground that the condemnation was not for public use.

In this case, a North Carolina town condemned a resident’s private lot for a sewer line and began construction, despite the owner’s refusal to sell the property and claim that this taking was not for public use. After a legal challenge of the condemnation, the trial court decided in favor of the owner in addition to the Court of Appeals and the North Carolina Supreme Court when the town appealed. The town then filed a separate action for inverse condemnation, which states that if a government took private property for public use but did not pay the owner, “the remedy is compensation.” The town reasoned that even though their initial condemnation was invalid, they had already taken the property, so all they needed to do was compensate the owner to justify using the property. The North Carolina courts rejected this theory.

Berger wrote, “In a nutshell, the Supreme Court held that inverse condemnation is a cause of action held by a property owner to rectify damage caused when a government agency oversteps the bounds and takes property (intentionally or unintentionally) without paying for it. Inverse condemnation provides a means for property owners to obtain relief, not for government agencies to seek an end run around the constitution.”

Daily Journal subscribers can read the full article .