Summary of Valuation Related Holdings in Anda:

• In a taking under Minnesota’s “Quick-Take” statute, the date of valuation is the date when both title and possession transfer.
• Contaminated property is to be valued “as remediated” rather than as contaminated or clean.
• Condemnation awards may not be reduced by remediation costs. Evidence of contamination is only admitted to determine the value of the property “as remediated.”
• Conditions existing at the time of taking may be considered even if discovered after the taking.

Or, take a look for yourself and view the entire presentation:

Malkerson Gunn Martin has one of the most experienced team of condemnation lawyers in the State of Minnesota. Our lawyers also handle condemnations in other states as well. We often take such cases on a “contingent fee” basis where the property owner incurs a fee only if we obtain a result greater than the condemning authority’s written offer to the owner. In other words, if we are confident we can obtain an award greater than that offered, we willingly share the risk of doing so with our clients.

The Malkerson Gunn Martin CapX2020 condemnation team is uniquely qualified to represent the interests of property owners in the powerline condemnation process. The MGM team consists of Bruce Malkerson, Rod Krass, Brad Gunn, and Tim Keane. Collectively, these attorneys have over 150 years of condemnation experience. The MGM CapX2020 condemnation team is in various stages of representation of property owners throughout the project area.

For more information on the Malkerson Gunn Martin attorneys with experience in this area, please visit our CapX2020 practice area page.

Click here to read the full ruling.

The case involved the interpretation of the Minnesota Mechanic’s Lien law as applied to new residential development. The engineering company that worked on the project contended it’s lien was valid without giving the required pre-lien notice to the owner because the project contained more than four lots, and no notice is required under the law when a project consists of more than “four family units.” The Court of Appeals agreed with the engineering company, but the Supreme Court reversed and held that “family units” does not refer to lots but rather to an actual structure on one lot, which contained more than four units in which people could live.

We hold that the exception created under subdivision 4b applies only to multi-unit buildings and this does not apply here. We reverse the decision of the court of appeals with regard to its interpretation of Minn. Stat § 514.011, subd. 4b, and remand on the remaining issue of whether the pre-lien notice requirement applies to parties performing engineering and surveying work.

The full text of the opinion can be downloaded here: S.M. Hentges & Sons, Inc., 777 N.W.2d 228 (Minn. 2010)

Since 1969, Phillip “Rod” Krass has represented developers in obtaining zoning and subdivision approvals for residential, commercial and industrial projects, and arranging public and private financing related to those projects.

The majority reached a conclusion in favor of Mr. Gunn’s clients:

After remand, appellants challenge the district court‘s determination that the 2002 Rochester International Airport Zoning Ordinance No. 4 did not effectuate a regulatory taking of their property as a matter of law. Because we conclude that the ordinance effectuated a regulatory taking of appellants‘ property, we reverse and remand.

The full decision can be found here.