Just Compensation vs. Fair Market Value After Anda
June 29th, 2011
Anda, 789 N.W.2d 860 (Minn. 2010), was a landmark Minnesota Supreme Court decision addressing highest and best use in condemnation proceedings. In a recent CLE Presentation, Howard Roston, of Malkerson Gunn Martin, and Corrine Heine of Kennedy & Graven, provided an overview of what the implications of this watershed decision may be.
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.
Contacts:
Howard Roston,
Minnesota Supreme Court holds that a condemning authority may not offset environmental clean up costs from the compensation due to owners in a condemnation action
September 9th, 2010
Malkerson Gunn Martin attorneys Brad Gunn and Howard Roston submitted an amicus brief in the Minnesota Supreme Court case Moorhead Economic Development Authority v. Anda. Adopting many of the arguments made in the brief, the Supreme Court of Minnesota held that environmental clean up costs cannot be offset dollar for dollar in a condemnation action.
Click here to read the full ruling.
Contacts:
Bradley Gunn, Howard Roston,
Howard Roston wins conditional use permit case in Washington County
August 25th, 2010
Howard Roston won a conditional use permit case in Washington County. When the City of Grant denied a client’s request for an amended conditional use permit to operate a well-established horse stable, the lawyers at Malkerson Gunn Martin LLP sued the City.
The Washington County District Court held that the City’s findings did not constitute a legally sufficient basis for the denial of the application for the conditional use permit. According to the Court, “the City’s decision to deny [the client's] application for an amended CUP was neither rational nor consistent with the City’s own CUP standards.”
A full copy of the District Court’s decision is here: City of Grant v. Flug Order and Memorandum.
Contacts:
Howard Roston,
Partner Rod Krass Wins Mechanic’s Lien at the Minnesota Supreme Court
July 11th, 2010
Malkerson Gunn Martin partner Rod Krass won an outstanding victory on behalf of his client S.M Hentges & Sons in the Minnesota Supreme Court.
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.
Contacts:
Rod Krass,
Malkerson Gunn Martin LLP Partners Honored in Chambers USA’s Guide to America’s Leading Lawyers for Business
June 23rd, 2010
Malkerson Gunn Martin LLP partners Bruce Malkerson and Kathleen Martin were honored in Chamber USA’s 2010 Guide to America’s Leading Lawyers for Business. Chambers USA 2010 is a referral guide designed to objectively present the best practitioners in the main areas of corporate law. Mr. Malkerson and Ms. Martin were honored as being among the best real estate attorneys in Minnesota:
Bruce Malkerson is a senior practitioner noted for his extensive land use expertise. “He has the ability to get just about anything permitted, approved and planned,” reveals one interviewee. The talented Kathleen Martin represents developers. She recently stepped down as chair of the real property, trust and probate section of the [American Bar Association].
Chambers & Partners is a highly respected and influential London-based research and publishing company that provides rankings of leading business lawyers and law firms throughout the world. Rankings are based on technical legal ability, professional conduct, client service, commercial astuteness, diligence, commitment, and other qualities most valued by clients.
Contacts:
Bruce Malkerson, Kathleen Martin,
MGM Partner Brad Gunn Wins Minnesota Court of Appeals Case
May 12th, 2010
Malkerson Gunn Martin LLP partner Brad Gunn secured a victory on behalf of his clients by successfully arguing the appeal of a trial court decision. Mr. Gunn convinced the Minnesota Court of Appeals that his clients were deprived of their property rights, entitling them to just compensation under the United States and Minnesota Constitutions.
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.
Contacts:
Bradley Gunn,
