Inverse Condemnation Litigation: Strategies for Municipal Attorneys for Avoiding and Defending Taking Claims

Description

Property owners have become more aggressive in challenging the government’s exercise of eminent domain over their private property. Municipalities defending inverse condemnation actions must navigate a complicated area of the law and face the potential for significant litigation expenses.

To prevail in inverse condemnation claims, property owners must prove that they were deprived of all or substantially all economically beneficial use of their property by the government’s direct action or inaction, or prove the government’s action has substantially impacted the value of their property by thwarting a reasonable investment-backed expectation. Prevailing property owners are entitled to recover damages, attorneys’ fees and costs. Attorneys’ fees can exceed the amount of the damages award.

Municipalities defending inverse condemnation claims should put forth all reasonable affirmative defenses, including proper exercise of police power not subject to compensation, plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies, plaintiff’s waiver of rights to object or receive compensation, and the expiration of the statute of limitations, which tends to be relatively short in inverse condemnation cases based on a regulatory taking.

Listen as our authoritative panel discusses the latest developments in inverse condemnation litigation, how courts are ruling in these cases, and best practices for municipal attorneys for defending and avoiding claims.