How Can You Keep the Government from Condemning Your Property?

To resist the condemnation of your property, you will need to present your case at a hearing and offer convincing evidence in your favor. There are two different grounds on which you can resist the condemnation. You can argue that the taking of your property is not necessary. You can also indicate that the monetary offer made to you is not “just compensation” for the property. In either case, you will need to have clear evidence to support your claim that your property should not be condemned and get the court to go along with you. 

Understanding Condemnation Law

Condemnation occurs when the government takes your property under their right of eminent domain. The government must take it for the public good such as to build a school, park, road, or multi-family affordable housing. While the government does have a right to take the property over your objection, the government cannot just take your property without paying you for it. As such, the government is required to give you “just compensation.” This is determined by appraisers who look at what the property would be worth on an open market if sold for the most profitable use. In other words, if you are currently using your house as a residential home, but it could be turned into something more profitable, the appraisers would look at the property as if it were being used for the “best” and most profitable use. 

If you wish to resist and argue either that the property does not need to be taken for the public good or that the compensation is unjust, you must present convincing evidence to win your case. Testimony from professional appraisers is essential to support your argument.

Risks in Resisting Condemnation

When you do resist condemnation, you run the risk of getting less compensation than you were originally offered. You also run the risk of getting stuck with legal fees.  The government has to only pay legal fees if you win your case.

Getting Legal Help

Hiring a lawyer is essential if you want the best chance of winning. A lawyer can also tell you whether you have a good case for resisting condemnation in the first place.

Case Studies: Resisting Property Condemnation

Case Study 1: Smith Family vs. City Council

The Smith family, residents of Pleasantville, found themselves facing the condemnation of their property due to a city council’s decision to build a new park. The Smiths believed that their property was not necessary for the project and that the compensation offered was unjust.

They decided to resist the condemnation and sought legal help. With the assistance of their lawyer, they presented compelling evidence, including testimony from professional appraisers, to support their argument.

The case ultimately went to court, where the Smith family successfully convinced the judge that their property should not be condemned. As a result, they received fair compensation and were able to keep their property.

Case Study 2: Anderson Enterprises vs. State Highway Authority

Anderson Enterprises, a small business specializing in manufacturing, faced the condemnation of their property by the State Highway Authority. The authority intended to construct a new highway that would require Anderson Enterprises’ land.

However, the company believed that the compensation offered did not reflect the true value of their property and decided to challenge the condemnation. They hired a lawyer experienced in eminent domain cases to represent them.

Through extensive research and gathering of evidence, including expert testimonies, Anderson Enterprises presented a strong case in court. The judge ruled in their favor, determining that the compensation was indeed unjust.

As a result, Anderson Enterprises received a higher amount of just compensation, protecting their business interests.

Case Study 3: Johnson vs. County Development Board

Mr. Johnson, a homeowner residing in rural Blissville, faced the condemnation of his property by the County Development Board. The board planned to build a multi-family affordable housing complex on the land.

However, Mr. Johnson believed that his property was not necessary for the public good and decided to resist the condemnation. He sought legal representation to assist him in presenting his case effectively.

With the guidance of his lawyer, Mr. Johnson gathered evidence and prepared persuasive arguments to support his claim.

During the hearing, he presented expert testimonies and highlighted the unique characteristics of his property that made it unsuitable for the proposed project.

After carefully considering the evidence, the court agreed with Mr. Johnson’s arguments and ruled in his favor. As a result, his property was spared from condemnation, allowing him to continue enjoying his home in Blissville.