Overall strikes me as not being drafted or thought through very well, but probably doesn't have much direct affect on the County. As drafted, litigation would likely be required to resolve some ambiguities. Good news is that the litigation is much more likely to be triggered by/with the State. Specific comments:
Section 1 defines "condemnor", then at (2)(e) references "condemnee" -- but there is no definition of condemnee. If they're going to define one, they should define both terms.
Section 2 - the language of (2)(b) does not do anything. If the condemnee's claim must be submitted prior to the final offer per the amendment to (2)(a), there would never be any way it could be interpreted as a rejection of that final offer that doesn't even exist yet.
Section 3, last line, and definition of "coercive" in Section 1: None of this really adds any substantive protection in the law, but adding this vague language to the statute invites litigation.
Section 4: The language stricken from (1) makes it impossible for a court to make a determination under (2). Taking this language out will actually make it harder for condemnees to get awards of litigation expenses, which is probably not what the legislators are intending.
Section 5: (1) This is the same as current (3) (with superfluous addition of words "for the acquisition of" in first line).
(1) and (3) -- It doesn't make sense for (3) to appear after (1), and particularly not after (2).
(2) What is a "formal mediation process"? And then the statute says mediation process "may begin" and "must be paid for" by condemnor -- so is mediation required, or not? This needs to be fleshed out, or will certainly be litigated. I also think the concept is bad policy; the offer was already based on an independent appraisal, so what is mediation going to accomplish?
(7) What does "for the use of the condemnee" mean? Can the condemnee withdraw the funds immediately, even though the judgment could end up being less?
Section 6: This provision would permanently tax power line properties at different rates depending on whether the property was acquired by agreement or by court ordered condemnation. Could make tracking properties and tax assessments pretty complicated.
Section 8: Not clear what "proceedings" means. Does that include ongoing negotiations that have not yet triggered formal court proceedings? I'd recommend inserting words "negotiations or" before the word "proceedings".
James McCubbin writes:
ReplyDeleteOverall strikes me as not being drafted or thought through very well, but probably doesn't have much direct affect on the County. As drafted, litigation would likely be required to resolve some ambiguities. Good news is that the litigation is much more likely to be triggered by/with the State.
Specific comments:
Section 1 defines "condemnor", then at (2)(e) references "condemnee" -- but there is no definition of condemnee. If they're going to define one, they should define both terms.
Section 2 - the language of (2)(b) does not do anything. If the condemnee's claim must be submitted prior to the final offer per the amendment to (2)(a), there would never be any way it could be interpreted as a rejection of that final offer that doesn't even exist yet.
Section 3, last line, and definition of "coercive" in Section 1: None of this really adds any substantive protection in the law, but adding this vague language to the statute invites litigation.
Section 4: The language stricken from (1) makes it impossible for a court to make a determination under (2). Taking this language out will actually make it harder for condemnees to get awards of litigation expenses, which is probably not what the legislators are intending.
Section 5:
(1) This is the same as current (3) (with superfluous addition of words "for the acquisition of" in first line).
(1) and (3) -- It doesn't make sense for (3) to appear after (1), and particularly not after (2).
(2) What is a "formal mediation process"? And then the statute says mediation process "may begin" and "must be paid for" by condemnor -- so is mediation required, or not? This needs to be fleshed out, or will certainly be litigated. I also think the concept is bad policy; the offer was already based on an independent appraisal, so what is mediation going to accomplish?
(7) What does "for the use of the condemnee" mean? Can the condemnee withdraw the funds immediately, even though the judgment could end up being less?
Section 6: This provision would permanently tax power line properties at different rates depending on whether the property was acquired by agreement or by court ordered condemnation. Could make tracking properties and tax assessments pretty complicated.
Section 8: Not clear what "proceedings" means. Does that include ongoing negotiations that have not yet triggered formal court proceedings? I'd recommend inserting words "negotiations or" before the word "proceedings".