On September 28, 2004, the United States Supreme Court granted a property owner’s application for leave from a Connecticut Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutionality of the community’s taking of…
Read More
This article describes the historical standard for challenges to the necessity of eminent domain takings, the effects of the 1963 Michigan Constitution on necessity challenges, application of necessity standards pursuant…
In going all the way to the United States Supreme Court, Kelo v. City of New London brought eminent domain issues into the national spotlight. Because eminent domain cases present…
In federal condemnation actions, federal substantive and procedural laws, as opposed to state law, are controlling. Federal condemnations are currently controlled by Rule 71.1, formerly FRCP 71A, of the Federal…
THIS ARTICLE will address the practical aspects of litigating an eminent domain matter that includes issues of environmental contamination. This article is not intended to be a compendium of legal…
The Detroit Free Press article quote of the recrently appointed International Bridge Chairman stating that this project will finish on time is gratifying. The owners in this project have been…
As infrastructure upgrades and improvements become an increasingly prominent feature of the public policy landscape, issues relating to eminent domain and condemnation will rise to the forefront of the public…
With infrastructure upgrades and improvements likely to remain a legislative priority and a practical necessity for years to come, eminent domain proceedings will continue to emerge as a prominent issue…
Chad Halcom/Crain’s Detroit Business — A long trawl of litigation may be nearly over for Ambassador Bridge owner Manuel “Matty” Moroun and the Detroit International Bridge Co., while the courts’…
John Gallagher/The Detroit Free Press — The much-delayed process of buying land in southwest Detroit for the planned Gordie Howe International Bridge is finally about to begin in earnest. The…
 |
 |
 |
|
Golden Pine Center, Atlanta, MI Government Valuation: $6,000 Negotiated Settlement: $55,000 Ackerman Ackerman Complete & Dynkowski delivers: $49,000 |
Hadyniak / Cieciek Properties Government Valuation: $380,000 Negotiated Settlement: $2,025,000 Ackerman Ackerman Complete & Dynkowski delivers: $1,645,000 |
Hill Farm / National Properties Government Valuation: $365,000 Negotiated Settlement: $1,563,000 Ackerman Ackerman Complete & Dynkowski delivers: $1,198,000 |
 |
 |
 |
|
Buckland-Van Wald Furniture, Inc. Government Valuation: $11,000 Negotiated Settlement: $5,000,000 Ackerman Ackerman Complete & Dynkowski delivers: $4,989,000 |
Wright Farms in Eaton County Government Valuation: $212,000 Negotiated Settlement: $1,100,000 Ackerman Ackerman Complete & Dynkowski delivers: $888,000 |
Big Boy Restaurant, Romulus, MI Government Valuation: $361,945 Negotiated Settlement: $1,433,000 Ackerman Ackerman Complete & Dynkowski delivers: $1,071,055 |
 |
 |
 |
|
Automobile Dealership Government Valuation: $115,000 Negotiated Settlement: $700,000 Ackerman Ackerman Complete & Dynkowski delivers: $585,000 |
General Motors Poletown Plant Government Valuation: $357,000 Negotiated Settlement: $5,100,000 Ackerman Ackerman Complete & Dynkowski delivers: $4,743,000 |
Algonac Harbor Marina Government Valuation: $61,000 Negotiated Settlement: $105,000 Ackerman Ackerman Complete & Dynkowski delivers: $44,000 |
 |
|
 |
|
Detroit Marina Terminal Government Valuation: $4,000,000 Negotiated Settlement: $20,000,000 Ackerman Ackerman Complete & Dynkowski delivers: $16,000,000 |
Eddie’s Food on the Run Government Valuation: $0.0 Negotiated Settlement: $123,000 Ackerman Ackerman Complete & Dynkowski delivers: $123,000 |
Frank’s Bar & Restaurant Government Valuation: $11,500 Negotiated Settlement: $200,000 Ackerman Ackerman Complete & Dynkowski delivers: $188,500 |
Imagine losing land to the state so it can build a road, then being told to return $158,000 because, on second look, the government says the property was worth less…
When the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) in Seattle, Washington announced plans to seize two subdivision lots on an inlet to the Pacific Ocean, a property owner within that subdivision did not know where to turn. Two local attorneys with eminent domain experience did not see sufficient basis for a claim and subsequently declined to represent the owner in his attempt to seek fair compensation for the proposed seizure. Frustrated and in need of experienced counsel in the highly specialized eminent domain arena, the owner put in a call to Ackerman Ackerman Complete & Dynkowski.
The Detroit Marine Terminal seizure was initiated by the City of Detroit in order to secure a parcel of waterfront property (located near the city limit of Detroit and Dearborn) as part of plans to build a new municipal water purification plant. Viewing the property in question as essentially a wasted backland parcel with little value in a declining industrial area, the condemning authority initially extended an offer of approximately $4 million to the owner, Detroit Marine Terminals, Inc.
This case involved a gas storage field conversion/condemnation, where a formerly active 300-acre natural gas field would be repurposed as a gas storage field. The condemning authority, Washington 10 Gas Company, was a collaborative enterprise between major regional utilities and private investors. The company formally became a common carrier/public utility for the purposes of acquiring the gas field. After the condemning authority gained the rights to acquire and reuse the site, an initial compensation offer of approximately $1,000/acre—a total of $386,000—was made to the owner.
