Real Estate & Property Law

Wisconsin Abrogates Fair Market Value

By Alan Ackerman

If one was to fully understand the situation of the VFW lease, one would probably be appalled the VFW received nothing for its valuable rights for the next 50 years of control.  

Apparently, the tenant owner requested that some type of federal constitutional baseline be made allowing the owners to be compensated.  The reality is that the Supreme Court is not quite ready to establish minimum standards of what just compensation should be.  This unwillingness harms the process nationally, because states can unilaterally determine things that have value in the minds of any appraiser.   

The Daily Reporter

The case drew the attention of attorneys at Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, Los Angeles, who represented the VFW in its appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Michael Berger, the attorney who represented the VFW, said a Supreme Court ruling on the case could have fixed the inconsistent way courts in different states have ruled when tenants own leases that can be more valuable than the building that a government has acquired.

Unlike Wisconsin, some state courts have ordered governments pay leaseholders when a building is condemned, sometimes resulting in payments that exceed the value of the building, Berger said. But the decision in the Wisconsin VFW case opens the door for tenants with valuable leases, such as the VFW post, to receive nothing if a municipality acquires the building, he said.

Full post as published by National Eminent Domain Blog on July 05, 2010 (boomark / email).