Brief Fact Summary. The government took private property that was on an unexpired lease, and a dispute arose on how much compensation should be given.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. In determining just compensation, the owner is entitled to the fair market value of his property at the time of the taking, which is what a willing buyer would pay to a willing seller.
Issue. When determining the value of just compensation, should the value be ascertained form what a willing buyer would have paid for the improvements on the land?
Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation, which is the full monetary equivalent of the property taken. The owner is to be put in the same position monetarily as he would have occupied if his property had not been taken. The owner is entitled to the fair market value of his property at the time of the taking, which is normally ascertained from what a willing buyer would pay in cash to a willing seller.
If there had been no condemnation, Petitioner would have continued to use the improvements during a renewed lease term, or it could have sold the improvements to another owner and so would have been compensated for the buyer’s ability to use the improvements in place over their useful life. Petitioner seeks only the fair market value of improvements it constructed.
At the time of the taking in this case, there was an expectancy that the improvements would be used beyond the lease term. Respondent asked that the improvements be valued as though there were no possibility of continued use. That is not how the market would have valued such improvements; it is not what a private buyer would have paid Petitioner.
The question was whether appellants lands were probably within the scope of the project from the time the Government was committed to it.View Full Point of Law