Clark Hill PLC is an entrepreneurial full-service law firm serving clients in all areas of  real estate, business legal services, litigation, and personal legal services. For more information on Clark Hill's practice areas, professionals, and office locations, please visit clarkhill.com








Stephon B. Bagne

Member, Clark Hill PLC

Phone: (313) 965-8897

Fax: (313) 309-6897

Email: sbagne@clarkhill.com


Stephon B. Bagne’s expertise in representing property owners in condemnation cases is widely recognized. Stephon has represented all types of property owners in a variety of situations including vacant and improved property, partial and total takings, easement and fee acquisitions, involving commercial and residential properties. He has won jury trials in courts throughout the State of Michigan and successfully defended those verdicts before the Michigan Court of Appeals. Stephon has prevailed in challenges of the necessity of takings and negotiated less onerous acquisitions in partial taking matters. He regularly speaks and writes about eminent domain and other real estate law issues for a variety of professional organizations. For a more complete bio, please click here.





« “Supervariances” Can Mitigate Just Compensation Claims | Main | Just Compensation Must Include Payment for the Larger Parcel »

Example of Highest and Best Use Analysis and Future Development

A matter that I resolved recently is a good example of how, in condemnation, just compensation must be determined based on the highest and best use of property, which would include considering the impact on the future development of vacant land.

Appraisers must evaluate the highest and best use of the property. In an eminent domain case, the concept of highest and best use is summarized in Michigan Civil Jury Instruction 90.09, which reads “In deciding the market value of the subject property, you must base your decision on the highest and best use of the property. By ‘highest and best use’ we mean the most profitable and advantageous use the owner may make of the property even if the property is presently used for a different purpose or is vacant, so long as there is a market demand for such use.”

Additionally, when evaluating the impact of a partial taking, many factors must be analyzed. Michigan Civil Jury Instruction 90.12 describes some example factors. 

This case involves what is known as a “partial taking”; that is to say, the property being acquired by the condemning authority is part of a larger parcel under the control of the owner.

When only part of a larger parcel is taken, as is the case here, the owner is entitled to recover not only for the property taken but also for any loss in the value to his or her remaining property.

The measure of compensation is the difference between (1) the market value of the entire parcel before the taking and (2) the market value of what is left of the parcel after the taking.

In valuing the property that is left after the taking, you should take into account various factors, which may include: (1) its reduced size, (2) its altered shape, (3) reduced access, (4) any change in utility or desirability of what is left after the taking, (5) the effect of the applicable zoning ordinances on the remaining property, and (6) the use which the condemning authority intends to make of the property it is acquiring and the effect of that use upon the owner’s remaining property.

Further, in valuing what is left after the taking, you must assume that the condemning authority will use its newly acquired property rights to the full extent allowed by the law. 

The last sentence is perhaps the most critical because it emphasizes that “further, in valuing what is left after the taking, you must assume that the condemning authority will use its newly acquired property rights to the full extent allowed by the law.” I wrote an article published in the International Right of Way Association’s Right of Way Magazine that described this issue in several contexts. 

I recently completed a case in which I represented the Washtenaw County Farm Council in a taking imposed by Wolverine Pipe Line Company that illustrates these to concepts in tandem.

This aerial depicts the property and the surrounding area, including high-end residences on a golf course.

The Farm Council is a type of non-profit organization, with a mission of educating children in agriculture. For example, it supplies its facilities to the local 4H program. It also rents its facilities both to generate income to support its charitable mission and as an event location that benefits the community. This is not the highest and best use of its property, which is adjacent to some of the most expensive houses in the Ann Arbor area.  The property could be developed as a subdivision. But the Farm Council, as a non-profit, is not seeking to maximize its return, it seeks to continue operating as a charity.

However, condemnation law does not punish the property owner for making less than full use of its property. Both appraisers recognized that the highest and best use of the property was residential subdivision development.

When Wolverine acquired its easement, the appraiser did not take into account the impact on the property if developed as a residential subdivision. However, that impact was very real. Through the retention of an expert civil engineer, I was able to establish that the proposed taking had significant impacts on the type of subdivision that could be developed after the taking. The property is located in a community with no water service, all development is on well systems. The nature of the pipeline being installed by Wolverine required a greater setback to be imposed. The setback reduced the number of lots that could be developed and increased the development cost per lot for those that remained. 

The civil engineer developed a proposed site plan before the taking and compared it to what could be developed after the taking. The appraiser was able to use this to evaluate and quantify the impact on the highest and best use of the property, resulting in a substantial just compensation claim.

This case was a good example of why cases should be handled by experienced counsel who can retain the type of experts required to fully evaluate the impact of a taking.

If you have any eminent domain issues, please feel free to contact me.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments

There are no comments for this journal entry. To create a new comment, use the form below.

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>