Takings
A man’s home may be his castle, but that does not keep the Government from taking it.
Hendler v United States, 952 F2d 1364, 1371 (Fed Cir, 1991).
As recognized by the court in Hendler, the government has the power to take private property. There are, of course, limitations on that power. In some instances, the taking power may be exercised within the confines of a statutorily mandated procedure. Michigan has adopted the Uniform Condemnation Procedures Act (”UCPA”). MCL 213.51 et seq. Under the UCPA, a governmental unit condemns private property for public use and pays the property owner just compensation. In other instances, however, there is no intent of the government to take private property, yet some governmental action has the net effect of taking the property, leaving the property owner to bring a claim of inverse condemnation in the courts.
Recent decisions of the United States Supreme Court, the Michigan Supreme Court, and the Michigan Legislature, have caused the otherwise gradual evolution of takings jurisprudence to accelerate. These decisions underscore the divergence of federal and Michigan law on constitutional rights of property ownership, with the federal interpretation expanding to permit takings of private property for economic development, while the interpretation of, and amendment to, Michigan law stridently rejecting the ability of the government to take private property for the same purpose. With the exception of this divergence, the United States and Michigan constitutions’ prohibition on taking of private property for public use without just compensation have spawned nearly parallel case law.