Contact Us
Categories
- Judgment creditors
- Fractional Investment
- Section 1031 transactions
- Investment
- U.S. Supreme Court
- Kentucky minimum wage
- Minimum wage
- Arbitration
- Breach
- Closing
- Closing Disclosure
- Condemnation
- Good Faith Estimate
- HUD-1 Settlement Statement
- Lenders
- Truth in Lending Act
- Zoning Regulations
- “Know Before You Owe”
- Commercial Real Estate
- Dodd-Frank Act
- Home Equity Conversion Mortgages (HECMs)
- Land Use Law
- Mortgage
- Planning and Zoning
- Purchase Contract
- Real Estate Law
- Reverse mortgages
- Affordable Housing
- Economic Development
- Homeowners Association
- Landlord
- Lease
- Property Titling
- Rescission
- Same-Sex Couples
- Tenant
- URLTA
- Agritourism
- Condominium
- Deed
- Drones
- Horizontal Property Law
- Kentucky Condominium Act
- Land Surveys
- LBAR
- National Association of Realtors (NAR)
- Overlay Zoning
- plat
- Property Lines
- Property Survey
- Real Estate Agents
- Rural Areas
- Steenrod v. Louisville Yacht Club Association
- Trulia
- Uncategorized
- Zillow
- Benningfield v. Zinmeister
- Boards of Adjustment
- Building Inspection
- Co-Signing
- Code Enforcement
- Commercial Lease
- Conditional uses
- Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”)
- Credit Report
- Credit Score
- Deeds
- Dog owners
- Emergency Preparedness
- Emotional Support Animals
- ESIGN
- Exclusive Use Clause
- Federal Housing Administration (FHA)
- FICO
- Homebuyers
- Inspection
- Insurance Companies
- Insured
- KRS 383.500
- KRS §258.235(4)
- KRS §383.580
- Loans
- Multi-unit properties
- Natural Disasters
- Occupancy Fraud
- Screening
- Security Deposit
- Servicers
- The Loan Estimate form
- Title Insurance Policies
- Truth in Lending Statement
- U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
- Variances
- Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment
- "Right-of-Way Agents"
- Bluegrass Pipeline
- Boilerplate Language
- Conservation Easement
- Easement
- Eminent Domain
- General Forms
- Kentucky landowners
- Power of Attorney ("POA")
Showing 1 post in U.S. Supreme Court.
Regulatory Takings Cases and the Relevant Parcel: Murr v. Wisconsin
This summer, in Murr v. Wisconsin,[1] the United States Supreme Court will make an important decision on property rights and regulatory takings under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. At issue in the case is whether two legally distinct parcels of land can be treated as one for regulatory purposes if they share common ownership. In a time when planning and zoning regulations change sporadically, this case has broad implications for owners of commercial property, farmers, developers, mining operations and others that hold legal title to adjoining properties, so these groups should pay particular attention to this case.
[1] Murr v. Wisconsin, 359 Wisc. 2d 675 (Wis. App. 2014), rev. denied, 862 N.W.2d 899 (Wis. 2015) More >