Trump had a legal duty to go after the widow’s home

[johnpico]

Originally Posted by steve_biegler

Oh I think I understand what he meant and I guess I came off as combative, I did not mean to. Sorry. I think the idea of using any means necessary just rubs me the wrong way. I still believe that individual business shouldn't be able to invoke eminent domain. When the government uses it the property owner is compensated for value. Unless there is a BS bankruptcy involved. Sorry I couldn't help but throw that in.

Steve, what is the difference if the state takes your property to build a new council chambers, or whether it is taken because BlueCross wants to build a new hospital? In either case your property is gone. Why is it better that it is gone so that the City Council has a nicer place to work, than if a private hospital takes it to service sick people in the community? In both cases there is a hearing and in both cases the citizen is paid fair market value or better for his/her property.

It might be interesting to note that in an eminent domain case against a dealership, the court ruled there was blue sky in a dealership that never made money. I am traveling now and do not have the case in front of me, but can get it for you if you are interested.

[steve_biegler]

Originally Posted by johnpico

Steve, what is the difference if the state takes your property to build a new council chambers, or whether it is taken because BlueCross wants to build a new hospital? In either case your property is gone. Why is it better that it is gone so that the City Council has a nicer place to work, than if a private hospital takes it to service sick people in the community? In both cases there is a hearing and in both cases the citizen is paid fair market value or better for his/her property.

It might be interesting to note that in an eminent domain case against a dealership, the court ruled there was blue sky in a dealership that never made money. I am traveling now and do not have the case in front of me, but can get it for you if you are interested.

John I completely agree with you. There should be tougher rules.

You may not know the backstory on my BK statement. I and several other people on this site lost our franchises to the Chrysler and GM bankruptcy. My statement was a slam to our government for forcing dealership closures. Now that being said the manufacturers went along whole heartedly so they could legally get rid of dealers that deemed not worthy for whatever reason they saw fit. Chrysler dealers not only received nothing for the franchise let alone "Blue Sky" we also got nothing for parts, tools, even new cars! Were left with single use real estate that in many cases were worth a fraction of their value without a franchise to go with them.

Most of my posts John, have some sort of slam to the people or businesses that caused so much pain to my family and so many others across the nation. None of it necessary, unless you are a know nothing member of the "Auto Task Force".

See there is another one!

[johnpico]

Originally Posted by XDCX

OK I have bit my lip on this until now. Here goes!
John if you insert "Dealer" for widow, insert "Franchise" for house, insert "No compensation" for road, pipeline, and school and put competitive in front of car dealership.

Oh what the hell I'll do it for you.

I do not think the dealer would feel better when they took her franchise for no compensation for a competitive car dealership.

Here’s the information I said I would pass along regarding recovering blue sky for non-profitable dealerships.

In City of South Gate v S&M Auto Sales, 2d Appellate District, California, 2012, [not certified for publication], South Tate took the dealership property under eminent domain. S&M sued the City for loss of business goodwill. The trial court said S&M failed to prove that a dealership that was losing money was entitled to goodwill. (Calif. Code of Civil Procedure 1263.510(a) provides a means for loss of goodwill in eminent domain takings.)

In Inglewood Redevelopment Agency v. Aklilu, No. B185107, Decided: July 30, 2007, the court's permitted an opinion of loss of business goodwill under the cost-to-create method, which resulted in the finding of goodwill despite the nonexistence of any profits.

The dealer lost this case, in my opinion because of lousy preparation, but the opinion, again my opinion, has a great discussion of the history of goodwill recovery and, although it was not certified for publication, it will supply a dealer’s attorney a fantastic background and knowledge upon which to build a case for his client to recover damages.

This is not legal advice. I am a retired attorney or, as I like to say a “Recovering Attorney.”

I just want to give you, or a friend of yours, a place to get some information that might be helpful if faced with a similar problem.

PS – In over 44-years, I have not seen very many dealerships with a -0- value blue sky, even if they were losing money.

[XDCX]

Originally Posted by johnpico

Here’s the information I said I would pass along regarding recovering blue sky for non-profitable dealerships.

In City of South Gate v S&M Auto Sales, 2d Appellate District, California, 2012, [not certified for publication], South Tate took the dealership property under eminent domain. S&M sued the City for loss of business goodwill. The trial court said S&M failed to prove that a dealership that was losing money was entitled to goodwill. (Calif. Code of Civil Procedure 1263.510(a) provides a means for loss of goodwill in eminent domain takings.)

In Inglewood Redevelopment Agency v. Aklilu, No. B185107, Decided: July 30, 2007, the court's permitted an opinion of loss of business goodwill under the cost-to-create method, which resulted in the finding of goodwill despite the nonexistence of any profits.

The dealer lost this case, in my opinion because of lousy preparation, but the opinion, again my opinion, has a great discussion of the history of goodwill recovery and, although it was not certified for publication, it will supply a dealer’s attorney a fantastic background and knowledge upon which to build a case for his client to recover damages.

This is not legal advice. I am a retired attorney or, as I like to say a “Recovering Attorney.”

I just want to give you, or a friend of yours, a place to get some information that might be helpful if faced with a similar problem.

PS – In over 44-years, I have not seen very many dealerships with a -0- value blue sky, even if they were losing money.

Thanks for the information - that's very interesting, especially the last part where you have not seen too many dealerships sell for $0 Blue Sky.

[XDCX]

While I'm clearly on the side of limiting the powers of government when it comes to their ability to take private property I do see both sides of the argument.

If you have a moment, here's a cool link that shows 10 cases throughout the world where eminent domain probably would have been a good thing - click here

I'm familiar with the #4 listing in the above link - I've been to the house when I was in the Seattle area and the home is now boarded-up to prevent vandalism and squatters. I read an article about the women who owned the home and refused to sell and in hindsight it appears she had some mental health issues.

Without question, the biggest surprise to me in the above link was to see examples in China where the government had to modify their plans because a property owner refused to sell their land. I've always had the impression that taking on the Chinese government could have serious ramifications....

[johnpico]

Originally Posted by XDCX

If you have a moment, here's a cool link that shows 10 cases throughout the world where eminent domain probably would have been a good thing - click here

The first case in your example, where an owner TD'd a $2 million offer and eventually ended up selling for $750,000 brings back memories of any number of troubled dealerships I have seen over the past 40-years where the dealer values the store at what he owes, plus what he wants, and then turns down a great offer, only to sell for less at a later date -- after losing even more money. They remind me of the movie "Shane," where little Joey, watching Shane ride off into the sunset, never to return, shouts: "Shane, come back Shane."

That's kind of sick, but there is a good lesson in there.

[XDCX]

Originally Posted by johnpico

The first case in your example, where an owner TD'd a $2 million offer and eventually ended up selling for $750,000 brings back memories of any number of troubled dealerships I have seen over the past 40-years where the dealer values the store at what he owes, plus what he wants, and then turns down a great offer, only to sell for less at a later date -- after losing even more money. They remind me of the movie "Shane," where little Joey, watching Shane ride off into the sunset, never to return, shouts: "Shane, come back Shane."

That's kind of sick, but there is a good lesson in there.

Great comments - I agree entirely.

I've done the same thing with some stocks that I've bought in the past. As they says, sometimes your first loss is your best loss..... (Same logic can apply to used cars - nothing worse than throwing money at a used car you're already buried in only to see the situation get worse.)