NLon seizure case -- now want rent for 5 years.
- From: Earl <neptune@xxxxxx>
- Date: 19 Aug 2005 23:56:44 GMT
After the US Supreme Court ruled in the favor of the home
seizures it seemed that a new low had been reached for property
owners. It appears that they have been digging to reach greater
depths.
They are now demanding rent for the last 5 years.
http://fairfieldweekly.com/gbase/News/content?oid=oid:119000
*******
by Jonathan O'Connell - July 14, 2005
Those who believe in the adage "when it rains, it pours" might
take the tale of the plaintiffs in Kelo v. New London as a cue
to buy two of every animal and a load of wood from Home Depot.
The U.S. Supreme Court recently found that the city's original
seizure of private property was constitutional under the
principal of eminent domain, and now New London is claiming that
the affected homeowners were living on city land for the
duration of the lawsuit and owe back rent. It's a new definition
of chutzpah: Confiscate land and charge back rent for the years
the owners fought confiscation.
In some cases, their debt could amount to hundreds of thousands
of dollars. Moreover, the homeowners are being offered buyouts
based on the market rate as it was in 2000 .
The hard rains started falling that year, when Matt Dery and his
neighbors in Fort Trumbull learned that the city planned to
replace their homes with a hotel, a conference center, offices
and upscale housing that would complement the adjoining Pfizer
Inc. research facility.
The city, citing eminent domain, condemned their homes, told
them to move and began leveling surrounding houses. Dery and six
of his neighbors fought the takeover, but five years later, on
June 23, the downpour of misfortune continued as the U.S.
Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the city could claim the property
for economic development.
Dery owns four buildings on the project site, including his home
and the birthplace and lifelong home of his 87-year-old mother,
Wilhelmina. Dery plans to make every remaining effort to keep
his land, but with few legal options remaining, he's planning
for the worst.
And for good reason. It's reasonable to think that people who
purchased property years ago (in some cases, decades ago) would
be in a position to cash in, especially since they're being
forced from their homes. But that's not the case.
The New London Development Corp., the semi-public organization
hired by the city to facilitate the deal, is offering residents
the market rate as it was in 2000, as state law requires. That
rate pales in comparison to what the units are now worth, owing
largely to the relentless housing bubble that has yet to burst.
"I can't replace what I have in this market for three times [the
2000 assessment]," says Dery, 48, who works as a home delivery
sales manager for the New London Day . He soothes himself with
humor: "It's a lot like what I like to do in the stock market:
buy high and sell low."
And there are more storms on the horizon. In June 2004, NLDC
sent the seven affected residents a letter indicating that after
the completion of the case, the city would expect to receive
retroactive "use and occupancy" payments (also known as "rent")
from the residents.
In the letter, lawyers argued that because the takeover took
place in 2000, the residents had been living on city property
for nearly five years, and would therefore owe rent for the
duration of their stay at the close of the trial. Any money made
from tenantssome residents' only form of incomewould also have
to be paid to the city.
With language seemingly lifted straight from The Goonies ,
NLDC's lawyers wrote, "We know your clients did not expect to
live in city-owned property for free, or rent out that property
and pocket the profits, if they ultimately lost the case." They
warned that "this problem will only get worse with the passage
of time," and that the city was prepared to sue for the money if
need be.
A lawyer for the residents, Scott Bullock, responded to the
letter on July 8, 2004, asserting that the NLDC had agreed to
forgo rents as part of a pretrial agreement in which the
residents in turn agreed to a hastened trial schedule. Bullock
called the NLDC's effort at obtaining back rent "a new low."
"It seems like it is simply a desperate attempt by a nearly
broke organization to try to come up with more funds to
perpetuate its own existence," Bullock wrote. He vowed to
respond to any lawsuit with another.
With the case nearly closed, the NLDC may soon make good on its
promise to sue. Jeremy Paul, an associate UConn law dean who
teaches property law, says it's not clear who might prevail in a
legal battle over rent. "From a political standpoint, the city
might be better off trying to reach some settlement with the
homeowners," he says.
An NLDC estimate assessed Dery for $6,100 per month since the
takeover, a debt of more than $300K. One of his neighbors, case
namesake Susette Kelo, who owns a single-family house with her
husband, learned she would owe in the ballpark of 57 grand. "I'd
leave here broke," says Kelo. "I wouldn't have a home or any
money to get one. I could probably get a large-size refrigerator
box and live under the bridge."
That's one way to get out of the rain.
********
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: NLon seizure case -- now want rent for 5 years.
- From: Wayne Lundberg
- Re: NLon seizure case -- now want rent for 5 years.
- Prev by Date: Received in the mail
- Next by Date: Re: Time to cut our dependence on and therefore our interest in the...
- Previous by thread: Received in the mail
- Next by thread: Re: NLon seizure case -- now want rent for 5 years.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
