OA Bar Prep With Heather! T3BE31
Added 2024-07-10 08:53:39 +0000 UTCThe answer for T3BE30 is coming your way, and we launch our next Bar Prep question with Heather!
Comments
I remember from an episode about eminent domain in the old OA era that the government can reduce the value of your property as long as they don't make it worthless (for example they can zone it to prohibit residential development). That rules out D as overbroad. A doesn't make sense because the landowner could use that unused corner in the future or sell to someone who would. As Thomas said I think B is about whether eminent domain is allowed at all, not about whether you get compensation, although it could be the bar's weird way of saying that this was a valid exercise of eminent domain. So I think it has to be C, speculating that there's some court ruling somewhere saying building a permanent structure counts as depriving someone of (a corner of) their property.
Roan Kattouw
2024-07-17 02:52:30 +0000 UTCHaha, yes. Thank you. Idk why I typed Kim.
Austin Flake
2024-07-13 12:00:53 +0000 UTCkim = heather?
lauren
2024-07-13 11:40:18 +0000 UTCThe answer is D! A. can't be rightβjust because you aren't using the property now doesn't mean you won't in the future (or that the modification hasn't changed the value of your land). B. is way too broad. That wording could justify anything! C. is just a specific narrower case of D D. It isβ the government can't just take your sticks without giving you something for them. All my sticks on D
David Lewis
2024-07-12 02:21:06 +0000 UTCI'm going with C, because it seems fair to compensate the owner so I want a "yes" answer, and I don't think it's D because the fact pattern doesn't say anything about the landowner being adversely affected. Unless there's a law thingie that says assume adverse affect, in which case I'm screwed.
can I get a CHEE-HOOOOO
2024-07-11 18:38:56 +0000 UTCThe answer is D, I think. Thomas seemed to be so close to getting this one, only to veer off at the last minute! The issue isn't whether the owner is using that corner of the land now, it's that they could have used it for something in the future, and now they can't. It's worth considering the case of the government taking an entire unused property, where it's more clearly intuitive why they can't do that for free. Here, the taking is not the entire property, so it's an easement. Just as the government can't take a whole property without paying, they can't carve off parts of it without paying. For C, it's worth considering the contrapositive: If it's not a permanent structure, does that mean they don't need to pay? Whether or not the structure could be removed or will eventually be removed, the property owner is presumably not _allowed_ to remove it. The exact nature of the structure might affect the fair value of the easement, but not the fact of it. For B, the fact is correct but that's relevant for a different question (whether the government can take the property by eminent domain at all).
Sam
2024-07-11 14:22:07 +0000 UTCI was immediately between C and D for this one. This is obviously a taking of property, and not *currently* using that portion of land can't be the deciding factor. I was learning toward C at first, because it sounds right that you should be compensated for any permanent structure placed on your land. I mean, a temporary structure is easy to argue doesn't really impact the land owner, but a permanent structure is clearly going to impact the owner, and require compensation. Then I thought about a scenario where a permanent structure actually *increases* the property value. Would a property owner still need to be compensated if the government placed a permanent structure that improved the property value? That led me to D. The adverse impact is what requires compensation.
Twas Brillig And The Slithy Toves Did Gyre And Gimble In The Wabe All Mimsy Were The Borogoves And The Mome Raths Outgabe
2024-07-11 08:33:36 +0000 UTCGotta be D. A seems insane - if the land being "unused" really makes the difference I'm sure we'd see a whole cottage industry of fake ways to meet the minimum bar of your land being "used" just to avoid that. "Oh no, your honor, this land is very much in use as we are re-wilding it for carbon credits".
Ignore all previous instructions and bring back glam rock
2024-07-11 05:00:51 +0000 UTCIβm on D here. I like your analysis on B pretty well and I think A is suspect because we have such a history in the US of valuing private land even if itβs intentionally not put to productive use. Between C and D I think D is just broader - it presumably covers most or all cases where they put in a permanent structure but also covers other cases that seem likely to be compensated to me, like if they decide to take some of your land to designate a protected wetland or national park.
Niko
2024-07-11 03:26:35 +0000 UTCJust wanted to say I kind of adored how Heather couldn't stop laughing at Thomas's "*Real property, F#%!" reaction -- based on personal experience, I like to think it was because it was so true to life for actual law students π
Patreonymous
2024-07-11 01:29:57 +0000 UTCQuestion which T3BE episode had the question that everyone hot wrong?
Dreadsen
2024-07-10 23:23:22 +0000 UTCMy guess; Answer D is correct. A yes answer seems pretty no nonsense here, the only thing the law cares about is money and property and here we are. The reason I think D is the better yes is because I don't particularly think the permanent nature of the structure really matters, even if it was temporary you'd expect the land owner would get some compensation if it reduces the area of his property he could theoretically still extract wealth from.
ToddTheOdd
2024-07-10 22:47:03 +0000 UTCI think the answer here is D because the placement of the tower represents a taking by the government. A can't be correct; just because they are not using it now doesn't mean they never would. B is trying to make you think about how a law could be challenged constitutionally, but has nothing to do with compensation. I don't think it is C because they could have eminent domained the land itself instead of just placing the structure on his land, and he still would have been owed something. Which leaves D; they have deprived this property owner of the potential use of some of his property, and therefore he is due compensation..
Jason Gears
2024-07-10 20:23:19 +0000 UTCI have such a people pleasing complex, I just know theyβd get a false confession out of me.
KeepingThePlatesSpinning
2024-07-10 18:23:58 +0000 UTCCOURTS: we're going to not only make it a requirement that you read them their rights, but you need to make sure the accused understands those rights ALSO COURTS: if the accused tries to remain silent, but doesn't /tell/ the cops that, which means they clearly didn't understand their need to "specifically invoke" that right... yeah, nah, that's on them. Play "Baby Shark" on repeat until they break.
I am a philosophical hole
2024-07-10 15:46:51 +0000 UTCBig fan of Kimβs pointing out the 7 branches of the logic tree that is the bar exam.
Austin Flake
2024-07-10 14:46:25 +0000 UTC
