#realestate, #cre, #commercialappraiser FW: Zoning, Planning & Land Use Summaries Distributed January 31, 2014

#realestate, #cre, #commercialappraiser Thanks!
Curtis D. Harris, BS, CGREA, REB
Bachelor of Science in Real Estate, CSULA
State Certified General Appraiser
Real Estate Broker
ASTM E-2018 Commercial Real Estate Inspector
HUD 203k Consultant
HUD/FHA Real Estate Appraiser/Reviewer
FannieMae REO ConsultantCTAC LEED CertificationThe Harris Company, Forensic Appraisers and Real Estate Consultants
*PIRS/Harris Company and the Science of Real Estate-Partners*630 North Sepulveda Boulevard, Suite 9A, Number 702
El Segundo, CA. 90245
310-337-1973 Office
310-251-3959 Cell424-218-9580 Skype WebSite: http://www.harriscompanyrec.com ;Resume: http://www.harriscompanyrec.com/commercialappraiserresume2013locked.pdf ;Commercial Appraiser Blog: http://commercialappraiser.typepad.com/blog/ ; http://harriscompanyrec.com/blog/ ;The LOoP! a Google CSE: http://www.google.com/cse/home?cx=000747579154309164948%3Annakvu69iqy ; We Make a Simple Pledge to

Communicate, in a timely fashion, each appraisal, analysis, and opinion without bias or partiality

Abstain from behavior that is deleterious to our clients, the appraisal profession, and the public

Hold paramount the confidential nature of the appraiser/consultant - client relationship

and

Comply with the requirements of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice and the
Code of Professional Ethics of the National Society of Real Estate Appraisers
IT'S THE LAW- Statement 7: Prohibition Against Discrimination
State agencies should be aware that Title XI and the Agencies' regulations prohibit federally regulated financial institutions from excluding appraisers from consideration for an assignment by virtue of their membership, or lack of membership, in any appraisal organization. Federally regulated financial institutions should review the qualifications of appraisers to ensure that they are qualified for the assignment for which they are being considered. It is unacceptable to assume that an appraiser is qualified solely due to membership in, or designation from, an appraisal organization, or the lack thereof. The Agencies have determined that financial institutions' appraisal policies should not favor appraisers from one or more organizations or exclude individuals based on their lack of such membership. If a State agency learns that a certified or licensed appraiser allegedly has been a victim of such discrimination, the State agency should inform the Agency which has regulatory authority over the involved financial institution. INCLUDING THE APPRAISAL INSTITUTE-MAICONFIDENTIALITY/PRIVILEGE NOTICE: This transmission and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee. The information contained in this transmission is confidential in nature and protected from further use or disclosure under U.S. Pub. L. 106-102, 113 U.S. Stat. 1338 (1999), and may be subject to consultant/appraiser-client or other legal privilege. Your use or disclosure of this information for any purpose other than that intended by its transmittal is strictly prohibited and may subject you to fines and/or penalties under federal and state law. If you are not the intended recipient of this transmission, please destroy all copies received and confirm destruction to the sender via return transmittal From: Justia Practice Area Opinion Summaries [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Justia Practice Area Opinion Summaries
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2014 6:14 AM
To: Commercial Appraiser
Subject: Zoning, Planning & Land Use Summaries Distributed January 31, 2014 If you are unable to see this message, click here to view it in a web browser.
To ensure delivery to your inbox, please add [email protected] to your address book.

Justia Daily Opinion Summaries is a FREE service.

Subscribe to summaries of US appellate court opinions at Daily.Justia.com

Practice area emails with summaries from all reviewed courts are sent weekly.

You May FREELY Redistribute This E-Mail in Whole.
Today on Verdict

The Ninth Circuit, in SmithKline v. Abbott Labs, Bars Lawyers From Removing Gay/Lesbian Jurors
Vikram David Amar & Alan E. Brownstein
In Part One of this two-part series of columns, Justia columnist Vikram David Amar and Justia guest columnist Alan Brownstein, both U.C., Davis law professors, discuss whether it violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause for a lawyer to “strike” (that is, remove) individuals from a jury panel on account of their sexual orientation. Read Article

Weekly Opinion SummariesZoning, Planning & Land Use
Weekly Summaries Distributed January 31, 2014 · Mills v. United States
Constitutional Law, Real Estate & Property Law, Zoning, Planning & Land Use
U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals· The City of Alabaster v. Shelby Land Partners, LLC
Government & Administrative Law, Zoning, Planning & Land Use
Alabama Supreme Court· Darling International, Inc. v Carter
Government & Administrative Law, Real Estate & Property Law, Zoning, Planning & Land Use
Georgia Supreme Court· Lathrop v. Town of Monkton
Government & Administrative Law, Tax Law, Zoning, Planning & Land Use
Vermont Supreme Court· In re Bjerke Zoning Permit Denial
Government & Administrative Law, Zoning, Planning & Land Use
Vermont Supreme Court

Receive this and other FREE daily opinion summaries from Justia

Mills v. United StatesCourt: U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Docket: 12-35589Opinion Date: January 29, 2014Judge: Ikuta Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Real Estate & Property Law, Zoning, Planning & Land Use Plaintiff filed suit alleging that he was entitled to use the Fortymile Trail for access to his state mining claims. Plaintiff sought a declaration that he was entitled to a right-of-way to access his state mining claims on the Fortymile Trail both under a federal statute commonly referred to as R.S. 2477 and because he has an easement by implication or necessity, and that the real property interests claimed by the non-federal defendants were subject to this right-of-way. The district court dismissed plaintiff's claims against all defendants and plaintiff appealed. The court concluded that plaintiff's claims against the federal government were barred by sovereign immunity, but that the district court erred in concluding that his claims against Doyon Limited and Hungwitchin Corporation were barred by principles of prudential standing. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part and reversed in part. http://j.st/v8G View Case on: Justia Google Scholar
The City of Alabaster v. Shelby Land Partners, LLCCourt: Alabama Supreme Court Docket: 1120677Opinion Date: January 24, 2014Judge: Main Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law, Zoning, Planning & Land Use Shelby Land Partners, LLC and Alabaster Land Company, LLC each own a 50% undivided interest in a parcel of undeveloped real property located within the municipal limits of the City of Alabaster. At the request of Shelby Land, the property was initially zoned as a "community business district," permitting only commercial uses. In 2009, Shelby Land petitioned the City to rezone the land to permit multifamily residential use in order to pursue the development of a low-income apartment complex for senior citizens on the property. The Alabaster City Council denied Shelby Land's rezoning application. Shelby Land and Alabaster Land then brought this action to appeal the denial of the rezoning request. The trial court entered a summary judgment in favor of Shelby Land and Alabaster Land and ordered the City and the City Council to rezone the land to permit multifamily residential development. The City and the members of the City Council, who were sued in their official capacities, appealed. Upon review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. http://j.st/vMw View Case on: Justia Google Scholar
Darling International, Inc. v CarterCourt: Georgia Supreme Court Docket: S13A1745Opinion Date: January 27, 2014Judge: Benham Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law, Real Estate & Property Law, Zoning, Planning & Land Use This case involved a dispute over title to a 7.63 acre parcel of land located in Bacon County. The parcel was originally part of a 95-acre parcel owned by H.S. Carter that was taken by Bacon County via eminent domain proceedings commenced in 1973. As a result of the condemnation proceedings, Bacon County acquired over 2500 acres for creating a public recreation project known as Lake Alma and the Carter parcel was just one of the parcels condemned for that purpose. The proposed Lake Alma was part of a larger urban development project so that the City of Alma and Bacon County could execute a development plan that included, among other things, an industrial park, a waste water treatment plant, and improvement of the local airport, in addition to construction of Lake Alma. The other projects were completed but the Lake Alma project was abandoned and never constructed. After the project was abandoned, at the request of the city and county, the General Assembly passed an amendment to OCGA 36-9-3 that permitted counties to sell back to the original owners land that had been acquired for development, but the legislation failed to provide for repurchase of land by the heirs of the original owners. By that time, H.S. Carter was deceased and his original parcel was one of the only parcels condemned for construction that was not repurchased by the original owner. In 2010, OCGA 36-9-3 was amended again to grant the heirs of the original landowners the right to repurchase the land. Heirs of H. S. Carter sought to repurchase the original 95-acre parcel. The City of Alma executed a quit claim deed to Bacon County conveying its undivided interest in the 95 acres and, that same day, Bacon County executed a quit claim deed conveying all of its undivided interest in the property to the heirs. The heirs then filed a petition to quiet title and for ejectment against Darling and Southeastern Maintenance with respect to the 7.63 acres. Darling asserted it was entitled to summary judgment with respect to the quiet title and claim for ejection because, as a result of the county’s previous conveyance of the disputed property to the Development Authority and the subsequent chain of conveyances by which Darling ultimately obtained title, the heirs did not have title to that property. Without addressing Darling’s bona fide purchaser argument, the trial court entered judgment in favor of the heirs along with a decree that title to the property vested in them and was superior to Darling’s claim of title. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court concluded the trial court erred in concluding that the heirs’ title was superior to that of Darling’s as a result of Bacon County’s failure to comply with the requirements of OCGA 36-9-2 with respect to a 2003 conveyance of its interest in the property to the Bacon County Development Authority. Furthermore, the trial court erred in finding the 2003 conveyance to Southeastern Maintenance was invalid as a result of the governing authorities’ failure to formulate a new economic development plan. The trial court’s order granting summary judgment to the Carter heirs was reversed and the decree establishing title was vacated. http://j.st/vmV View Case on: Justia Google Scholar
Lathrop v. Town of MonktonCourt: Vermont Supreme Court Docket: 2013-026Opinion Date: January 24, 2014Judge: Crawford Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law, Tax Law, Zoning, Planning & Land Use The Town of Monkton brought a consolidated appeal from decisions of the state appraiser in three property tax cases challenging the Town's 2011 assessment. At issue was the manner in which the Town assessed land that had the potential for subdivision and further development. The state appraiser ruled that the Town had treated taxpayers inequitably by adding additional "home-site values" to undeveloped parcels that are subject to a permitted and recorded subdivision plan. The Town did not add this additional element of appraised value to other undeveloped parcels that may be eligible for subdivision without a permit due to their history or configuration. The Town argued it acted fairly in applying different valuation methods to properties with different characteristics. From the Town’s perspective, the appraised value of a parcel of land with a permit for more than one home should reflect additional development value, and land that could be subdivided but is not the subject of a permit is not similarly situated for purposes of tax appraisal. After review, the Supreme Court agreed with the Town's arguments and reversed the state appraiser. http://j.st/vgy View Case on: Justia Google Scholar
In re Bjerke Zoning Permit DenialCourt: Vermont Supreme Court Docket: 2013-108Opinion Date: January 24, 2014Judge: Crafword Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law, Zoning, Planning & Land Use Applicant Alan Bjerke appealed the Environmental Division's affirmance of the Burlington Development Review Board's decision to deny his application for a zoning permit to alter the exterior of his house. Applicant argued that his zoning permit application was "deemed approved" because the municipal zoning administrator did not act upon it within thirty days. Furthermore, he claimed the Environmental Division erred by admitting the municipal zoning ordinance into evidence after trial and putting the burden of proof of compliance with that ordinance on applicant. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the permit denial. http://j.st/vgt View Case on: Justia Google Scholar


Forward to a FriendHave friends who like law? Forward this email.

Find Us on FacebookLike Justia and enjoy legal discussions on Facebook.

Follow Us on TwitterFollow Justiacom for news and updates on Twitter.

 Justia.com Free Legal Information Portalwww.Justia.comFederal & State Case Law, Codes & RegsLaw.Justia.comUS Federal Case Filings & DocketsDockets.Justia.comDaily Opinion SummariesDaily.Justia.com
You received this email because you have subscribed to Justia Daily Opinion Summaries. You can subscribe to summaries for US Courts, including the US Supreme Court, all US Courts of Appeals and some US state courts.Visit the Justia Daily Opinion Summaries page to add, edit or remove subscriptions.If you are experiencing problems with this newsletter, please email our tech support team at [email protected] From This Newsletteror unsubscribe [email protected] immediately here."Justia" is a registered trademark of Justia Inc.
Justia • Justia, Inc. 1380 Pear Ave Suite 2B Mountain View, CA 94043 USAHave a Happy Day!Hug the Pug© 2011, Justia Inc.