October 27, 2021

Volume XI, Number 300

Advertisement
Advertisement

October 27, 2021

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

October 26, 2021

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

October 25, 2021

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis
Advertisement

What is a ‘Quick Take’ in Eminent Domain Law?

By and large, the default for eminent domain cases is paid compensation before a property is taken, and after a court has reached a verdict about the value of that compensation. However, there is one common ‘exception’ to this rule, known as “quick take.” 

What is a Quick Take? 

As I mentioned, a quick take offers an exception to the general rule that a condemning party must pay before they ‘take’ possession of a given property; instead, the appropriating body pays an appraised deposit into the court registry and can begin work right away. This method then leaves the property owner free to withdraw those funds via the immediate submission of a Motion for Distribution

This type of motion is extremely routine with the client indicating whether it is the fee-simple property owner and whether there are any other interest holders to the property that may have a better claim to all or some portion of the money on deposit. 

Here, impaired mortgage interests often crop up, and the basic legal standard states that if an impairment is found, mortgage owners have a right to some of the compensation proceeds to protect their interest in the property. 

How Common Are Quick Takes in Eminent Domain Law?

While quick takes are severely limited in their availability, much of this limitation relates to the kinds of takings that qualify for a quick-take process. 

For instance, the quick-take procedure can be used in an emergency or exigent situation. More commonly, though, the quick-take procedure is available when the taking is for the purpose of road construction. Since road projects are the most common situation requiring a taking by eminent domain, the use of the quick-take procedure can be quite widespread.

Practitioners should be vigilant for situations in which a condemning authority attempts to use the quick-take procedure for different purposes. Take the case of City of Worthington v. Carskadon in Ohio, where the Supreme Court struck down a local ordinance which gave quick-take permissions to the city beyond the scope of what is permitted by the constitution. 

©2021 Roetzel & AndressNational Law Review, Volume XI, Number 287
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

About this Author

Jeremy S. Young Real Estate Litigation Attorney Roetzel & Andress
Shareholder

Jeremy’s litigation practice is based out of the Columbus, Ohio office, but is statewide, and sometimes national, in scope. A member of the firm’s Business Litigation Group, Jeremy has a broad litigation background, with expertise in all manner of business, contract, commercial, corporate, shareholder, securities, and trust/fiduciary issues and disputes.

Jeremy focuses his practice primarily on infrastructure and real estate related issues and disputes, particularly those involving eminent domain and easements. He has represented some of the...

614-723-2030
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement