Case Study Eminent Domain
Our case study opens painting a picture of a law enforcement officer that has decided to retire after many years of service as a deputy in a small town in North Carolina and a detective in Raleigh. Martin, our law enforcement officer appears to be less than adequate in his occupation, however, he has been able to save his earnings and invested his money wisely in prime North Carolina mountain real estate and a second home on coastal property in North Carolina. After many years of working Martin just wants to enjoy the fruits of his labor, but obstacles have arisen that has prevented him from reaping the benefits of his real estate and loss of his prize possessions. Martin has sought my legal advice as his attorney and friend as how
…show more content…
He then noticed that on his front door a letter was posted communicating that the city authorities will be taking his property by eminent domain to create new businesses and jobs in the community. Not unlike the mountain property Martin is now facing another dilemma in which he is uninformed and reacting to an active developing issue. Therefore, I proceeded to explain that eminent domain or taking clause is a constitutional right granted by the Fifth Amendment that “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation” (Miceli,2015). Similarly, to Martin’s situation, I shared the Kelo v. New London case which was one of the most controversial cases concerning eminent domain, that precipitated protest across the U.S. Likewise, the facts from the Kelo’s case corresponds with Martin’s issue with the government seizing private property to sell to private developers, hence is where Kelo felt that New London was overstepping and violating the Fifth Amendment by selling the private property to a private developer instead of using it for public use (Kubasek et al.,2016). However, the decision ruled in favor of New London for the reason that, the city seizes the property to …show more content…
He explained that he handed over his car to Benjamin, who he thought to be a valet at The Riverboat Restaurant, and on returning to retrieve his car he was told that the valet service was not working tonight as well as Benjamin had quit the day before. Afterwards, Martin reported his car stolen and it was found 3 weeks later at a Classic Car Show in Mount Olive. Hence, the new owner had purchased the car from a used car dealership in Kingston, North Carolina. Whereas the dealership traded their 1967 Mustang with a young man matching Benjamin’s description for the 1966 Pontiac GTO. To say the least, the new owner is not willing to give Martin back his car unless he reimburses him 5,600.00, the money he paid for the vehicle. Although, Martin has been involved in a series of unfortunate events that could’ve been avoided if he was more attentive to his real estate ventures, however, this case was an incident that could have happened to anyone. Benjamin clearly and intentionally stole Martin’s personal property and should be prosecuted when found (Exodus 20:15). As I explained to Martin because he has the title for the car, he is the rightful owner and the execution of a sale would entail consideration from the seller in exchange for the car’s title. Therefore, because the car was still legally registered in his name and not transferred from him to the current owner the (good
He then noticed that on his front door a letter was posted communicating that the city authorities will be taking his property by eminent domain to create new businesses and jobs in the community. Not unlike the mountain property Martin is now facing another dilemma in which he is uninformed and reacting to an active developing issue. Therefore, I proceeded to explain that eminent domain or taking clause is a constitutional right granted by the Fifth Amendment that “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation” (Miceli,2015). Similarly, to Martin’s situation, I shared the Kelo v. New London case which was one of the most controversial cases concerning eminent domain, that precipitated protest across the U.S. Likewise, the facts from the Kelo’s case corresponds with Martin’s issue with the government seizing private property to sell to private developers, hence is where Kelo felt that New London was overstepping and violating the Fifth Amendment by selling the private property to a private developer instead of using it for public use (Kubasek et al.,2016). However, the decision ruled in favor of New London for the reason that, the city seizes the property to …show more content…
He explained that he handed over his car to Benjamin, who he thought to be a valet at The Riverboat Restaurant, and on returning to retrieve his car he was told that the valet service was not working tonight as well as Benjamin had quit the day before. Afterwards, Martin reported his car stolen and it was found 3 weeks later at a Classic Car Show in Mount Olive. Hence, the new owner had purchased the car from a used car dealership in Kingston, North Carolina. Whereas the dealership traded their 1967 Mustang with a young man matching Benjamin’s description for the 1966 Pontiac GTO. To say the least, the new owner is not willing to give Martin back his car unless he reimburses him 5,600.00, the money he paid for the vehicle. Although, Martin has been involved in a series of unfortunate events that could’ve been avoided if he was more attentive to his real estate ventures, however, this case was an incident that could have happened to anyone. Benjamin clearly and intentionally stole Martin’s personal property and should be prosecuted when found (Exodus 20:15). As I explained to Martin because he has the title for the car, he is the rightful owner and the execution of a sale would entail consideration from the seller in exchange for the car’s title. Therefore, because the car was still legally registered in his name and not transferred from him to the current owner the (good