Introduction
While Martin is simultaneously dealing with three separate issues involving seized or stolen property, in each case he is not without options. It is important to examine the various legal issues related to Martin’s property ownership to determine his rights and decide the best course of action for attempting to reclaim his property. As Martin’s attorney, it is essential to not only provide him with legal options, but recognizing that he is a spiritual man, help him to apply biblical principles to guide himself through these difficult situations.
Mountain Property In the case of Martin’s mountain property, there are two separate issues at play. The first issue that must be addressed is the bank’s foreclosure on the property due to Andrew’s default on his loan, and his decision to use Martin’s property as …show more content…
According to Pearce (2007), following the case of Kelo v. New London (2005), North Carolina lawmakers added a provision in the state’s eminent domain laws intended to limit the extent to which the state or city can seize private property. Under this provision, eminent domain can only be used to take individual parcels of land that are deemed to be blighted or dilapidated. The provision also includes a specific definition of what meets these criteria (p. 1790).
This is important in Martin’s case because it precludes the government from grouping multiple properties together for urban redevelopment. For the city to legally seize Martin’s property, they would have to prove that the property is blighted or dilapidated. If that is not the case, they have no legal grounds to seize Martin’s property under North Carolina eminent domain law. As long as his beach house does not meet the states definition of blighted or dilapidated, I would advise Martin to fight the state legally on this issue in order to save his
While Martin is simultaneously dealing with three separate issues involving seized or stolen property, in each case he is not without options. It is important to examine the various legal issues related to Martin’s property ownership to determine his rights and decide the best course of action for attempting to reclaim his property. As Martin’s attorney, it is essential to not only provide him with legal options, but recognizing that he is a spiritual man, help him to apply biblical principles to guide himself through these difficult situations.
Mountain Property In the case of Martin’s mountain property, there are two separate issues at play. The first issue that must be addressed is the bank’s foreclosure on the property due to Andrew’s default on his loan, and his decision to use Martin’s property as …show more content…
According to Pearce (2007), following the case of Kelo v. New London (2005), North Carolina lawmakers added a provision in the state’s eminent domain laws intended to limit the extent to which the state or city can seize private property. Under this provision, eminent domain can only be used to take individual parcels of land that are deemed to be blighted or dilapidated. The provision also includes a specific definition of what meets these criteria (p. 1790).
This is important in Martin’s case because it precludes the government from grouping multiple properties together for urban redevelopment. For the city to legally seize Martin’s property, they would have to prove that the property is blighted or dilapidated. If that is not the case, they have no legal grounds to seize Martin’s property under North Carolina eminent domain law. As long as his beach house does not meet the states definition of blighted or dilapidated, I would advise Martin to fight the state legally on this issue in order to save his