A state agency takes a parcel for a road to a fish hatchery by eminent domain (cut a farm in half). Later they acquire other land and build a new road on that and don't use the parcel taken for the road and now have no need for the parcel taken. Do they have to give the parcel back if the former owner gives them the money paid or is just a plain state owned parcel in fee that they can do anything they wish (sell to a third party, etc.) Might vary by state, this is in Utah.
It depends on the structure of the final order and the documents executed by the parties. If the Attorney for the farmer did his job the easement goes away after abandonment and fee never changed. In practice it's usually more complex and the owner gets hosed..
As stated before, the Final Order would govern the status of the property. Abandonment processes can vary even in the same state. At times the adjoining owners are given the first right of refusal to purchase abandoned right of way. Sometimes the agency will sell it to a third party. The owner may have a case to reclaim his property in that an agency is suppose to demonstrate need to be successful in the condemnation process. Unfortunately, the condemnation process has been abused in recent history. It has even been used by municipalities to condemn property to facilitate private development. An absolute abuse of power.
Leon,
I don't know the laws on this, but I would think the State does, and probably deals with this. In most cases, I don't think that the state would want the maintenance and liability of the land. It is probably more a burden on them. Around here it would become an "excess parcel" and they would try to sell it back to the only landowners to whom it would benefit. I mean what can you do with a strip anyway if it's not going to be for a road.
And yes, I would assume they have it in fee. But also if they are using eminent domain to acquire and then it is not longer needed for the original intent, it should be offered back to the owner. (of course "should" and "law" aren't always the same).
Can't say how things work in UT. But I can tell you what happened in one NC case.
The state condemns and takes a farm for an Interstate by-pass intersection. Intersection gets built and the state has left over land. The state makes a deal to sell the left over land for an Outback Steak House.
The original owner cries foul and sues the state. Our supreme court rules that the taking was for a specific purpose and if there is land remaining that is not needed for that purpose it must be offered back to the original owner and it must be offered at the prorated price the state paid for the land.
As you might imagine, the state was most unhappy with this since they were set to make a large profit on the deal.
Hope that helps.
Larry P
The "State" needs to remember that it is not in the real estate business, especially if it is exercising eminent domain proceedings. It should not be wasting taxpayers money nor should it be profiting from local citizens. Once some State employees loose sight of that, they are not serving the public well.
I imagine your case, Larry, would be true most everywhere if it goes to court. (but you never know with courts).
Similar occurrences in Oklahoma. If a larger percentage of area is obtained from any given parcel, the State usually takes the entire parcel. After the highway construction the State at times owns some acreage that is really actually surplus.
Real Estate development moguls are more than happy to help their State out by purchasing the surplus R/W for pennies...We've had a least one Highway Commissioner that did time at the "Big House" for being way too damn friendly with developers. On and off ramps would get justified and built with tax dollars...then Lo and Behold a Love's Truck Stop shows up on a surplus parcel that was "auctioned" for pennies. It was way too obvious.
I hope he liked his cell..:snarky:
not prorated price, but appraised...
I know whatcha meant.
Steve
> not prorated price, but appraised...
>
> I know whatcha meant.
>
> Steve
Actually Steve, I said it correctly. The price the original owner pays per acre is exactly what the State paid the original owner per acre, not a new appraisal price.
I'm ok with that approach.
Larry P
