Case Study: Kelo V. New London

Coastal Property As Martin’s attorney, I believe he should consider his beach house lost to eminent domain with no legal recourse and he should accept the compensation of full market value, which the city authorities are legally obligated to provide (G.S. §40A-64, 2006). Unfortunately, Martin has almost no right to recover his property. The seizure of Martin’s property under North Carolina law and the caselaw precedent of Kelo v. New London (2005) firmly establishes the doctrine of eminent domain. Eminent domain is defined as “the constitutional right of the government to take privately owned real property for a [public use] purpose in exchange for just compensation to the [property] owner” (Kubasek, Brennan, & Browne, 2015, p. 359). The

Within Kelo v. New London, the city of New London, Connecticut seized - by eminent domain - the real property of some New London residents and sold the property for private development on the grounds of economic redevelopment (Kelo v. New London). Even though the plaintiffs (the home owners) claimed the seizure was a violation of the Fifth Amendment’s taking clause, the Connecticut and U.S. Supreme Courts ruled in favor of New London. The court ruled the seizure was an acceptable application of ‘public use’ because the land was not taken for the benefit of a select group of private individuals but, rather for the benefit of the community under the revitalization plan. The Kelo v. New London case is fully analogous to Martin’s situation. Under the Kelo precedent, Martin’s land has been seized for ‘public use’ - the construction of a resort for the benefit of the Wilmington community - and he is without legal standing to recover his property. Under the circumstances, I would advise Martin to accept the city’s offer of the full market value for the lost property. From a spiritual perspective, I would advise Martin to handle the loss of his property as Job handled the taking of his property by the devil. After all of Job’s property was taken he “fell on the ground

Beyond analyzing the elements of bailment and good faith purchase, this section affirmed Martin’s legal right to his automobile and advised he to seek replevin from the court for the return of his vehicle. Deuteronomy 22:1-2 supported the full return of Martin’s property, without payment. Through this thread, I hope my assessment of Martin’s legal rights and my advisements of action will help Martin as he navigates these treacherous legal