EPA to property owner - "Your land is our land."

Started by Sassy, September 24, 2011, 05:12:43 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


NM_Shooter

Holy cow.  I can't wait to see how this turn out!
"Officium Vacuus Auctorita"


Squirl

Docket to follow along:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/10-1062.htm

Question presented:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/qp/10-01062qp.pdf


It looks like some of this hinges on what force of law a "compliance action" has.  Also separation of powers issues.  The law is currently set up that people have the right to judicial oversight after the EPA (executive branch) sues to enforce a compliance action.  The sacketts are looking for judicial oversight before the executive branch moves to sue.  Effectively limiting the executive branch from enforcing the laws.  I remember a similar case from a few years ago.  A defendant sued to get an injunction to prevent the justice department from indicting.  The lower court issued an order preventing the executive branch from indicting.  The upper court found that it was a violation of the separation of powers.

Traditionally courts have held that until the EPA (executive branch) actually fines you or tries to stop you from building or doing something, you have not been deprived of anything, and you don't get judicial oversight.  Just coming in and threatening to do something doesn't usually cut it.

Squirl

If the circuits were in agreement as much as was stated in the 9th circuit's opinion, and the supreme court took up the argument I wouldn't be surprised if there is a large change in the law. Especially with the appellate court's opinion that they didn't like the language of the law.

ScottA

Even though the executive has no authority to make laws I think they should be suing the developer that sold them the land. It had to be a designated wetland before they bought it and that wasn't revelaed at closing aparently.


Squirl

Yeah, in the video the woman says.  The person who sold it to us told us he checked and it wasn't wet lands.
10:1 says they didn't have a lawyer for the closing.  They spent $23,000 on the land and planned on tens if not hundreds of thousands more, but wouldn't spend $500 to make sure the legal paperwork and due diligence was in order.

Buying land is generally caveat emptor.  But if you explain to a lawyer your intent and usage and pay him to make sure everything is legally in order before closing. He can (a.) make sure that he checks or gets in writing that the land was not wet lands from the developer (statute of frauds) and (b.) the lawyer also has malpractice insurance if he is negligent.