Florida Eminent Domain Blog | Gregory W. Stoner

When Sonia Sotomayor was nominated for the Supreme Court, there were many concerns about her judicial history. For some, it was her statement that judges should practice judicial activism. For others, it was that she did not represent a powerful liberal alternative to the conservative judges on the Court.

But others objected to Sotomayor's possible stance on eminent domain. In particular, critics point to the decision in Didden v. Village of Port Charles (2006), which is an unsigned opinion presented by a panel of three judges of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, one of whom was Sotomayor. In this case, some say she participated in state-sponsored extortion, in which one developer, Bart Didden, was asked to pay $800,000 or give a share of profits to another developer, Gregory Wasser, in order to stop condemnation procedures against his property. When Didden refused, condemnation procedures on his property began on November 6, 2003.

The dialogue between Didden and Wasser is according to Didden and is otherwise unconfirmed. It is also irrelevant to the basis of the Court's decision. The Court said it would have made its decision because it was forced to by the recent Kelo v. City of New London. The decision cites Kelo's language about when judges cannot intervene in an eminent domain case: "Just as we decline to second-guess the City's considered judgments about the efficacy of its development plan, we also decline to second-guess the City's determinations as to what land it needs to acquire in order to effectuate the project." Essentially, the Court has said that it cannot comment on and interfere with a City's development plans once the project has passed the muster of "public use," which in Kelo was a pretty easy muster.

But just as that wasn't the real reason for the decision, it isn't the real lesson we need to take away from the case. The case was really decided because the claims were time-barred, according to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Even though Port Charles did not begin actual condemnation procedures on Didden's land until 2003, the Court said that he should have acted to protest the taking in 1999 when the Village of Port Charles announced its development plans and informed him of its plan to condemn his land. Now the Court has denied his attempt to stop the taking, leaving Didden only able to seek just compensation for his land.

If you have received notification that a condemning authority plans to take your land, don't wait. Take action today to protect your property rights. Contact the Florida Property Rights Law Firm, PA to learn how.