THE UNIFORM CONDEMNATION PROCEDURES ACT
Act 87 of 1980
213.70 Determination of fair market value.
Sec. 20.
(1) A change in the fair market value before the date of the filing of the complaint which the agency or the owner establishes was substantially due to the general knowledge of the imminence of the acquiring by the agency, other than that due to physical deterioration of the property within the reasonable control of the owner, shall be disregarded in determining fair market value. Except as provided in section 23, the property shall be valued in all cases as though the acquisition had not been contemplated.
(2) The general effects of a project for which property is taken, whether actual or anticipated, that in varying degrees are experienced by the general public or by property owners from whom no property is taken, shall not be considered in determining just compensation. A special effect of the project on the owner's property that, standing alone, would constitute a taking of private property under section 2 of article X of the state constitution of 1963 shall be considered in determining just compensation. To the extent that the detrimental effects of a project are considered to determine just compensation, they may be offset by consideration of the beneficial effects of the project.
(3) The date of acquiring and of valuation in a proceeding pursuant to this act shall be the date of filing unless the parties agree to a different date, or unless a different date is determined by a counterclaim filed under section 21. The value of each parcel, and of a part of a parcel remaining after the acquisition of a part of the parcel, shall be determined with respect to the condition of the property and the state of the market on the date of valuation. However, if anticipated damages are avoided because of changes in the taking or project or changes in the actual effect of the taking or project on the remaining property, the property shall be valued as if those damages had not been anticipated.
History: 1980, Act 87, Imd. Eff. Apr. 8, 1980 ;-- Am. 1996, Act 474, Imd. Eff. Dec. 26, 1996
Notes of Decisions
Dep't of Transp. v. Tomkins, 749 N.W.2d 716 (Mich. 2008).
· cites it 57× “The provision of the UCPA at issue in this case is MCL 213.70, which sets out the process for determining fair market value.”
City of Detroit v. Detroit Plaza Ltd. P'ship, 730 N.W.2d 523 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 10× “SCOPE OF THE PROJECT RULE The City first argues that evidence of the sales were precluded by the “scope of the project” rule, as set forth in MCL 213.70, and that the trial court therefore erred in failing to exclude the sales.”
Dep't of Transp. v. Frankenlust Lutheran Congregation, 711 N.W.2d 453 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 2× “However, noting that the UCPA provides that property taken pursuant to its procedures is to be valued as of the date of the filing of the condemnation complaint, see MCL 213.70(3), MDOT responded that the UCPA did not prohibit it from altering its precondemnation determination…”
Silver Creek Drain Dist. v. Extrusions Div., Inc, 630 N.W.2d 347 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 2× “See MCL 213.70 and 213.73. 8 Courts have generally been constrained only by the requirement that the property owner be placed in as good a condition as the owner would have been had no taking occurred.”
Dep't of Transp. v. Tomkins, 715 N.W.2d 363 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 3× “CONSTITUTIONALITY OF MCL 213.70(2) The plain language of § 20(2) of the UCPA excludes consideration of the general effects of a public project in determining just compensation: The general effects of a project for which property is taken, whether actual or anticipated, that in…”
Michigan Dept. of Transp. v. Tomkins, 732 N.W.2d 533 (Mich. 2007).
“the issues to be briefed: (1) what was the ratifiers' common understanding of the phrase "just compensation" when they ratified Const 1963, art 10, § 2, and was it commonly understood that "just compensation" in inverse condemnation cases was different than "just compensation"…”
Dep't of Transp. v. Dondero, 430 N.W.2d 785 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988).
“The date of acquiring and of valuation in a proceeding pursuant to this act shall be the date of filing unless the parties agree to a different date, or unless a different date is determined by a counterclaim filed pursuant to section 21.”
City of Detroit v. King, 523 N.W.2d 644 (Mich. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 6× “Commenting both on defendant’s failure to rehabilitate the premises before the actual taking and on who should bear the effects of vandalism, the court concluded: The process of excusing — another way of excusing the defendant from being required to promptly *179 rehabilitate…”
Michigan Dept of Transp. v. Panacea Redevelopment Corp (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 3× “13 and MCL 213.70. After a hearing on both motions, the trial court denied plaintiff’s motion to exclude Sheppell’s appraisal, but granted defendants’ motion to exclude Ellis’s appraisal.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 213.70(1) — 2 cases
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 213.70(2) — 3 cases
Dep't of Transp. v. Tomkins, 749 N.W.2d 716 (Mich. 2008).
“The provision of the UCPA at issue in this case is MCL 213.70, which sets out the process for determining fair market value.”
Dep't of Transp. v. Tomkins, 715 N.W.2d 363 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006).
“CONSTITUTIONALITY OF MCL 213.70(2) The plain language of § 20(2) of the UCPA excludes consideration of the general effects of a public project in determining just compensation: The general effects of a project for which property is taken, whether actual or anticipated, that in…”
Michigan Dept. of Transp. v. Tomkins, 732 N.W.2d 533 (Mich. 2007).
“the issues to be briefed: (1) what was the ratifiers' common understanding of the phrase "just compensation" when they ratified Const 1963, art 10, § 2, and was it commonly understood that "just compensation" in inverse condemnation cases was different than "just compensation"…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 213.70(3) — 4 cases
Dep't of Transp. v. Frankenlust Lutheran Congregation, 711 N.W.2d 453 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006).
“However, noting that the UCPA provides that property taken pursuant to its procedures is to be valued as of the date of the filing of the condemnation complaint, see MCL 213.70(3), MDOT responded that the UCPA did not prohibit it from altering its precondemnation determination…”
City of Detroit v. Detroit Plaza Ltd. P'ship, 730 N.W.2d 523 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007).
“SCOPE OF THE PROJECT RULE The City first argues that evidence of the sales were precluded by the “scope of the project” rule, as set forth in MCL 213.70, and that the trial court therefore erred in failing to exclude the sales.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.