In this episode, Kristin Renfro, a California condemnation attorney, joins the show to discuss inverse condemnation and its intersection with tort law. Kristen describes her experience litigating a case involving a catastrophic landslide. She details how inverse condemnation differs from tort law in that it requires no fault—only that a public project caused damage. Kristen explains the legal and scientific challenges of proving causation, including the need for expert geological and geotechnical testimony, and outlines the strategic decisions made during the trial. The conversation also touches on broader implications for property owners, utilities, and constitutional rights, especially in light of California’s progressive stance on public utility liability.

The episode concludes with Renfro's review of a recent trip to see Dead & Company at the Sphere in Las Vegas.

Links:

https://www.linkedin.com/in/kditlev/

In this episode, Tom Malapit and Eric Rochford--two Indiana condemnation lawyers--join Bobby to discuss a significant eminent domain case they tried last year in Indiana, which they believe is the largest jury verdict in an Indiana condemnation proceeding.

They detail the challenges of the case, including the initial offer from the school corporation, taking over the case from another firm after a failed mediation, and a critical ruling on the admissibility of a prior family transaction involving the property.

They also describe how they used the condemning authority's own witnesses during cross-examination to support their case and fighting for the property's highest and best use as commercial land despite its present designation as farm land. They also share insights into trial logistics, witness order, judge personality, and the valuable feedback received from the jury after the verdict.

Links:

Tom Malapit & Eric Rochford Webiste and Bios: https://www.eminentattorneys.com/about

A few weeks ago, Bobby was invited to give a presentation to IRWA Chapter 36’s Spring Seminar on the history of Texas’s takings provision—specifically, the evolution of the term “adequate compensation” and what difference there is, if any, between that term and the U.S. Constitution’s use of “just compensation.” This episode is a live recording of that presentation.

Links:

https://irwachapter36.org/

2025 Spring Seminar: https://irwachapter36.org/meetinginfo.php?id=131&ts=1738095773

Christina Martin of the Pacific Legal Foundation joins to discuss litigating Hennepin County to the Supreme Court. Christina shares some stories about moot arguments ahead of oral arguments with Paul Clement, and compares the tax foreclosure sale in Hennepin to traditional bank foreclosures. After discussing the case, Christina talks about her current work in follow up, including other property taxation issues and blight designations.

Links:

Tyler v. Hennepin Co. Decision: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-166_8n59.pdf

Christina Martin at Pacific Legal: https://pacificlegal.org/staff/christina-martin/

Joe Wilkinson of The Avenue Research Group joins the podcast to talk about technology in marketing for eminent domain cases. In addition to traditional mail marketing, Bobby and Joe talk about broader marketing strategy campaigns, geofencing, AI, and why marketing research should both reach clients and also inform lawyers about projects.

At the end of the episode, Joe's interest in archeology becomes the basis for the cross examination.

Links:

Joe Wilkinson LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/joseph-wilkinson-829406248/

https://avenueresearchgroup.com/

Contact:

info@avenueresearchgroup.com
P: (803) 509-5078

Emilio Longoria returns to the podcast to make the argument for why condemning authorities should pay landowners' attorneys fees in eminent domain cases. Bobby plays Devil's Advocate and presents the arguments for the existing default rules. After discussing the legal background arguments, they examine a sample of different state structures as examples of how differently states handle attorneys' fees. Emilio offers some practice tips on structuring engagement letters for landowners' counsel.

Link:

https://ackerman-ackerman.com/why-condemnors-should-pay-property-owners-attorney-fees-in-eminent-domain-cases-and-a-50-state-survey-on-the-issue/

Robert McNamara of the Institute for Justice joins to talk about his oral argument to the Supreme Court of the United States in Devillier v. Texas. Robert discusses how he prepared for argument, what was at stake for his client, and what it means for eminent domain practitioners more generally.

In the cross exam, Robert shares how much coffee he drinks, and what minor superpower he'd like to have.

Links:

Devillier Opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-913_3204.pdf

The Institute for Justice: https://ij.org/

Robert McNamara Profile: https://ij.org/staff/robert-mcnamara/

Devillier Oral Argument (with transcript and speaker highlights): https://youtu.be/OqpVdv_KkjE?si=2b0paALhLis_exLV

In this episode, Alan Lichtenstein joins to discuss one avenue for landowners facing eminent domain to potentially minimize the tax impact of takings: 1033 Exchanges. The episode begins with a general discussion of the requirements of 1031 (or, voluntary) exchanges, which listeners may be more familiar with. Alan then explains some of the additional flexibility and options that 1033 exchanges offer for involuntary sales of property, like eminent domain.

At the end, Alan shares his thoughts on what a great Super Band would look like of his favorite musicians.

DISCLOSURE:

The information herein has been prepared for educational purposes only and does not constitute an offer to purchase or sell investments.

This material is not to be interpreted as tax or legal advice. Please speak with your own tax and legal advisors for advice/guidance regarding your particular situation. DST 1031 properties are only available to accredited investors (typically defined as having a $1 million net worth excluding primary residence or $200,000 income individually/$300,000 jointly of the last two years and reasonably expects the same for the current year) and accredited entities. There are material risks associated with investing in private placements, DST properties and real estate securities including illiquidity, general market conditions, interest rate risks, financing risks, potentially adverse tax consequences, general economic risks, development risks, and potential loss of the entire investment principal.

Links:

Alan Lichtenstein Profile: https://www.1031dst.com/alan-n-lichtenstein/

Alan Lichtenstein Email: alichtenstein@fortittudeinvestments.com

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/alan-n-lichtenstein-a77b926/

General Website: www.1031dst.com