Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Bankruptcy (1)
- Compensation (1)
- Constitution (1)
- Debtors (1)
- Ecological change (1)
-
- Failing to act (1)
- Fifth Amendment (1)
- Homes (1)
- Land (1)
- Legislative History (1)
- Liability (1)
- Mortgage modifications (1)
- Mortgages (1)
- Nobelman v. American Savings Bank (1)
- Obligations (1)
- Passive takings (1)
- Property (1)
- Property rights (1)
- Residences (1)
- Sea-level rise (1)
- Statutory interpretation (1)
- Takings (1)
- Takings Clause (1)
- United States Supreme Court (1)
- Value (1)
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
Passive Takings: The State's Affirmative Duty To Protect Property, Christopher Serkin
Passive Takings: The State's Affirmative Duty To Protect Property, Christopher Serkin
Michigan Law Review
The purpose of the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause is to protect property owners from the most significant costs of legal transitions. Paradigmatically, a regulatory taking involves a government action that interferes with expectations about the content of property rights. Legal change has therefore always been central to regulatory takings claims. This Article argues that it does not need to be and that governments can violate the Takings Clause by failing to act in the face of a changing world. This argument represents much more than a minor refinement of takings law because recognizing governmental liability for failing to act means …
House Swaps: A Strategic Bankruptcy Solution To The Foreclosure Crisis, Lynn M. Lopucki
House Swaps: A Strategic Bankruptcy Solution To The Foreclosure Crisis, Lynn M. Lopucki
Michigan Law Review
Since the price peak in 2006, home values have fallen more than 30 percent, leaving millions of Americans with negative equity in their homes. Until the Supreme Court’s 1993 decision in Nobelman v. American Savings Bank, the bankruptcy system would have provided many such homeowners with a remedy. They could have filed bankruptcy, discharged the negative equity, committed to pay the mortgage holders the full values of their homes, and retained those homes. In Nobelman, however, the Court misinterpreted reasonably clear statutory language and invented legislative history to resolve a three-to-one split of circuits in favor of the minority view …