DOCSLIB.ORG

The Eviction Process for Private Landlords and PHA Landlords Background

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Eviction Process for Private Landlords and PHA Landlords Background The Eviction Process For private landlords and PHA landlords Background • PHA has, roughly, 14,000 public housing units. • Provides subsidy assistance to 18,000 units under HCV program • 85,000 people on public housing waiting list • Each tenant’s rent is set at 28% of their annual income. • A change in income will result in a change in rent. • Handles approximately 340 cases in landlord/tenant court each month. • Less than 3% of our units have cases in litigation in any given month. • PHA completes about 268 evictions per year. • That number is 1.8% of our public housing units. Before Filing a Complaint • Contact tenant in attempt to resolve lease violation • Payment agreements and/or attempt to resolve dispute • Tenant served with at least 2 official written notices of intent to file for eviction • Eviction filed in Landlord Tenant Court Before Filing a Complaint: PHA • PHA provides tenants with three (3) pre-trial resolution opportunities before a Complaint is filed in Municipal Court: 1) Pre-trial repayment agreements for rent owed for less than two months, and 2) Grievance hearings for lease terminations due to issues disputed by the tenant, and 3) Conflict resolution meetings between tenants in dispute with one another. What Makes a Landlord Move for Eviction? • Breach of Lease Non Payment of Rent Unauthorized Occupants Criminal or Nuisance activity that disturbs other’s right to peacefully enjoy the property Failure to complete recertification Landlord Communication with Tenants • Rent reminders are sent to tenants after the 5th of the month. • Letters/calls requesting payment of rent and/or curing breach of lease. • Notices of Lease Termination are mailed to tenants. • A Notice of Proposed Action is sent to the tenant. PHA: Required Landlord Communication with Tenant • Monthly rental statements are mailed to tenants. • Rent reminders are sent to tenants after the 5th of the month. • Letters requesting rent conferences are mailed to tenants. • Letters requesting conflict resolution meetings. • Two (2) notices for recertification compliance meetings are sent to tenants. • Notices of Lease Termination are mailed to tenants. • A Notice of Proposed Action is sent to the tenant. • Phone calls to tenants regarding the breach. Notice of Lease Termination • PHA issues a Notice of Lease Termination (NLT). Notifies tenant of nature of breach Offers tenant the option of a grievance hearing Offers tenant a pre-trial payment plan Advises tenant to address the issue with management within 30 days • If tenant does not respond to the NLT, PHA files a Complaint in Municipal Court. Tenant has until the day of trial to resolve the breach • If no resolution is reached, PHA will take the case to trial. What happens when there is a judgment against a tenant? • The tenant has 10 days to appeal. • A landlord can not gain possession until the court has awarded possession of the property to the landlord. • A landlord can not gain possession until a minimum of 21 days have passed and the appropriate Writs of Possession have been filed. • PHA: If there is a money judgment against the tenant, the tenant can have the money judgment satisfied by paying the amount of the judgment. Consequences to the landlord • Cost Filing a Complaint - $95 Filing Writs of Possession - $11.60 Serving a Writ of Possession - $95 Serving an Alias Writ of Possession - $35 Moving truck fees - $949 - $1,350 (including 30 days of storage) Storage of belongings (on or off site) - $2,500-$9,000 Turnover/Rehab of Property - $3,000-$50,000 • Timing A landlord can not take possession until a minimum of 21 days has passed. • Loss of Income Landlord can only collect the judgment amount to stop the eviction, not the total amount due at time of eviction. • Possible damage to the property City of Philadelphia Department of Licenses & Inspections City of Philadelphia Task Force on Eviction Prevention and Response November 21, 2017 1 L&I’s Roles and Responsibilities • The mission of the Department of Licenses & Inspections is to enforce the City of Philadelphia’s codes for the safe and lawful construction and use of buildings. • L&I issues and inspects all construction and demolition permits; conduct code inspections for fire, property maintenance, and business compliance; issue business and trade licenses; and seal and demolish vacant buildings. • Scope of the Department’s authority: • 570,000 parcels in the city • 53,790 permits and 119,320 licenses issued in FY17 = $60 million in revenue to the general fund • 61,341 complaints received in FY17 • 356,027 inspections performed in FY17 • 140 inspectors 2 Rental Landscape • Number of rental units (estimated) = 273,000 (self-reported) • 260,000 require licenses. PHA units not required to be licensed. • Number of rental licenses = approximately 77,000 • Number of licensed rental units = approximately 208,000 • Capture rate = 80% • Where is the other 20%? Many are tangled title, deed fraud, rent-to-own agreements, and other complicated legal situations. Suspected 14,000 tangled titles. • Who are our landlords? • 86% of licenses for 1 or 2 unit buildings • 6% of licenses for 5+ unit buildings • 40% of units (~ 90,000) owned by landlords with 4 or fewer total units 3 Rental License Process • License must be renewed annually. Cost is $55 per unit (as of 7/1/17). All units in one building are on same license. • Landlords can apply: online (eCLIPSE), through mail, or in person. Approximately 60% are done online – this is the preferred process. • License application requires a mailing address within Philadelphia. • Landlords cannot obtain a rental license if: • There are code violations at the property (Phila. Code 9-3902). • They are not tax compliant (business taxes or property taxes at the property at issue). • If no rental license, landlord can be cited for code violation. • Rental licenses not required if owner occupies one unit in a building with four or fewer units or if unit is being rented to family member. 4 Inspection Process • L&I inspects rental units on a complaint basis. • Complaints received through 311. Most complaints from tenants re: interior issues. Also receive complaints from neighbors re: exterior issues. • For most complaints, response time is within 20 days. More serious complaints can be within 48 hours. • Inspector will attempt to schedule appointment with tenant if contact information is provided in complaint. • If tenant is not home or does not provide access to inspector, inspector will leave contact information. • Inspector will make two attempts to enter the property. If no access provided after two visits, complaint will be closed. 5 Violation Process • STEP 1: INSPECTION. If inspector finds code violations, a Notice of Violation is issued to the owner at addresses provided on license and in city records. • Reinspection scheduled in 35 days (for most violations). • Owner has opportunity to appeal to L&I Review Board within 30 days of initial violation. Appeals stop enforcement pending outcome of hearing. • STEP 2: REINSPECTION. If violations remain upon reinspection, a final Notice of Violation is issued to the owner. • Second reinspection scheduled in 35 days. • STEP 3: FINAL INSPECTION: If no compliance upon second reinspection, the inspector forwards the case to court processing unit and case is reviewed for court eligibility. • Average 70% compliance rate after two inspections. 6 Enforcement Process • Once a case is sent to court, L&I no longer controls process. • Court process can be several months, depending on volume of cases and available court time. • Most violations sent to Municipal Court (fines only, up to $12,000). • If only violation is failure to have a rental license, most likely will not be sent to court. • Serious violations sent to Equity Court (fines and remedy in equity). • Violations involving fire alarm systems, plumbing and heating systems, etc. • All fines and orders at discretion of judge. • Unpaid fines sent to collections agency. 7 Cease Operations Procedure • L&I has authority to issue a cease operations order at buildings determined to pose an immediate threat to the health and safety of occupants or the public. Examples: • No operating heating system in the winter with elderly or young child occupants. • No running water or functioning plumbing system. • Serious fire hazards including non-functioning alarm or suppression systems (multi- family buildings) or excessive trash or debris blocking exits, etc. • Imminently dangerous structural conditions. • Cease operations orders are an absolute last resort in residential occupancies. • Must be approved by a judge – high degree of proof required. • Involves extensive coordination with police and social services agencies. • Results in a homeless family and a vacant building. 8 Landlord Responsibilities • Keep active rental license. • If license lapses, owner will be required to pay back years at next renewal. • At time of each new lease, provide tenant with copies of: • “Partners for Good Housing” booklet and supplement (Phila. Code 9-3903) • Certificate of Rental Suitability (Phila. Code 9-3903) • Certificate includes all serious violations issued more than 90 days prior. • Lead disclosure certification (Phila. Code 6-803) • Rental license (pending legislation) • Be aware of all Property Maintenance and Fire Code requirements. • Make prompt attempts to repair any violations. • If tenant prevents repairs from being made, appeal violations to L&I Review Board and contact inspector. • Keep records in order – remain tax compliant, update mailing addresses with city, apply for licenses and permits online. • Hire a property manager if necessary. 9 eCLIPSE Application • New in 2017 – questions re: lead disclosure certification 10 Tenant Responsibilities • Before renting a unit, review the property history online. All information is on our website in real time: • License status • Violation status • Owner name and contact information • If there are code violations, call 311 to report. Leave contact information (always anonymous). • Provide inspector access to the unit.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Bundle of Rights
    A BUNDLE OF RIGHTS 17 U.S.C. § 106 (2004) Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords; (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work; (3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending; (4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly; (5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and (6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission. __________ A. THE DISTRIBUTION RIGHT 17 U.S.C. § 109 (2004) (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 (3), the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, copies or phonorecords of works subject to restored copyright under section 104A that are manufactured before the date of restoration
    [Show full text]
  • What Is So Special About Intangible Property? the Case for Intelligent Carryovers Richard A
    University of Chicago Law School Chicago Unbound Coase-Sandor Working Paper Series in Law and Coase-Sandor Institute for Law and Economics Economics 2010 What Is So Special about Intangible Property? The Case for intelligent Carryovers Richard A. Epstein Follow this and additional works at: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/law_and_economics Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Richard A. Epstein, "What Is So Special about Intangible Property? The asC e for intelligent Carryovers" (John M. Olin Program in Law and Economics Working Paper No. 524, 2010). This Working Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Coase-Sandor Institute for Law and Economics at Chicago Unbound. It has been accepted for inclusion in Coase-Sandor Working Paper Series in Law and Economics by an authorized administrator of Chicago Unbound. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CHICAGO JOHN M. OLIN LAW & ECONOMICS WORKING PAPER NO. 524 (2D SERIES) What Is So Special about Intangible Property? The Case for Intelligent Carryovers Richard A. Epstein THE LAW SCHOOL THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO August 2010 This paper can be downloaded without charge at: The Chicago Working Paper Series Index: http://www.law.uchicago.edu/Lawecon/index.html and at the Social Science Research Network Electronic Paper Collection. WHAT IS SO SPECIAL ABOUT INTANGIBLE PROPERTY? THE CASE FOR INTELLIGENT CARRYOVERS by Richard A. Epstein* ABSTRACT One of the major controversies in modern intellectual property law is the extent to which property rights conceptions, developed in connection with land or other forms of tangible property, can be carried over to different forms of property, such as rights in the spectrum or in patents and copyrights.
    [Show full text]
  • Standing with a Bundle of Sticks: the All Substantial Rights Doctrine in Action
    Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal Volume 28 XXVIII Number 3 Article 1 2018 Standing with a Bundle of Sticks: The All Substantial Rights Doctrine in Action Mark J. Abate Goodwin Procter LLP, [email protected] Christopher J. Morten Goodwin Procter LLP, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/iplj Part of the Intellectual Property Law Commons Recommended Citation Mark J. Abate and Christopher J. Morten, Standing with a Bundle of Sticks: The All Substantial Rights Doctrine in Action, 28 Fordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. L.J. 477 (2018). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/iplj/vol28/iss3/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal by an authorized editor of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Standing with a Bundle of Sticks: The All Substantial Rights Doctrine in Action Cover Page Footnote *Mark Abate, a Partner at Goodwin Procter LLP, concentrates his practice on trials and appeals of patent infringement cases, and has particular expertise in matters involving electronics, computers, software, financial systems, and electrical, mechanical, and medical devices. He has tried cases to successful conclusions in U.S. district courts and the U.S. International Trade Commission and has argued appeals before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. He is the former President of both the New York Intellectual Property Law Association and the New Jersey Intellectual Property Law Association, and is a board member of the Federal Circuit Historical Society.
    [Show full text]
  • Inverse Condemnation and Compensatory Relief for Temporary Regulatory Takings: First English Evangelical Lutheran Church V
    Nebraska Law Review Volume 67 | Issue 2 Article 8 1988 Inverse Condemnation and Compensatory Relief for Temporary Regulatory Takings: First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. Los Angeles County, 107 S. Ct. 2378 (1987) Joseph C. Vitek University of Nebraska College of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr Recommended Citation Joseph C. Vitek, Inverse Condemnation and Compensatory Relief for Temporary Regulatory Takings: First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. Los Angeles County, 107 S. Ct. 2378 (1987), 67 Neb. L. Rev. (1988) Available at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr/vol67/iss2/8 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law, College of at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Nebraska Law Review by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Note Inverse Condemnation and Compensatory Relief for Temporary Regulatory Takings FirstEnglish Evangelical Lutheran Church v. Los Angeles County, 107 S. Ct. 2378 (1987) TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction ............................................... 435 II. Background Cases ......................................... 437 III. Facts of FirstEnglish Church ............................. 439 IV. Analysis ................................................... 441 A. Ripeness for Review .................................. 441 B. The Just Compensation Requirement ................. 444 1. Physical Occupation, Regulatory, and Temporary
    [Show full text]
  • A General Overview of the Treatment of Intellectual Property Licenses in Bankruptcy by Bruce Buechler, Esq
    A General Overview of the Treatment of Intellectual Property Licenses in Bankruptcy By Bruce Buechler, Esq. Lowenstein Sandler LLP Editor's Note: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not reflect those of Lowenstein Sandler LLP or any of its clients. n a bankruptcy case, a debtor has the ability to assume In addition, section 365(c) of the Bankruptcy Code provides I(i.e., affirm) or reject (i.e., disavow) executory contracts that when applicable non-bankruptcy law prohibits a and unexpired leases. A debtor’s ability to assume or reject contract’s assignment, it may not be assumed or assigned by an executory contract or unexpired lease is recognized as a debtor without the permission of the non-debtor counter- one of the primary purposes and essential tools available to party to the contract. Thus, in connection with licenses of a debtor under the Bankruptcy Code. The Bankruptcy Code intellectual property, section 365 is fraught with difficulties. allows a debtor to keep in place favorable contracts, and Intellectual property contracts can consist of, among other discard and relieve it of burdensome contracts, and thus things, technology licenses, patents, copyrights, trademarks avoid future performance obligations under such contracts. and/or trade secrets. If the debtor assumes a contract, it can compel the non- debtor contract party to continue to perform. Likewise, a In determining whether an intellectual property agreement is debtor has the ability to assume and assign (i.e., sell) the an “executory contract” within the meaning of section 365(c) contract to a third party, notwithstanding most provisions and, therefore, potentially subject to assumption, many in a contract or lease, that would prohibit or restrict the courts make a distinction as to whether the agreement is an assignment of such lease or contract.
    [Show full text]
  • Rent Court for Landlords
    TIP28 Rent Court for Landlords If your case is about commercial property, talk to a lawyer. Frequently-used Terms . Landlord: The person or business that owns and leases housing to other people. Tenant: The person or group of people who rent and live in a property. Eviction: The removal of a tenant from rental property by the landlord as the result of a legal judgment. Rent ledger: A written record of rent money paid by the tenant that you must maintain. Include date, amount paid, method of payment, and any outstanding balance. Service or service of process: How tenants are notified that a case has been filed with the court. The court or Sheriff will mail copies of the court notice. The Sheriff’s Department will also post a copy of the notice on the door of the property. Right of redemption. The right to redeem the property and cancel an eviction by paying all rent due, plus costs, before the Sheriff executes the eviction. This is sometimes called “pay and stay.” . Warrant of restitution. This court document indicates that the court authorizes an eviction. If rent is not paid and the judge signs the warrant, the warrant is forwarded to the Sheriff’s Department to schedule an eviction. Licensing. Many areas in Maryland require a landlord to get a housing registration license before renting residential property to a tenant. You may be required to file a lead certificate. Maryland law requires owners of rental properties built before 1978 to register their units with the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE).
    [Show full text]
  • US States and Territories Modifying
    U.S. States and Territories Modifying Licensure Requirements for Physicians in Response to COVID-19 (Out-of-state physicians in-person practice; license renewals) Last Updated: September 15, 2021 States with Waivers: 22 + DC + GU + USVI States with Waivers, not allowing new applications: 0 States without Waivers (or closed waivers): 28 States allowing OOS physicians long-term or permanent privileges: 4 + CNMI + PR On January 28, 2021, HHS announced the fifth amendment to the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act, authorizing any healthcare provider who is licensed or certified in a state to prescribe, dispense, or administer COVID-19 vaccines in any other state or U.S. territory. The amendment also authorizes any physician, registered nurse, or practical nurse whose license or certification expired within the past five years to partake in the immunization effort, but first must complete a CDC Vaccine Training and an on-site observation period by a currently practicing healthcare professional. State Note Citation • The Alabama Board of Medical Examiners and the Medical Licensure Commission have adopted emergency administrative rules and procedures allowing for the emergency ALBME Press Release licensing of qualified medical personnel. These measures will allow physicians and physician assistants who possess full and unrestricted medical licenses from appropriate medical licensing agencies to apply for and receive temporary emergency licenses to Board of Med Guidance practice in Alabama for the duration of the declared COVID-19 health emergency. • Re: renewals - The Board and Commission recognize the difficulty licensees may have meeting the annual continuing medical education requirement in 2020 due to the public Temporary Emergency health emergency.
    [Show full text]
  • License Interest Transfer Application
    Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs Business ID: Liquor Control Commission (MLCC) Toll-Free: 866-813-0011 - www.michigan.gov/lcc Request ID: License Interest Transfer Application (For MLCC Use Only) (Authorized under MCL 436.1529) For information on licenses and permits, including a checklist of required documents for a completed application, please visit the Liquor Control Commission's frequently asked questions website by clicking this link. Part 1 - Licensee Information Individuals, please state your legal name. Corporations or Limited Liability Companies, please state your name as it is filed with the State of Michigan Corporation Division. Licensee name(s): Address: City: Zip Code: Federal Employer Identification Number (FEIN): 1. Are you transferring interest between existing stockholders, members, or partners ONLY? Yes No 2. Are you transferring interest to a new stockholder, member, or partner? Yes No 3. Are you transferring more than 10% of the total interest in the license(s)? Yes No • If you answered "Yes" to question 1, complete Parts 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7. If you have your own purchase, assignment, or transfer agreement , you may submit the documents instead of completing Part 3. • If you answered "Yes" to question 2, complete Parts 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. If you have your own purchase, assignment, or transfer agreement , you may submit the documents instead of completing Part 3. • If you answered "Yes" to question 3, a full investigation by the Enforcement Division may be required for the completion of this request. Part 2 - Inspection, License, and Permit Fees - Make checks payable to State of Michigan Inspection Fees - MCL 436.1529(4) requires that a nonrefundable inspection fee of $70.00 per license shall be paid to the Commission by an applicant or licensee at the time of filing a request for approval of the transfer in any licensing year of any of the shares of stock in a corporation from 1 person to another, or any part of the total interest in a licensed limited partnership from 1 person to another.
    [Show full text]
  • Considerations in Drafting Settlement and License Agreements—Part I
    Considerations in Drafting Settlement and License Agreements—Part I By Paul Morico Previously published in the February issue of Intellectual Property and Technology Journal As any intellectual property (IP) attorney who has practiced for a number of years knows, drafting settlement and license agreements takes some skill. Most outside counsel do not have a lot of experience drafting such agreements, and even many in-house counsels only draft such agreements periodically. For those who have drafted more than a few such agreements, you know that it takes a lot of patience and, most importantly, requires great attention to detail. There are many provisions that need to be covered in these types of agreements, but equally important to making sure that all of the “bases are covered” is making sure that each of the clauses are comprehensive. The reason it is important for such agreements to be so comprehensive is that the goal of both types of agreements is to avoid future litigation. In some sense, pre-litigation license agreements can be thought of as a pre-nuptial agreement. In the case of a settlement agreement, the parties already have been in litigation and the goal is to keep the parties from going back to litigation. Because many IP settlement agreements contain many of the same terms found in a license agreement and because settlement agreements have some unique aspects to them, the first part of this article focuses initially on license agreements. The second part of this article, which will appear in an upcoming issue of the Intellectual Property & Technology Law Journal, will address issues unique to settlement agreements.
    [Show full text]
  • Fully, Even If Are Not Essential to the Use Or Purpose of the to His Web Site and Allowing Downloads There Is No Finding of Bad Faith Or Fraud
    NEW YORK LAW JOURNAL MONDAY, APRIL 15, 2002 was not fair use, because it was not that attorney’s fees may be awarded in a tectable. While those features were not func- transformative, and was likely to harm the trademark action under the Lanham Act tional in the “traditional sense,” in that they market for Kelly’s work by reducing visitors where the defendant acted willfully, even if are not essential to the use or purpose of the to his Web site and allowing downloads there is no finding of bad faith or fraud. goods and do not affect their cost or without payment of a license fee. Tamko Roofing Products, Inc. v. Ideal Roofing quality, they were functional because pro- Resolving what it described as an issue of Co., Ltd., 282 F.3d 23 (1st Cir. 2002). With hibiting their use would impose a “significant first impression under the 1976 Copyright that holding, it aligned itself with the Eighth non-reputation-related disadvantage” on Act, the Ninth Circuit held that an and Tenth Circuits, and against the Second, American Eagle. Denying competitors access exclusive licensee does not have the right to Fourth and Fifth. Section 35(a) of the to elements of the claimed trade dress, which transfer its rights without the consent of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1117(a), allows for included use of words such as “performance” licensor. Gardner v. Nike, Inc., 279 F.3d 774 a fee award in “exceptional” cases. The court and “outdoor” and certain primary color (9th Cir. 2002). In 1992, Nike signed an found that the legislative history of the act combinations, would “prevent effective agreement giving Sony the exclusive right to indicates that “deliberate” and “willful” competition in the market.” use a cartoon character in connection with conduct may make a case “exceptional.” In sound recordings and associated promotional the case before it, a fee award was justified Patents activity.
    [Show full text]
  • Takings 101 the Fifth Amendment Provides, “Nor Shall Pri- of All Economically Beneficial Use
    Legal Reporter for the National Sea Grant College Program The Volume 7:1, April, 2008 Takings 101 The Fifth Amendment provides, “nor shall pri- of all economically beneficial use. For instance, vate property be taken for public use, without in Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, the just compensation.” Courts will generally find a court found that a zoning ordinance prohibiting right to compensation when the government 1) all development on a property owner’s land directly appropriates private property; 2) physi- resulted in a regulatory taking.4 cally occupies private property; and 3) imposes If the regulation merely decreases the value a regulatory constraint on the use of property so of the property, it will not necessarily result in a severe as to deprive an owner of all economical- taking. The court will perform a multi-factor ly beneficial use. balancing test outlined in Penn Central The first and second categories might also Transportation Co. v. New York City5 to determine be called “eminent domain” or “condemna- whether or not there has been a taking. The fac- tion.” Eminent domain is “the inherent power tors include: 1) the extent to which the regula- of a governmental entity to take privately owned tion interferes with investment-backed expecta- property, especially land, and convert it to pub- tions; 2) the economic impact of the regulation lic use, subject to reasonable compensation for on the claimant; and 3) the character of the gov- the taking.”1 Condemnation is “to determine ernment’s interest, or the social goals being pro- and declare that certain property is assigned to moted by the government.
    [Show full text]
  • Patent Transfer and the Bundle of Sticks
    GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works Faculty Scholarship 2016 Patent Transfer And The Bundle of Sticks Andrew Michaels The George Washington University Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/faculty_publications Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Michaels, Andrew C., Patent Transfer and the Bundle of Sticks (December 1, 2016). GWU Law School Public Law Research Paper No. 2016-57; GWU Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2016-57. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2883829 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Andrew C. Michaels Patent Transfer DRAFT – Dec. 2016 Patent Transfer And The Bundle of Sticks by Andrew C. Michaels* Abstract In the age of the patent troll, patents are often licensed and transferred. A transferred patent may have been subject to multiple complex license agreements. It cannot be that such a transfer wipes the patent clean of all outstanding license agreements; the licensee must keep the license. But at the same time, it cannot be that the patent transferee becomes a party to a complex and sweeping license agreement – the contract – merely by virtue of acquiring one patent. This article attempts to separate the in personam aspects of a license agreement from its effects on the underlying in rem patent rights, using Hohfeld’s framework of jural relations and the “bundle of sticks” conception of property.
    [Show full text]