Quote:
Originally Posted by root1
Apparent evidence points toward them using the waterfront property and their right-of-way as a source of income; they have indicated that lease terms are negotiable.
|
I don’t think this can be right. There is probably more to the story that the state isn’t sharing with you. Eminent domain allows the state to take land for public use. There have been recent cases saying that “public use” for eminent domain can include things like taking private property for a commercial development, as that (at least in a broad sense) benefits the public and therefore is a “public use.” But it would be a huge stretch to say that taking property to rent it back constitutes a public use.
If what is being proposed is a taking by eminent domain, title insurance would not cover that (generally, unless you purchased a separate rider for that). But it what is being asserted here is that the state actually owns the property, title insurance should cover that and the lawyers necessary to mount a defense. If you or others had owners title insurance when you bought, get the title insurers involved now, even if there may be questions of whether the DOT’s claims against you are covered under the policies, as the insurance companies will generally have an obligation to get you a lawyer and pay for it to defend against this unless it is clearly not covered by the policy.