Escaping Logical Circularity: The Postenactment Purchaser Problem and Reasonable Investment-Backed Expectations

摘要

Addressing takings claims brought by postenactment purchasers has proven to be a divisive and controversial, yet important issue within the already muddled area of regula-tory takings jurisprudence. In 1997, the New York Court of Appeals decided that it would not hear takings claims brought by purchasers who took title after the enactment of the regulation at issue. Four years later however, the Court rejected any such bar to regulatory takings claims based solely on the fact that the claimant was on notice of existing land use regulations. By acknowledging that owners of regulated property transfer any potential regulatory takings claim along with title to the property, the New York Court of Appeals would adhere to the Court's decision in Palazzolo. This would prevent the restraint on alienability identified by the dissenters in the regulatory takings quartet as well as the Court in Palozzolo. In addition, it would prevent the governmental windfall in not having to compensate for regulatory takings once property has changed hands.