The National Academies Press

Currently Skimming:

Pages 14-16

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.

From page 14... ... Rather, the Indiana Supreme Court merely stated that the noise disclosure statement in the Fakes' purchase agreement and deed "specifically gave notice of the noise from airport operations" and that the disclosure statement was intended "to prevent the Fakes from seeking compensation from IAA."153 As one court has stated, "[i] f a grantor sells his property with restrictions which he intends are for the benefit of his neighbor, the neighbors, as beneficiaries, may enforce the benefiting restrictions."154 Of course, an airport disclosure act could provide that airports and airport authorities are third party beneficiaries of airport disclosure statements. Read the entire page →
From page 15... ... Even if an airport disclosure statement may preclude a claim for a taking occurring prior to a buyer's acquisition of property, it is not clear that a disclosure statement would bar a later claim if there has been a substantial increase in airport noise resulting in a taking after the owner's acquisition of the property. The Biddle court's opinion at least implies that a home buyer who has received a disclosure statement may have a claim for a future taking when there is a sufficient increase in airport noise to result in a taking, even if there had been a taking prior to the buyer's acquisition of the property.164 Even if there has been an earlier, permanent taking because of airport noise, the first taking is not an automatic bar to a claim for a second, comparable permanent taking.165 A new cause of action may accrue when "aircraft noise jumps markedly."166 The introduction of larger, heavier, noisier aircraft may constitute a taking of an additional easement even though the noisier aircraft do not violate the boundaries of an earlier easement.167 Thus, a property owner may establish an additional loss because of 162 Gregory M Read the entire page →
From page 16... ... First, an airport disclosure law is not a restriction on the use or development of property. Even assuming that an airport disclosure act were to be construed as such a restriction, it has been held that if a condemning authority takes property that is burdened by a restriction in the title or by a restriction created by a statute or ordinance, then compensation "is limited to the value of the property with the restricted use."177 Moreover, as stated, a buyer may have purchased property subject to airport noise at a reduced price, or there may have been a prior taking by adverse possession. Read the entire page →

From page 14...

... Rather, the Indiana Supreme Court merely stated that the noise disclosure statement in the Fakes' purchase agreement and deed "specifically gave notice of the noise from airport operations" and that the disclosure statement was intended "to prevent the Fakes from seeking compensation from IAA."153 As one court has stated, "[i] f a grantor sells his property with restrictions which he intends are for the benefit of his neighbor, the neighbors, as beneficiaries, may enforce the benefiting restrictions."154 Of course, an airport disclosure act could provide that airports and airport authorities are third party beneficiaries of airport disclosure statements.

Read the entire page →

From page 15...

... Even if an airport disclosure statement may preclude a claim for a taking occurring prior to a buyer's acquisition of property, it is not clear that a disclosure statement would bar a later claim if there has been a substantial increase in airport noise resulting in a taking after the owner's acquisition of the property. The Biddle court's opinion at least implies that a home buyer who has received a disclosure statement may have a claim for a future taking when there is a sufficient increase in airport noise to result in a taking, even if there had been a taking prior to the buyer's acquisition of the property.164 Even if there has been an earlier, permanent taking because of airport noise, the first taking is not an automatic bar to a claim for a second, comparable permanent taking.165 A new cause of action may accrue when "aircraft noise jumps markedly."166 The introduction of larger, heavier, noisier aircraft may constitute a taking of an additional easement even though the noisier aircraft do not violate the boundaries of an earlier easement.167 Thus, a property owner may establish an additional loss because of 162 Gregory M

Read the entire page →

From page 16...

... First, an airport disclosure law is not a restriction on the use or development of property. Even assuming that an airport disclosure act were to be construed as such a restriction, it has been held that if a condemning authority takes property that is burdened by a restriction in the title or by a restriction created by a statute or ordinance, then compensation "is limited to the value of the property with the restricted use."177 Moreover, as stated, a buyer may have purchased property subject to airport noise at a reduced price, or there may have been a prior taking by adverse possession.

Read the entire page →

Key Terms

disclosure statements

← Previous Chapter Skim

Next Chapter Skim →

This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More information on Chapter Skim is available.