This is real advice, specifically for home builders, when considering real estate law, solely in Virginia. It represents a real need to review the law and make sure you abide by it. This is a case involving ‘cash proffers,’ voluntary per-home fees for new construction paid by the home builder during the early development procedure. The reason for it is to account for infrastructure costs, such as….
- Law Enforcement
The idea is this: the cash proffer prepares the county for the new construction requested by the party. In this case, the party is Windmill Meadows, LLC, submitting several cash proffers for residential construction on a per-dwelling unit for rezoning of property, which also included some per-dwelling cash payments. There’s just one problem: under the Virginia code, any cash payment made pursuant to a cash proffer can only be accepted upon final inspection of the property.
The Board of Supervisors for James City County saw that exact problem. Final inspections of the dwelling units were never completed to ensure that rezoning would be necessary provided that new construction met those legal guidelines. They filed suit with the district court, and the court agreed.
Furthermore, the matter was taken to the Supreme Court, and they affirmed it. Additionally, the Supreme Court stated that the section 15.2-2303.1:1(A) applied to all cash proffer payments due on or after the specified date, even when the proffers were agreed upon prior to the date in question. It’s due process. It must be followed.
Real estate law encompasses theoretical logic of property law, too, and this story is a particularly good one. It’s an excellent example of how someone’s creative property – no matter where it was purchased – ultimately belongs to the actual legal owner. Before your head spins too much, know this: when we’re talking about creative works from the likes of, say, Renoir, and legal ownership belongs to, say, the Baltimore Museum of Art, we’ve successfully presented a problem here.
The problem is simply that no one can buy an authentic piece of art that legally belongs in a museum – in this case, the Baltimore Museum of Art. Here we present the case of one Marcia Fuqua and how she went to a flea market and bought a particular Renoir painting for only seven bucks. That’s a pretty good deal.
However, the Baltimore Museum of Art received word of this, presenting the issue to a U.S. district court for deliberation, as apparently this museum had the legal right to “own” such works for display in the establishment. Some may have a certain point of view on this; others will differ. It’s an interesting question.
Apparently, though, the U.S. district judge presiding over the case granted the judgment in favor of the museum, stating that it didn’t matter how Fuqua acquired the painting. The fact was the painting was stolen way back in 1951, somehow ending up in the flea market. Of course, Fuqua can still file an appeal for the painting, a painting valued anywhere between $22K to $75K. You can obviously see why this was such a huge property issue.