Revised Analysis on Amending Mass. Restrictions Now Available

Amending Massachusetts Conservation and Preservation Restrictions 2017, now available,  is this year’s update of the detailed analysis of the law in Massachusetts about amending an existing conservation restriction or historic preservation restriction  and drafting the amendments provisions of a new restriction. Among the 2017 changes is an entirely revised section about the federal income tax deduction [...]

Stockport Mountain V. Norcross Wildlife Foundation (Stockport III)

US District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania, January 13, 2014, No. 3:11cv514: Attorneys fees and costs approved for easement defense.

As reported here in August 2013, the court had previously found that a conservation easement held by Norcross unambiguously bans fracking. Norcross then sought payment from Stockport of Norcross’ attorneys fees and court costs. Section 7.2 of the Easement [...]

Preservation Law Digest on Twitter

Preservation Law Digest can now be followed on [...]

Take the Preservation Law Digest Survey

Please click here to participate in a 10-question survey about Preservation Law Digest to give us your feedback. Completing the survey will help Preservation Law Digest serve you better.  Please take advantage of the opportunities in the survey to write your own comments about the Digest in addition to selecting from among the list of responses [...]

Senate Passes One-Year Extension of the Enhanced Easement Incentive

Per the Land Trust Alliance report on March 10, 2010, “the Senate voted 62 to 36 to pass H.R. 4213, a package of tax ‘extenders’ and other provisions that includes a one-year extension of the enhanced tax deduction for conservation easements.” The NRDC reports, however, that the bill, “contains two harmful environmental provisions. One extends liquid [...]

Babcock v. City Of Laguna Beach

Court Of Appeal Of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, UNPUBLISHED, January 27, 2010

The decision upholds a city’s approval of an open space zoning ordinance and overturns the trial court’s decision to invalidate the ordinance. The appeals court held that the plaintiff private landowner (Babcock) could not prevail in an action to invalidate the ordinance because, [...]