U.S. Court of Federal Claims, No. 15-1359C, May 26, 2016: Trial may proceed on US liability for failure to remove mechanic’s lien.
This decision is about procedural matters but is reported here as an illustration of a problem that may not be addressed by the provisions commonly found in most historic preservation and conservation easements: mechanics liens.
U.S. Tax Court, T.C. Memo. 2013-266, November 19, 2013: No historic preservation easement deduction when donor doesn’t have right to restrict entire exterior.
A historic preservation easement was donated by a partnership (the “Partnership”) on the façade of a building divided for ownership purposes into two segments: an “Office Property”, which consists of the first 14 floors [...]
Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, No. 06 CH 19422, unpublished, September 26, 2013: Words ‘historic’, ‘significant’, ‘value’ not vague in landmarks ordinance.
The plaintiffs challenged the landmarks ordinance under which the city designated as historic landmarks the neighborhoods in which the plaintiffs own property. They asserted that the ordinance was invalid and unconstitutional because it uses [...]
US Tax Court, Memo 2012-169, June 18, 2012: Historic preservation easement not qualified for tax deduction because mortgagees have prior to claim to sale and insurance proceeds after extinguishment.
The taxpayer granted a historic preservation easement (façade easement) on his Illinois home and claimed a tax deduction for a “qualified conservation contribution”. The IRS denied the deduction [...]
Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District, No. 2-09-1345, September 22, 2010: This appeal of the trial court’s balancing of equities when setting remedies for violation of a conservation easement was denied because the Appellate Court found the a balancing was appropriate and the trial court had not abused its discretion.
The easement violation and remedy were [...]
Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District No. 2-09-0007 September 16, 2010: In this transmission line case, the Court held that the owners of a “centennial farm” on the proposed line’s location could not appeal the state’s refusal to take note of the historic landmark designation of their house because petitioners, in their application to the state [...]