A recent Supreme Judicial Court decision means a Cambridge apartment landlord can claim a $3.7 million payment from city officials while he contests their eminent domain taking of a property he owns.

In a case of first impression, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled last month in Abuzahra v. City of Cambridge that property owners can accept partial payments from government bodies for eminent domain takings, while simultaneously challenging the lawfulness of the takings.  

Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 79, known as the “quick take” statute, governs most eminent domain proceedings in the state. It allows the commonwealth and its municipalities to immediately acquire ownership of private property for public use, by simply recording orders of taking at the registry of deeds. Judicial action is unnecessary. Property owners are entitled to damages from taking authorities, who generally must pay them damages within 60 days.  

The quick taking statute requires taking authorities to offer reasonable amounts to property owners within the 60-day period, either in settlement of all damages for takings or as “pro tanto” payments. Pro tanto payments are provisional payments tendered to property owners, who may accept them and still claim larger payments. When pro tanto payments are tendered, property owners can only recover interest on the excess of the finally determined damages over the pro tanto amount. Property owners also have three years to challenge the lawfulness of a taking.  

A Complex, Contested 

The city of Cambridge took Said Abuzahra’s apartment complex by eminent domain in 2016, when ownership of his property was in litigation. The city planned to use the property, called Vail Court, for affordable, senior, or transitional housing or other municipal uses. Because of the ownership dispute, the city paid the $3.7 million pro tanto amount to the city treasurer, to be released when the ownership litigation was resolved. In 2017, Abuzahra sued the city in Superior Court to invalidate the taking as unlawful, obtain the pro tanto amount, and collect additional damages if the taking was lawful.  

Abuzahra established his ownership of the property in 2018. He then asked the Superior Court to order the city to pay him the pro tanto amount, while he continued to challenge the lawfulness of the taking. The Superior Court denied Abuzahra’s request, reasoning that it was “somewhat incongruous” for Abuzahra to demand the pro tanto payment while seeking return of the taken property. The judge ordered the city treasurer to deposit the funds with the court, pending resolution of Abuzahra’s suit against the city.  

Abuzahra filed an interlocutory appeal with the Appeals Court, where a single justice reversed the Superior Court’s decision. When the city appealed to the full Appeals Court, the Supreme Judicial Court took up the case.  

The SJC noted that “eminent domain statutes must be strictly construed because they concern the power to condemn land in derogation of private property rights.” According to the SJC, because takings under the quick take statute occur swiftly, automatically and without judicial action, the required pro tanto payment ensures that property owners promptly receive some compensation for the deprivation of their property, and encourages taking authorities to use their eminent domain powers wisely.  

Payment Timing at Issue 

The SJC also noted that although the quick take statute specifically allows property owners to accept pro tanto payments while seeking additional damages, it does not discuss whether property owners can demand the payments while still contesting the validity of the taking itself. However, the SJC determined that the statutory text and legislative history indicate a recognition that the suddenness of quick takings imposes hardships on property owners, who must endure delays while they have neither their property nor compensation for the taking. This hardship remains when property owners contest the validity of takings.  

The SJC acknowledged that this hardship might be manageable for

Christopher Vaccaro

Abuzahra, a financially secure landlord. Nevertheless, the SJC recognized that average homeowners whose property is taken often lack the resources to contest takings while pro tanto payments are withheld. Under those circumstances, aggrieved property owners with legitimate cases would have neither places to live nor money to litigate. 

The SJC added that if the legislature intended to condition acceptance of pro tanto payments on property owners waiving their rights to contest takings, it would have written the quick take statute accordingly, as was done in California, South Carolina, and others states. The SJC concluded that Abuzahra could accept the pro tanto amount while challenging the taking, and remanded the case to the Superior Court for further proceedings. 

The SJC’s decision makes sense. But now the city will have to recover the $3.7 million pro tanto payment from Abuzahra if the Superior Court finds that the city’s taking was unlawful and Abuzahra reacquires the taken property. 

Christopher R. Vaccaro, Esq. is a partner at Dalton & Finegold, L.L.P. in Andover. His email address is cvaccaro@dfllp.com.