Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Eminent Domain topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appeals court weighs Brockton Furniture’s relocation claim after eminent-domain taking
Summary
The court examined whether Brockton Redevelopment Authority properly evaluated documentation for a self-move relocation claim and whether the Bureau of Relocation’s final decision treated the claim as sufficiently documented.
The Appeals Court heard argument about relocation payments to Brockton Furniture after an eminent-domain taking, focused on whether the Brockton Redevelopment Authority and the Bureau of Relocation properly evaluated and documented a large "self-move" claim.
Counsel for the Brockton Redevelopment Authority, Sandra Raclean, said the displaced business had been paid a substantial relocation benefit (just over $220,000) but retained limited contemporaneous documentation for payments to day laborers and other move-related expenses. Raclean said the authority withheld part of the claim because the business provided little contemporaneous evidence, such as receipts or bank records, for much of the cash payments the owner said he made to day laborers.
The business’s counsel and owner explained that the owner hired day laborers, paid cash and did not keep detailed records; they presented four mover quotes (three higher than the claimed outlay) and detailed inventories and photographs documenting that goods left the building. The owner testified he withdrew cash from a bank to pay laborers but did not produce bank records at the administrative hearing.
Assistant Attorney General Grace Goldke, representing the Bureau of Relocation, urged the court to affirm the superior-court judgment sustaining the bureau’s grant of the full claim on appeal. She argued the bureau reasonably relied on the totality of documentary and testimonial evidence — inventories, photographs, the spreadsheet breakdown of labor and floors moved, the four commercial quotes, and testimony by relocation specialists — to conclude the claimant’s expenses were supported even if some receipts were lacking.
Central contested figures: Brockton Furniture’s total claim was about $350,000; the authority paid roughly $220,000 and denied approximately $130,000. The parties disputed whether the authority’s 80% reduction (applied informally in its calculations) was a permissible administrative adjustment in the absence of contemporaneous receipts, or instead an arbitrary net reduction requiring remand.
The court questioned whether strict contemporaneous receipts were required under the statutory and regulatory scheme (including the bureau’s implementing regulations, cited by counsel), and whether the authority had satisfied its own disclosure and advisory obligations to the displaced business. The matter was taken under submission for decision.
