Pung v. Isabella County · ¶75

That argument is mistaken. As this Court has already explained, fair market value “does not include . . . any element resulting subsequently to or because of the taking,” such as government-initiated foreclose proceedings. Olson, 292 U. S., at 256. Because the foreclosure itself does not affect “elements of value that inhere in the property”—such as the land or the building—it cannot affect fair market value in the relevant sense. Id., at 255 (emphasis added). Likewise, the County may regret its taking and want to avoid losing money, but this Court’s precedents also reject the notion that just compensation can take account of the County’s interests or its desire to avoid losing money. “It is the owner’s loss, not the taker’s gain, which is the measure of the value of the property taken.” United States v. Causby, 328 U. S. 256, 261 (1946).

slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.