Abstract
When property changes hands, the pre-existing right of the seller to bring an inverse condemnation claim against the government does not always pass to a subsequent owner. Sometimes it does. If valid takings claims expire on sale, the government may experience a windfall. But if a buyer gets a deal on burdened property and then sues under a prior owner's takings claim, the new property owner gets a windfall. Established Supreme Court rules draw distinctions between the character of various " takings " to determine whether a claim survives a transfer of ownership. But the character of these distinctions is blurred (along with the rights of landowners) in Washington, Louisiana, and other states that continue to follow the " subsequent purchaser rule, " which is inconsistent with the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Palazzolo v. Rhode Island. In those states, the determination of who gets the windfall may depend on the narrow distinction of whether a subsequent purchaser's status turns on the doctrine of " standing " or " ripeness. " Additionally, a new SCOTUS rule about recurring temporary physical invasions of property delineates and expands what constitutes a " taking. " These regulation-enabled invasions present a new challenge in determining whether a valid inverse condemnation claim passes on sale.