2013

Here’s the amicus brief of Atlantic Legal Foundation which urges the Supreme Court to review the Fifth Circuit’s decision in United States v. 0.073 Acres of Land, 705 F.3d 540 (5th Cir. 2013).

That’s the case in which the Fifth Circuit held that the association’s right to collect maintenance fees, recognized as property under Louisiana law, was not “compensable property” in an eminent domain action. The court held concluded that the “consequential loss rule” governed, and thus the property interest, although taken, was not compensable because the right to collect assessments was like a business loss and a frustrated contract.

The Association filed a cert petition and was supported by several lawprofs.

ALF’s amicus brief argues:

The decision of the Fifth Circuit below raises the question whether the Takings Clause requires the government to compensate private parties for the lost value of real covenants associated with land it…

Continue Reading One More Amicus Brief In Condo-Assessments-As-Property Case

Remember that decision by the California Court of Appeal which held that the City of San Jose’s “inclusionary housing” exaction was subject only to low-level scrutiny and not the nexus-and-proportionality requirment?

Well, after Koontz, you should not be surprised that the decision has been taken to the next higher level and the California Building Industry Association has petitioned the California Supreme Court to review the case. The petition points out that the lower California courts have reached different conclusions when considering nearly identical ordinances (see here, for example):

Building Industry Association of Central California v. City of Patterson, 171 Cal. App. 4th 886, 898 (2009), holds that San Remo Hotel applies to inclusionary housing ordinances. The Opinion of the court below holds that San Remo Hotel does not apply to such ordinances. These two published decisions deal with materially identical inclusionary housing ordinances, and so cannot be…

Continue Reading First Post-Koontz Case: City’s “Inclusionary Housing” Exaction Challenged In California Supreme Court

Here’s the latest from the Wisconsin Supreme Court. In Waller v. American Transmission Co., LLC, No. 2013AP805 (July 16, 2013), the court held that when a partial taking for an easement for transmission lines substantially impaired the economic viability of the remnant parcel, the condemnor is liable for taking the entire parcel.

Gideon Kanner summarizes the opinion in “When Must the Condemnor Take the Whole Parcel, Even Though it Wants to Take Only a Part of It?” (“So we won’t go through the whole megillah in anything resembling detail. But the court’s bottom line is clear: the condemnor — in this case a public utility seeking to take an easement — must take the entire larger parcel and pay for it when the owner so wishes and in the after condition the property, if subjected only to a partial taking, would wind up in an uneconomic condition.”).…

Continue Reading Wisconsin: You Broke It, You Bought It

A coalition of law professors including property law scholars Richard Epstein, James Ely, and Ilya Somin, along with the Cato Institute have filed an amicus brief supporting the cert petition in Mariner’s Cove Townhomes Ass’n v. United States, No. 12-1453 (cert. petition filed June 12, 2013).

That’s the case in which the Fifth Circuit held that the association’s right to collect maintenance fees, recognized as property under Louisiana law, was not “compensable property” in an eminent domain action. In United States v. 0.073 Acres of Land, 705 F.3d 540 (5th Cir. 2013), the court held concluded that the “consequential loss rule” governed, and thus the property interest, although taken, was not compensable because the right to collect assessments was like a business loss and a frustrated contract.

The Cato/lawprofs’ brief argues:

By adopting the minority view in the split among the circuits and the States, the Fifth Circuit’s…

Continue Reading Lawprofs’ Amicus Brief: Townhome Association’s Right To Collect Assessments Is A Compensable Property Interest

This really was a “blockbuster” Term for the Supreme Court and takings law: no less than three cases (and four, maybe five, if you expand it slightly to include property-owner favorable cases such as Lozman and last term’s Sackett), and as Gideon Kanner noted recently, the CLE sessions are flying fast and furiously.

Here’s another one, with a great angle: our ABA colleague Ed Thomas, President of the Natural Hazard Mitigation Association and the guy who knows just about everything there is to know about disaster preparedness, disaster response, and property rights, is speaking tonight (Tuesday, July 16, 2013, 7:00 pm MT) along with BYU lawprof Lisa Grow Sun, about the Supreme Court’s takings cases:

This session will explore the legal landscape for community development and hazard mitigation/climate adaptation. Specifically, there has been tremendous press coverage of many U.S. Supreme Court decisions this term. One…

Continue Reading Today’s Free Webinar – Mitigation Options Affected by the Supreme Court in 2013: Koontz and Other Game Changers

Here’s one not to miss, not only because it’s free, but because it features our PLF colleague Paul Beard II, arguing and prevailing counsel in Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Mgm’t Dist., No. 11-1447 (June 25, 2013): on Wednesday, July 17, 2013, from 2:00 – 3:30 pm ET, Greenberg Traurig and PLF are sponsoring a live chat:

In Koontz, one of the most important Takings Clause cases in recent years, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the doctrine of  unconstitutional conditions established in the Nollan and Dolan cases applies to all land use permit applications – even if the excessive condition leads to a permit denial, and even if the condition involves the payment of money rather than dedication of real property. This extension of Nollan/Dolan principles has far reaching implications for real estate, environmental, and other federal and state permitting actions. The significance and implications…

Continue Reading Upcoming Live Chat: Koontz – How Far Has Nollan/Dolan Been Extended

Late last year, we posted the Complaint in a federal court lawsuit originating on Kauai. In that case, the owner of a property that has been designated for resort development for 35 years asserted that the adoption of a Charter amendment by the County’s voters and a follow-on ordinance adopted by the County Council that together created a new land use classification (“transient accommodation unit”), and severely limit the number of TAU’s was an attempt to restrict the number of visitors and part-time residents.

The Complaint contains three major allegations: (1) the measures are arbitrary and capricious and violate substantive due process as an attempt to limit visitors, (2) they violate the Hawaii Zoning Enabling Act (Haw. Rev. Stat. § 46-4, the state statute delegating zoning authority to the counties in certain areas for all you land use nerds), which prohibits adopting of zoning ordinances by initiative, and…

Continue Reading Hawaii Federal Court: Kauai Charter Amendment Limiting Vacation Rentals Is A Prohibited “Zoning Initiative”

On Wednesday, July 17, 2013, from 4:00 – 5:30 pm ET, I will be a panelist in the American Planning Association’s above-titled teleconference.  The session was put together by our ABA and OCA colleague Dwight Merriam, and in additon to Dwight and me, includes Professors David Callies (U. Hawaii) and Carol Brown (U. Richmond), John Baker, an attorney with Greene Espell in Minneapolis, and our ABA colleage and fellow U. Hawaii alum Julie Tappendorf.

Here’s the description of the program:

The U.S. Supreme Court ended its term with a decision that will change planning and regulation — but by how much, and will the change be for better or worse? Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District is the most important planning law case in nearly a decade, and already there is widespread disagreement about what it means.

A diverse panel of land use lawyers will examine…

Continue Reading Upcoming Teleconference: Lessons from Koontz – Game Changer or Just a Little Rule Refinement?

Update: From the July 13 WaPo: As Wal-Mart threatens to walk, what’s next for a dying shopping center? (“The Skyland Shopping Center in Southeast Washington is amost dead. Shops are shuttered and windows broken.” Gee, we wonder why?). See also Gideon Kanner’s thoughts on the story at “Another Kelo Case in the Marking?”

————————————————————————-

You remember the Skyland redevelopment project in Washington, D.C., don’t you? That’s the one we’ve covered before, which has resulted in boocoo court decisions, most of them unfavorable to the small property owners whose businesses were considered “blighting factors” to the surrounding area, and thus stood in the way of a redevelopment project coveted by the city fathers and mothers. See DeSilva v. District of Columbia, No. 10-CV-1069 (Feb. 24, 2011); Rumber v. District of Columbia, 487 F.3d 941 (D.C. Cir. 2007); Franco v. National Capital Revitalization Comm’n, 930 A.2d…

Continue Reading If This Wasn’t So Depressing (And Predictable), It Might Be Funny