Regulatory takings

Subscribe to Regulatory takings via RSS

Here’s the latest in the solved-but-not-quite-solved issue of whether the government can keep the surplus which remains after a tax-foreclosure sale (see Tyler v. Hennepin County), the Michigan Supreme Court’s opinion in Schafer v. Kent County, No. 164975 (July 29, 2024), where the court concluded that its earlier decision in Rafaeli v. Oakland County is applicable not merely going forward (prospectively) but applies to those cases which are not final and closed out.

There’s a lot there — especially on the nuances of whether judicial decisions on constitutional rights apply only prospectively, or govern cases instituted in the past — but we are focused on the opinion’s analysis of property rights and takings as matters of history and tradition. We’re not going to comment here because this case is one of ours, argued by Christina Martin and Pacific Legal Foundation’s Home Equity Theft team. That said, here’s…

Continue Reading Michigan: “few rights and legal principles have greater legal, historical, and constitutional pedigrees than the protection against uncompensated takings”

You remember that old adage (or maybe its a cliché?) that “a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged?” Well, here’s your environmentalist analog.

In Echeverria v. Town of Tubridge, No. 23-AP-291 (Aug. 2, 2024), the Vermont Supreme Court held that property owners’ lawsuit asserting their right to prohibit the town from allowing bicycling on hiking trails on their land, and to prohibit it from allowing members of the public onto the property to maintain the trails, is ripe. The owners asserted that as the owners, they alone have the authority “whether and how to maintain the legal trails that cross their property.” Slip op. at 2. Here are the details: the owners assert

sole and exclusive authority to decide whether and how to maintain the legal trails that cross their property. They alleged that the expected entry onto their property by volunteers seeking to exercise…

Continue Reading A Property Rights Advocate Is An Environmentalist Who Has Been Overregulated: Anti-Takings Advocate Argues For The Right To Exclude

Screenshot 2024-08-09 at 09-59-51 Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Conference 2024 Tickets Williamsburg Eventbrite

Come join us in Williamsburg, Virginia at the William and Mary Law School for the 21st edition of the Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Conference. The Conference is unique, because its express purpose is to bring property legal scholars and property law practitioners together to discuss, what else, property and property rights law.

Yes, there’s a healthy dose of theory and academics, but also the real-world perspectives of practicing lawyers who bring the cases that put theory into practice. (New to this event and want a preview? Here’s our write-up of the 2024 Conference.)

More details here. Register here.

The days prior to the Conference launch on Thursday All that week, we’re putting on student-oriented programming.in conjunction with the WM Law Career Services Office. Sessions on “Careers in Dirt Law,” “Land Use and Real Estate Law in Practice,” and “Comparative Property Rights,” for example, presented by experienced practitioners…

Continue Reading Register Now: 21st Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Conference, William & Mary Law School, Sep. 12-13, 2024

20151205_145921

This one is a must-read.

In Darby Dev. Co., Inc. v. United States, No. 22-1929 (Aug. 7, 2024), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the Court of Federal Claims should not have dismissed Darby’s complaint for failure to state a physical invasion takings claim.

The short takeaways:

  • Takings claims do not require the government action be legally authorized (here, the courts invalidated the government action, after which the plaintiff sued for a taking), only that the government action was “authorized” and thus can be “chargeable to the government.”
  • Prohibiting evictions is not merely a regulation of the landlord-tenant relationship. Yee v. City of Escondido is distinguishable, and does not categorically exempt all actions that implicate the landlord-tenant relationship from physical takings challenge.

We think the longer story is worth your time. Here it is.

As you may recall, the Center for Disease Control purported…

Continue Reading Deepening A Lower Court Split, Fed Cir (2-1) Reinstates CDC Co-19 Eviction Moratorium Temporary Takings Claim

Check this out, the latest takings cert petition from the Pacific Legal Foundation shop.

Since this is one of ours (our colleague Chris Kieser is in the lead), we’re not going into too much detail, but will say that this involves ripeness in a regulatory takings claims, a topic we’ve been focused on a lot lately.

The question here is once the government says “no” to a development plan, must the owner keep on asking? What’s that old adage? If at first you don’t succeed, try and try again? We know that in land use, that means as long as the government says it is willing to “clarify” or “change” its decision (something it almost always asserts it is able and willing to do), most courts will very likely never hold it to task. Planning authorities know this, and as a consequence are hardwired to almost never say no…

Continue Reading New Cert Petition: After Permit Denial, To Ripen A Takings Claim Do You Have To Keep On Trying?

Check out City of Kemah v. Crow, No. 01-23-00417-CV (July 25, 2024), from the Texas Court of Appeal (First District).

This is yet another takings ripeness case — here, the so-called “final decision” requirement — the second recent opinion on this issue from the Texas court. See “Final Decision Takings Ripeness Is Based On All Circumstances, Not Hard-And-Fast Requirements (Read That Again: A Factual Question)” for our write-up of the other case.

In this one, the owner asserted that the city issued her a building permit for her “barndominium” and and two other structures to be used as short-term rentals, but later issued a stop work order. This resulted in a Penn Central taking, she asserted.   

The city sought ripeness dismissal, asserting the owner didn’t actually have a permit issued by the city council as its ordinances require. The owner didn’t have the actual…

Continue Reading Relying On Complaint’s Allegation That City Issued A Permit As Confirmed By Chief Building Officer Email, Texas App Holds Takings Claim Ripe Even Though City Said Council Must Issue Permits

We suggest those of you interested in takings ripeness — here, the so-called “final decision” requirement — take a quick gander at the Texas Court of Appeals’ opinion in City of Buda v. N.M. Edificios, LLC, No. 07-23-00427-CV (July 2, 2024).

We won’t go into the details, except to say that a property owner developing its land entered into an agreement with the city, under which the owner would grant a drainage easement to the city to alleviate citywide flooding, while the city was obligated to construct drainage improvements. When the owner submitted a plan, the city instructed it to “provide additional drainage improvements on the property.” Slip op. at 2. Not so fast, said the owner: the city, not me, is on the hook for these additional improvements. If you condition approval of my development plans on me providing more drainage stuff, that’s a taking (what the…

Continue Reading Final Decision Takings Ripeness Is Based On All Circumstances, Not Hard-And-Fast Requirements (Read That Again: A Factual Question)

A fairly short one from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, but well worth your time to read.

Mata v. N.C. Dep’t of Transportation, No. COA23-1140-1 (July 16, 2024) is the latest in the “Map Act” takings cases that we have long covered. There, N.C. legislature adopted a statute that identified future highway corridors and then “restricted [owners’] fundamental rights to improve, develop, and subdivide their property for an unlimited period of time.” Kirby v. N.C. Dep’t of Transp., 239 N.C. App. 345, 769 S.E.2d 218 (2015), aff’d, 368 N.C. 847, 786 S.E.2d 919 (2016). The Map Act also classified these properties as eligible for a 20% to 50% reduction of the appraised value for property tax purposes.

In Kirby, the North Carolina Supreme Court held that the restrictions the Act imposed amounted to a taking. In response, the N.C. legislature rescinded the Map Act.

The Matas own…

Continue Reading NC App: “Map Act” Takings Are Temporary, Valued Not By Rent But “by taking into account all pertinent factors”

Check out this decision, entered by a Rhode Island Superior Court (a general jurisdiction trial court) denying the State’s motion for summary judgment. The court concluded that a recently-adopted statute shifting the boundary between public and private property on RI’s beaches is a taking.

We won’t be commenting in too much detail because this is one of ours (PLF colleague Dave Breemer represents the plaintiffs). But here’s what you need to know:

  • Until recently, RI law used the high water mark (mean high-tide line) as the boundary between the public beach and private property.
  • In 2023, the RI Assembly adopted a statute that redefined that boundary, and moved it shorewards to where “the land held in trust by the state for the enjoyment of all of its people ends and private property belonging to littoral owners begins.”
  • As a consequence, the public may enter and use “where

…
Continue Reading Statute Allowing Public To Access Formerly Private Portions Of Rhode Island Beaches Is A Taking

Screenshot 2024-07-14 at 09-00-18 Sheetz v. County of El Dorado Legislatures Must Comply with the Takings Clause by Brian T. Hodges Deborah La Fetra SSRN

Check this out: our Pacific Legal Foundation colleagues (Brian Hodges and Deborah La Fetra we on our Sheetz SCOTUS team), have posted a new scholarly piece on SSRN, “Sheetz v. County of El Dorado: Legislatures Must Comply with the Takings Clause.”

Here’s the Abstract:

For more than 30 years, the Supreme Court has recognized that building permit conditions requiring a dedication of property to the public implicate the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause and are therefore subject to the unconstitutional conditions doctrine as set out by Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825 (1987), and Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994). But for nearly as long as the Nollan/Dolan doctrine has been in place, state and lower federal courts have divided on the foundational question of whether the doctrine applies equally to all branches of government, or if it applies only to administrative…

Continue Reading New Article – “Sheetz v. County of El Dorado: Legislatures Must Comply with the Takings Clause” (Brian Hodges & Deb La Fetra)