Vested rights

What do you call an appeal in which the Supreme Court doesn’t address any of your five questions presented?

If you are the petitioner’s attorneys in Save Diamond Head Waters LLC v. Hans Hedemann Surf, Inc., No. 27804 (July 13, 2009), you’d call it “victory.”

In that case — which was…

In What’s At Stake in Stop the Beach Renourishment, Lawprof D. Benjamin Barros posts a comprehensive summary of “judicial takings” case accepted for review by the US Supreme Court, Stop the Beachfront Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Dep’t of Environmental Protection, No. 08-11 (cert. granted. June 15, 2009). Raises several interesting points and worth

The U.S. Supreme Court last week agreed to review the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Walton County v. Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc.,998 So.2d 1102 (Fla. Sep. 29, 2008), which heldthat a state statute prohibiting “beach renourishment” without apermit did not effect a taking of littoral (beachfront) property, eventhough it altered the long-standing rights…

The Eminent Domain Law Blog, published by our colleagues at Owners’ Counsel of America, has summarized Stop the Beachfront Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Dep’t of Environmental Protection, No. 08-11, the takings and due process case which the U.S. Supreme Court agreed yesterday to review. 

Beachfront property owners along Florida’s Gulfcoast, have been…

Here are links and other items of interest about Stop the Beachfront Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Dep’t of Environmental Protection, No. 08-11 (cert. granted. June 15, 2009):

…

In Stop the Beachfront Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Dep’t of Environmental Protection, No. 08-11 (cert. granted. June 15, 2009), the US Supreme Court agreed to review a case that raises several important takings issues, including the issue of whether a court decision can take property. The ABA Journal’s July 2006 report “Up Against …

The modified opinion in Building Industry Ass’n of Central California v. City of Patterson, No. F054785 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 2, 2009), a case we summarized here, has been further modified in this order. The latest modifications do not alter the judgment that the a city could notincrease an in-lieu affordable housing…

In Building Industry Ass’n of Central California v. City of Patterson, No. F054785 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 2, 2009), the California District Court of Appeal held that the city could not increase an in-lieu affordable housing exaction from $734 to $21,000 per house, because it failed to show the increase was attributable to the…

Worth reading: Government’s Promise: Taking Away Property?, commentary from U. Chicago lawprof Randy Picker on a NY Times editorial which argues “[t]he first step toward providing the [economic] relief is to include in the packagea measure to allow hard-pressed homeowners to have the terms of themortgages modified under bankruptcy court protection, an avenuecurrently denied…

To those who attended Thursday’s and Friday’s conference, thank you.  Here are the cases and other materials I mentioned in my portion:

  • No private right of action to enforce zoning – The Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, in Pono v. Molokai Ranch, Ltd.,119 Haw. 163, 194 P.3d 1126 (2008), held that a private party had nostanding to enforce the state’s land use laws. The Hawaii Supreme Courtrejected certiorari review of the case.  Disclosure: we represent thelandowner. More here.
  • Maunalua Bay Beach Ohana 28 v. State of Hawaii, the appealnow pending in the Intermediate Court of Appeals.  The issue in thatcase is whether the state or littoral landowners are entitled toownership of accreted land. In “Act 73,” the legislature declared thatshoreline land naturally accreted belongs to the State of Hawaii and ispublic property.  The act overturned the age-old rule of shorelineaccretion and erosion, which held that beachfront owners lose ownershipof land when it erodes, but gain it when it accretes.  Instead of thesebalanced rules, Act 73 made the erosion/accretion equation one-sided:the State wins every time.  We filed an amicus brief in the appeal, acopy of which is available here.

The majority opinion by Justice Acoba, joined by Justices Nakayama and Duffy is posted here:

We hold that (1) a landowner in a condemnationaction is entitled to damages under HRS § 101-27 where the property atissue is not finally taken in the context of a particular condemnationproceeding, irrespective of whether the government attempts to take theland through subsequent condemnation proceedings; (2) abatement doesnot apply where the relief sought in two concurrent actions is not thesame; and (3) although our courts afford substantial deference to thegovernment’s asserted public purpose for a taking in a condemnationproceeding, where there is evidence that the asserted purpose ispretextual, courts should consider a landowner’s defense of pretext. Therefore, (1) automatic denial of statutory damages under HRS §101-27in Condemnation 1 is vacated and the case remanded for a determinationof damages, (2) the court’s conclusion that Condemnation 2 was notabated by Condemnation 2 is vacated and the case remanded for adetermination of whether the public purpose asserted in Condemnation 2was pretextual.

Slip op. at 5. Here’s the concurring and dissenting opinion by Chief Justice Moon joined by Justice Levinson. The briefs in the case are available here:  Opening Brief, Answering Brief of the County of Hawaii, Reply Brief. Disclosure: we represent the property owner.

  • “Arrow of Time, Vested Rights, Zoning Estoppel, and Development Agreements in Hawaii’ (published by the U. Hawaii Law Review in Feb. 2006). Drop me an email, and I will email you a pdf, or send you a hard copy (tell me which).

Continue Reading Materials From Hawaii Land Use Law Conference