There's one citation notably missing from the opinion of the Texas Court of Appeals in Anderton v. City of Cedar Hill, No. 05-12-00969-CV (Aug. 22, 2014): Williamson County.
This was case where in response to the city's petition that the Anderdons' use of their property was illegal, they counterclaimed that they had nonconforming use rights, that the city's petition violated their vested rights, and resulted in a taking of their property. The trial court granted the city summary judgment on the counterclaim, holding that the owners did not present evidence of their nonconforming use status, and that their inverse condemnation claim was not ripe because they had not pursued available administrative remedies under the zoning code.
The court of appeals reversed. It concluded that the owners did submit enough evidence to get past a summary judgment motion that their use was nonconforming. Most interestingly for our purposes, the court also concluded that their inverse claim was ripe, rejecting the city's argument that the owners had not availed themselves of administrative relief under the zoning ordinance "which would have allowed the City to reach a final decision regarding proposed uses of Lot 5." Slip op. at 12. The court agreed with the owners that the very filing of the petition by the city ripened their claim because it established that the city had reached a final decision on the uses which it would allow. It would have been futile for the owners to try more.
The heart of the court's ripeness analysis is at pages 12-15, and we recommend you read that part of the opinion in detail. The court engaged in what we view as a very practical and straighforward analysis of the issues, not bounded by the weird formalism or dogmatism we usually see in an application of Wiliamson County.
If only it were so in all courts.
Anderton v. City of Cedar Hill, No. 05-12-00969-CV (Tex. App. Aug. 22, 2014)
