The Nevada Supreme Court's opinion in Buzz Stew, LLC v. City of North Las Vegas, No. 15-03100 (Jan. 29, 2015) was the second time the court had issued a published ruling in the case, the first being Buzz Stew, LLC v. City of North Las Vegas, 181 P.3d 670 (Nev. 2008), in which it held that "the just compensation provision requires compensating a landowner for a lesser invasion of his property rights when a would-be condemnor acts improperly following its announcement of intent to condemn, such as by unreasonably delaying condemnation of the property." The court remanded the case for a jury determination of whether the city unreasonably delayed condemnation.
The jury didn't think so, which resulted in this second appeal and the second opinion. Unfortunately, this round didn't turn out as well for the property owner as the first, and the Supreme Court affirmed the jury's verdict.
The most interesting aspect of the opinion -- an issue on which two justices dissented -- was whether a provision in the sales contract by which Buzz sold the property to a third party, but also reserved to Buzz the right to proceeds from any future condemnation, was a property interest giving Buzz the right to claim its property was taken:
Here, the plain language of the sales contract between Buzz Stew and Dark, LLC, merely notifies Dark, LLC, that its title may be subject to a future drainage easement and reserves to Buzz Stew only the right to proceeds arising from a future condemnation action. It does not reserve a property interest to Buzz Stew. As a result, Buzz Stew had a legitimate interest in the property affected by the City's project only from 2002-2004, when it owned the parcel. Therefore, we conclude that the eventual construction of the easement does not evince a taking of Buzz Stew's property.
Slip op. at 8. That provision only gave Buzz an an interest in the proceeds, not an interest in the land, held the majority.
The two dissenting justices concluded that Buzz "retained a 'legitimate interest' in the subject property through its sales contract," and that by "retaining an interest in the proceeds from a future condemnation, Buzz Stew also retained a sufficient interest in the property to maintain a takings claim." Dissent at 1-2.
Flashbacks to Monongahela Navigation, anyone?
Buzz Stew, LLC v. City of North Las Vegas, No. 15-03100 (Nev. Jan. 29, 2015)
