inversecondemnation.com

CA11: Takings Claim Not Ready Despite Govt's Enforcement Actions

Lake Worth: the "lago" in Mar-a-Lago

You know his name. He's taken on the City of Riviera Beach twice at the U.S. Supreme Court. And won both times. The houseboat that isn't a boat. The government can't shut you out from speaking your mind simply because you irritate them.

That's right, it's Fane Lozman. A "Florida Man" that you can like and admire. And he's back for Round 3.

He owns property that's mostly in (in, not near) Lake Worth. Two-tenths of an acre is uplands, and the rest (7.75 acres) is submerged. As the Eleventh Circuit noted, "[o]nly a sliver of Lozman's property is above water." 

The city, in accordance with the usual approach to land use regulation has a comprehensive plan. That plan designates submerged lands as "Special Preservation Future Land Use," a label which should set off your Lucas bells, because it mostly sounds like no use. Sure enough, that designation originally "preclude[d] any development of Submerged Lands ... to the maximum extent permissible by law."

Perhaps understanding the legal jeopardy which that put the city in, in 2010 it amended the plan to allow some uses. At the time Lozman purchased the property in 2014, the designation at least in theory allowed private residential fishing or viewing platforms and docks, and -- get this -- included a "savings clause" that prohibited the city from denying uses that were "judicially determined vested rights to develop or alter submerged lands." We see what you did there, city. In 2021, the city tweaked the plan a bit more, limiting such vested uses to a one-per-20-acre density.

But that's not the end of the story. Turns out that until after Lozman's 2014 purchase, the underlying zoning did not conform to the restrictive "Special Preservation Land Use" general plan designation. Uh oh. Indeed, the zoning allowed development of single-family homes. That was a great disturbance in the Force, and that sound you hear is the collective voices of municipal lawyers and planners crying out in terror. Eventually the city caught on, and in 2020, when it created a zoning designation that matched the general plan preservation designation.

Lozman was not one to let that slip by:

Lozman says that when he purchased the parcel, he “expected that it could be developed for use as single-family residential lots.” Lozman purchased the property in 2014 for $24,000. But he produced an appraisal valuing the property at $49,833,500 as of October 7, 2020. This valuation depends on Lozman maximizing the property’s “highest and best use”—bulkheading and filling the sub-merged water to create “up to eight one-acre parcels.” The appraisal was also “based on the hypothetical condition that permits could be granted for bulkhead and fill.”

Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, No. 23-1119, slip op. at 4 (11th Cir. Oct. 16, 2024).

Zoning is king, and it controls what restrictions there are on property uses (right?), so Lozman sued for a Lucas taking in federal court. The district court granted the city summary judgment, but on appeal, the Eleventh Circuit held the case wasn't ripe, under Williamson County's still-surviving "final decision" ripeness rule. You know the drill: before an owner can move forward with a claim that a land use restriction is a taking, the regulating authority must have made a "final decision" about what uses are allowed under the restriction.

While grounded in the entirely rational notion that a court is not able to evaluate whether there's been a taking until it knows what uses an owner can make of property under the challenged restrictions, we know in practice the final decision rule is mostly a finger pointing the way to municipal approval purgatory. Having been incentivized by the Supreme Court to avoid saying "no" with clarity (after all, who wants to be sued for a taking!), while at the same time not wanting to say "yes" (here, for example, the city's restrictions contemplate preservation, not development -- would the city really be ok with seven residences smack dab in the Lago?), the easiest path for the government is to direct the owner into a byzantine maze with no realistic prospect of getting to either a yes or a no. And then hope that the thousand cuts weaken body and soul, and he taps out.

Here, the Eleventh Circuit concluded that Lozman hadn't bothered to ask the city for a development permit, nor the Corps of Engineers for a section 10 dredge-and-fill permit, both of which he would need in order to build up to the use allowed by the zoning. Slip  op. at 6 ("But Lozman has not yet acquired—or applied for—federal or state permits to develop his property."). Easy case, right? No final decision unless the owner asks the city. Or, you don't have to ask if doing so would be futile.

But that isn't all the story. Both the Corps and the State of Florida were (are?) hot on Lozman's tail with enforcement actions. It turns out that he didn't wait for permission, and he built "structures in the Lagoon without authorization in violation of the Rivers and Harbors Act." The State of Florida "instituted a similar action against Lozman in December 2020." Slip op. at 6. In each case, the government agencies obtained rulings preventing Lozman from doing anything.

The Eleventh Circuit disagreed with the district court's granting of summary judgment for the city, holding instead that Lozman did not allege a ripe case, because there's no indication he ever asked the city for permission to develop. The restrictive comprehensive plan were not sufficiently restrictive to show that there's no uses possible (however remote and unrealistic obtaining permission might be). And Lozman had not sought a variance.

The same reasoning applies here. The comprehensive plan alone cannot constitute a final decision on Lozman’s property. That the comprehensive plan includes a material exception permitting development underscores that the plan alone is not a final decision precluding the development of Lozman’s property. Because he has not applied for a permit, variance, or rezoning from Riviera Beach on the application of the comprehensive plan to his property, Lozman has not yet received a final decision on the comprehensive plan’s application to his property.

Slip op. at 9.

Nor a rezoning (on this one, we have real heartburn because a property owner can never be required to seek legislation in order to ripen a takings claim).

The court also rejected -- as most courts do -- the claim that seeking permission was futile. There are always possibilities, and courts are all too willing to accept a municipal claim that if only an owner would do it right, we might approve some use. Even here, where the feds and the state are coming after Lozman when he made uses of the property well short of what the zoning would allow. Anyone actually think any government would let him do anything? 

The Eleventh Circuit may have made short work of his case. And if there's a bright side of life part of the decision is that it reversed the district court's adverse decision on merits, and dismissed his takings claim without prejudice.

And if I were a betting man, I wouldn't count Mr. Lozman out just yet.

Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, No. 23-11119 (11th Cir. Oct. 16, 2024)

Aloha To Another Semester Of U. Hawaii Land Use

There are some rewards for working late in the 808

Yesterday was the last day of instruction for the Spring 2024 semester at the University of Hawaii Law School. Did these last few months ever go by fast. 

A big thank you to Professor Mark M. Murakami, with whom I guest-lectured at the Old School (both of us earned our JD's at the Law School) over the semester, on such topics as Euclid, vested rights and development agreements, and of course limitations on the police power such as takings.

Although our students have another couple of weeks to finish up with their final papers, we can say with certainty that the future of Hawaii land use law is in good hands. We had some very intriguing and educational discussions over the past few months. 

Law of the Splintered Paddle

      
Old School chalkboards remain in some of the classrooms.
(A plus.)


Speaking of Old School, the original signage from
the Law School's original location is up in the front office.

Flora abounds on the U. Hawaii campus, as you might expect.
Not a bad place to learn the law. Or to teach the law.

We say a fond "aloha" to our new colleagues

$48 Million The Hard Zoning Way: Thanks To NIMBYs And NIMTOOs, Las Vegas Must Pony Up A Lucas Takings Judgment

If there's a money quote in yesterday's opinion by the Supreme Court of Nevada which "wholly affirm[ed] a trial court judgment awarding $48 million in just compensation for Las Vegas's regulatory taking in City of Las Vegas v. 180 Land Co., LLC, No. 24-13605 (Apr. 18, 2024), it might just be this sentence:

Although the City rejected 180 Land's development proposals, its representatives had previously recognized the site's ability to be developed residentially.

Slip op. at 8.

That alone should tell you where this one is ultimately headed. But let's break it down and see how this got there.

Residential PUD Zoning

It started off well for the property owner, who owned land it wanted to use as a golf course, part of a (much) larger 2,200 acre ranch. The city preliminarily approved a request to zone the proposed golf course for residential PUD (planned unit development - which should reveal to you land uses when this went down (1980s)). In 1990, the city was satisfied and the golf course area was zoned R-PD7 (Residential Planned Unit Development).

This being Nevada, the zoning approval meant that the golf course was actually built.

General Plan: Open Space

During the construction, the city adopted a new General Plan which designated the parcel as "Parks/Schools/Recreation/Open Space." But despite the change in the GP, the zoning was not altered. Indeed, in 1986, the city confirmed in a letter that the R-PD7 zoning remained for the golf course. And in 2001, the city adopted another ordinance that "formally rezoned it to R-PD7 on the Official Zoning Map Atlas, and repealed any previous conflicting ordinances." Slip op. at 5.

By 2015, however, the golf course was struggling. "[T]he operator of the golf course informed the then-landowners, Fore Stars, Ltd., that it could not longer make a profit operating the golf course and thereafter terminated the lease in 2016." Id.

Residential Zoning, Residential Development

That same year, an outfit known as "180 Land" acquired the assets of Fore Stars, including the golf course area, and later a fellow named Yohan Lowie acquired ownership. It was time to change the use from a golf course to something more in line with the zoning.

180 Land segmented the 9 parcels of the golf course into four development areas. One of these, a 35-acre parcel, became the focus of the dispute. In 2016, 180 Land sought to develop the site, first by seeking to change the GP designation from Open Space to low-density residential, and then by submitting typical development applications such as a Tentative Map, and site review. City staff recommended approval. While these were in-progress, 180 Land also sought approval of a new Master Development Agreement. Staff was on board with that as well.

Successful Opposition to the Residential Project

Then came the opponents, a "homeowner group" which challenged the city's approval of a separate application for another one of the four former golf course parcels. Next up, the discussion of the 35-acre parcel residential development at a City Council public hearing became "contentious," with "strong public opposition to 180 Land's applications." Slip op.at 7.

The walls came tumbling down:

The City ultimately denied the applications despite the City's planning staff having recommended approval. The City's final decision stated that the denials were "due to significant public opposition to the proposed development, concerns over the impact of the proposed development on surrounding residents, and concerns on piecemeal development of the Master Development Plan area rather than a cohesive plan for the entire area." Despite rejecting the 35-acre application, in part because of concerns over "piecemeal development," the City also rejected the comprehensive Master Development application in August 2017, two months after rejecting the 35-acre application. Also in August 2017, the City rejected applications from 180 Land pending since 2016 for three access points to the golf course acreage from neighboring public streets and to install fencing around two water features on the acreage. The City stated it denied the applications because of "the various public hearings and subsequent debates concerning the development on the subject site" and instructed 180 Land to file an application for a "Major Review" under the City's municipal code. 180 Land did not file any Major Review applications. The City also denied 180 Land's application for a technical drainage study, though Las Vegas Municipal Code (LVMC) 19.16.105 requires such a study before residential development is allowed.

Slip op. at 7-8.

City's Representations

But that wasn't the end of the story. "Although the city rejected 180 Land's development proposals, its representatives had previously recognized the site's ability to be developed residentially." Slip op. at 8. Various city employees and officials confirmed that the city had already approved the residential zoning of the property and under Nevada land use law, zoning is king: if the GP is inconsistent with the zoning, the zoning trumps. 

Inverse Condemnation

Next up, an inverse claim in a Nevada state court. The trial court held that the "hard zoning" was indeed R-PD7, meaning that 180 Land had "as a right" a single-family and multiresidential development. Slip op. at 9. You know what that means: the city could either let 'em build, or condemn. It could not use its police power to deny the "as of right" development. The trial court granted 180 Land multiple summary judgments on liability, and considered valuation evidence of just compensation:

[T]he district court ultimately adopted 180 Land's expert's valuation of the land, $34,135,000, noting that the City did not present any contrary valuations or any other rebuttal evidence and did not depose 180 Land's expert. The district court also granted 180 Land's requests for reimbursement of its property taxes, prejudgment interest, and attorney fees. In doing so, the district court rejected 180 Land's request for a 23-percent prejudgment interest rate, calculating its prejudgment interest award using a prime plus 2-percent rate. The final judgment in favor of 180 Land totaled $48,114,039.30.

Slip op. at 9-10. Both sides appealed. The city sought to overturn the takings judgment, while 180 Land challenged the amount of prejudment interest.

Nevada Supreme Court: a Right to Develop

The Supreme Court described the issue as "whether the site's R-PD7 residential zoning or its PR-OS land designation [on the General Plan] governed 180 Land's ability to develop the property and/or conferred certain rights on 180 Land." Slip op. at 10. When the taking issue is framed that way (as a land usey and not a takings issue), then you can kind of see where this one is going. If the zoning defined 180 Land's property rights, game over. Vested, etc. If the city's argument -- that it could deny "any development applications" inconsistent with the GP designation were accepted, then no property and no taking.

In short, the taking issue turned on the question of whether zoning or the General Plan controlled the use of 180 Land's land. You can read pages 11-12 of the opinion for the details, but the short story is that the court concluded that indeed, zoning is law while the GP is "not a legislative mandate from which no leave can be taken." Slip op. at 11.

Plan/Zone Consistency?

What about the rubric in Nevada land use law that zoning must be consistent with a general plan? The court was not convinced because "[t]he problem with applying the consistency requirement in this case is that the substantial evidence demonstrates that the R-PD7 zoning predated the PR-OS land designation." Slip op. at 12. Zoning: 1986. GP: 1992. And the court also noted that the ordinance adopting the PR-OS GP designation expressly noted that the GP designation didn't modify or invalidate the existing zoning.

Murr Denominator Parcel

Having determined that 180 Land had a vested right to develop in accordance with the residential zoning, the court held that the city's denial of its residential development applications was a taking. The court identified the property interest: the 25-acre parcel. It rejected the city's claim that Murr v. Wisconsin required the denominator to be the entire 9-parcel former golf course.

The court applied the multi-factor Murr standard to conclude that no, the property here was only the 35-acre residentially-zoned parcel, not the other of 180 Land's holdings. The court also rejected the city's claim that the case wasn't even ripe because 180 Land submitted "only one development application[.]" Slip op. at 21. To the court, that one denied application was enough, and "any further attempts to apply for development by 180 Land would have been futile[.]" Id.

Lucas Wipeout

On the merits, we urge you to read pages 24-26 of the opinion, where the court analyzes the case to conclude that this worked a "per se regulatory taking." In short, a Lucas economic wipeout. This passage is worth quoting at length:

The City's denials of 180 Land's applications and the discussion of those applications at various city council meetings show no meaningful indication that the City would allow any development on the 35 acres. As noted above, the City's denials stated it was rejecting the applications based on strong public opposition and that 180 Land had not provided a cohesive plan for the entire golf course acreage. But the City provided no regulatory basis for the denials13 that would allow 180 Land to seek a variance or submit an amended application that would resolve any such issues. The City similarly rejected 180 Land's Master Plan application that provided a cohesive plan for the golf course acreage. That these denials occurred despite the City's planning office working with 180 Land on at least one of the proposals and repeatedly recommending that the City approve the applications underscores an unwillingness to allow any development. And the City did not provide 180 Land with any viable alternatives for it to reap economic benefit from the 35 acres when denying its applications. In short, the City's actions demonstrate that it would not approve any development on the 35 acres. Further, we discern no error in the district court adopting 180 Land's expert's opinion that, without the ability to develop the 35 acres, it had no economic value

Slip op. at 25-26.

Just Compensation

The court next considered the city's argument that the trial court got the just compensation wrong. No abuse of discretion, so judgment affirmed. The most interesting part of this part of the opinion in our opinion is on pages 28-29, where the court noted that the landowner met its burden of introducing relevant valuation evidence (an expert who opined on the land's value in its highest and best use). And, stunningly, that the city
"presented no contrary evidence[,]" and didn't even depose 180 Land's expert. Indeed, it made no effort to rebut the expert report.  Slip op. at 29. Whoa.

And what of the landowner's appeal on the amount of prejudment interest? No go because the rate it sought would not merely make up for the delay in payment, but would "reimburse it for the purported profit it lose had it been able to develop the land." Slip op. at 32.

The opinion ended by summing up:

When a governmental agency acts in a manner that removes all the economic value from privately owned land, just compensation must be paid. Here, the City's actions demonstrated a refusal to allow any development on the 35-acre parcel owned by 180 Land such that the parcel no longer had any economic value. The district court therefore did not err in finding that a taking occurred. Nor did the district court err in its just compensation award, as it based that decision on uncontroverted evidence from a duly admitted expert witness.

Slip op. at 32.

There it is.

Congratulations are in order for our Nevada colleague Kermitt Waters and his firm.

City of Las Vegas v. 180 Land Co., LLC, No. 24-13605 (Nev. Apr. 18, 2024)

Pay To Play? Cal SCT Asked If Challenger Must First Pay A Fee To Object To Zero Water Allocation As A Taking

This one takes a bit of sifting through, but if you do so, you will eventually savor the arguments. Try and follow this thread.

In 2014, pistachio growers with what seemed to be established rights to pump groundwater for irrigation of their trees and who never had to pay fees or were subject to other governmental regulation, were subject to the newly-adopted Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. This statute, designed to manage groundwater, empowers local groundwater agencies to create management plans and the typical things that such regulatory agencies do.

In the course of determining the "sustainable yield" of the groundwater basin that supplies the pistachio growers' water, the local agency purported to determine the rights of various users relative to each other. The agency concluded that "public pumpers" have entitlement to 100% of the native groundwater, the pistachio growers' preexisting water rights notwithstanding. If the pistachio farmers wanted to pump any groundwater, they'd have to pay a "replenishment fee" to be used to purchase nonnative water to import to the area. The fee? $8.5 million. The pistachio growers didn't pay that fee nor had they paid it since 2021, meaning that the cumulative fee is in the neighborhood of $25 million.

The agency acknowledged that turning off the native groundwater taps and making replacement water very expensive would likely result in the demise of large-scale agriculture in the area (including the pistachio farms). So perhaps not surprisingly, the next step was a lawsuit by the pistachio growers challenging the zero allocation of native groundwater as a taking, inter alia. Of special note, the pistachio growers did not challenge the replenishment fee itself (mark that one down for later use -- that fact becomes important).

The trial court dismissed the claim, and in this opinion the Court of Appeal affirmed.

The court held that in order to pursue these challenges, the pistachio growers must first pay the replenishment fee. The court relied on California's "pay first, litigate later" rule -- which requires that in order to challenge a tax or a fee, a plaintiff must first pay the challenged tax or fee.

But wait, you say, you said that the pistachio growers didn't challenge the replenishment fee, right? Yes, we did. But the court held that because the allegedly illegal allocation was made under the authority of the same ordinance that imposed the replenishment fee and that the allocation would indirectly impact the fee charged, the pistachio growers must pay the fee before they could challenge their zero allocation:

As for the physical takings claim (the eleventh cause of action), the [trial] court reasoned that Mojave had not alleged it was in fact physically prevented from extracting water, and thus had not stated a claim.

We agree with respondent court’s analysis. If Mojave had paid the Replenishment Fee in compliance with the “pay first” rule, it could perhaps state a takings cause of action on the theory that the Replenishment Fee makes Mojave’s agricultural operations economically unviable because the fees for extracting groundwater are so high. Perhaps because Mojave has not paid the fee, however, it omitted any reference to the Replenishment Fee from the TAC’s takings claims, instead relying on the other Implementing Actions.

As respondent court correctly concluded, this attempt to escape the previous demurrer ruling fails because the only Implementing Action with an economic effect on Mojave is the Replenishment Fee. Since none of the other Implementing Actions physically prevent Mojave from extracting groundwater or interfere economically with Mojave’s ability to extract groundwater, Mojave’s TAC fails to state a cause of action for a taking.

Slip op. at 35-36.

In other words, the pistachio growers have not suffered an injury unless they pay first. They can still pump groundwater, right?

The growers have now asked the California Supreme Court to take up the case. In their petition, they argue "[t]his Court's guidance is necessary to ensure that overlying water rights holders, otherwise entitled to recognition, priority and protection under the holding of this Court in City of Barstow v. Mojave Water Agency (2000) 23 Cal.4th 1233, 1253 (“Barstow”), may challenge an administrative action that (1) allocates them zero groundwater; (2) establishes an extortionate fee designed to bar challenge; and (3) bankrupts their businesses as a condition of litigating their claims." Pet. at 8.

Here are the Issues Presented:

1. Under the 2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (“SGMA”), may a groundwater sustainability agency (“GSA”) determine law and facts to conclude that an overlying landowners’ correlative water rights are “inferior” to others and allocate them no (zero) groundwater?

2. Does the “pay first, litigate later” rule, California Constitution, article XIII, section 32 (“Pay First Rule”) apply to SGMA fees (or extend to non-fee provisions separately included in the local agency fee ordinance)?

3. If so, does the Pay First Rule immunize local agencies from constitutional takings claims where an agency establishes a usurious fee designed to bar challenge?

Pet. at 7.

Now we wait to see if the court agrees to review the case.

Petition for Review, Mojave Pistachios, LLC v. Superior Court, No. S284252 (Cal. Mar. 19, 2024)

No State Takings Problem In Amending Public Pension Plan

Illinois adopted a statute that tweaked public pensions:

On January 1, 2020, Public Act 101-610 became effective and amended, in pertinent part, portions of the pension code to consolidate all applicable local police and firefighter pension fund assets into two statewide pension investment funds, one for police and the other for firefighters. Pursuant to the Act, the local pension funds were required to transfer custody and investment responsibility for their fund assets to the respective statewide funds, which are now tasked with collectively investing and administering the pooled assets. The Act provided a transition period that ended on June 30, 2022, for the transfer of securities, assets, and the investment function from the local funds to the statewide investment funds.

There's more detail on the statute in the Illinois Supreme Court's opinion in Arlington Heights Police Pension Fund v. Pritzker, No. 129471 (Jan. 19, 2024), but we'll leave those details to you. Suffice it to say that the public unions did not appreciate these amendments, and sued in an Illinois court, alleging (inter alia) that these tweaks resulted in an Illinois-law taking. Oh, there were other claims, but you know we're going to focus on the takings stuff.

The plaintiffs argued:

Plaintiffs’ complaint alleged that the Act diminishes and impairs their pension benefits because, (1) prior to the Act, the local funds could “exclusively manage and control their investment expenditures and income”; (2) their “voting power and thereby an effective say in the selection of investment managers, investments, risks, rates of return, costs and expenses” was diluted by the participation of members of other local funds; and (3) the local funds must bear the costs associated with the Act’s transition process, including repayment of any IFA transition loans.

Slip op. at 4.

The trial court didn't buy it because the Illinois takings clause only governs real property (really!), and thus the plaintiffs had no takings clause property at stake. The appellate court agreed on the result (if not the reasoning), holding that "because plaintiffs have no property right in any particular assets or level of funding and are entitled only to present or future payments from the funds, they could not establish the private property requirement for their takings claim." Slip op. at 5.

The Illinois Supreme Court also agreed. Skip forward to page 10 to get to the takings stuff. Thankfully, the court didn't adopt the trial court's reasoning that property only includes real property. Instead, the court held that the plaintiffs have no property right in the source of funding for their pensions:

As the appellate court correctly concluded, the Act does not take any of plaintiffs’ private property. As participants in a defined benefit plan, they have a right to receive their promised benefits but do not somehow have a private property right in the source of funding for those payments. Plaintiffs claim that the Act requires them to fully transfer ownership of their private property, comprising the securities and other fund assets. The Act does not operate in that manner. It simply changes the control and management of the local funds’ assets from one government-created pension fund to another type of government-created pension fund. As defendants assert, although plaintiffs have a constitutional right to receive the benefit payments promised to them, which the Act does not change, they do not have a property right to any particular level of assets used to pay those benefits or in the way those assets are held or invested.

¶ 37 Plaintiffs have failed to identify any property right under Illinois law that is affected by the 2020 amendment to the Pension Code. It is undisputed that the Act does not impact the pension payments that plaintiffs are entitled to receive. Additionally, as defendants recognize, plaintiffs’ takings claim must also fail because even if they had a property right in the local funds’ assets, which they do not, the Act would not constitute a taking of that property for the government’s use. The Act simply changes how local fund assets are managed and invested without affecting the ultimate use of those assets to pay the benefits of local fund members.

Slip op. at 10-11.

And you know what "no property" means - no taking.

Arlington Heights Police Pension Fund v. Pritzker, No. 129471 (Ill. Jan. 19, 2024)

Hawaii Federal Court: Honolulu Can't Increase Minimum Rental Term To 90 Days Without Accommodating Existing Uses

Here's the latest in a case we've been following.

In this Order, the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii made permanent its earlier ruling that Honolulu's ordinance which expanded the minimum rental term to 90 days because it did not account for those owners who were already legally renting their properties for 30 days. The state Zoning Enabling Act requires zoning ordinances account for preexisting uses.

We covered the issues and the court's preliminary injunction ruling here, and won't go over those again. About the only difference between that one and this one is that the court rejects the City's "several new legal arguments[,]" including Pullman abstention, and the claim that this isn't a zoning ordinance covered by the ZEA, but rather a "rental regulation." See slip op. at 10.

The City’s attempt to reframe the issue first presented during preliminary injunction proceedings more than a year ago is unavailing. In Yee, the Supreme Court explained that the ordinance at issue “regulate[d] petitioners’ use of their land by regulating the relationship between landlord and tenant.” Yee, 503 U.S. at 528 (emphasis added). It did not create the land use versus landlord-tenant distinction that the City now imagines.

Slip op. at 15.

Check it out. Kudos to our former law partner and land use lawyer extraordinaire Greg Kugle for the compelling win. 

Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Pltf's Motion for Summary Judgment, Hawaii Legal Short-Term Rent...

Hawaii Five-80: More Land Use (Law 580) At The University Of Hawaii

Starting in January, we'll be helping our friend and former law partner Mark M. Murakami with the venerated and oh-so-important Land Use course (Law 580) at the University of Hawaii's Law School.

We're temporarily stepping into some mighty big slippers (this is Hawaii, so we don't always wear shoes), as this is the course that our mentor Professor David Callies taught for decades. And is there a better venue in which to teach and study land use law and regulation, and its limits? After all, Hawaii may be the most heavily-regulated land on the planet, and is a focal point for every issue you can think of, from zoning to environmental restrictions to takings to public trust to subdivision to admin law to ... well, you get the drift.

We'll cover those topics, as well as the fundamentals. And we have a few surprises up our sleeves -- some impressive guest lecturers, explorations of dirt law careers, and maybe a field trip or two.

We'll bring you the highlights here, as they happen. Is there a bit of pressure on us to get it right? You bet. But are we looking forward to it (not just an opportunity to head back to the 808, but because this is a great subject)? You bet.

Indiana: Depriving Litigant Of Ability To Bring Class Action Challenging Co-19 Zoom Classes Isn't A Taking

Like a lot of us, Ball State University student Keller Mellowitz didn't care for "remote" or "Zoom" virtual classrooms which were imposed on us in varying degrees during the Co-19 thing.

But he didn't take it lying down. Believing that remote learning wasn't what was promised to him in return for his tuition dollars, he sued the University for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. He was fighting the fight for not just himself: he brought the claim as a class action on behalf of his fellow students similarly deprived.

Not to allow that sort of thing, the Indiana legislature adopted a statute -- applicable retroactively -- that prohibits class actions against "postsecondary educational institutions for contract or unjust enrichment claims to recover losses stemming from COVID-19." In response, the trial court limited Mellowitz's claims to those only on his own behalf, and not on behalf of the class (ha, we get that joke).

Mellowitz appealed, interlocutorily (is that even a word?), and lo, the Court of  Appeals agreed with him that the mid-stream revocation of his ability to bring a class action violated his constitutional rights.

The Indiana Supreme Court took up the case, and in Mellowitz v Ball State University, No. 23S-PL-60 (Nov. 21, 2023), the court affirmed the dismissal of Mellowitz's class action contract and unjust enrichment claims, and held that the legislature could  retroactively take those away those claims without violating the constitution:

First, we conclude the law does not violate the constitutional separation of powers because its limited scope (applying only to a narrow category of claims arising from COVID‐19 against a defined group of defendants during a narrow period of time) reflects that it predominantly furthers a public policy objective—reducing postsecondary educational institutions’ litigation exposure for their emergency responses to the pandemic—rather than a judicial administration objective. Second, the law does not unconstitutionally take Mellowitz’s property without just compensation because he has no property right to sue on behalf of others through a class action. And finally, the law does not unconstitutionally impair Mellowitz’s contract with Ball State because the General Assembly did not relieve Ball State of any of its contractual obligations to Mellowitz, which is why the trial court is permitting him to pursue his individual claims against the university.

Slip op. at 2. 

Most of the opinion was devoted to the first issue -- whether the legislature stepped too far into the judiciary's area of operations -- so if you aren't into that sort of thing, you can fast forward to page 17, where the court picks up the takings argument. Taking away an accrued cause of action midstream might seem to raise such problems.

But not so fast, held the court. It's not like the later legislation took away Mellowitz's ability to sue for breach and unjust enrichment, only his ability to do so on behalf of others similarly situated. Go chase your claims, Sir, you just can't do it for others. With that we have no problem (said the court). A class action "is just one potential means of pursuing [Mellowitz's] cause of action. A class action is not itself a cause of action[.]" Slip op. at 18.

The court also rejected Mellowitz's responsive argument that taking away the class action format effectively took away his underlying individual claims, because it isn't economically practical to bring an individual claim. Sorry, held the court, there's no factual record to support that assertion, and besides, "our state courts routinely handle individual claims for amounts in this ballpark." Id. Go to small claims court, dude!

The court also didn't care for Mellowitz's other argument that this was like when the court held that the legislature's alteration of a statute of limitations could only be applied prospectively, and not to claims already underway. To apply the law to already-filed claims would be a taking of a vested right. The court might have agreed this was a taking were the legislation here have retrospectively wiped out Mellowitz's individual claims. But it didn't so that's that. "Just the opposite, the General Assembly preserved Mellowitz's right to sue Ball State on his own behalf, which trial court is permitting him to do." Slip op. at 19. That's mighty kind of them, thanks.

Finally, the court held that the retroactive wipeout of class actions was not an unconstitutional impairment of contractual obligations under either the Indiana Constitution (yes, it has a Contracts Clause), or the U.S. Constitution. The law didn't impair Mellowitz's rights at all, and the statute "only prohibits [him] from seeking to enforce other students' alleged contracts[.]" Slip op. at 20.

[W]e cannot accept the invitation to simply assume Mellowitz is without an effective contract remedy because Section 7 is presumed constitutional unless Mellowitz demonstrates otherwise, and he has not demonstrated that his suit against Ball State to recover his own tuition and fees is an inadequate means for enforcing his alleged contract rights.

Slip op. at 22.

Mellowitz v Ball State University, No. 23S-PL-60 (Ind. Nov. 21, 2023)

Alabama: Banning Short-Term Rentals Is Constitutional (PS - "the Alabama Constitution does not recognize regulatory-takings claims")

A quick one from the Alabama Supreme Court. In Dixon v. City of Auburn, No SC-2022-0741 (Oct. 27, 2023), the court rejected a property owner's claim that the city outlawing short term rentals of residential properties -- when the plaintiff had been renting his basement for a while -- was not a violation of the Alabama Constitution.

The court rejected the argument that Dixon's use was a nonconforming use or vested right, and concluded that his right to do so was not so because he had no legal right to rent out his property before the STR ordinance. The court rejected his claim that in the absence of regulations limiting that right, he could rent short term, because the zoning code prohibits any uses not expressly allowed. Slip op. at 10.

And here's the interesting bit. Although Dixon styled one of his claims as "an 'unlawful taking without just compensation'" under Alabama law, slip op. at 7 n.4, the court noted that the substance of the claim sounded in due process. The court also noted in the same footnote that "in Town of Gurley v. M & N Materials, Inc., 143 S. 3d 1 (Ala. 2013), a  majority of this Court concluded that the Alabama Constitution does not recognize regulatory-takings claims, and the trial court relied upon Gurley in entering summary judgment as to [the "just compensation" claim]." Id.

The footnote goes on: "Dixon has not asked this Court to revisit Gurley, and, therefore, to the extent that Dixon attempted to present a takings claim under the Alabama Constitution, the trial court's summary judgment as to that claim must be affirmed." Id.

This sure sounds like if the court were presented with an argument that Gurley is wrong (we're not scholars of Alabama constitutional law, but we're betting it is wrong and that you can bring a claim under the Alabama Constitution for just compensation for a taking), the court just might entertain overruling or at least revisiting it.

So heads-up Alabama property lawyers, here's your mission if you choose to accept it.

Dixon v. City of Auburn, No. SC-2022-0741 (Ala. Oct. 27, 2023) (per curiam)

CA10: Absence Of Restrictions On Land Uses Isn't A Due Process Property Right

In Van Sant & Co. v. Town of Calhan, No. 22-1190 (Oct. 13, 2023), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit considered the claim of the operator of a mobile home park who asserted a due process property right to instead use its property as a RV park. Here's why the court said no.

Van Sant was using its property as a mobile home park. It decided to use its land instead as a RV park. Turns out that the local municipality doesn't much care for RV parks -- or at least the way that Van Sant was going to use its property -- so the Town shifted from a regime that didn't regulate RV parks to a regime that prohibited or tightly controlled RV parks on certain lands (lands that looked an awful lot like Van Sant's). And to cap it off, the Town's new regulations treated the two other existing RV parks as nonconforming uses, allowing them to operate.

Van Sant sued, alleging the usual (takings, due process, and equal protection), and some unusual (Sherman Act) claims. The district court granted the Town summary judgment.

We'll let you review how the Tenth Circuit dealt with the Sherman Act claim yourself (short story: summary judgment affirmed). See slip op. at 26-38. Instead, we'll focus on the due process claim (Van Sant abandoned its takings claim by filing an amended complaint in the district court which removed the previously-alleged claim). Short due process story: summary judgment in the Town's favor affirmed.

The court's analysis focused on the primary question in these kind of cases: does the plaintiff possess a "property" right which it cannot be deprived of without (substantive) due process? The court held no. It rejected the owner's claim that the right to continue to use its property in the way it had been is some kind of fundamental right.

This question turned on whether the Town had discretion to deny the use:

This means Van Sant “must show that under the applicable law,” Calhan and its Board “had limited discretion” to adopt ordinances that placed limitations on, or effectively regulated, Van Sant’s ability to operate its land as an RV park. Id. “Otherwise, the city’s decisionmaking lacks sufficient substantive limitations to invoke due process guarantees.”

Slip op. at 30 (citations omitted).

The Town didn't have any discretion, argued Van Sant, because the Town had no regulations or restrictions on using land for an RV park. See slip op. at 41 (Van Sant argues that “Calhan did not have any discretion over Van Sant’s decision in 2015 to begin renting space to RVs because there simply were no procedures to follow and no restrictions in place.”). But wait, Van Sant wasn't actually using its land as an RV park when the Town adopted the anti-RV park restrictions, it intended to.

It isn't material that it wasn't actually making the use, Van Sant argued in response, what matters is that it could have because the Town "did 'not have formal zone districts' or 'a formal process for reviewing applications to develop property into an RV park.'" Id. It may be one thing to say that an owner doesn't have a fundamental right to use land when there's some discretionary restrictions on that use, and another thing to say that in the absence of regulation that an owner can't use its land in any way that isn't injurious to its neighbors.

The court rejected the argument:

In sum, Van Sant appears to be asserting that because Calhan did not have any RV park regulations in place prior to October 19, 2018, Van Sant had a fundamental right to both convert and operate its property as an RV park and to continue operating its property as an RV park without any future regulations imposed on it by Calhan.

Id.

No deal, the court concluded. There's no Colorado statute that recognizes such a property right, which is also not a product of the Colorado Constitution. Nor did Van Sant have a vested right to use its land as an RV park, because it never sought a building permit and thus could not have reasonably relied on that kind of governmental assurance. "We therefore agree with the district court that Van Sant has failed to establish that a fundamental right is at stake here." Slip op. at 43. 

Having concluded that no fundamental right was at stake, the court dropped the tiers-of-scrutiny analysis: "[t]hat means that we apply only rational basis review to Calhan's passage of Ordinance 2018-13." Slip op. at 43. And we don't have to tell you what that means, do we?

Van Sant & Co. v. Town of Calhan, No. 22-1190 (10th Cir. Oct. 13, 2023)

ALI-CLE's Eminent Domain & Land Valuation Litigation Conference (Feb 1-3, 2024, New Orleans): Why Attend? Here's Why.

Why is it, you ask, that the ALI-CLE Eminent Domain & Land Valuation Litigation Conference (scheduled next February 1-3, 2024, in New Orleans) is an event that seems to be growing in popularity and attendance. In recent years, we have standing room only in the Conference halls, and have sold out the hotel block. After all, this is a pretty niche area of law. So what gives?

When we were in Austin earlier this year, we thought it might be nice to try and answer that question. We asked Conference participants why they come, year-after-year (and in Austin, despite massive travel disruptions). Yes, it is the various venues (Nashville, Austin, Scottsdale, Palm Springs, to name a few recent locations), and yes, it is the excellent and useful programming.

But as we suspected it is more than that. As the above video notes, the consistent response from our participants about why the attend is the participants. The faculty and other attendees, the vendors. The collegiality, the chance to renew long-standing friendships, and especially the chance to make new friends and colleagues who share our passion for this area of law. The welcoming environment, and our desire to have lawyers and other professionals new to this area of law or new to the Bar feel at home and welcomed.

I can personally attest to that one, having been welcomed to a Conference long ago by Toby Brigham, who although he was one of the Chairs of the event, made it a point to notice that I was a new attendee, and to introduce me around to the "old hands."

We have also made a big effort in the last few years to include a range of professionals from various perspectives, including lawyers, legal academics, jurists, appraisers and MAIs, planners, right of way and relocation experts, and jury and trial consultants. Family members also welcome (there are a lot of "adjacent" social and networking events, and families are welcome as long as they don't mind a lot of "shop talk"). Our program is a mix of practical and substantive sessions.

We also have a special track on the first day of the Conference designed as a crash course in Eminent Domain law ("Condemnation 101"), which is a good place for an overview and introduction to the practice, or as a refresher course for those with more time under your belt.

In short, we try and make the Conference not just a place to learn the latest in eminent domain and related topics, but somewhere you can return to each year, and feel welcome.

So if you have not attended before, give us a try! We'd love to see you in New Orleans in just a few months. Registration and hotel reservation now open. Sign up now, and don't miss out.

Cal Ct App: Prohibition On Short-Term Rentals Might Have A Commerce Clause Problem

The voters of South Lake Tahoe, California, adopted an ordinance that forbade the city from issuing short-term rental permits for properties in residential zones unless the owner was a permanent resident of the city, and declared that all short-term rental permits would expire three years later. The trial court granted the city summary judgment on all claims raised by an association of property owners who rented short-term. 

In South Lake Tahoe Property Owners Group v. City of South Lake Tahoe, No. C093603 (June 20, 2023), the California Court of Appeal mostly agreed, holding that the owners' vested rights and state law preemption claims did not survive. But the court disagreed with the trial court's dismissal of a (dormant) Commerce Clause challenge to the residency component. As noted in this recent Fifth Circuit decision, local ordinances that discriminate between residents and non-residents are (or at least could be) too burdensome of the right to interstate travel as a durational residency requirement. Here's the resident exception:

Despite its ban on vacation home rentals in residential zones, Measure T allows permanent residents to let their dwellings up to a total of 30 days per year, subject to obtaining a permit. For purposes of the exception, a permanent resident is a person who lives in his or her home a majority of the year and claims a homeowner’s property tax exemption under article XIII, section 3, subdivision (k) of the California Constitution.

Slip op. at 17.

The court concluded that the "resident owner exception discriminates on its face against interstate commerce" because it "unlawfully requires 'an out-of-state firm 'to become a resident in order to compete on equal terms.'" Slip op. at 26 (citations omitted). By foreclosing non-resident owners from participating in the city's short-term rental market, the ordinance benefits residents "based solely" on an owner's residency status:

Because Measure T’s permanent resident exception facially discriminates against interstate commerce, it is per se invalid unless the City can justify the discrimination by showing that the resident exception ‘ “advances a legitimate local purpose that cannot be adequately served by reasonable nondiscriminatory alternatives.” ’

Slip op. at 33 (citations omitted).

South Lake Tahoe Property Owners Group v. City of South Lake Tahoe, No. C093603 (Cal. Ct. App. June 20, 202...

SC: No Penn Central Taking For City Ordinance Merging Contiguous-But-Separate Parcels

As you can tell from the date of the opinion, we've been meaning to post the South Carolina Supreme Court's ruling in Braden's Folly, LLC v. City of Folly Beach, No. 2022-000020 (Apr. 5, 2023) for a while. Something else always intervened, but it remains a decision worth reviewing.

The city adopted an ordinance that erased lot lines for certain contiguous properties under common ownership, merging two distinct parcels into one and prohibiting their separate sale. The ordinance recognized nonconforming uses. Braden's properties are covered by the ordinance.

When Braden's Folly acquired the Lots in 1999, there was a small house on Lot A, and Lot B was undeveloped because it was either underwater or part of the active beach. Following a beach renourishment in 2005, Lot B became developable because it had been transformed into mostly sandy beach. Therefore, between 2006 and 2007, Braden's Folly received building permits from Folly Beach and constructed two single-family residences—a larger, more modern one on Lot A and a smaller one on Lot B—for a total cost of $1.1 million.

According to Braden's Folly, it had always intended to keep one of the Lots and sell the other—whichever of Lot A or B received the highest offer—in order to pay for the construction costs of the two houses. However, construction on the Lots finished in 2007 during the housing market collapse and Great Recession, which made selling either of the Lots financially unfeasible at that time. Nonetheless, even after the housing market recovered, Braden's Folly did not place the Lots on the market, continuing to use them for family vacations and as rental properties that grossed an average of $117,000 per year combined. It was not until February 2018 that Braden's Folly finally put the houses on the market, listing Lot A for $1.3 million and Lot B for $1.2 million.

One year later, upon the amendment of Folly Beach's merger ordinance in April 2019, Lots A and B were legally combined or "merged" into a single lot.

Slip op. at 9-10 (footnote omitted).

Braden alleged the merger was a taking of its property rights. The trial court agreed, holding the ordinance effected an as-applied Penn Central taking. Slip op. at 12 ("The circuit court held a property owner's reasonable investment-backed expectations are defined at the time the investment is made, and Braden's Folly intended to sell one of the Lots when it constructed the houses in 2006 and 2007.").

The S.C. Supreme Court held no Penn Central taking. The court's application of the three factors begins on page 16, with what we'll call the "Murr" question: what is the property alleged to be taken? Is it the unsaleable parcel, or the post-ordinance two-combined parcels? Applying the Penn-Central-within-Murr factors, The court held it is the latter. Slip op. at 19 ("we hold the appropriate denominator in the takings fraction, and the appropriate parcel to compare any economic impact resulting from the merger ordinance, is the entirety of Lots A and B combined").

• Economic impact: Assuming the owner's calculations are true, the before-and-after delta caused by the regulations represents a 23% loss of economic value. Slip op. at 22 ("While not insignificant, a 23% reduction in value is far less than other reductions in value found constitutional by the Supreme Court."). Remember, the court already determined that the "property" is both parcels, so you kind of knew where this was going, didn't you? As we wrote here, the big battle in these cases isn't so much whether there's been a taking, but what kind of taking it is (Lucas v. Penn Central), and once that battle has been fought and lost, the handwriting is nearly always on the wall.
• Investment-backed expectations: Because the merger ordinance didn't exist at the time of Braden's purchase, "[o]bjectively, it would have been reasonable for Braden's Folly to have expected to be able to" develop and sell its separate lot. Slip op. at 28. But (and there's always a "but"), Braden has been able to use the property for a number of decades, and it "made little to no effort to actually sell either property." Slip op. at 28, 29 ("Third, even assuming Braden's Folly's investment-backed expectation remained the same, the government cannot be held hostage by a property owner's expectations indefinitely when an owner refuses to implement those expectations. Rather, at some point, the government must have a right to regulate local properties in a measured fashion without running afoul of the takings doctrine, even if its regulation runs contrary to an owner's unspoken and unimplemented investment-backed expectations.").
• Character of the government action: "Folly Beach's merger ordinance does not unfairly single out Braden's Folly's Lots. Rather, as discussed by the Murr Court, merger ordinances have long been employed as a tool to regulate lot sizes." Slip op. at 34. The merger ordinance is designed to help save the beach, and this benefits beachfront owners like Braden. Id. ("Rather, in light of the potential public costs of continuing unchecked super-beachfront development, we reject the argument that Folly Beach's merger ordinance constitutes anything but responsible land use policy— one that is generally applicable and widely accepted nationwide.").

Here's what bothers us about this case:

After applying the Penn Central test, we find two factors weigh strongly in favor of Folly Beach: the economic impact and the character of the government action. As to the third factor, we find there is competing evidence regarding whether the merger ordinance interfered with Braden's Folly's reasonable, investment-backed expectation. We therefore conclude the third factor is a neutral factor that does not weigh in favor of either party. As a result, we hold the Penn Central balancing test overall weighs in favor of Folly Beach, and the merger ordinance did not effect an unconstitutional taking of Braden's Folly's Lots.

Slip op. at 35.

If there is "competing evidence" about Braden's investment-backed expectations, what is a court doing entering summary judgment on the Penn Central case by balancing and weighing the factors (even if the other two factors are property resolved as a matter of law - which they should not be)? The Penn Central test is ad hoc, with no one factor dispositive. As the Supreme Court has noted, one factor alone can serve to support a Penn Central verdict in favor of a property owner. For more see here and here.

Braden's Folly, LLC v. City of Folly Beach, No. 2022-000020 (S.C. Apr. 5, 2023)

Chump Alert! Developer's Claim That City Can Be Held To Its Contract Limiting Exactions Goes About As Well As You'd Expect

We're not going to dwell all that much on the California Court of Appeal's recent opinion in Discovery Builders, Inc. v. City of Oakland, No. A164315 (June 22, 2023), mostly because it seems entirely predictable.

The developer thought it had an agreement with the city to pay certain fees (dare we say "exactions") the city required in order to approve and provide what the court calls "project oversight." The contract "provided that the fees set forth in the agreement satisfied 'all of the Developer's obligations for fees due to the City for the Project.'" Slip op. at 1. You know where this is headed, don't you?

That's right, eleven years later while the project was still underway, the city adopted new ordinances imposing new impact fees. When the developer sought additional building permits ... no permit without paying the additional exactions. The trial court thought the contract took care of that issue, and ordered that the city could not impose any new fees beyond what it had agreed to impose.

The court of appeal made short work of that, and held (as you probably predicted) that the city's agreement was pretty worthless because the new fees were a valid exercise of police power, and "the government may not contract away its right to exercise the police power in the future." Slip op. at 12. Against public policy, etc etc. You know the vibe.

"We trusted you," and "we had a deal," don't go very far when it comes down it it, and anyone who thinks they can actually hold the government to what it agrees to has a reckoning coming if the government chooses not to honor its agreement.  As Chief Justice Roberts noted in a different context: what chumps!

We're not suggesting that the developer here was in fact a chump. We feel for you -- you should be able to trust the government. But alas, no, the courts are just fine with treating those who rely on the government's promises like suckers for believing it.

Anyway, this one can't be too much of a surprise.

Discovery Builders, Inc. v. City of Oakland, No. A164315 (Cal. Ct. App. June 22, 2023)

Texas Supreme Court: We Want To Resolve Whether Short-Term Renting Property A Natural Right, Just Not In This Case

In this order, the Texas Supreme Court declined to review a case we've been following, in which the court of appeals held that Grapevine's total ban on short-term renting of property -- banning even owners who had been doing so for a while -- might be a taking. The court held that even though the owners did not possess a classic vested right to continue using their properties to rent on a short-term basis, they owned their properties and that was enough. Property ownership comes with the "fundamental" right to rent it out and there's no need to show more, such as a vested right under state law. More details on the city's ban and the court's reasoning here.

The city sought discretionary review and somewhat unusually, the property owners agreed that this is an important issue worthy of the Supreme Court's review.

But even with everyone agreeing on that point, the Supreme Court passed. The court didn't offer any reasons for the denial 

Justices Young and Blacklock concurred separately to explain their reasoning. Agreeing that the "questions presented in this petition is of increasing and demonstrable importance[,]" and "this Court needs to weigh in on the heady constitutional issues at stake[,]" and that they both "tend to agree" with the parties and amici that the issue is teed up, they "nevertheless concur in the denial of the petition for review."

Why? Vehicle problems. Some of the usual administrative thicket to navigate. Maybe a future case will be simpler (in this case, the owners are challenging a single city ordinance, but in order to resolve the case, Justice Young noted that the court would be required to interpret a separate ordinance as well). And, somewhat oddly, the concurring opinion seems to invite the city to "adopt new regulatory measures if it deems necessary to do so." 

So let's wait, which might let "other lower courts ... opine on the issue."

Part of the chief appeal of the parties’ joint request that we take this case is that the issue is prevalent and important. I believe them. If that premise is right, then plenty of cases will come. If they do not, then today’s perceived importance and urgency will have turned out to be illusory. Either way, our State will be better served by a measure of patience from this Court, as frustrating as it may be to us and, even more, to the parties to this case. I accordingly concur in the denial of the petition for review.

Concurring op. at 5.

And hint for you advocates: don't forget to include analysis under the Texas Constitution (a thought Justice Young has expressed before).

So stay tuned. This one isn't likely over.

City of Grapevine v. Muns, No. 22-0044 (Tex. Jun 16, 2023) (Young, J., and Blacklock, J., concurring in the...

April 27, 2023, 5-7pm, Honolulu: Join Us To Celebrate The Work And Career Of Professor David Callies

Come join us on Thursday, April 27, 2023, from 5-7pm, downtown Honolulu, to celebrate the retirement of Professor David L. Callies from the University of Hawaii Law School.

Join U.H. Law School Dean Camille Nelson, Professor Callies' colleagues, his students (present and former), the Hawaii legal community, and family and friends as we honor 43 years of scholarship, teaching, service, and practice.

Professor Callies is a prolific scholar and author, and has mentored generations of lawyers. Known especially for his work in property, land use, takings, administrative law, and state and local government law, he has also been presented with numerous awards including William and Mary's Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Prize, and the Owner's Counsel of America's Crystal Eagle. 

Invitation and how to RSVP (or click below). Space is limited, so please let us know you are attending as soon as you can.

Details:

Thursday, April 27, 2023
5:00-7:00 p.m.

Second Floor Gallery
Pauahi Tower
1003 Bishop Street
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813

Validated parking: Bishop Square garage (entrance on Alakea Street)

RSVP: [email protected]

See you there!

Professor David Callies - Retirement Celebration Invitation Apr. 27, 2023

A National Zoning Expert Pays A Visit To The L580 Land Use Class At U. Hawaii

The session was recorded.
Here's the video and audio.

Earlier this week, planner M. Nolan Gray, author of the new book, "Arbitrary Lines: How Zoning Broke the American City and How to Fix It" (Island Press 2022) joined our Land Use class at the University of Hawaii Law School to talk about zoning and housing.

The title of his talk was "Are zoning laws the cause of Hawaii's housing crisis?" The subject matter is important, and the public was invited to join us. As you can see, there was a lot of interest in this critical topic and turnout was excellent. 

Thank you to the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii for their sponsorship of the event, and for generously getting Mr. Gray to Honolulu for his in-person appearance. It was also nice to have refreshments following class, and a chance to "talk story" (as we say) with our speaker, the students, and our guests.

Grassroot recorded the session on video, and we shall post a link to it once it is published and available. If you could not join us for his talk, be sure to watch and listen to the recording. Some very compelling stuff.

The public was also invited.
(We let them know they arrived at the right place.)


All set up and ready for our guest speaker.
Recording posted here. 

What is Zoning? A good question (the impression is that "zoning"
means all regulation of land uses). Not quite. Generally speaking, the term 
only covers regulation of use, density, and height. Getting the terms correct
is important. Mr. Gray does not advocate for tossing all regulation,
only zoning. He advocates for a more planning-centric
approach. Read his book for the details.

The heart of the matter: how and why overly restrictive zoning
(see above) inevitably restricts the supply of housing by focusing
mostly on single-family residential. Leave zoning the way it is,
and you are effectively planning for an affordability crisis.

A good, engaged audience.

Mahalo, Nolan, for coming all this way. 

We allocated plenty of time for questions from the audience.

CAFED: Commercial Fishing In The U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone Is A Govt-Granted Privilege, Not A Property Right

We thought this fellow has "authority over all fish."

By statute (the Magnuson-Stevens Act), the feds claim the sovereign right to exclusive fishery management and "authority over all fish" in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone, a zone "extending 200 nautical miles from the baseline[.]"

The question facing the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Fisherman's Finest, Inc. v. United States, No. 21-2326 (Feb. 8, 2023) was whether having licensed via regulation quota-based access to, and commercial fishing in, the EEZ in the Bering Sea, the ability of licensees to continue to fish at previous levels was a compensable property right.

The regs are quite complex -- see pages 4-6 of the slip opinion for the court's summary of the regulatory-speak requirements and limitations -- and dictate the type and amount of fish which may be caught, and the type of vessel that may be employed in the catch. The Magnusun-Stevens Act reflects Congress' intent to not confer any kind of right, title, or interest in these fishing licenses, and are, apparently, completely revocable.

The plaintiffs here were building a replacement vessel ("America's Finest") and intended to transfer an already-held license from an existing vessel to the new one. So far, so good. But then the shipbuilder informed the plaintiffs that foreign steel was used in the construction of the replacement vessel. Oooh. Turns out there's a "built in the USA" requirement, and "America's Finest" wasn't exactly America's finest, if you get our drift. Meaning that the new boat couldn't be used in the EEZ and the license could not transfer.

That wasn't the end of the story. The shipbuilder "lobbied Congress for a waiver to the 'built in the United States' requirement for America’s Finest, J.A. 83 ¶ 44, and Congress subsequently passed the Frank LoBiondo Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-282, 132 Stat. 4192 (Coast Guard Act)." And guess what? Congress granted a waiver "so that America's Finest could harvest and process fish in the Management Area." Slip op. at 7.

But the waiver came with a catch (ha ha). The Act limited the amount of a certain type of fish that the vessels, including America's Finest, could harvest. These for some unexplained reason are known as "sideboards." Next stop, the Court of Federal Claims, where the complaint alleged "that the Coast Guard Act’s sideboards amounted to an unlawful, uncompensated taking that (1) deprived FFI of the full scope of its rights under its endorsements, licenses, and permits; and (2) devalued its vessels." Slip op. at 8. Case dismissed for failure to state a claim.

The Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal - no property interest, no taking:

Our precedent establishes that fishing permits and licenses issued pursuant to the Magnuson–Stevens Act are revocable privileges, rather than compensable property interests, see Conti, 291 F.3d at 1341–42, and there is no inherent, cognizable property interest in the use of vessels for fishing within the EEZ[.]

Slip op. at 9.

The court rejected the plaintiffs' efforts to distinguish the cases holding that these type of licenses are not property. The plaintiffs argued that Congress amended the Magnuson-Stevens Act after these decisions, and thereby imbued the licenses with the hallmarks of property, arguing they became transferable, exclusive, and irrevocable. Slip op. at 11. Nope, the court held, these things are as they were before: "non-compensable, revocable privileges." Id.

We could go on, but we won't, because the balance of the opinion lays out all the reasons the court concluded that the language of the statute defeated any claim that these licenses were intended to be some kind of vested right:

Here, the Coast Guard and the Fisheries Service issued and approved fishing endorsements, LLP licenses, and A80 QS permits that allowed FFI’s vessels to harvest and process fish from the Management Areas. Without these government-issued privileges, FFI does not have an inherent right to use its vessels to harvest or process fish in the Management Areas, as FFI itself recognizes.

Slip op. at 17.

Contrast this result with the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in an favorite case of ours, Damon v. Territory of Hawaii, 194 U.S. 154 (1904). There, the Court (in a very Holmesian opinion by, well, Justice Holmes), held that certain offshore fishing rights (which the court noted were "somewhat different from those familiar to the common law") were vested rights which qualified as constitutional property:

The right claimed is a right within certain metes and bounds to set apart one species of fish to the owner's sole use, or, alternatively, to put a taboo on all fishing within the limits for certain months, and to receive from all fishermen one-third of the fish taken upon the fishing grounds. A right of this sort is somewhat different from those familiar to the common law, but it seems to be well known to Hawaii, and, if it is established, there is no more theoretical difficulty in regarding it as property and a vested right than there is regarding any ordinary easement or profit a prendre as such. The plaintiff's claim is not to be approached as if it were something anomalous or monstrous, difficult to conceive and more difficult to admit. Moreover, however anomalous it is, if it is sanctioned by legislation, if the statutes have erected it into a property right, property it will be, and there is nothing for the courts to do except to recognize it as a right.

Id. at 158. Unlike the Magnuson-Stevens Act, Hawaii law recognized the right to fish and control use of the offshore fishery, collect tribute, prohibit use, and exclude the unwanted. Meaning it was property.

Fisherman's Finest, Inc. v. United States, No. 21-2326 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 8, 2023)

Ice Ice Baby: A Report From The 40th ALI-CLE Eminent Domain & Land Valuation Litigation Conference, Feb 1-4, 2023, Austin

We were eagerly anticipating 40th American Law Institute-CLE Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation Conference. The 2022 Conference in Scottsdale was one of the first meetings where everyone was back in-person (and was a smashing success), but that conference was early in the game so not everyone could or would attend. But in the past year most of us got back to some semblance of "normal," and the turnout promised to be good.

We had record registrations: with over 300 attendees, faculty, and staff signed up, things were shaping up.

Plus, we were headed to Austin, Texas. The last time we held the Conference there in 2016, we loved it so much it has been in-demand for a return visit. And this year is the debut Conference for some new planning co-chairs for both the main tracks as well as the "Condemnation 101" tracks, so the buzz for the 2023 Austin Conference was building.

But then the weather reminded us that Mother Nature is often the boss. 

Very Icy Austin on Wednesday (Conference Eve).

On Tuesday, one day before the Conference was to get underway, the 2023 Central Texas Ice Storm blew in and things were gonna get (as they say) "challenging."

Austin Airport effectively shut down with few flights in or out. Planes and cancellations stacked up nationwide. And even for those nearby, slick icy roads, and seemingly everything was closed, from gas stations to hotels to restaurants. Widespread power outages. 

Were we ready with Plan B if people couldn't get on-site? Read on.

Unless you are already here or are driving,
you ain't getting to Austin via AUS any time soon, pard.

Even flying from sunny California was a problem.

Ticket agent: Austin flight cancelled. How about flying to Houston and then driving?

Me: Sure, that'll work. Just get me to Texas and I'll figure it out from there.

Improvise, adapt, overcome: planes, trains, and automobiles (and car rentals, and long-distance rideshares, and four-layovers-from-Boise flights). Jacksonville to Austin via Chicago and Nashville.

Although those of us who made it to Austin were receiving widespread reports of people delayed and rerouted, we had only a handful who said they would not be pressing forward to get here. 

When this is what greets you when you arrive
at your conference site...uh oh.

And yes, Austin was cold and icy. Most things shuttered and widespread loss of power. But the Conference venue was up and running, and throughout the day on Wednesday, faculty, staff, and attendees were showing up. Trickling in, but showing up or on the way.

When this is what you see at the United Airlines
luggage counter, you ask yourself:
Can I make my presentation in a t-shirt and sweats? (Yes!)

We had confidence, and were prepared
for everyone to get to Austin.

So the aforementioned Plan B went into effect. Agenda items shuffled from tomorrow to today because the speaker is here, now. One speaker in the room, one speaker remote. Our audience is full of experts ... say, Billy can you pinch-hit on this panel? Sure. One speaker remoting in from his (unexpected) hotel room in Phoenix and presenting, before he went to the airport in the afternoon to continue on to Austin.

And so forth. Our long-time ALI-CLE Program Attorney, Amy Weinberg (who was delayed out of Philadelphia) was working furiously behind the scenes doing a lot of juggling, updating, texting and calling, and making alternative arrangements. And the tech team from ALI-CLE was preparing for overload if needed.

Plan A: continue to set the room up, assuming everyone is here or on the
way, and we'll have most or all of our people in the room.

Our Planning Chairs were ready, even if not
all of us were actually there (yet).

Plan B: the ALI-CLE technical crew was prepared to livestream
and record the Conference if the weather made travel
to Austin impossible or infeasible.

The tech command center.

Before we go on, a big thank you to our generous sponsors.
Without your support, this Conference would not be as
good as it is, year after year.

We're underway, with a pretty good crowd.

Thursday morning, 9:00 a.m., and we're looking not too bad. A fair number of folks have pressed forward despite the weather and travel disruptions and are in the room. More report they are not tapping out, and are pressing onwards.

We have more viewers remote than we originally anticipated, but the tech is holding up.

Over the next couple of days, our lawyers, judges, legal scholars, appraisers, law students, right-of-way agents, relocation experts, property owners, and other related professionals made their way to Austin.

The fact that folks who were experiencing some rather dramatic travel difficulties and delays (ask Jack about his late night Uber from Houston airport to Austin, or how our west coasters got re-routed all over creation), didn't quit but were determined to get to Austin told us something about why this Conference has been so successful over the decades.

It's more than great programming from the nation's experts. The Conference is also an essential venue to get acquainted with new colleagues and welcome them to the Dirt Law Bar, reconnect with long-time friends, and have a bit of fun together.

Most of the Conference attendees eventually made it, and very few (reasonably) threw in the towel and turned around for home. This was the 40th edition of the Conference, and we really know why it is one of the most-established and successful conferences in the ALI-CLE stable of programs. This year's experience really drove home why we come, and why our attendees and faculty are so dedicated and committed, despite the sacrifices we make to attend or to present. 

Hybrid: Pacific Legal Foundation's John Groen
remoting in while en-route via Phoenix, and
Baylor lawprof Jessica Asbridge on
"Everything Old is New Again: Why Today’s Practitioners
Need to Understand the Original Meaning of the
Takings and Just Compensation Clauses."


The "Condemnation 101" track was wildly popular
both with new members of the Eminent Domain Bar,
as well as old hands. Standing room only throughout the day.

We also had reports from the field that the remote viewing
was going well. Here's how we looked in the
mountains of North Carolina.

Let's not forget the substance of the Conference.
Lots of practical learning. Here's Hawaii's Mark Murakami
and Virginia's Steve Clarke on "Avoiding the Real Jeopardy:  
Structuring Eminent Domain Settlements."
And no, two-time Jeopardy! champion Steve did not
give answers in the form of a question.

Weather throughout Wednesday and Thursday was icy and nasty,
but towards the end of Thursday seemed to be clearing up.

Consequently, the view from the podium looked better and better
with more showing up and more reporting they were nearly there.

The programming at the Conference is traditionally
a mix of practical subjects and the more theoretical.
Here's one of the highlight latter programs,
Alan Ackerman (Michigan), Matthew Ackerman (also Michigan),
and Steve Davis (Missouri) on "What Does the Supreme Court
Mean When it Says Just Compensation is “Self-Executing?"

There's an ethics program, naturally, for those of us in jurisdictions
with mandatory CLE requirements. But we try and not do "typical"
(i.e., boring) ethics programs. Here's Sarah Kellner (Colorado) and
Shane Rayman (Ontario, CN) on "Ethics: Building Your Practice
by Mentoring the Next Generation of Eminent Domain Professionals."

An example of our practice-oriented programming: Tony DellaPelle
(New Jersey), Bernadette Duran-Brown (California), 
and Andrew Lines (Illinois) on "Preparing Your Expert
Witness to Shine in Virtual Proceedings:
Tools and Tips For Trial Lawyers." 

Andrew actually pretended he was far, far away for his "deposition"
when he was in fact one floor up from the Conference room.
Way to go all-in.

Thanks to our generous sponsors, we were able to avoid Austin's
icy roads and have our Mickelthwait barbecue
brought in for lunch. Was it well-received? See for yourself. Line
was through the lobby and nearly out the front door.

Thank you to Texas Supreme Court Justice Jimmy Blacklock
for speaking on "Developing Property Right Issues in Texas,
Questions and Answers with Justice Jimmy Blacklock"
(interviewed by Justin Hodge (Texas)

It was not an echo-chamber either. Here, in a hotly-debated
session, Jeff Redfern (Virginia), Steve Silva (Nevada), and
Lawprof Emilio Longoria (St Mary's Law, Texas)
debate "When the SWAT Team Comes (No) Knocking:
Police Power Takings."

Jeff, Steve, and Prof Longoria's session got everyone's blood pumping.

It wasn't all serious, and we had a bit of fun.
Like this after-hours live edition of the Eminent Domain & Right of Way
Clubhouse with Beth Smith (Wisconsin), Patrick McAllister (Indiana)
and some dude who was having a post-CLE session beer.

Some of our faculty are more formal and like to speak
standing at the lectern. Here, Pacific Legal Foundation's Jon Houghton
(New Jersey) and Ben Stormes (Montana) on
"Avoiding Pitfalls When Trying a Penn Central Case:
Lessons From the Takings Trenches."

Others are less formal, and speak while sitting
(and wildly gesticulating to make sure you are paying attention).
Kristen Renfro (California), and some guy on
"Your Regulatory Takings Case is in Federal Court – Now What?"

By Friday morning, the Austin weather was looking up. Really up.
And we nearly had everyone in the room.
By hook or by crook, most everyone was there.

By Friday were were pretty much back to normal.
Nearly all faculty and all attendees in the room.
And thus we turned it over to our Saturday morning stalwarts,
starting with Jim Burling, here speaking about "The Many Theories of
Property - Do They Matter in Court?" (and Pufendorf)

No one wanted to miss Michael Berger's "Regulatory Takings Update"
on Saturday morning either.

When you can fill this many seats at a CLE conference on a
Saturday morning after two full days of programming,
you know your speakers are the
right ones (thank you Jim and Michael).

After Jim and Michael did their thing, we held our "National Forum,"
a moderated "open-mic" session where Conference attendees
take to the podium and speak about their case or issue,
or crowdsource a question. Here, Pacific Legal
Foundation's Kady Valois, speaking about
our firm's latest takings cert grant.

We were happy to announce that the 41st ALI-CLE Eminent Domain &
Land Valuation Litigation Conference will be held February 1-3, 2024,
at the JW Marriott in New Orleans.
Save the date!

Ivy Cadle (Georgia - Go Dawgs!) is already planning his trip to
#EminentDomain 2024 in New Orleans.
See you there, Ivy.

With the programming wrapped up, it was time for farewells
and thank yous. Here, four of our law students from William and Mary Law,
who took the time out of their schedules to make their way to
Austin for some real-world learning and networking.
Well done, new colleagues!

Even after the proceedings closed, there was more work to be done.
Here, the ALI-CLE Tech Team breaks it down, after successfully
guiding us through the past four days. They are a large part of the
reason why this Conference works so well (plus, they make the
speakers look really good on camera).

To those who joined us - in-person or on-line, thank you. This conference reminded us of why this program is so successful, and why we all return year-after-year.

To those of you who didn't (or couldn't) join us, here's what you missed. You need to remedy that, and come join us next year in New Orleans...

We'll see you in New Orleans for
#EminentDomain2024!
(Want to keep the conversation going in the
interim? Join the ALI-CLE Eminent Domain Conference
page on LinkedIn.)

(Nearly) Last Call: There's Still Time To Join Us For The 40th ALI-CLE Eminent Domain & Land Valuation Litigation Conference, Feb 1-4, Austin

We really want you there...

One (nearly) last reminder that there's still time to register for your space at the 40th ALI-CLE Eminent Domain & Land Valuation Litigation Conference, February 1-4, 2023, in Austin. In the past several years, we have sold out due to the conference room capacity and the conference hotel block. But there's still space, although we are nearly full. So register now - don't delay any further! 

Here's the brochure with the complete agenda, schedule, and faculty listing. But to tempt you, here are some of the highlights of the program:

• Everything Old is New Again: Why Today’s Practitioners Need to Understand the Original Meaning of the Takings and Just Compensation Clauses
  
• When the SWAT Team Comes (No) Knocking: Police Power Takings

• Private Utility Takeovers – Lessons From a 67 Day Trial

• "Contraband": How Property Rights Helped Pave the Way for Civil Rights

• Valuation Issues When Billboards and Signs are Condemned

• Setting Client Expectations and Identifying Red Flags

• Preparing Your Expert Witness to Shine in Virtual Proceedings: Tools and Tips for Trial Lawyers

• Developing Property Right Issues in Texas - Questions and Answers from the Bench (with Texas Supreme Court Justice Jimmy Blacklock)

• Eminent Domain and Regulatory Takings Updates: Important Decisions You Need to Know

• Ethics: Building Your Practice by Mentoring the Next Generation of Eminent Domain Lawyers

• the Condemnation 101 program (a one-day course for those new to the practice, or for experienced practitioners wanting a refresher)
• ...and much more!

To register, go here.

Looking forward to seeing everyone in Austin for the 40th edition of the Conference.

Program Brochure, 40th ALI-CLE Eminent Domain & Land Valuation Litigation Conference, Austin, Texas, Feb 1-...

CA4: Property Owner Isn't "Vested" So No Takings Property

When we first read the U.S. Court of Appeals' opinion in PEM Entities, LLC v. County of Franklin, No. 21-1317 (Jan. 5, 2023), our reaction was one of skepticism. After all, at first blush, the court seemed to have concluded that in order to possess a property right protected by the Takings Clause, the owner needs first to prove it is a "vested" under state law.

That struck us as waaaay wrong. Yes, vesting under state law gets you a separate property interest, but failure to vest under state law does not mean you don't otherwise possess Takings Clause "private property." So what gives, Fourth Circuit?

Well, it turns out that despite us being ready to render a hearty j'accuse at the court, the outcome was a product of the claims made by the property owner (as they often are).

The opinion is short enough that it makes more sense for you to read the facts than for us to summarize them, but the real short story is that the case involves 150 acres of undeveloped land, and the owner asserted it was exempt from a county ordinance that severely regulated and restricted water and sewer connections for new developments. We're vested because we received county approvals back in 2005 in our preliminary subdivision plan, so we're not governed by the ordinance. When the county didn't agree, federal lawsuit followed. The complaint included a takings claim, which asserted the county had taken the vested property right of water and sewer service. The district court dismissed for lack of standing.

The Fourth Circuit agreed with the outcome (dismissal) but for a different reason: failure to state a claim. No property right = no taking. See slip op. at 5 ("We agree with the district court's bottom-line conclusion but get there via a somewhat different route."). When the property is framed as a vested right, then the issue is going to turn on state law; in this case North Carolina's law of vested rights. The Fourth Circuit concluded that under N.C. law, the owner here did not possess a vested right. The money it spent wasn't in reliance on a government permit, and the 2005 subdivision approval was preliminary not final. Interestingly, the opinion did not cite the most prominent recent N.C. decision on vesting.

But no matter. No vesting = no property. No property = no taking.

Just remember this: it's good for your takings claim when you have a vested right; if you have a rock-solid vested right under state law, chances are it is the foundation for a pretty robust takings claim. But lacking a vested right doesn't mean you don't own property. It may not mean you win, but at least you get past the preliminary hurdle that tripped up the owner here.

PEM Entities, LLC v. County of Franklin, No. 21-1317 (4th Cir. Jan. 5, 2023)

Md App: If You Want To Overturn The Amortization Doctrine, Take It Upstairs

You know the "amortization" doctrine: when an existing legal use is declared illegal, the government can avoid a takings claim by slowly phasing out the use, supposedly to allow the owner to recoup investment. The doctrine is established in Maryland by Grant v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 129 A.2d 363 (Md. 1957), where the court held that amortization works if the time and uses allowed are reasonable.

Not all jurisdictions take that approach, however. For example, in Pennsylvania Northwest Distributors, Inc. v. Zoning Hearing Bd., 583 A.2d 1372 (Pa. 1991), the Pennsylvania court held "[a] lawful nonconforming use establishes in the property owner a vested property right which cannot be abrogated or destroyed, unless it is a nuisance, it is abandoned, or it is extinguished by eminent domain."

In In re Mangisteab, No. 2022-93 (Dec. 20, 2022) (unpub.), the Appellate Court of Maryland (fka the Court of Special Appeals, that state's intermediate court of appeals), recognized that the property owners asked to overturn Grant and adopt Pennsylvania's approach, but concluded that this was above the pay grade of lower court judges.

The case involves Baltimore's removal of liquor stores in residential zones as nonconforming uses under the city's zoning ordinance. Liquor stores have been illegal in residential zones since 1971, but have been allowed to continue to operate as long as they didn't cease operation for more than 18 months. But recently, the city said "no more," and gave the liquor stores two (or three) years to wind up. The owners challenged the change as a taking of their vested rights, and expressly asked the courts to abandon the Grant rule. 

Not too surprisingly, the trial court (and now the court of appeals) said no, that's a job for the Maryland Supreme Court:

Owners believe, however, that Grant and its progeny should be overturned. As counsel for appellant acknowledged at oral argument, however, if that were to occur, it must be done by the Supreme Court of Maryland, not this Court. Foster v. State, 247 Md. App. 642, 651 (2020) (“It is not up to this Court . . . to overrule a decision of the [Supreme Court] that is directly on point . . . . The rulings of the [Supreme Court] remain the law of this State . . . unless those decisions are either explained away or overruled by the [Supreme Court] itself.”), cert. denied, 475 Md. 687, 257 A.3d 1156 (2021) (cleaned up). Johns Hopkins Hosp. v. Correia, 174 Md. App. 359, 382 (2007) (“[T]his Court does not have the option of disregarding [Supreme Court] decisions that have not been overruled, no matter how old the precedent may be.”), aff’d, 405 Md. 509 (2008). Accord Livesay v. Baltimore County, 384 Md. 1, 14 (2004) (quoting Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 827 (1991)) (Stare decisis “is the preferred course because it promotes the evenhanded, predictable, and consistent development of legal principles, fosters reliance on judicial decisions, and contributes to the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial process.”). We will not, therefore, overrule Grant and hold that termination of a nonconforming use after a reasonable amortization is unconstitutional.

Slip op. at 16-17.

So stay tuned, we suspect this isn't over just yet.

In re Mangisteab, No. 2022-93 (Md. App. Ct. Dec. 20, 2022) (unpub.)

Hawaii 5-80: Land Use Law At The University Of Hawaii

Starting in January, we'll be teaching the venerated, and oh-so-important Land Use course (Law 580) at the University of Hawaii's Law School.

We're at least temporarily stepping into some mighty big slippers (this is Hawaii, so we don't always wear shoes), as this is the course that our mentor Professor David Callies taught for decades. And is there a better venue in which to teach and study land use law and regulation, and its limits? After all, Hawaii may be the most heavily-regulated land on the planet, and is a focal point for every issue you can think of, from zoning to environmental restrictions to takings to public trust to subdivision to admin law to ... well, you get the drift.

We'll cover those topics, as well as the fundamentals. And we have a few surprises up our sleeve - some impressive guest lecturers, explorations of dirt law careers, and maybe a field trip or two. We'll bring you the highlights here, as they happen.

Is there a bit of pressure on us to get it right? You bet. But are we looking forward to it (not just an opportunity to head back to the 808, but because this is a great subject)? You bet.

Here's The Program For The 40th ALI-CLE Eminent Domain & Land Valuation Litigation Conference, Feb 1-4, 2023, Austin

Here it is, the official agenda and program for the 40th ALI-CLE Eminent Domain & Land Valuation Litigation Conference, February 2-4, 2023 (with a special event the evening of Wednesday, February 1, 2023 to entice you to arrive early).

Here's the brochure with the complete agenda, schedule, and faculty listing. But to tempt you, here are some of the highlights of the program:

• Everything Old is New Again: Why Today’s Practitioners Need to Understand the Original Meaning of the Takings and Just Compensation Clauses

• Private Utility Takeovers – Lessons From a 67 Day Trial

• Valuation Issues When Billboards and Signs are Condemned

• Setting Client Expectations and Identifying Red Flags

• Developing Property Right Issues in Texas - Questions and Answers from the Bench: A View From the Bench (with Texas Supreme Court Justice Jimmy Blacklock)

• Eminent Domain and Regulatory Takings Updates: Important Decisions You Need to Know

• Ethics: Building Your Practice by Mentoring the Next Generation of Eminent Domain Lawyers

• ...and much more!

To register, go here.

Register now and hold your space. In the past several years, we have sold out due to the conference room capacity, and the conference hotel block. So don't delay. 

Looking forward to seeing everyone in Austin for the 40th edition of the Conference.

Program Brochure, 40th ALI-CLE Eminent Domain & Land Valuation Litigation Conference, Austin, Texas, Feb 1-...

Federal Court: Honolulu's 3-Month Minimum Rental Term Preempted By State Law (And Would Be A Taking Of Vested Rights)

Many Honolulu residents don't like short-term (less than 30 day) rentals. Whether fueled by NIMBY-ism, a genuine belief that tourists should stay out of residents' neighborhoods and be limited to accommodations built for transients, or the belief that long-term rentals to locals somehow promote more affordable housing, the anti-transient renter vibe is most definitely there.

The no-less-than-thirty-days restriction wasn't enough, however, and recently the City and County of Honolulu made it illegal to rent for less than three months (90 days). The ordinance stated the reasons:

Short-term rentals are disruptive to the character and fabric of our residential neighborhoods; they are inconsistent with the land uses that are intended for our residential zoned areas and increase the price of housing for O‘ahu’s resident population by removing housing stock from the for-sale and long-term rental markets. The City Council finds that any economic benefits of opening up our residential areas to The city's ordinance brought a challenge from property owners tourism are far outweighed by the negative impacts to our neighborhoods and local residents. . . .

The purpose of this ordinance is to better protect the City’s residential neighborhoods and housing stock from the negative impacts of short-term rentals by providing a more comprehensive approach to the regulation of transient accommodations within the City.

Hon., Haw., Rev. Ord. 22-7. Violating the ordinance meant massive daily fines ($10k), plus disgorgement of the rent. Thus, not surprisingly the ordinance drew a federal court challenge from property owners who assert a variety of claims:

Plaintiff asserts violations of HRS § 46-4(a) (Count 1), the state law doctrines of vested rights and/or zoning estoppel (Count 2), substantive due process principles under the U.S. and Hawai‘i Constitutions (Counts 3 and 4), the Takings Clauses of the U.S. and Hawai‘i Constitutions (Counts 5 and 6), the Contracts Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Count 7), and the Excessive Fines Clauses of the U.S. and Hawai‘i Constitutions (Count 8 and 9).

The plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction, and in this Order, the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii granted it, enjoining the city from "enforcing or implementing" the ordinance "insofar as it prohibits 30–89-day home rentals, or the advertisement of such rentals" in any zoning district.

The court focused on the state-law zoning enabling act, the statute by which the state delegates limited zoning authority to Hawaii municipalities. The key provision is section § 46-4(a), which limits authority to prohibit "the lawful use of any building or premises for ... any purpose for which the building or premises is used at the time this section or the ordinance takes effect." In other words, a municipal zoning ordinance cannot outlaw existing uses. The ordinance also recognizes an exception, and permits municipalities to eliminate existing uses if they phase out the use over a reasonable amortization period. But this exception only applies in industrial, resort, and apartment zoned areas, not residential zones: "[i]n no event shall such amortization or phasing out of nonconforming uses apply to any existing building or premises used for residential (single-family or duplex) or agricultural uses."

That convinced the district court that Honolulu's ordinance was ultra vires, because "[]t is currently legal to rent O‘ahu homes to tenants for 30–89 day periods in any zoning district." Order at 13. With a "direct conflict" with state law, the city's ordinance is likely void. Like many similar statutes, the Hawaii zoning enabling act does not define "residential" use. So the court looked for the "common meaning" of the term, concluding that it means a use for "ordinary living activities and benefits--e.g., eating, washing, sleeping, storing their belongings and vehicles, and enjoying the surrounding scenery and community." Order at 17.

The court also concluded that "residential" does have a time component, but "the Court has not found any cases, nor have the Defendants cited any, holding that rentals of 30 days or longer were not residential." Id. The court rejected the city's argument that the frequent turnover of a residence is not traditionally associated with family living, and that rentals of less than 90 days are commercial uses, more akin to a resort or a hotel. The court noted that it is more important what is being done with the home rather than how long. People rent property for 30-89 days for all sorts of reasons:

(1) O‘ahu residents who have sold and bought [homes]; (2) off-island families traveling to O‘ahu for medical care; (3) traveling healthcare workers temporarily assigned to O‘ahu; (4) military families in transition; (5) employees performing work on O‘ahu; (6) temporarily displaced families; [and/]or (7) others who prefer to temporarily reside closer to work or schools than the resort districts.

Order at 19. The court noted the city can still regulate the duration of vacation rentals, but it must do it within the constraints of state law. Order at 20 ("The City may, and indeed must, execute its long-range planning goals, while respecting and accommodating prior lawful uses already in place, as HRS § 46-4(a) requires it to do.").

The court additionally concluded the ordinance likely works a taking. It first asked whether the owners have vested rights to rent their property for more than 30 days and less than 90. They do: "[i]n the present case, 30-89-day rentals in non-Resort districts are a vested property right protected by takings principles." Order at 23. Equitable reliance principles, backed by law (the above-noted zoning enabling act), means that there's "nothing 'contingent,' 'uncertain,' 'speculative,' or 'discretionary' in the long-standing use of private property for the rental purposes identified[.]" Id. 

Having established the owners have a private property right, the court also concluded that the city's ordinance would take that right without compensation because it outlaws the use entirely, "without providing any process to compensate or accommodate nonconforming uses." Order at 24. 

We suggest you check out the entire order. Kudos to our former law partner and land use lawyer extraordinaire Greg Kugle for the compelling win.

Order Granting Pltf's Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Hawaii Legal Short-Term Rental Alliance v. City &...

CA1: Rooker-Feldman Defeats Federal Court Takings Claim By "State Court Losers"

If you understand the headline of this post, congratulations: you are officially so deep in the weeds that you deserve both a Federal Courts and a Takings merit badge. 

For those of you not in so deep, here's the short story behind the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit's short opinion in Efreom v. McKee, No. 21-1382 (Aug. 18, 2022).

This is one of those pension cases, where the state (here, Rhode Island) shored up its tottering pension system with a new statute that "altered in various ways the retirement benefits to which public employees were entitled, including by reducing the amount and availability of cost-of-living adjustment ("COLA") payments to retirees." Slip op. at 4.

As the court noted, "[l]itigation promptly ensured in state court." Slip op. at 5. Takings claims were included in the lineup. All of the cases were consolidated for trial. Most of the plaintiffs settled. Part of the deal was that the legislature would adopt a new statute that modified some of the cutbacks the challenged statute had put into place.

The court formed a class action to effectuate the settlement, and the plaintiffs in the subsequent federal case were all members of one of the subclasses in that action. They may have had objections to the settlement, but under the local R.I. rules of civil procedure they could not opt out of the class.

After the legislature adopted the statutory modifications, the court approved the settlement over "vigorous" objections, and entered judgment in the class action lawsuit. Appeals to the Rhode Island Supreme Court followed, challenging the procedural aspects (the class action), and the substance of the settlement. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment on both counts. 

Next up, a federal 1983 lawsuit, alleging that the newly-adopted statute (the one adopted in accordance with the settlement agreement) was a taking, and violated the due process and Contracts clauses of the U.S. Constitution. The district court dismissed for failure to state a claim because of res judicata, a lack of standing, and ... Rooker-Feldman.

You remember the Rooker-Feldman doctrine (which we've dealt with here mostly in the context of judicial takings). Named after the two U.S. Supreme Court decisions which defined its contours, the R-F doctrine says is that U.S. District Courts do not have appellate jurisdiction to review final judgments of state supreme courts.

The First Circuit affirmed that the federal lawsuit was subject to R-F, because the "substance" of the plaintiff's complaint was a challenge to the R.I Supreme Court ruling:

It is just this type of impermissible appellate review that appellants seek in federal court. Dissatisfied with the outcome of the state-court litigation, appellants ask us to set aside the Rhode Island state courts' approval of the RIPERC class-action settlement, in an action commenced over two years after the Rhode Island Supreme Court rendered its final decision on the matter. It is undisputed that appellants (and defendants) were all parties to the original Clifford action, the RIPERC class, and the final appeal to the Rhode Island Supreme Court in Clifford v. Raimondo. As such, appellants are "state-court losers" seeking, in effect, to review and reverse "state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced."

Slip op. at 14-15 (footnote and citation omitted).

Hold on, the plaintiffs argued, we're not challenging the Rhode Island decision and asking the federal courts to overturn it, but only the effects of that ruling. See slip op.at 15 ("Appellants nonetheless attempt to escape the vise of Rooker-Feldman by disputing, essentially, that their alleged injuries were actually 'caused by' the state-court judgments."). We're challenging the statute adopted in accordance with the settlement judgment, not the judgment itself, the plaintiffs asserted. This law, they argued, caused a new injury separate from the injuries caused by the state court judgments.

The Fifth Circuit didn't buy it. The statute, after all, was a direct by-product of the judgment, and "[p]assage of the 2015 Amendments was a condition precedent for the settlement agreement that resolved the state-court litigation." Slip op. at 16. The statute's text was "contained verbatim in the settlement agreement," and the plaintiff's "attempt to undo the state-court rulings approving the settlement is precisely the sort of 'end-run around a final state-court judgment' that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine proscribes." Id. (footnote omitted).

The court concluded that the plaintiffs are "state-court losers" who sought federal review, albeit indirectly, of the state court's judgment (even though that judgment was the result of a settlement).

We're not quite sure what to make of this one. On one hand, the courts have reminded us that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine isn't a broad rule. It isn't a general rule against judicial takings claims as the Sixth Circuit concluded. It might cover interlocutory rulings as the same Sixth Circuit concluded (whether it covers settlements is an issue the First Circuit assumed but didn't really decide here). And it isn't some catch-all get-out-of-takings-free card, as the Eighth Circuit noted. Yet on the other hand R-F still lives, even if a limited doctrine, as the U.S. Supreme Court reminded in Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005), and maybe this is one of those cases where indeed, the "losers" in state court were merely asking a federal court to overturn the state court loss.

This one seems like a close call, and not one where it is obvious that the case doesn't belong in federal court. After all, why is this case different than, say, any case that challenging the 2015 statute? Does it matter that the plaintiffs here were involuntary members of the class action the state courts authorized in order to settle the case? (The First Circuit concluded no, it doesn't matter, but we have to say that our jury is still out on that one.)

Efreom v. McKee, No. 21-1382 (1st Cir. Aug. 18, 2022)

Penn Central May Be A "Fuzzy" Test, But What Is A Court Doing Weighing The Factors?

You'll definitely want to check out the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit's opinion in Makrilov v. City of Jersey City, No. 21-1786 (Aug. 16, 2022).

Not because it reaches any earth-shattering conclusions -- the opinion unsurprisingly concluded that the city's restricting (but not eliminating) short-term rentals (less than thirty days) was not a taking -- but primarily because of the interesting concurring opinion.

So here's the story. At one time, the city thought that renting residential property for less than thirty days was a good thing, believing that short-term renting "incentivize[d] investment and development in Jersey City." Slip op. at 3. The city even adopted an ordinance affirmatively legalizing STRs as permitted accessory uses in residential zones. A property owner didn't even need to obtain a permit, as long as the operation was small-scale (the owner did not have more than five units it rented).

But then, something changed. The city went from full-throated support for STRs to, let's say, a more heavily-regulated regime. What happened you ask, to bring about this shift in municipal policy? Check this out:

Mayor Fulop was quoted in the press release and made other public statements in support of the ordinance, describing companies that participate in the “sharing economy” as the “future.” App. 102. He also authored an article in the Huffington Post explaining the purposes and benefits of the ordinance. Mayor Fulop noted that home-sharing platforms allow “middle-class folks [to] earn a bit of extra income by renting out their apartments.” Id. The ordinance had the support of other Jersey City public officials, several of whom made statements in support of the ordinance. The Jersey City Council unanimously approved the ordinance, and on October 30, 2015, Mayor Fulop signed the ordinance into law.

Following the passage of Ordinance 15.137, Mayor Fulop’s relationship with Airbnb purportedly began to deteriorate. In 2016, Mayor Fulop allegedly sought a donation from Airbnb to his reelection campaign. Mayor Fulop attended a fundraiser at Airbnb’s San Francisco headquarters in 2017 but still did not receive a donation. In May 2017, Mayor Fulop allegedly sent a number of emails to Airbnb expressing his frustration, and, in response, Airbnb sent a $10,172 contribution to his reelection campaign. Airbnb represented that, following the delay in the donation, the relationship “fractured,” and Mayor Fulop began receiving donations from the hotel industry. App. 231.

Slip op. at 5-6.

After that turn of municipal policy, the city adopted a new ordinance. "Although it did not ban short-term rentals entirely, it imposed a number of new restrictions." Slip op. at 6. The new ordinance limited non-owner-occupied STRs to sixty nights per year, and most importantly, "only those who owned properties could rent on a short-term basis in Jersey City." Id. Funny how that works, no?

Problem was, the plaintiff (and others) had taken the city at its earlier word. Relying on the ordinance affirmatively legalizing STRs, they "invested in properties in Jersey City to consider short-term rental businesses." Slip op. at 7. And the new regulations resulted in a loss of rental income for these owners. Not a total loss, mind you, because the owners could presumably still rent long term and do other things with their properties. But a fairly severe drop in the amounts of income that the owners were able to derive from their units, with some of them claiming that it put them underwater in terms of things like serving their mortgages.

A federal lawsuit ensued, alleging claims for a taking, Contract Clause, and due process. The city's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim: granted.

The Third Circuit affirmed. The court first concluded that this doesn't involve a physical taking, but a regulatory taking. Slip op. at 10. Next, the court identified the property interests alleged to be taken:

plaintiffs assert three “uncontroversial” property rights: (1) plaintiffs’ use and enjoyment of their purchased properties; (2) the long-term leases; and (3) the plaintiffs’ short-term rental contracts. But the plaintiffs also assert another property interest: their forward-looking right to pursue their short-term rental businesses. Framed this way, the plaintiffs allege that they have lost “the entire businesses they were expressly invited by Jersey City to open and operate.” Nekrilov Br. 40 (emphasis in original). The District Court rejected the argument that this constituted a legally cognizable property interest for the purposes of a takings claim.

Slip op. at 10-11.

The court concluded there was no Lucas total taking, even though the owners alleged that "as a result of Ordinance 19-077, they have lost all beneficial use of their purchased properties." Slip op. at 13. Apparently, the district court found that allegation implausible (and the Third Circuit agreed), because the "District Court held that because the properties retain numerous beneficial uses, they have not been rendered economically idle." Id.

Exactly how the district court reached this conclusion isn't set out, precisely. The opinion merely states that the owners can live in their own properties, they can rent them for more than thirty days, or they can sell the properties. But we don't know how either the District Court or the Third Circuit reached that conclusion and overcame the allegation of a total wipeout. The opinion doesn't tell us. 

As best we can figure, the court sub silentio has a pleading rule for Lucas claims:  the complaint need say more than "the regulation results in the property having no economically-beneficial uses," and also needs to affirmatively allege that any permissible uses that may be made of the property are not beneficial. In short, you have to plead the negative, or else the court is going to fill in the facts for you. "The comparative disadvantage of long-term rentals does not amount to an allegation that long-term rentals are not an economically beneficial use of the property." Slip op. at 14. Thank you, Twombly/Iqbal.

That may not be right, but it simply is. The courts don't like takings claims generally, much less categorical Lucas claims, so you've been warned, property owners: per se claims are hard to plead, much less prove.

Who knows, maybe this is appropriate for a categorical claim. But what about the supposedly ad hoc Penn Central test? Here, same result: court decides what is supposed to be a multi-factor, case-by-case test as a matter of law. Start on page 16 of the slip opinion to understand how the court analyzed the issue.

Go ahead, read it. It sure sounds like the district court (and the court of appeals in turn) was doing a lot of weighing and balancing. See, e.g., slip op. at 17 ("The District court held that all three Penn Central factors weighed against a taking and dismissed the plaintiffs' partial takings claim."). Let's see how the courts considered each Penn Central factor:

• Economic impact: the court concluded that the owners only alleged a loss of anticipate profits (which, in other cases could be the basis for a claim of economic loss). But not here, because "we agree with the District Court that lost profits are not an appropriate a [sic] measure of economic impact." Slip op. at 18. The alleged lost profits are "entirely speculative." Slip op. at 19. The court also concluded for those properties that were already turning a profit before imposition of the STR restrictions, the owners could still sell their properties (a profitable use, the court concluded).
• Distinct investment-backed expectations: the court said "distinct" but immediately considered only whether any investment by the property owners was reasonable (which to us seems a jury question, but the court treated it as an objective standard, decided by the courts). Zoning is the "classic example" of permissible regulation. Slip op. at 22. But what about the notion that the city here practically invited the owners to STR their properties? Not something a fact-finder can even consider because the government's statements inviting STRs can be interpreted several ways and not unequivocally in the owner's favor. See slip op. at 23-25.
• Character of the government action: as noted earlier, this is a regulation of use, not a regulation that imposes a physical invasion. The ordinance restricting STRs "is a general zoning regulation restricting the permissible uses of residential housing with the goals of protecting the residential housing market in Jersey City and promoting public safety by reducing the nuisance behavior associated with short-term rentals." Slip op. at 28. Which may be true. But isn't that something that needs to be weighed and balanced by the factfinder against the other factors?

And that gets us to our main criticism of the Third Circuit's analysis: what was the district court doing weighing these factors on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim? See slip op. at 28 ("We agree with the District Court's conclusion that this factor weighs against a taking."). What this case tells us is that despite being labeled as a three-part ad hoc test in which each factor is weighed and balanced -- with the trier of fact ultimately responsible for evaluating them together and determining, on the whole, whether the challenged regulation looks like an exercise of eminent domain -- the courts treat Penn Central as a legal test -- maybe one strike you are out, or maybe more -- but in the end, the courts are really skeptical of these type of claims despite how Penn Central is supposed to be applied (ad hoc!) and therefore cut them off at the knees without even bothering with summary judgment, much less a trial.

Had the appeal been from a grant of summary judgment, we'd probably have a different view. But here, this is an appeal from a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. And we're not alone in that view, as there are some examples of courts treating Penn Central as the Supreme Court seemingly intended it -- as a question determined by the facts of the case, by the factfinder. See here and here, for a couple of examples. And don't forget that the essential teaching of Del Monte Dunes is that takings, like every other legal and constitutional claim, is a question for the factfinder, and not the judge.

Anyhow, we shall step down from our soapbox now and get to what we said was the most interesting part of the opinion, the concurrence by Judge Bibas. He agreed with the result, but had some choice words about the Penn Central test:

We properly reject the investors’ takings claim today, but only after applying a fuzzy test. The Takings Clause’s text and history focus cleanly on whether a state has taken a property right and pressed it into public use. Of course, the Supreme Court’s precedent binds us. But if the Court reconsiders, going back to the Clause’s text and historical understanding will provide not only a surer constitutional footing but also needed clarity.

Concurring op. at 13.

Judge Bibas suggested going "back to the Takings Clause's original public meaning." Id. at 1. He argues "that the Takings Clause, originally understood, would have allowed regulatory-takings claims for regulations that take a state-law property right and press it into public use." Id. at 5. He also recommends jettisoning the economic-impact and the investment-backed expectations factors:

2. Economic impact & investment-backed expectations. Though the first Penn Central factor fits with the original understanding of the Takings Clause, the rest of the test is hard to square with the Constitution’s text and history. The second and third factors look to “[t]he economic impact of the regulation on the claimant and, particularly, the extent to which the regulation had interfered with distinct investment-backed expectations.” Penn Cent., 438 U.S. at 124. These expectations must be more than mere hopes or mental plans. See id. at 130. But Penn Central stopped short of tying those expectations to actual property rights.

Yet it is hard to see how merely diminishing something’s value amounts to taking property. An owner has no right to have his property hold a specific economic value. Its value of-ten fluctuates with the market or the neighborhood. Indeed, current precedent already recognizes as much. See Lucas, 505 U.S. at 1016 n.7 (leaving open whether a 90% diminution in value would suffice).

Similarly, the Penn Central test fails to ground “investment-backed expectations” in an owner’s recognized property rights. This is not to say that property owners do not enjoy any protections. If the expectation arises from a contract with the government, then the owner can pursue contract remedies. See, e.g., 41 U.S.C. §§ 7101–09. Plus, the Contracts Clause prevents states from “impairing the Obligation of Contracts.” U.S. Const. art. I, § 10, cl. 1. That bar applies to contracts with a state as well as those between private parties. Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U.S. (6 Cranch) 87, 137 (1810); Trs. of Dartmouth Coll. v. Woodward, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 518, 652, 664, 712 (1819). Thus, states may not defeat the “reasonable expectations” of a party to a contract. Sveen v. Melin, 138 S. Ct. 1815, 1822 (2018). The investors here never explain how the short-term rental policy harms a “contractual relationship.” United Steel Paper & Forestry Rubber Mfg. Allied Indus. & Serv. Workers Int’l Union v. Virgin Islands, 842 F.3d 201, 210 (3d Cir. 2016) (emphasis added). So they have no contractual claim. But the Contracts Clause, not the Takings Clause, provides a better guide for analysis here.

Id. at 12-13.

In the end, he argues that only the character of the government action Penn Central factor "aligns closely with the original meaning of the Takings Clause, with the definitive factor being whether a regulation "bans" some fundamental attribute of private property. See id. at 11. That's a nice thought, but in the end looks a lot like just another way of backing into a Lucas-type analysis (one not based on total economic wipeouts, but on total regulatory bans -- which are easily avoidable by the regulators). Nonetheless, we recommend you read the entirety of Judge Bibas' intriguing opinion. It may not offer all of the solutions, but it does make you think.

In the end, yes, the Penn Central test is unsatisfying (as we've written before). But just about every takings lawyer we know would be mostly okay with the Penn Central test remaining as-is if we could only get past judges' gatekeeping and running block for the government, and just let these cases go where they belong: to juries. That alone would be a big improvement. 

Nekrilov v. City of Jersey City, No. 21-1786 (3d Cir. Aug. 16, 2022)

Ye Olde Law 608: Eminent Domain & Property Rights, S5E1 @ William & Mary Law

Is there a more appropriate place at which to study property rights and dirt law than William and Mary Law School? After all, it is a stone's throw from Jamestown, the place where there's a good argument the concept of property law and property rights first took hold in the New World. As noted by author David Price in "Love and Hate in Jamestown - John Smith, Pocahontas, and the Start of a New Nation" -

The introduction of private property for the common citizen had a salubrious effect on the owners' sense of initiative, as John Rolfe would observe. By the end of 1619, he reported, the "ancient" (or longtime) colonists had chosen their allotments, "which giveth all great content, for now knowing their owne lande, they strive and are prepared to build houses and to cleare their grounds ready to plant, which giveth ... greate incouragement, and the greatest hope to make the colony florrish that ever yet happened to them."

Was it a coincidence that at the same time as property rights took hold, that the seeds of representative and republican government were also planted? As Price writes:

The other major liberalization of 1619 sprang from the company's desire for "a forme of government there as may bee to the greatest benifitt and comfort of the people, and wherby all injustice grevance and oppression may be prevented." That form of government would be English America's first representative legislature. Sir Thomas Dale's authoritarian "Lawes Divine, Morall and Martiall" would be superseded by enactments of a locally elected body, to be known as the General Assembly.

And also just down the road from the Law School, coincidentally, is where the "new birth of freedom" took hold, again by way of a property-centric argument. So yes, William and Mary Law is a very appropriate venue for the study of property rights and property law.  

With that background in mind, in just over three weeks, we're about to get underway with the fall semester at the Law School, where we're again teaching two upper-division courses: Eminent Domain and Property Rights (Law 608), and Land Use Controls (Law 425). For a sampling of what we cover, check out some of the final papers our students produced last year - pretty compelling stuff.

The enrollment in the courses has really grown over the five years we've done them, which might be a reflection that the word is getting out. in the Eminent Domain and Property Rights class we cover not only eminent domain and just compensation, but takings, civil forfeiture, property theory, the cultural view of what it means to "own" something, and international approaches to property law and property rights. And, importantly, how to lawyer up these cases (this is a professional school after all). Of course, we take advantage of the opportunity to have some of the nation's best property law scholars "guest lecture" during the Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Conference. Here's the official description of the course:

Property rights and the sovereign's power of eminent domain have been essential components of Anglo-American law for centuries, and the protection of the right of private property ownership is one of the foundations on which the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the post-Civil War Amendments are built. This course will introduce students to the practical lawyering and analysis necessary for eminent domain practice, including the nuts and bolts of takings practice as well as the study of recent (and ongoing) U.S. Supreme Court cases. In addition, this course will focus on the history, policy, and, to some extent, the politics of property rights, eminent domain law, and related legal topics. We will examine how the right of private property was developed in common and constitutional law, the relationship of property rights to other civil rights and the sovereign's power to take land, the role of federal and state courts in protection of property rights, how private property squares with environmental law, and the proper 'place' of property rights in the modern administrative state. Course materials will be cases and selected portions of books and journal articles, and other materials which will be made available. Grading will be based on a take home paper and class participation.

The Land Use Controls class is your class land use regulation class that focuses on things like zoning and planning, the administrative process, vested rights, nonconforming uses, due process, Euclid, private land use controls, nuisance, and other dirt law topics.   

Students: it's not too late to join (add/drop will commence soon after the first day of classes). We can't promise that you will gain instant knowledge of the subjects, but can guarantee a rewarding semester taking a deeper dive, coming out of it in December with a greater appreciation of these areas of law, and a working understanding of what it takes to actually practice. Come, join us!

New Cert Petition (Ours): Can Condemnor Delay Actually Paying Compensation Indefinitely?

Last week, along with my colleagues Deborah La Fetra and Kady Valois, we filed this cert petition in a case we've been following (even before we joined as counsel).

The petition seeks review of the Fifth Circuit's opinion holding that there's nothing a federal court can do if a local government does not pay a state-court just compensation judgment for an unreasonably long time. Because we are counsel in the case we won't go into further detail, but will leave it to you.

Here's the Question Presented:

A fundamental element of just compensation is "certain payment of the compensation without unreasonable delay.” Bragg v. Weaver, 251 U.S. 57, 62 (1919). In 2013, the Sewerage & Water Board of New Orleans inversely condemned the properties of 70 home and business owners for a flood control project. The property owners obtained state court judgments starting in 2018. Louisiana law prohibits enforcement of judgments against state and local governments—even just compensation judgments—which go unpaid unless government voluntarily appropriates the funds. The Sewerage Board has refused to do so, in some cases for years. The question presented is:

May the government, consistent with the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments’ self-executing command of Just Compensation for takings of private property, indefinitely delay paying just compensation?

Follow along here, or on the Court's docket.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Ariyan, Inc. v. Sewerage & Water Board of New Orleans, No. 22-52 (July 20,...

Alabama: Government Can't Keep The Change After A Tax Sale

A long-ish opinion from the Alabama Supreme Court in Douglas v. Roper, No. 1200503 (June 24, 2022). But a short post because the good stuff is relatively brief.

Bottom line: property owners have a vested interest in excess money generated from a tax sale of their property, and the Alabama legislature cannot prohibit the owners from claiming that excess equity.

Quick background: the legislature enacted a statute that required property owners who had their properties sold to satisfy tax debts first have redeemed the property before they could claim the excess funds, if any, from the sale. This had the effect of permitting the government in many cases to keep that excess (i.e., the property's equity), as a little something extra -- what our New Orleans friends might call lagniappe. Property owners objected, arguing that retroactively applying the statute would be a taking.

There's a lot to like in the opinion, but here's a few choice items:

• "Alabama also places a strong emphasis on an individual's fundamental right to property." Slip op. at 31.
• "Alabama's strong commitment to an individual's right to property is confirmed by this state's constitution, which states that 'the sole object and only legitimate end of government is to protect the citizen in the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property.'" Slip op. at 32.
• "This state has long recognized a property owner's right to the excess funds generated from a tax sale of his or her property." Id.
• "This Court has also recognized that the excess funds that result from a tax sale are representative of the property itself." Slip op. at 33.
• "Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the right of a property owner to recover excess funds that are generated from a tax sale is a vested right that existed at common law. Property rights are vested rights. The excess funds stand in the place of the property and are representative of the owner's vested ownership interest in the property." Slip op. at 35 (citations omitted).
• "Accordingly, an owner has a vested interest in the excess funds that result from a tax sale. Because an owner has a vested interest in the excess funds resulting from a tax sale, the amendments to § 40-10-28 -- which burden the owner's vested right to the excess funds by imposing upon the owner the often expensive and uncertain requirement of redeeming the property before claiming the excess funds -- cannot be applied retroactively to prevent an owner from claiming the excess funds." Slip op. at 36.

For more on this issue, check out our law firm colleague's recent appearance on Clint Schumacher's Eminent Domain Podcast, "Christina Martin on Home Equity Theft." Christina argued and won the first big case on this issue, Rafaeli, LLC v. Oakland County (from the Michigan Supreme Court, and cited by the Alabama Supreme Court), and is responsible from bringing this issue to light. 

Douglas v. Roper, No 1200503 (Ala. June 24, 2022)

Monday Round Up: Aina Lea Out With A Whimper, 30 Years Of Mabo, Seneca Village

Here's what we're reading today:

• Aina Lea regulatory takings case dismissed for lack of standing. State of Hawaii's press release here.
• It's the constitution...it's Mabo. It's justice. It's law. It's the vibe. "How the Mabo decision changed Australia 30 years on" "On June 3, 1992, after years of legal struggle, the High Court of Australia handed down its decision, overturning the centuries-old legal fiction of 'terra nullius'."
• "Indiana Supreme Court hears arguments in Gary restaurant eminent domain case" (referring to this case).
• A celebration at New York's (former) Seneca Village. NYT: "New Yorkers Honor a Thriving Black Village Displaced by Central Park" (we visited the site a few years ago)
• Speaking of New York City, here's "This Is Why Your Holiday Travel Is Awful" from Politico, about the "sordid history of New York's Penn Station." Any mention of the takings case about the other big NYC transit hub, Grand Central (owned by Penn Central)? Nope.

New Article: Serkin, "What Property Does," 75 Vand. L. Rev. 891 (2022)

Worth checking out: Christopher Serkin, What Property Does, 75 Vand. L. Rev. 891 (2022).

Covering (inter alia) property, rule against perpetuities, adverse possession, Lucas background principles, judicial and regulatory takings, Mahon v. Keystone Bituminous, and vested rights and amortization of preexisting uses.

Here's the abstract:

For centuries, scholars have wrestled with seemingly intractable problems about the nature of property. This Article offers a different approach. Instead of asking what property is, it asks what property does. And it argues that property protects people’s reliance on resources by moderating the pace of change. Modern scholarly accounts emphasize voluntary transactions as the source and purpose of reliance in property. Such “transactional reliance” implies strong, stable, and enduring rights. This Article argues that property law also reflects a very different source of reliance on resources, one that rises and falls simply with the passage of time. This new category of “evolutionary reliance” is at the heart of core property doctrines like adverse possession, waste, and the rule against perpetuities. Focusing on evolutionary reliance reveals a new vision of property, not as a bundle of sticks or a bare right to exclude, but instead as a nexus of competing and dynamic reliance interests that can change over time. This new vision has important conceptual and doctrinal consequences for common law doctrines and the Takings Clause, and it highlights the surprising dynamism and change in property.

Get the article here, and add it to your reading list.

Tex App: "Property" Includes Right To Rent It Out - City's Short-Term Ban May Be A Taking

Here's a must-read from the Texas Court of Appeals (Second District).

In City of Grapevine v. Muns, No. 02-19-00257 (Dec. 23, 2021), 

Before 2018, the city's 1982 zoning ordinance authorized "single-family detached dwellings" and didn't say anything about short-term renting (short-term being defined as less than 30 days). The ordinance didn't expressly authorize it, but it didn't prohibit it either. The ordinance was one of those that say anything not expressly authorized is prohibited. Bed and breakfast operations were recognized in a 2000 amendment, but these operations require, among other things, that the owner live on-site.

But after the introduction of platforms such as AirBnB and VRBO, the short-term market "exploded" and the usual complaints from neighborhood residents followed. Slip op. at 6 ("criminal mischief, domestic disputes, parking violations, alarm calls, and noise disturbances"). Next came studies, public hearings, and the city's assertion that it didn't really need to amend the ordinance to prohibit short-term renting because it was already prohibited by virtue of it not being expressly allowed.

But despite the city's lawyer's protestations that "the Zoning Ordinance had always prohibited STR's," slip op. at 7, the city council adopted an ordinance that barred renting property for less than 30 days. According to the city, this wasn't so much of a new bar, as an ordinance that "simply clarified and affirmed" that city law never allowed short-term renting. Slip op. at 7.

The city informed STR operators that after the expiry of a 45 day grace period, no more STR-ing upon pain of a NOA, a criminal record, and an up-to $2k fine. Lawsuit followed.

In October 2018, the Homeowners sued the City, seeking declarations that the STR Ordinance is unconstitutional because it (1) is a regulatory taking of their property without compensation; (2) violates their due-course-of-law rights under the Texas Constitution; (3) is impliedly preempted by Chapter 156 of the Texas Tax Code alone or in combination with Chapter 92 of the Texas Property Code; and (4) deprives the Homeowners of their vested rights to continue their STRs, in violation of Chapter 245 of the Texas Local Government Code. The Homeowners also sought to enjoin the City from enforcing the STR Ordinance.

Slip op. at 9 (footnotes omitted). The trial court issued the requested TRO. Later, the property owners amended the complaint to allege unconstitutional retroactivity "and to add a regulatory-takings claim for compensation or for a specific recoupment period."  Slip op. at 10 (footnote omitted). The takings claim was made under the Texas Constitution, and not (also) the U.S. Constitution.

The trial court denied the city's motions for summary judgment and to dismiss, and the city appealed.

The court of appeals first rejected the city's argument that the zoning ordinance always prohibited STR's. Not so: the court concluded that city zoning permitted leasing of "single-family detatched dwellings," and that the ordinance doesn't define family as related by blood or marriage. Nor does the ordinance establish any duration requirement. Slip op. at 25.   

Next, the court addressed the takings claim. Jump to page 28 of the slip opinion for the court's analysis. The threshold question - do the owners possess "property" subject to takings protection? - is often a tripwire for plaintiffs. But not here. Now before we get into this part of the opinion, you'd think that the answer to "does the plaintiff own 'property?'" question would be obvious. Does the plaintiff own a property that she is renting out for less than 30 days? If so, there you go. But the city argued that the property interest was the right to continue to operate STR's, and that "the Homeowners have no vested right to a particular use of their property." Slip op. at 29.

The court rejected the argument, and even though "a property owner generally has no vested right to use his property is a certain way without restriction ... the Homeowners do have a property interest in the properties themselves." Slip op. at 29 (citations omitted). In short, property ownership comes with the vested right to use it, rent it, live in it, and that kind of thing:

Because the Homeowners have a vested property interest in the properties themselves and claim that the City has unreasonably interfered with their rights to use and enjoy their properties by passing the STR Ordinance, we conclude that they have identified a property right sufficient at this stage to allege a regulatory-takings claim. We further note the unremarkable and well-established notion that private-property ownership is a fundamental right, see Hearts Bluff, 381 S.W.3d at 476, that embraces such “essential attributes” as “the right to use, lease[,] and dispose of it for lawful purposes[.]” 

Slip op. at 30-31 (quoting Terrace v. Thompson, 263 U.S. 197, 215 (1923)).

Let's get that again: ownership of the property comes with the "fundamental" right to rent it. No need to show more, such as a "vested" right under state law. That should be an unremarkable proposition. But to many courts, it isn't.

The court also summarily rejected the city's claim that the STR ordinance wasn't the cause of any taking. The city recycled the argument that the STR ordinance didn't really do anything because the city's existing zoning ordinance already banned STR's because it didn't expressly allow them. Slip op. at 32 ("The Homeowners respond that this argument fails because the Zoning Ordinance allowed 'leasing unrestricted by duration.' We agree, having concluded above that the Zoning Ordinance permitted STRs.").

Having established that the plaintiffs possess "property," the court considered the Texas takings claim. Texas takings law incorporates the Penn Central test.

• Economic impact. "[L]ost profits are a relevant factor to consider in assessing the property's value and the severity of the economic impact on a property owner." Slip op. at 33. The fact that owners may rent their properties for more than 30 days and that their properties' value has increased since time of purchase are not controlling. "[T]he Homeowners did not base their economic-impact allegations on decreased market value." Slip op. at 34. Instead, they asserted the ordinance prevents them from participating in the STR market. The owners not only pleaded this sufficiently, in response to the city's motion for summary judgment, they introduced actual evidence of economic impact (an appraiser who testified that over a 10-year period, "the combine potential gross-rental difference between typical market rents for long-term versus short-term leases for the Homeowners' properties exceeded $4.2 million." Slip op. at 34.
• Distinct investment-backed expectations. "[A] property's existing and permitted uses constitute the affected property owner's 'primary expectation.'" Slip op. at 35 (citation omitted). This includes historic uses, "regulations at the time of purchase," as well as knowledge of these existing regulations. 
• Character of the government action. What "character of the government action?" The opinion doesn't address this Penn Central factor at all. To that we say good (take a gander at this (starting at page 1153) if you want to know why we say so).

On the remaining the claims, the court agreed with the city only on one: that state law did not preempt the city's ordinance. See slip op. at 38-41. (If you are a Texas muni law maven, you may want to check out this part of the opinion.)

The entire opinion is worth reading. Especially the part with the court's analysis of the owners' "due course of law" claim:

Nevertheless, although the Homeowners do not have a vested right arising under the Zoning Ordinance to use their properties as STRs, we conclude that they have a fundamental leasing right arising from their property ownership. Private property ownership is a fundamental right. Hearts Bluff, 381 S.W.3d at 476 (citing Severance v. Patterson, 370 S.W.3d 705, 709 (Tex. 2012) (op. on reh’g)); Severance, 370 S.W.3d at 709 (“Private property rights have been described ‘as fundamental, natural, inherent, inalienable, not derived from the legislature[,] and as pre-existing even constitutions.’” (quoting Eggemeyer v. Eggemeyer, 554 S.W.2d 137, 140 (Tex. 1977))). Property ownership includes the right to lease to others. See Calcasieu Lumber Co. v. Harris, 13 S.W. 453, 454 (Tex. 1890) (“The ownership of land, when the estate is a fee, carries with it the right to use the land in any manner not hurtful to others; and the right to lease it to others, and therefore derive profit, is an incident of such ownership.”); see also Terrace, 263 U.S. at 215, 44 S. Ct. at 17–18 (noting that “essential attributes of property” include “the right to use, lease[,] and dispose of it for lawful purposes”). The right to lease is a stick within a property owner’s metaphorical bundle of rights. See Emily M. Speier, Comment, Embracing Airbnb: How Cities Can Champion Private Property Rights Without Compromising the Health and Welfare of the Community, 44 Pepp. L. Rev. 387, 395–97 (2017).

Given the nature of real-property rights, we conclude that the Homeowners have a vested right to lease their properties and that this right is sufficient to support a viable due-course-of law claim. Cf. Zaatari, 615 S.W.3d at 191 (concluding that, in analyzing retroactivity claim, property owners had a “settled interest” in their right to lease their properties short term and that the issue is not about the “property owners’ right to use their property in a certain way,” but about the owners “retaining their well-settled right to lease their property”); Vill. of Tiki Island, 463 S.W.3d at 587 (holding that, in analyzing whether an STR owner had proved an irreparable injury to a vested right necessary to support an order temporarily enjoining an ordinance banning STRs, STR owner had a narrow vested right to continue operating existing STR after city passed ordinance banning STRs but grandfathering in existing STRs).

Slip op. at 47-48.

While it is not a final, definitive ruling concluding the ordinance is a taking, the opinion rejects the city's argument that the claim cannot be presented to the trier of fact. And that's okay, because living to fight another day is a victory in most takings cases, this one included.

City of Grapevine v. Muns, No. 02-19-00257-CV (Tex. App. Dec. 23, 2021)

New Article: "Takings, PASH, and the Changing Coastal Environment," 43 U. Haw. L. Rev. 525 (2021)

Back in February, we were honored to be part of the University of Hawaii Law Review's symposium "25 Years of PASH," a retrospective of one of the Hawaii Supreme Court's most famous (or infamous) decisions, Pub. Access Shoreline Haw. v. Haw. Cnty. Plan. Comm’n, 79 Haw. 425, 903 P.2d 1246 (1993), cert. denied sub nom., Nansay Haw. v. Pub. Access Shoreline Haw., 517 U.S. 1163 (1996) (PASH).

At the conference, we spoke on the panel about "PASH and the Changing Coastal Environment" (see video here at the 2:02:25 mark if you want to watch our panel's summations). The Law Review has now published the symposium, and here's our contribution, Takings PASH and the Changing Coastal Environment, 43 U. Haw. L. Rev. 525 (2021).

For those of you not totally tuned in, in the PASH case the Hawaii Supreme Court concluded that subject to certain qualifications, the Hawaii Constitution allows native Hawaiians to exercise traditional practices, even on private property, and that "[o]ur examination of the relevant legal developments in Hawaiian history leads us to the conclusion that the western concept of exclusivity is not universally applicable in Hawaii." Yes, the right to exclude is not "universally applicable" in the 808. Let that one sink in. (The U.S. Supreme Court denied the takings cert petition.)

Here's our piece's Introduction:

The topic of this portion of the Symposium is “Takings and the Changing Coastal Environment” and in this comment I focus on the “takings” part of that title, as well as offer some thoughts on our guiding subject, the Hawai‘i Supreme Court’s decision from a quarter-century ago in PASH, which most famously noted “that the western concept of exclusivity is not universally applicable in Hawaii.” How might this statement be considered today through the lens of property law and property rights, especially if we account for the changes in the U.S. Supreme Court’s approach to takings in the time since PASH was decided? And what implications does PASH have, if any, for property rights in the coastal zone?

This comment is in three parts. Section I summarizes the PASH opinion, and concludes that the jurisdictional questions presented in the case should have resolved the case, and the court should have avoided the takings questions, and the court reached out to resolve an issue it need not have. Next, Sections II, II, and IV offer up my three main criticisms of PASH, the first on the court’s seemingly incomplete view of how Hawai‘i property law treated the right to exclude, the second on whether defining “property” for purposes of federal takings analysis is only a matter of state law, and the third on separation of powers. Finally, Section V concludes with some thoughts about how courts should consider property rights in a changing coastal environment in light of these criticisms of PASH.

Check out the symposium issue, which has similar articles from a variety of perspectives.

Takings, PASH, and the Changing Coastal Environment, 43 U Haw L Rev 525 (2021)

Fed Cir Tries To Avoid "Police Power" Takings Exception In Bump Stock Case By (Unsuccessfully) Finessing The Property Interest

As we've said before, you don't need to know much about takings doctrine to understand that a challenge wherein the property alleged to have been taken are "bump stocks" -- devices that allow rapid activation of a semi-automatic rifle such that it roughly imitates a fully-automatic weapon -- to understand that courts may be inherently reluctant to limit the government's authority to regulate their use and ownership even to the point of outlawing it. There's a long judicial history of courts not getting in the way when it comes to the other branches' response to the problem du jour. The judicial reluctance many not be rational, it may not be doctrinally consistent. But, in our view, it just is, and that's something that owners of such property and those of us who seek doctrinal clarity have to take into account.  

Here's the latest in a case we've been following, that in our opinion could be Exhibit "A" proving the notion that courts are unwilling to limit the power of government in these type of situations (where something has become toxic) -- either directly, by curbing its regulatory power or indirectly through the just compensation requirement -- that they put themselves through a lot of analytic twists and turns to avoid doing so. 

In McCutchen v United States, No. 20-1188 (Oct. 1, 2021), the Federal Circuit did what you might expect: it affirmed the Court of Federal Claims' dismissal of the plaintiffs' complaint which seeks just compensation for the taking of their (now-outlawed) bump stocks. We criticized the CFC's rationale that the reason the bump stock ban was not a taking was because it was a valid "police power" safety measure (putting aside for the moment that the feds don't have what you'd call a "police power" of course): the CFC "simply repeated the trope that the ban was a valid exercise of the government's regulatory power (which, we think was not really a question), and thus no taking." As we've noted before, this analysis is very unsatisfying. A takings claim like this doesn't challenge the validity of the ban (Lingle, anyone?), but instead says "if you are going to ban these things, the pubic needs to provide compensation."

The Federal Circuit avoided the CFC's erroneous analysis, claiming to go a different way: "[w]e affirm, but we do so on a threshold ground different from, though related to, the Claims Court’s grounds." Slip op. at 4. That's a good thing, because unlike many courts, some are beginning to get the idea that just because a regulation is imposed for an arguably valid police power reason (or other proper regulatory justification in the case of federal restrictions), does not insulate it from takings review. Indeed it is the first step in the takings analysis not the last. See this Fourth Circuit decision, for example, where the court concluded "[t]hat Government actions taken pursuant to the police power are not per se exempt from the Takings Clause is axiomatic in the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence." Good for the Federal and Fourth Circuits.

So how did the Federal Circuit get to the no-takings result, without going down the same (wrong) path the CFC traveled? It looked at the property interest alleged, and concluded that the owners of bump stocks were already subject to existing federal regulations that prohibit machineguns, and that the new prohibition on bump stocks is simply a new agency interpretation of the long-standing rule.

Congress has banned "machineguns" since 1934, in a statute that also defined what a machinegun is. That definition remained the same until 1986, when Congress amended it to include "any part ... for use in converting a weapon" into a device that shoots more than a single round with a single pull of the trigger. The AG has the authority to promulgate rules and regulations enforcing this provision. And that's what happened here, the Federal Circuit concluded.

The regulations being challenged define a bump stocks as a device or part that allows someone to shoot multiple rounds with a single trigger pull. The court also noted that the AG's interpretation changed over time, and in the past -- between 2008 and 2017 -- had excluded bump stocks from the machinegun definition. See slip op. at 9. But after the Las Vegas massacre in which the shooter used a bump stock, the AG "clarified" that bump stocks are, in the government's view, machineguns. The Federal Circuit focused on this as the key. Thus, this wasn't some new rule outlawing bump stocks, but a "pre-existing law circumstance" (slip op. at 15) -- merely an enforcement of the longstanding prohibition of machineguns.

The court first pointed out it was avoiding the hard question:

We do not reach the grounds on which the Claims Court relied. In particular, we do not decide under what circumstances a measure that newly bars possession of personal property (as opposed to restricting a use of property) and that serves a “police power” purpose (and is constitutionally authorized for the federal government) is not a “taking,” and thus requires no compensation. Nor do we decide whether mandating permanent dispossession by ordering destruction of personal property cannot be a “physical taking,” even if the government-specified alternative to destruction is surrender to the government and the mandate is backed by government remedies of seizure and forfeiture for a willful violation as well as criminal remedies for a knowing violation.

Slip op. at 13-14 (footnote omitted).

To do so, the court engaged in what we see as a clever sleight-of-hand, something that occurs frequently in takings cases by determining the property interest involved never included the right to make the now-barred use: courts frequently avoid addressing the Armstrong principle by narrowing the scope of the property interest claimed to be taken. Here, the Federal Circuit concluded that although the bump stock owners unquestionably possessed property as defined by state law, the longstanding federal regulation of that property was a background principle that inhered in the title to these things. See slip op. at 17 ("And valid preexisting federal-law limitations on what otherwise would be state-law property rights are among the limitations that may inhere in title so as to limit compensable property rights.").

In short, the owners of the bump stocks never had the right to keep and transfer them:

In this case, the federal-law prohibition on possession and transfer, together with a congressional grant of implementation authority, predated the existence, let alone plaintiffs’ possession, of the bump-stock-type devices that plaintiffs were compelled to destroy or surrender. That prohibition is a very specific one, defined in terms of the physical operation of particular devices, not in terms simply of a broadly stated goal. The latter situation raises issues not presented here.

Slip op. at 18 (footnote omitted).

But wait...weren't these things ok before the AG reimagined the regulations to include them in the definition of machinegun? That's where the court got creative. The sleight-of-hand we referred to above starts on pages 18 and 19, where the court rejected what at first glance might have been the property owners' most compelling argument -- that the AG's latest interpretation was a "new" prohibition because in the past it had a differing view of whether bump stocks qualifed as machineguns.

The Federal Circuit was able to avoid that argument by concluding the owners conceded the point when they acknowledged the AG's new interpretation is a "legally valid interpretation of the statutory prohibition[.]" Slip op. at 18. But we're guessing that isn't quite what the owners conceded, as it seems more likely that they merely acknowledged that they were not challenging the validity of the current prohibition, something that Federal Circuit doctrine requires them do in order to bring a takings claim in the CFC. A challenge to the validity of the prohibition is either an APA or a due process challenge, and those belong in a district court not the CFC (where jurisdiction is limited by the Tucker Act to money claims). In short, because of the split jurisdiction between the CFC and the district courts, you cannot raise both a challenge to the validity of the action and a takings claim.

But the court took that concession as also acknowledging the limitation of the challenged regulation on the owner's property rights, which to us seems like bootstrap logic. If the Federal Circuit's approach to the owner's "concession" is universally applied, it would result in a property owner acknowledging the validity of the regulation challenged as a taking as a ticket to the takings claim, but at the same time conceding that the challenged regulation is a background principle, wiping out the claimed property right.

We think the heart of the Federal Circuit's rationale that starts of page 20 of the slip opinion for why the AG was not truly switching gears and implementing a "new" prohibition, but rather was merely returning interpretation of the machinegun prohibition to where it had always been is a real exercise in the metaphysics of Chevron deference. The AG's most recent take on the definition of machinegun might or might not be the "best interpretation" of the statute's meaning, but the statute itself has always been clear, according to the court. See slip op. at 20 ("In either event, the preexisting statute itself, properly understood, barred the possession or transfer at issue. In these circumstances, the bar always limited plaintiffs’ title, and plaintiffs never had a property right against government assertion of the duty to destroy the devices at issue or surrender them.").

Or, the court alternatively concluded, even if the statute was not clear, the owners' property rights were always subject to the government changing its mind on including bump stocks in the definition of machinegun:

For plaintiffs here, the preexisting limitation on their title included subjection to future valid agency interpretations of the possession-and-transfer prohibition (as assumed here) adopted in the exercise of that authority. In these circumstances, plaintiffs had no property interest protected by the compensation requirement of the Takings Clause against such a valid interpretation when adopted.

Slip op. at 21. In short, where a statutory term might be ambiguous (and what statute isn't, we ask?), the owner's property rights must account for the ambiguity by applying Chevron deference. Slip op. at 21 ("By 1986, the Supreme Court’s 1984 decision in Chevron already made clear that the law, for a statute like 18 U.S.C. § 922(o), included the possibility of reasonable resolutions of ambiguities").

Property rights are shaped by Chevron? Holy cow, that's a new one; or perhaps just way of backing into the old claim that property rights are limited by "highly regulated" markets.

Having concluded that the bump stock owners' property interests did not include the right to be free of regulation that might outlaw the property, the court easily concluded that there was no taking. No "property," no need to even evaluate the physical deprivation or even a Penn Central claim.

To us, despite the court's claim to have avoided the CFC's rationale that a valid-police-power-regulation-is-not-a-taking, it pretty much undertakes the same analytical approach. But the Federal Circuit dresses it up better. After all, if the prohibition being challenged is part of the property's "background principles," what is left of the property itself other than the very Hobbesian notion that the state defines an owner's expectations at will? Here, the Federal Circuit endorses that idea when it concluded that despite the AG expressly excluding bump stocks from the definition of machinegun between 2008 and 2017, the AG had also put the owners on notice in the ATF Handbook where it reserved the right to change its mind. See slip op. at 23 ("Nevertheless, classifications are subject to change if later determined to be erroneous or impacted by subsequent changes in the law or regulations"). Here, the law or regulations didn't change, but the circumstances did.

In short, the official word of the the government is good...until it isn't. Proceed at your own risk.

Are we surprised by the result in the Federal Circuit? No. Are we just a little bit disappointed that the court went about it this way? Yeah, just a little.

McCutchen v. United States, No. 20-1188 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 1, 2021)

Registration Open Now: ALI-CLE Eminent Domain & Land Valuation Litigation Conference, Jan 26-29, 2022, Scottsdale

All the topics you want to know about, presented by top-notch faculty from across the nation. Sessions include:

• Keynote: Do Animals Have Property Rights?
• Did the Supreme Court Signal a New Direction in Property Rights in Cedar Point Nursery?
• Maximizing Relocation Benefits: Understanding the Law and Regulations to Ensure Fairness
• Challenging Public Use: Lessons From a 67-Day Trial
• COVID Takings
• Property Rights as Civil Rights
• Eminent Domain National Update
• Federal Court and the Daubert Challenge: How to Prepare
• How to Position Your Client for the Fallout When Projects Don't Get Built
• Rural Broadband and the Emerging Constitutional Challenges
• Are Precondemnation Entry Statutes Still Valid After Cedar Point Nursery?
• How Condemnor and Property Owners' Counsel Prepare the Battlefield
• How Will the Trillion Dollar Infrastructure Bill Impact Your Practice?
• Ethics
• ...and more, including a full slate of networking and social events!

We've sold out the last few years, so don't miss out. Room block now taking reservations. Registration and agenda information here.

Join us in Scottsdale in January!

11th Circuit Affirms Penn Central Jury Verdict For Rezoning Resulting In 86% Loss Of Value

More good takings news, hot off the press.

Before Cedar Point came down last week, we were all set to let you know about the Eleventh Circuit's opinion in South Grande View Dev. Co., Inc. v City of Alabaster, No. 18-14044 (June 21, 2021), in which the court affirmed a jury verdict that the city's reduction in the developable density on residential-zoned parcel (from R-7 and R-4) to R-2) was a Penn Central regulatory taking. 

The city appealed on an evidentiary issue, arguing that the jury should not have heard evidence of its reasons for downzoning the property, which were not relevant to the takings question and only went to whether the government acted arbitrarily and capriciously (a due process inquiry). The city also raised a ripeness question: the owner had not sought a variance from application of the new zoning, and indeed had never asked the city to apply the R-2 zoning to the property. 

The Eleventh Circuit rejected both arguments.

First, the city had made a final decision applying the R-2 zoning to the property:

• "[O]ur binding precedent holds that a zoning ordinance can itself be a final decision on the merits." Slip op. at 11.
• The rezoning only applied to South Grande's property, and no other. Unlike the rezoning in Williamson County, which applied to a wide swath of properties, this one was specifically targeted at South Grande. Thus, "there was no ambiguity as to how a general plan would be applied to a specific project—the zoning ordinance itself was the City’s final decision on the matter." Slip op. at 14.

Second, the court agreed that evidence of the city's motive for the downzoning was not relevant to the takings issue, but that the jury hearing this irrelevant evidence was harmless error. The owner introduced evidence of the city's motive, arguing it was part of the "character of the government action" Penn Central factor. Slip op. at 21. But Lingle, the court concluded, made that evidence only relevant to a due process inquiry and not to takings. See slip op. at 22-23 ("The Lingle court explicitly rejected the argument that the Penn Central factor of the “character of government action” addressed the purpose of the regulation[.]"). But no harm, no foul, and this was "not reversible error." Id. at 25-26.

Verdict affirmed. The reason the error was harmless (and here's the really important part of the opinion, in our opinion), was because "substantial, permissible evidence produced at trial supports the jury's [Penn Central] verdict." Slip op. at 26.

That evidence:

• Developing the parcels for just residences per acre was not economically feasible.
• The owner spent a "significant sum of money preparing the property for R-4 homes." Slip op. at 24.
• Neither the parties nor the court looked at whether the owner's rights had "vested" under Alabama law. In other words, Penn Central does not turn on a race to vest.
• The owner also testified that it "did not finish" developing the properties because of a market downturn "and they were going to wait until after the recession to continue developing." Slip op. at 8.
• The owner's purchase price and the amount later spent to develop the property counted towards its investment-backed expectations. Slip op. at 8.
• The before value of the property: $3.52 million. The after value: $500k. An 86% decline due to the regulation. Whether this qualified as a substantial loss was left to the jury, and the court did not apply the (wrong) rule that courts often do and conclude that although 86% is significant, it isn't enough.

In closing, the court noted that the city didn't put on contrary evidence of value, and that it only challenged the owner's valuation evidence "for the first time on appeal." Thus, the city had forfeited those arguments and the court did not consider them. 

Definitely check out this opinion and the facts. There's some gems there.

South Grande View Dev. Co., Inc. v. City of Alabaster, No. 18-14044 (11th Cir. June 21, 2021)

New Article: "Takings, PASH, and The Changing Coastal Environment" (U. Haw. L. Rev., forthcoming)

Back in February, we were honored to be part of the University of Hawaii Law Review's symposium "25 Years of PASH," a retrospective of one of the Hawaii Supreme Court's most famous (or infamous) decisions, Pub. Access Shoreline Haw. v. Haw. Cnty. Plan. Comm’n, 79 Haw. 425, 903 P.2d 1246 (1993), cert. denied sub nom., Nansay Haw. v. Pub. Access Shoreline Haw., 517 U.S. 1163 (1996) (PASH). 

At the conference, we spoke on the panel about "PASH and the Changing Coastal Environment" (see video here at the 2:02:25 mark if you want to watch our panel's summations).

The speakers also produced short written comments for the Law Review's upcoming issue, and ours is finally in a shape where we think it is OK for public consumption, so we've posted it on SSRN here (or you can download the pdf "Takings, PASH, and the Changing Coastal Environment").

For those of you not totally tuned in, in the PASH case the Hawaii Supreme Court concluded that subject to certain qualifications, the Hawaii Constitution allows native Hawaiians to exercise traditional practices, even on private property, and that "[o]ur examination of the relevant legal developments in Hawaiian history leads us to the conclusion that the western concept of exclusivity is not universally applicable in Hawaii." Yes, the right to exclude is not "universally applicable" in the 808. Let that one sink in. (The U.S. Supreme Court denied the takings cert petition.)

From the Introduction:

The topic of this portion of the Symposium is “Takings and the Changing Coastal Environment” and in this comment I focus on the “takings” part of that title, as well as offer some thoughts on our guiding subject, the Hawai‘i Supreme Court’s decision from a quarter-century ago in PASH, which most famously noted “that the western concept of exclusivity is not universally applicable in Hawaii.” How might this statement be considered today through the lens of property law and property rights, especially if we account for the changes in the U.S. Supreme Court’s approach to takings in the time since PASH was decided? And what implications does PASH have, if any, for property rights in the coastal zone?

This comment is in three parts. Section I summarizes the PASH opinion, and concludes that the jurisdictional questions presented in the case should have resolved the case, and the court should have avoided the takings questions, and the court reached out to resolve an issue it need not have. Next, Sections II, II, and IV offer up my three main criticisms of PASH, the first on the court’s seemingly incomplete view of how Hawai‘i property law treated the right to exclude, the second on whether defining “property” for purposes of federal takings analysis is only a matter of state law, and the third on separation of powers. Finally, Section V concludes with some thoughts about how courts should consider property rights in a changing coastal environment in light of these criticisms of PASH.

The entire symposium issue should be pretty worthwhile reading, if the conference itself is any indication. Good stuff.

CA4: No Facial Penn Central Taking By Development Moratoria

Regulatory takings challenges are no doubt tough. Especially Penn Central regulatory takings challenges. Facial Penn Central regulatory takings claims, moreso.

The U.S. Court of Appeals' opinion in Clayland Farm Ents, LLC v. Talbot County, No. 19-2102 (Feb. 9, 2021) - the latest in this case we've been following - proves the point. The court affirmed the district court's summary judgment on the property owner's takings, due process, and civil conspiracy claims.

The property owner brought its claims in Maryland state court claiming, among other things, that the County's two indefinite moratoria on development and sewer availability -- which prohibited owners from seeking or obtaining County subdivision -- was a facial taking:

Clayland’s appellate briefing asserts that Bill Nos. 1214, 1257, and 1229 constitute a facial regulatory taking under both federal and state law. Bill No. 1214 temporarily reduced the permissible density of VC-zoned properties from four units per acre to one unit per two acres and prohibited new subdivision of any existing VC-zoned parcel into more than one additional lot. Bill No. 1257 extended these restrictions until the adoption of a new comprehensive plan. Bill No. 1229 separately implemented a tier map.

Slip op. at 11. The complaint sought declaratory and injunctive relief (although we're not quite sure from the opinion whether it also included a claim for compensation).

The case didn't present a Lucas economic wipeout situation, and the court of appeals therefore applied the daunting Penn Central analysis:

• Economic impact: even with application of the regulation, the property retained value (which, we assume for purposes of our review here, was a reflection of the remaining uses of the property) of nearly $2 million, a 40% diminution because of the regulations. Not enough, according to the court: "And yet this Court has found that a hypothetical 83 percent diminution in value was insufficient to establish a regulatory taking." Slip op. at 12. And, the regs didn't wipe out all uses (just the most beneficial use: "Further, the Property retained valuable, expressly permitted uses under Bill Nos. 1214 and 1257." Slip op. at 12).
• RIBE: Here, the court's analysis gets into that Inception-like dream-within-a-dream "property" loop that asks "what is the 'property' alleged to be taken?" Here, the owners asserted it was the land itself or at least the right to develop and use the land. The court consequently made short work of the argument, concluding as a matter of law that because "Clayland had not affected preexisting development rights in relation to the Property" (under Maryland law), slip op. at 13, it didn't possess reasonable investment-backed expectations. According to the court, no vested right to develop (a permit, for example), no property right, no RIBE: "But Clayland never obtained a permit, began construction, or took any action on any other development to which it now claims entitlement. Clayland could not reasonably expect that its zoning designation would remain unchanged in perpetuity." Slip op. at 13-14. The owner was simply relying on the existing state of the law, according to the court. And we know where that gets you.
• Character: this was regulation, not an action that resulted in something that reminded the Fourth Circuit of a taking by eminent domain. Slip op. at 14. Moratoria have been "expressly approved" by the Supreme Court. Slip op. at 15 (yes, citing Tahoe-Sierra). These moratoria were long (6 years), but that alone isn't enough.

The opinion also considered and rejected the due process claim because the owner did not possess a property interest. Same analysis under RIBE, above. And even if it did, the regulations are not arbitrary and capricious. The rational basis test strikes again.

Clayland Farm Ents., LLC v. Talbot County, No. 19-2102 (4th Cir. Feb. 9, 2021)

Still Time To Join Us: ALI-CLE Eminent Domain & Land Valuation Litigation Conference (Online!) This Thursday & Friday. Tuition Deals! #EminentDomain2021

Yes, it starts tomorrow, Thursday, January 28, 2021, but we're "remote" this year, so it is not too late to register to join us for the 38th Annual ALI-CLE Eminent Domain & Land Valuation Litigation Conference. This is the "big one" where the nation's best practitioners, scholars, jurists, and other industry professionals gather to talk shop about the subjects we know and love.

Details here (ALI-CLE's page with faculty, agenda, and times), or here (a recent episode of Clint Schumacher's Eminent Domain Podcast, where we preview the Conference). Here's your chance to be a part of what is the best conference on these topics.

We have set it up to take advantage of the remote format, and tuition has been reduced (thank you to ALI-CLE for recognizing this, and for our sponsors for being so generous). We're seeing a lot of first-time registrations, and this is a great opportunity to give us a test drive if you've always thought about attending, but never wanted to spend 4 days away from the office to do so.

A long-timer coming back? Look for the special deal which includes a discount on the 2022 conference.

We're having programs with intriguing subjects such as "Planning to Win: Practical Strategies for a Successful Inverse Condemnation Case," "How Do I Keep My Firm’s Doors Open When the Courthouse Doors Are Closed? Making Your Practice More Efficient When You Can’t Try Cases," "Where Is the Supreme Court Headed on Takings Cases? Regulatory Takings Update and Cedar Point Preview," "No Show and All Tell: Breaking News in Property Rights and Takings," "More Than the Fifth Amendment: Other Tools for Upholding Property Rights," and "Evaluating Lockdown, Moratorium, and Emergency Claims."

PASH Bash: U. Hawaii Law Review Symposium - "25 Years of PASH" (Feb. 5, 2021)

Mention the term "PASH" to any dirt lawyer in the 50th State, and they'll nod in understanding. It's an 808 shibboleth -- a kind of local property password -- that signals that you've been around the block and know your stuff.

On one hand, it is simply an acronym for Public Access Shoreline Hawaii, the plaintiff/petitioner in the (in)famous case Public Access Shoreline Hawaii v. Hawaii Cnty. Planning Comm'n, 903 P.2d 1246 (Haw. 1995). On the other, however, it has evolved into shorthand for a number of things: from the technically accurate - native Hawaiian customary and traditional rights and practices under the Hawaii Constitution ("I was chasing a pua'a on private property, so I cannot be convicted of trespass because I was exercising my PASH rights"); to generically and cheekily - the ability to access the beach and shoreline ("Surf's up today, let's go practice some PASH rights!"); and with irony - judicial activism ("The Supreme Court sure PASH'ed that case!").

For those of you not totally tuned in, in the PASH case the Hawaii Supreme Court concluded that subject to certain qualifications, the Hawaii Constitution allows native Hawaiians to exercise traditional practices, even on private property, and that "[o]ur examination of the relevant legal developments in Hawaiian history leads us to the conclusion that the western concept of exclusivity is not universally applicable in Hawaii." Yes, the right to exclude is not "universally applicable" in the 808. Let that one sink in. (The U.S. Supreme Court denied the takings cert petition.)

Soon after PASH, the Hawaii Supreme Court held that this right only applied on less-than-developed land. Why, the court has never really told us. After all, the right as set out in the text of the Hawaii Constitution doesn't distinguish between developed and undeveloped land, and as far as we can tell, neither did Hawaiian custom and practice. Maybe the court realized that the practical implications of a strict application of PASH in the absence of such a judicially-created limitation were enormous. We're not sure.

Who'd have thought that it has been a quarter century since the decision came out? (Probably not the editors of the University of Hawaii Law Review, many of whom, we'd imagine, were keiki at the time; but we digress.) But it has. But no matter, PASH rights have been a part of the conversation for more than two decades.

In February, the Law Review is putting together a retrospective and is devoting an issue of the upcoming volume to a discussion of the PASH case and how the last 25 years have gone.

We're going to be a part of the (online) Symposium on February 5, 2021, speaking about "Takings and the Changing Coastal Environment" (11am - 1pm Hawaii Time). We'll be joined by Colin Lee (a UH student who has authored an intriguing piece on PASH), Sam Lemmo (Admistrator of the State of Hawaii Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands), and Bill Wynhoff (Supervising Deputy AG, who in our opinion, is the most knowledgeable career public-service lawyer on these issues). Our discussion is sure to be lively, and will be moderated by UH lawprof David Callies.

Register for the entire program here (no cost). Our Damon Key colleague Mark M. Murakami is presenting on "The Proper Role of the Court: Restoring Justice Through the Public Trust Doctrine." The entire program is worth attending.

We hope you sign up, whether you are an old hand at PASH or a newcomer.

U. Haw. L. Rev. Symposium: 25 Years of PASH (Feb. 5, 2021)

 

Your 2021 ALI-CLE Eminent Domain & Land Valuation Litigation Conference (Jan 28-29, Remote) BINGO Card

If you "get" this, you should be registered for the 38th Annual Eminent Domain & Land Valuation Litigation Conference, to be held remotely on Thursday and Friday, January 28-29, 2021.

The list is growing rapidly, and you need to join us!

This is the "big one" where the nation's best practitioners, scholars, jurists, and other industry professionals gather to talk shop about the subjects we know and love. We're having programs with intriguing subjects such as "Planning to Win: Practical Strategies for a Successful Inverse Condemnation Case," "How Do I Keep My Firm’s Doors Open When the Courthouse Doors Are Closed? Making Your Practice More Efficient When You Can’t Try Cases," "Where Is the Supreme Court Headed on Takings Cases? Regulatory Takings Update and Cedar Point Preview," "No Show and All Tell: Breaking News in Property Rights and Takings," "More Than the Fifth Amendment: Other Tools for Upholding Property Rights," and "Evaluating Lockdown, Moratorium, and Emergency Claims."

Details here (ALI-CLE's page with faculty, agenda, and times), or here (the latest episode of Clint Schumacher's Eminent Domain Podcast, where we preview the Conference). Here's your chance to be a part of what is the best conference on these topics.

Always wanted to join in, but didn't like the travel? Here's your chance to try us out with reduced tuition. A long-timer coming back? Look for the special deal which includes a discount on the 2022 conference.

Eminent Domain Podcast's Preview Of The Upcoming ALI-CLE Eminent Domain & Land Valuation Litigation Conference

Our thanks to Clint Schumacher for having us on his program to talk about the upcoming Conference. We're "remote" this year, but that means a different approach to our presentations (and a very modest tuition!).

We're having programs with intriguing subjects such as "Planning to Win: Practical Strategies for a Successful Inverse Condemnation Case," "How Do I Keep My Firm’s Doors Open When the Courthouse Doors Are Closed? Making Your Practice More Efficient When You Can’t Try Cases," "Where Is the Supreme Court Headed on Takings Cases? Regulatory Takings Update and Cedar Point Preview," "No Show and All Tell: Breaking News in Property Rights and Takings," "More Than the Fifth Amendment: Other Tools for Upholding Property Rights," "Evaluating Lockdown, Moratorium, and Emergency Claims," and more (including Ethics for those of you in MCLE jurisdictions). We'll have a post with more details. 

Register now!

Florida: You Can't Unintentionally Abandon A Nonconforming Use

The Town of Fort Myers Beach, Florida, barred the sale of alcohol on beaches in 1995. Turns out that a beachfront business was already (legally) selling alcohol on its property at the time of the ban. And we know what that usually means: a grandfathered nonconforming use.

Today's case from the Florida District Court of Appeal (Second District), Persaud Properties FL Investments, LLC v. Town of Fort Meyers Beach, No. 2D19-1282 (Dec. 11, 2020), is at the intersection of two of our favorite subjects, land use and inverse condemnation.

No one questioned whether Persaud possessed a nonconforming use. The issue was whether it had it abandoned it when it closed the establishment "to begin extensive renovations."

The Town was well aware of the renovations as various construction permits had to be issued and inspections had to occur; additionally, during the renovation period, multiple stop-work orders were issued by the Town. Upon completion of the renovations in October 2015, Persaud sought the necessary approval to reopen and begin selling alcohol on the premises, including in the EC zone. During the one-year period of closure and at the request of Persaud, the property's liquor license had been held in escrow or "inactive status" by the Department of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, a fact which had been known to the Town and which was important to a Town planner for purposes of the abandonment issue.

Slip op. at 2-3.

No-go, said the Town, you abandoned.

Persaud sued for a taking, among other claims, but the trial court granted the Town summary judgment, concluding Persaud had abandoned the nonconforming use by non-use, and that it did not, therefore, possess property that was taken.

The court of appeal reversed. Reading the Town's land development code's definition of abandonment to mean non-use of the location for nine straight months, the court held that an owner must intentionally cease the use:

Strictly construing the Town's ordinance in favor of the property owner, as we must, abandonment of a nonconforming use requires more than the passage of nine months while the property was closed for renovations; it requires voluntary cessation of the nonconforming use with the intent that the cessation of such use be permanent. The trial court erred in failing to apply the common law and in determining, as a matter of law, that Persaud had abandoned the nonconforming use of its property where there was no evidence that Persaud intended to discontinue selling alcohol in the EC zone.

Persaud did not abandon or discontinue the nonconforming use of the
property during the one-year period of closure where renovations and construction were ongoing. Persaud is therefore entitled, under the applicable provisions of the Town's municipal code, to maintain the property's status as a grandfathered nonconforming use.

Slip op. at 9.

Persaud Properties FL Investments, LLC v. Town of Ft Myers Beach, No. 2D19-1282 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Dec. 1...

After Telling Owner To Beat It, Condemnor Acts Surprised That It Did. Cal Ct App: "Moving" From Property Does Not Mean "Completely Physically Dispossessed"

Go on, read the facts in the California Court of Appeal's (unpublished) opinion in San Joaquin Regional Transit District v. Superior Court, No. C084755 (Dec. 1, 2020). It's worth your time, believe us.

After chasing from California a long-standing manufacturing and service business (to Illinois) by instituting condemnation proceedings on the property on which its Stockton plant was located and then obtaining immediate possession, the District changed its mind and abandoned the taking. The owner sought damages under a statute (Cal. Code of Civ. P. § 1386.620).

The District argued that it was not liable for all damages proximately caused by the proceeding, because the owner had not "moved from the property."

Wait, you say, I thought you just told me that the condemnor obtained possession of the property? Yes, it did, in two phases. First, the District and the owner stipulated to possession of the property subject to the owner's temporary ability to occupy the front portion of the property (with payment of rent to the District) to allow it to wind down its operations and move to Illinois, and get out by June 2012. The owner had to vacate the unimproved rear portion a year earlier, by May 2011.

Sardee characterizes the back of the property as integral to the company’s operations for storage, truck turnaround, and housing dumpsters. According to Sardee, District’s right of possession destroyed any opportunity for the firm to expand its facilities, undertake larger and more complex jobs, and operate its business normally.

. . . .

After being contacted by District, Sardee reviewed its options and determined that quickly finding a build-to-suit site would not work. To complete the build-to-suit option without a transition facility, Sardee would have to shut down operations for five to six months, which would kill its business. Instead, Sardee decided to expand and upgrade Sardee Lisle to allow for the transition of Sardee Stockton’s work and  product lines to Sardee Lisle [in Illinois]. Sardee was aware of its duty to mitigate and aware of the disruption to its manufacturing business at Sardee Stockton the move would cause. Sardee management explored options for a new facility from 2009 through 2011.2 Ultimately, Sardee planned on moving the company to its Lisle facility on an interim basis.

Slip op. at 5.

In response to the owner's claim for damages, the District asserted that "move from the property" language requires that the owner be completely physically dispossessed of the property, and because the owner remained for a time on part of the property, the statute did not mandate payment of damages. The court of appeal rejected that construction:

We note section 1268.620 does not use the term “physically dispossessed,” it only states the party must “move[ ] from” the property. When interpreting a statute, the plain language of the statute governs. We give the words their usual and ordinary meaning. Absent ambiguity in the language, we presume the Legislature meant what they said. (Heidi S. v. David H. (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 1150, 1173.) The question becomes, did Sardee move from the property, not was Sardee completely physically dispossessed from the property.

District argues Sardee had not moved within the meaning of the statute “because it had exclusive rights to physically occupy the portion of the Property where it operated its Stockton facility, it did occupy the portion of the Property where it operated its Stockton facility, and it continuously operated its business there. As long as Sardee continued to operate its business on the Property, a fact confirmed by Sarovich’s April 20, 2012 email, there’s no basis for finding that it moved from the Property.”

The trial court disagreed, finding: “Sardee was physically dispossessed because [District] had taken physical possession of the northern portion of the parcel, and Sardee was paying rent to [District]. No taxes were being imposed by the County Tax Assessor. Further, Sardee had physically moved almost everything it needed to move from Stockton to Lisle to perform all of Sardee Stockton’s manufacturing operations in Lisle.

Slip op. at 13-14. The court of appeal agreed with the trial court's analysis.

This is an important case (and should be published) for at least a couple of reasons.

First, it rejects what is, in our view, a ridiculous argument for how "move" should be interpreted. After telling the owner that it better get lost (and the owner did so in a very practical way that mitigated damages), the condemnor abandoned the taking and then wanted to also abandon its obligation to make the owner whole for the trouble it caused. Yes, the owner didn't 100% actually move, but only because it agreed to pay rent to the District. Second, what about reliance? When a condemnor institutes eminent domain proceedings and then obtains possession before final judgment, how is a property owner supposed to react except by doing its best to try and comply?

As the court of appeal approvingly quoted the trial court:

“[District] made repeated declarations that it was not abandoning its action. [District] had its Order of Possession, Sardee had spent several years setting up the interim site in Lisle for Sardee Stockton’s manufacturing work, had located a relocation site in Stockton, and had moved equipment and begun carrying out Sardee Stockton’s manufacturing functions in Lisle. [District] had refused Sardee’s request for extra time to September 30, 2012. Sardee had to be out, and it affirmatively altered its position according to [District’s] representations and actions.”

Slip op. at 12.

The court agreed that "move" doesn't mean merely the thwarting of the owner's plans. Id. But it also concluded that when the owner actually moves, the statute means what it says.

San Joaquin Regional Transit District v. Superior Court, No. C084755 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 1, 2020) (unpub.)

Recording Now Available In Virginia Supreme Court Oral Arguments In Takings, Property, And Public Trust Case

We listened live last week, but the court has now made the recording available in Johnson v. City of Suffolk.

This is what we call the "oyster takings" case in which Nansemond River oystermen claim that their property was taken when the City of Suffolk and the Sanitation District dumped sewage into the river and declared a "condemnation zone" (i.e., no oyster harvesting).

This is a case at the intersection of property and takings law, and environmental protection. And the public trust concept of jus publicum. The oystermen own a lease from the State of Virginia for the riverbed, which among other things, allows them to harvest some of the oysters that Virginia is so well known for. But they were forced to bring an inverse condemnation claim in state court, asserting that the City's dumping of wastewater in the river -- and prohibiting the harvesting of oysters during those times -- was a taking under the Virginia Constitution's taking or damaging clause (article I, § 11).

Very interesting arguments that focused in large part on the "stick" question. What is the nature of the property right? Do the oystermen have a property right to useable, unpolluted oysters? Does the City have a duty to not put sewage into the river? Does it matter that the City lacks the power to condemn oysters by using its power of eminent domain. What is the effect of statutes which the Virginia General Assembly adopted after Darling, which limit the ability of municipalities to pollute? Virginia's inverse condemnation doctrine -- set out most recently in Livingston v. VDOT and AGCS Marine Ins. Co. v. Arlington County -- is also a big question.

Stay tuned.

Join Us: Tuesday, Nov. 10, 2020 (3pm ET, 12n PT) For Free (!) Webinar: "Shutdowns, Closures, Moratoria, and Bans"

Join us next Tuesday, November 10, 2020 at 3pm ET (12 noon Pacific) for the free webinar "Shutdowns, Closures, Moratoria, and Bans," produced by Pacific Legal Foundation and Owners' Counsel of America.

Along with my colleagues Leslie Fields (Executive Director, OCA), and Jim Burling (PLF), I'll be talking about the legal foundations for objections, some of the cases that have made their way to decision, and what the future might look like. To register (did I mention it was free?) go here.

Here's the program description:

Governors and state legislatures across the country have implemented an array of policies in an attempt to contain the virus and its socioeconomic impacts. Many of these policies broadened the scope of government power while placing a heavy burden on property owners and businesses already struggling with the pandemic.

Join representatives from Pacific Legal Foundation and Owners’ Counsel of America as they explore COVID-related policies and the legal challenges to them, including:

• The constitutionality of emergency eviction moratoria and lockdown orders restricting property and business owners
• The rights and legal status of property and business owners impacted by emergency orders
• Past, current, and upcoming litigation challenging these orders

We want to hear from you! Come prepared with your questions for our panelists. This is a public event. Please pass along this invitation to any colleagues that may be interested in this program.

As noted, in addition to presentations, we've reserved a lot of time for comments and questions, so bring those with you on Tuesday.

See you then, online!

Your Land Use/Takings Exam Hypo: Tex App Considers Nonconforming Uses, Vested Rights, Zoning, Admin Appeals, And Takings

This semester, we're teaching two courses at the William and Mary Law School: the usual Eminent Domain & Property Rights (our regularly-scheduled fall semester course), and Land Use. If we were to try and create a hypothetical for the final exam in either class, we couldn't do better than the actual fact pattern and arguments presented to the Texas Court of Appeals in City of Dickinson v. Stefan, No. 14-18-00778-CV (Oct. 27, 2020). That case involved a use of property alleged to have been started before the city adopted a zoning code, and claims of vested rights, "grandfathering," and related.

We won't recount the entire fact pattern here (we suggest reviewing the entire opinion yourself; it is a decent read), and only note that it covers a range of land use and takings topics, including the aforementioned nonconforming use arguments, exhaustion of admin remedies, and the like. In all honesty, the court's main holding -- that the property owner didn't exhaust administrative remedies -- isn't as interesting as the facts and allegations, but we still think it is worth a look.

The court's takings analysis starts on page 23 of the slip opinion, if you are interested. It's brief, but also concludes that the owner didn't exhaust his administrative remedies that might have yielded compensation. Apparently in Texas, an owner "must take advantage of statutory remedies that may moot the party’s takings claim, rather than institute a separate proceeding asserting such a claim." Slip op. at 23. Who knew?

City of Dickinson v. Stefan, No. 14-18-00778-CV (Tex. App. Oct. 27, 2020)

NM App: No Property In Impact Fee Gift Card

You know those times you go to the store and try to get a refund on something you've purchased, and instead of cash back, you get a gift card, only useable at the same store? Or when, instead of refunding your plane ticket, the airline gives you some limited-time credit for a future flight? Anyone like those?

Well, a fascinating case from the New Mexico Court of Appeals, Premier Trust of Nevada, Inc. v. City of Albuquerque, No. A-1-CA-34784 (Oct. 1, 2020) reminds us of the risks associated with these things.

Albuquerque has an impact fee ordinance which developers must pay to offset the costs of needed infrastructure such as roads, drainage, parks, and public safety facilities. To satisfy the exaction requirement, the property owner could either pay money, build the improvements, or give the city property. If the value of these exactions was more than the impact fees due, the developer would receive credits which could be used to pay for future impact fees, sold to others, or in some cases, exchanged with the city for cash. These credits have a shelf-life of seven years.

Premier either bought or was otherwise conveyed $2.3 million in these excess credits.

Later, however, the city apparently decided to ease things up: it repealed the ordinance and replaced it with a new law that reduced the impact fees, expanded the areas in town in which the credits could be used, and extended the time in which the credits could be used from seven to fifteen years. While that was good for those who wanted to develop their property, it wasn't so good for those, like the plaintiff, who held these excess credits. "Because fewer impact fees were assessed under the reduced impact fee rates in the 2012 Ordinance, the result of the 2012 Ordinance, according to Premier, has been a diminished demand for excess credits and a substantial reduction in the value of the credits it holds." Slip op. at 6. Takings (under the N.M. Constitution), and breach of contract lawsuit followed. The city's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim granted.

The N.M. Court of Appeals affirmed. The plaintiff didn't possess "property." The plaintiff still possessed all of the "sticks" associated with owning impact fee credits (use, sell, convey, etc.), they just were not worth as much as under the prior exaction scheme. The court characterized the property interest alleged as "a right to a favorable market for its excess credits." Slip op. at 11. You don't have a vested right to "static market conditions." Slip op. at 12. Especially when it is a government-created market:

Further, upon examination of relevant state and local laws, it is apparent that neither the Act nor the 2005 Ordinance, as Premier seems to suggest, conferred any right to excess credit holders to sell credits at the rates set out in the 2005 impact fee schedules.

Slip op. at 12. The plaintiff's belief that the credit market was stable was a "unilateral expectation that the impact fee rate schedules would not change[.]" Slip op. at 13. 

The court also rejected the owner's argument that it could avoid dismissal by applying Penn Central. The court noted that the case was brought only under the N.M. Constitution's takings clause and not Penn Central, but analyzed the issue anyway. See slip op. at 9 ("Premier fails in any meaningful way to explain if or how the district court erred in its application of New Mexico law."). New Mexico's takings law does not apply Penn Central's ad hoc test, but rather employs a different standard:

[t]he general rule is that a regulation which imposes a reasonable restriction on the use of private property will not constitute a “taking” of that property if the regulation is (1) reasonably related to a proper purpose and (2) does not unreasonably deprive the property owner of all, or substantially all, of the beneficial use of [the] property.

Slip op. at 15-16 (quoting Temple Baptist Church, Inc. v. City of Albuquerque, 646 P.2d 565 (N.M. 1982)). The court seemed to assume that because this is the test for New Mexico takings, the Penn Central test didn't apply. But that should not have been the end of the analysis because Penn Central provides the "floor" below which no state can go, even as a state is free to recognize more protections for property owners. Thus, the court could have compared the Temple Baptist's two-part test with Penn Central's three-part test to see whether one or the other recognizes more (or less) protections. But the court didn't do so, primarily because the plaintiff didn't make the argument. See slip op. at 16 ("Premier provides no argument why our New Mexico regulatory takings test is inadequate, or otherwise inappropriate, in this case, and we decline to develop this argument for Premier."). Consequently, the court did not look at the alleged facts in light of Penn Central, and concluded there was no taking solely under New Mexico's Constitution:

As previously noted, the 2012 Ordinance left intact excess credit holders’ abilities to use excess credits to offset impact fees assessed on new developments and to seek reimbursement from the City for excess credits. See ARO, § 14-19-11 19(J)(6)(a), (c). In this vein, Premier has alleged no restriction on its rights to use its credits or to seek reimbursement. Further, Premier has sold credits since the 2012 Ordinance, albeit under allegedly less favorable market conditions that resulted in a loss in value, according to Premier.9 Premier argues that this loss in market value is synonymous with an invasion of its right to sell credits. Premier, however, fails to cite any authority for this proposition, and we thus may assume none exists. See Curry, 2014-NMCA-031, ¶ 28.

But even assuming a loss in market value under these circumstances invades some protected property right, we cannot say the 2012 Ordinance unreasonably deprives Premier of all or substantially all of the beneficial use of its excess credits, given Premier’s retention, and in certain instances, expansion, of rights as set out above. Such a loss in value, unaccompanied by the deprivation of other strands in the property rights bundle, as in this case, has been held insufficient to make out a regulatory takings claim under controlling New Mexico precedent. See, e.g., Chronis v. State ex rel. Rodriguez, 1983-NMSC-081, ¶ 15, 100 N.M. 342, 670 P.2d 953 11 (holding, in the due process takings context, that, notwithstanding reduction in the market value of liquor licenses due to changes in the statute, licensees retained the rights to transfer, devise, and use licenses, and to engage in the business of selling alcoholic beverages, and, therefore, the statutory change did not “unreasonably deprive[] the owner of all or substantially all of the beneficial use of his license,” and “d[id] not constitute a taking of private property”); id. ¶ 40 (Sosa & Federici, JJ., specially concurring and dissenting) (describing economic impact of statutory change); New Mexicans for Free Enter., 2006-NMCA-007, ¶¶ 52-53 (determining that an increase in the minimum wage rate did not constitute a deprivation of all or substantially all beneficial use of businesses, even though business owners alleged economic destruction of their businesses due to the increase); see also Sanchez, 1995-NMSC-058, ¶ 11 (noting that the Takings Clause “does not entitle an owner to use property for all economically viable purposes, and governmental actions imposing an incidental economic loss will be upheld”). We have been given no reason to depart from this precedent here, and, for the reasons stated, we conclude Premier has failed to allege a regulatory takings claim under New Mexico law.

Slip op. at 16-18.

The court also rejected the breach of contract and "illusory promise" claim, noting that there was no privity of contract between the plaintiff (which purchased the credits from developers), and was not a third-party beneficiary of any agreement between the city and the developers. This, we suppose, could have made a difference because if the credits' worth was "vested" or the city otherwise ensured that they would hold their value, the plaintiff might have avoided the sense that there's really no property right in the continued existence of a statute. See, e.g., American Pelagic Fishing Co. v. United States, 379 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

But something about this strikes us as not quite right. It's one thing when the government creates some expectations and encourages investment by adopting laws, and then later changes those laws. That "things change" may be one of those things that someone who plays in that market should expect. But when the government requires that someone who wants to use their property provide these impact fees -- and then, somehow, "overcharges" the developer -- it seems like a stretch to conclude that the developer (or someone to whom they assign their rights) does not have a valid expectation that those "credits" will hold their value. After all, Dolan tells us that the measure of constitutionality of these things is their "rough proportionality," and if the developers or their assigns didn't get some rough measure of value for the credits, this would seem to call into question of the original exaction. Or is the distinguishing feature here the fact that the government didn't directly devalue the exaction credits, but instead eased up on the requirements, resulting in a predictable -- but unintended -- reduction in value of existing credits due to alteration of demand?

Premier Trust of Nevada, Inc. v. City of Albuquerque, No A-1-CA-34784 (N.M. App. Oct. 1, 2020)

Your 2020 Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Conference Bingo Card