PAD 525 Week 5 Discussions Property

2 Oct No Comments

Week 5 Discussion 1

5

“Property.” Please respond to the following: 

Evaluating Dolan v. City of Tigard, as a public administrator, take a position on whether you agree or disagree with the approach that the U.S. Supreme Court developed. Support your position with examples or evidence. 

Analyzing Grose v. Sauvegeau, explain with details whether you agree or disagree that Sauvegeau should prevail.

Evaluating Dolan v. City of Tigard, as a public administrator, take a position on whether you agree or disagree with the approach that the U.S. Supreme Court developed. Support your position with examples or evidence.

Brief Fact Summary.

A condition of a permit stated that the landowner had to convey property to the government.

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

When a city requires a landowner to convey some property to the city as a condition to obtaining a permit, there must be a rough proportionality between the burdens on the public that would result form granting the permit and the benefit to the public from the conveyance of land.

Issue.

Does an impermissible taking of property occur when a city requires a landowner to convey property to the city in order to get a permit to redevelop property?

One purpose of the takings clause is to bar the government from forcing some people to bear public burdens, which should be borne by the public as a whole. Had the city simply required Petitioner to dedicate a strip of land along the creek for public use, rather than conditioning the grant of her permit to redevelop her property on such a dedication, a taking would have occurred. Such public access would deprive Petitioner the right to exclude others. However, a land use regulation does not constitute a taking if it substantially advances legitimate state interests and does not economically viable use of his land.

A determination must be made as to whether the essential nexus exists between the legitimate state interest and the permit condition exacted by the city. If the nexus exists, then a determination must be made as to the required degree of connection between the exactions and the projected impact of the proposed development. There must be a rough proportionality between the demands of the city and the impact of the proposed development. Here, the prevention of flooding and reduction of traffic are legitimate public purposes, and a nexus exists between preventing flooding and limiting development.

But as for the rough proportionality test, the city must make some sort of individualized determination that the required dedication is related both in nature and extent to the impact of the proposed development. Here, the city has never explained why a public greenway, as opposed to a private one, was required in the interest of flood control. Petitioner has lost her ability to exclude others, which is one of the most essential sticks in the bundle of property rights. It is difficult to see why recreational visitors walking on the land is sufficiently related o the city’s legitimate interest in reducing flooding problems along the creek, and the city has not attempted to make any individualized determination to support this request.

Dissent.

(Justice John Paul Stevens) The rough proportionality test runs contrary to the traditional treatment of these cases and breaks considerable and unpropitious new ground. Petitioner’s acceptance of the permit, with its attached conditions, would provide her with benefits that may go beyond any advantage she gets from expanding her business. The analysis should focus on the impact of the city’s action on the entire parcel of private property. The inquiry should instead concentrate on whether the required nexus is present and venture beyond considerations of a condition’s nature only if the developer establishes that a concededly germane condition is so grossly disproportionate to the proposed development’s adverse effects that it manifests motives other than land use regulation on the part of the city.

(Justice David Souter) The Court has places the burden of producing evidence of relationship on the city, despite the usual rule in cases involving the police power that the government is presumed to have acted constitutionally.

Discussion.

When the government enacts land regulations, there must be a close fit between the land use regulation and the objective sought to be fulfilled by the government.

Dolan v. City of Tigard. (2016). Retrieved October 31, 2016, from http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/property/property-law-keyed-to-singer/regulatory-takings-law/dolan-v-city-of-tigard-3/2/

 Analyzing Grose v. Sauvegeau, explain with details whether you agree or disagree that Sauvegeau should prevail.

The Groses’ claim that Sauvageau’s failure to make direct inquiry of the Groses’ interests, and her admitted efforts to acquire the property without notifying the Groses, defeats her status as a bona fide purchaser in good faith, and therefore, her entitlement to the property.  

Every conveyance of real estate within this state, hereafter made, which shall not be recorded as required by law, shall be void, as against any subsequent purchaser or purchasers in good faith and for a valuable consideration of the same real estate or any portion thereof, whose conveyance shall be first duly recorded.  To prevail in a contest ,Sauvageau must show that she is a “bona fide purchaser,” which is:  (1) a purchaser in good faith;  (2) for a valuable consideration, not by gift;  (3) with no actual, constructive or inquiry notice of any alleged or real infirmities in the title;  and (4) who would be prejudiced by the cancellation or reformation.

 The Groses’ third-party possession of the property was not contrary to the rights of the record title holder, and therefore Sauvageau had no “inquiry notice” requiring direct contact with the Groses regarding the basis of their claim to the property.   The Groses raised no issue of material fact as to Sauvageau’s good faith under Wyo. Stat. 34-1-120.   Summary judgment is affirmed.

FindLaw’s Supreme Court of Wyoming case and opinions. (2016). Retrieved October 31, 2016, from http://caselaw.findlaw.com/wy-supreme-court/1360961.html

Bottom of Form

Week 5 Discussion 2

COLLAPSE

Top of Form

4

5

“Contracts and Companies.” Please respond to the following: 

Evaluating Thompson v. Voldah as government takes on more and more functions, explain if it makes sense for the rules to be different for private contractual parties especially when the contract states (as with “duly authorized”). Support your position with examples or evidence. 

Analyzing Brunoli, Inc. v. Town of Bradford, identify and then describe the remedies that should be available. Explain which you would recommend to be the best remedy for both parties.

Evaluating Thompson v. Voldah as government takes on more and more functions, explain if it makes sense for the rules to be different for private contractual parties especially when the contract states as with “duly authorized”. Support your position with examples or evidence.

Plaintiff taxpayers seek judgment in favor of Winnebago County for special assessment funds paid by the county to defendants as partial payment on void contracts. Plaintiffs seek eventual repayment of such funds to them as the special assessment taxpayers. Trial court dismissed plaintiffs’ petition. We reverse and remand.

“If plaintiffs are entitled to relief, refund of the assessments paid must be from funds paid by plaintiffs, not from general county funds. A refund of special *379 taxes, such as drainage district taxes, erroneously or illegally exacted, cannot be paid from general county funds, but the only source of refund thereof is District Drainage funds.

“It further appears that if there is to be a refund of a drainage assessment, it must come from the funds paid in as a result of the assessment, not from other funds belonging to the Drainage District or portion thereof. The county officials did not appeal. They complied with the ruling, accounted for the funds and repaid the undisbursed funds to the special assessment taxpayers, pro rata. They now have no funds in their hands from the special assessment collections.

The result in this case is not changed by a couple additional features partial payment of the contractors and partial payment of the assessments. All of the contractors received only part of their money and they respectively received varying proportions of their money. This does not alter the general principle allowing a good faith contractor to keep the money to the extent he has been paid. This entire means is that the contractors who received a smaller proportion of their money are less fortunate than those who received a larger proportion. All of them, of course, will suffer irremediable loss to the extent they are unpaid

Thompson v. LJ Voldahl, Inc. (2016). Retrieved October 31, 2016, from http://law.justia.com/cases/iowa/supreme-court/1971/54275-0.html

Analyzing Brunoli, Inc. v. Town of Bradford, identify and then describe the remedies that should be available. Explain which you would recommend to be the best remedy for both parties.

The issue in this appeal 1 is whether the court has subject matter jurisdiction over a claim for damages, rather than for injunctive relief, allegedly resulting from fraud, corruption or favoritism in the award of a contract that is subject to competitive municipal bidding requirements.   The plaintiff, Lawrence Brunoli, Inc., brought this action against the defendant, the town of Branford, for money damages that the plaintiff claimed to have received as a result of improperly having been denied a certain municipal construction contract on which it had submitted a bid.  

The trial court dismissed the action on the ground that the plaintiff had no standing to assert a claim for damages in such a situation, and that a disappointed bidder is confined to an action for injunctive relief. The plaintiff claims that an unsuccessful bidder for a municipal construction contract is not limited to injunctive relief, but instead may seek money damages from the municipality. We conclude that a cause of action for money damages is not available to unsuccessful bidders on municipal contracts, regardless of whether there are allegations of fraud, favoritism or corruption in the bidding process.  

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. This case involves an important public policy consideration-whether a municipality should be subject to liability for damages because it rejected the bid of the lowest qualified bidder in violation of the town code that requires the town to award contracts to such a bidder.

“Such requirements of competitive bidding as are contained in the code in question are for the purpose of inviting competition,  to guard against favoritism, improvidence, extravagance, fraud and corruption in the awarding of municipal contracts, and to secure the best work or supplies at the lowest price practicable, and are enacted for the benefit of property holders and taxpayers, and not for the benefit or enrichment of bidders, and should be so construed and administered as to accomplish such purpose fairly and reasonably with sole reference to the public interest.

FindLaw’s Supreme Court of Connecticut case and opinions. (2016). Retrieved October 31, 2016, from http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ct-supreme-court/1432255.html

Bottom of Form




Click following link to download this document

PAD 525 Week 5 Discussions Property.docx