New England Estates and owners of land taken by eminent domain filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against the town. A judgment was rendered in favor of New England Estates and the landowners, and the town appealed claiming that: 1) the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because New England Estates and the owners failed to seek first a mandatory injunction for the return of their property . . .; 2) the judgment in favor of New England Estates was improper because it did not have a compensable interest under the takings clause of the fifth amendment of the federal constitution; 3) New England Estates and the owners already had recovered just compensation for the taking . . .; 4) the takings clause protects only against takings that are not for a public use and provides no protection against takings that are based on a pretext or constitute abuses of power; and 5) the trial court improperly awarded attorney’s fees to New England Estates and the owners.” The owners cross-appealed claiming they were denied proper attorney’s fees and costs.
The owners purchased the land in a foreclosure sale in the 1990s. The property was zoned industrial with a small portion as residential. There was also a special development zone designation which would allow development “consistent with the unique characteristics of the land.” The owners also operated a landfill that abutted the subject property. At no point during their 13 years of operating the landfill did the owners ever receive a violation from the Department of Environmental Protection concerning the landfill. The owners entered into an option agreement with New England Estates to purchase the property after development of 298 units and a golf course, which had been approved by the zoning commission. The town inland wetlands commission granted a five year permit and New England Estates later obtained a permit from the United States Army Corps of Engineers.
The zoning commission later denied approval because it found that the proposed development did not satisfy the requisite standards for creating a new planned development district because the high density of the proposed development was inconsistent with surrounding neighborhoods. Subsequently, New England Estates submitted a second site plan application, which was effectively denied when the town decided to exercise eminent domain. New England Estates then filed a § 1983 action alleging that the condemnation by the town violated the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment.
The court concluded that the action was ripe for review and that New England Estate did not have a property right protected by the takings clause since the exclusive option to purchase the property conveys no property interest to an optionee. Next the court looked at the town’s claim that the takings clause itself prohibits the owners action. The Supreme Court previously explained that the interests protected by § 1983 claims are like those protected in common law tort actions. Therefore, compensation was awarded for injuries and to deter future violations. Here the court held that money damages are available for the owners in their § 1983 action.
The town’s argument that the public use clause prohibits only taking of private property for a non-public use is dismissed by the court. The court reasoned that a government actors’ bad faith exercise of the power of eminent domain is a violation of the takings clause and in this case, the town does not deny that it was dishonest about the reasons for which it took the land.
New England Estates, LLC v. Town of Branford, 294 Conn. 817, 2010 WL 432363 (CT 2/16//2010)
The opinion can be accessed at: http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR294/294CR164.pdf
Thanks to Dwight Merriam, Esq. of Robinson & Cole for forwarding this case.
Read more here
