Posted by: Patricia Salkin | August 8, 2011

10th Circuit Court of Appeals Holds Property Owners May Have Due Process Claim Where City Billed Residents for Improvements Without Prior Notification or Request for Work to be Completed

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the City of Casper, Wyoming could not automatically bill the owners of residential lots for the cost of a new road, based on a clause in a subdivision agreement that allowed the city to make improvements if the owners refused to do so.  In reversing the district court’s grant of summary judgment, the circuit court held that the property owners had demonstrated that notices of apportionment and assessment placed on the titles to their lands were enough to trigger due process claims.

A subdivision agreement stated that the city could complete improvements by itself or through a third party if written notice to the landowners failed to result in a cure within a reasonable amount of time.  The city sought contribution from the landowners after a third-party contractor built the road in question.  However, city officials had not previously notified the landowners that a third party had been contracted to do the work, nor had they requested that the landowners do the work themselves. 

In remanding the case for further proceedings, the circuit court found that the notices could limit the alienability of the properties, and therefore lower their market value, because a subsequent owner would need clear titles to obtain title insurance.  In its pleadings, the city noted that the notices were meant to burden future property owners, so the plaintiffs could not evade contribution by selling their lots.

The circuit court held that a dispute of fact exists as to whether the plaintiffs were deprived of a constitutionally protected property right, and whether they were afforded a proper level of process before that right was infringed. 

Pater v. City of Casper, 2011 WL 3000641 (10th Cir. Wyo. 2011)

The opinion can be accessed at: http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/09/09-8084.pdf


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 242 other followers