NONE
Updated: October 16, 2006
Hillsboro Properties, and Paul Goldstone Enterprises, Inc. dba Rancho Grande Mobilehome Park, v. City of Rohnert Park, a municipal corporation, and City of Rohnert Park Rent Appeals Board, S. Ct. No. 06-510
Petition Filed: October 9, 2006
Lower Court Opinion: The opinion of the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, is reported as Hillsboro Properties v. City of Rohnert Park, 138 Cal. App. 4th 379, 41 Cal. Rptr. 3d 441 (2006), and is reproduced as Appendix (App.) A. The Order of the California Supreme Court denying Hillsboro's petition for review is unreported and is reproduced as Appendix C. The Order of the California Superior Court for the County of Sonoma is unreported and is reproduced as Appendix B.
Question Presented:
Nineteen years ago, in First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los Angeles, this Court required all States to provide a remedy of just compensation for regulatory takings. Since that time, the appellate courts of the State of California have not upheld a single award of compensation for a taking not involving a physical invasion or occupation of property, and in the decision below the California court carved out one category of takings for which no remedy at all is available under state law.
For seven years the City of Rohnert Park enforced an unconstitutional rent control law that extinguished Hillsboro's vested property right to collect lawfully noticed rents from the tenants of its mobile home park. After the law was struck down, Hillsboro sued to recover its losses through either a mandatory prospective rent increaser under the City's successor rent ordinance, or an award of just compensation against the City. In the decision below, the California Court of Appeal ruled that no remedy exists in that state for Hillsboro's constitutional injury.
This presents the following questions:
- Under First English, when a property owner has obtained a judicial determination that a rent control law is unconstitutional, may the City that administers that law avoid paying just compensation for the temporary abridgment of an owner's contractual right to collect lawfully noticed rents over the seven years in which the unconstitutional regulations were in effect?
- Since Petitioners' regulatory takings claim is now ripe for federal adjudication, but Petitioners are barred from litigating their claim in federal district court by this Court's recent decision in San Remo Hotel v. City and County of San Francisco, should this Court directly rule on Petitioners' regulatory takings claim as a matter of federal law?
Back
to Legal Resources
Available Now!
Takings
Litigation Handbook
Defending Takings Challenges to Land Use Regulations
|
