Archive for the ‘Oregon Court of Appeals’ Category

Victory for Property Owner in Unusual Condemnation Case

Posted on February 4th, 2013 by

The City of Harrisburg placed a municipal water well on undeveloped property owned by the Defendant property owner, Ms. Leigh. Shortly thereafter, the City discovered that they placed the well on her property but they did nothing. Several years later Ms. Leigh decided to sell the property and her broker discovered the well and approached the City with the situation. The City responded to her discovery of the well by suing her for adverse possession of her property, instead of offering to pay her fair market value of her property. The City lost and she won an ejectment action – which resulted in the trial Court opinion that the City was not entitled to legal possession or any interest in the property and ordering the City to vacate the property and decommission the well by September 1.

Months later, on a Friday, August 28, the City offered to purchase her property for $7,425. When she rejected their offer, they filed an emergency condemnation proceeding the following Tuesday, September 2. The dates here are important.

Ms. Leigh’s position at trial was that, as a matter of law, as of September 2, (one day after the well was to have been decommissioned) Ms. Leigh owned the well because the trial court’s judgment specifically held that the City had no legal right to Ms. Leigh’s property and were required to decommission the well by September 1st , which had not occurred. The trial court rejected Ms. Leigh’s legal argument and Ms. Leigh received only compensation for the land and not for the well.

Ms. Leigh appealed to the Oregon Court of Appeals, which agreed that the ejectment judgment conclusively established that Ms. Leigh was the owner of the property, including its improvements. Accordingly, she was entitled to compensation for the value of the property, as improved. A public body that takes private property for public use must pay the property owner “just compensation”. OR Const, Art I § 18. The Court of Appeals held that the prior judgment conclusively held that the City was “wrongfully withholding possession of the Property”, and therefore, the value of the property was measured as of September 2, 2008 – the date the condemnation action was commenced and the property included compensation for the well because the well had not been decommissioned by September 1. The case was remanded back to the trial court for entry of judgment for Ms. Leigh.

(Property owner was represented by Garvey Schubert Barer.)

City of Harrisburg v Ellen Leigh

Condemnation Blight?

Posted on November 19th, 2012 by

It is not uncommon for property owners to believe that government actions have taken or significantly decreased their property values to the extent the actions constitute a “taking” of the property, i.e. “inverse condemnation.”  In some cases this condition may be the result of “condemnation blight.”  What isn’t common is for a court to agree. 

The seminal case in Oregon is Lincoln Loan Co. v State Hwy Comm’n, 274 Or 49 (1976), where the Oregon Supreme Court determined the plaintiff had at least pled sufficient allegations to claim condemnation blight.  The allegations included the State having sent letters to neighbors and tenants of its intent to take the property, the State condemning and destroying nearby properties, giving the plaintiff’s tenants notice they would have to move and filing condemnation actions.  Given all this, the Court concluded the plaintiff had pled sufficient allegations to constitute condemnation blight.

In a recent case in Linn County, Hall v. State of Oregon by and through the Oregon Department of Transportation, 252 Or App 649 (Oct. 10, 2012), a property owner claimed ODOT had committed condemnation blight.  The property owner plaintiff in Hall owned land near an I-5 interchange that was in the preliminary planning phase by ODOT. It is common, and in this case was required, that the government set out options as part of the planning process.  One of the potential options of ODOT was to close the interchange, thereby landlocking the property.  In accordance with federal planning requirements, ODOT informed the plaintiff owner, the general public and affected governments of all of its potential options for the interchange, including the option to close it.  ODOT held public meetings in furtherance of the planning process, and when the closure option was shown as being unpopular, ODOT revised the closure option with a more delayed process.  Notwithstanding, the plaintiff sued ODOT, claiming its actions constituted an inverse taking because of the “blight” it caused to plaintiff’s property. (more…)

4.7% RATIO OF EXPENDITURES FOR RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION

Posted on March 9th, 2012 by

In Campbell v. Clackamas County, __ Or.App. __ (December 2011, A139642), the court was asked to consider whether plaintiffs’ rights to develop a residential subdivision had vested under Measure 49.  Plaintiffs acquired the 62-acre tract of land in 1969 at which time the property’s zoning allowed residences to be built on one-acre parcels.  Subsequently, zoning restrictions limited the uses of the property to agriculture and forestry.  Plaintiffs obtained Measure 37 waivers and sought a vested rights determination under Measure 49 to develop a 40-lot residential subdivision.  (more…)

Clients Keep Home After Appellate Victory; GSB Land Use Team Wins Unusual Case

Posted on December 16th, 2011 by

It was a rare and strange case that required a creative legal approach to prevent the tearing down of a recently-constructed house in bucolic Douglas County, Oregon. The case centered on a parcel of land purchased by Philip and Cynthia Bowes in 1995 and their subsequent efforts to build a home on that land 16 years later. The Bowes’ neighbors aggressively collaborated to file appeals of the County’s permission to build a house and subsequent extensions granted to delay construction at the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (“LUBA”). The Oregon State Court of Appeals issued two opinions in Jones v. Douglas County (Case Nos. A-148612 and A148618) ending the 18-month dispute involving construction of the home that had been opposed by neighbors. (more…)

Borrower Fails in Effort to Invoke Consumer Laws Against Foreclosing Mortgage Lender

Posted on June 16th, 2011 by

A recent Oregon Court of Appeals case illustrates how difficult it can be for a real estate investor or developer to try to invoke consumer laws against a foreclosing bank.  (more…)

City Must Pay For Damages When Sewer Water Gushed Into Family Home

Posted on March 8th, 2011 by

Sharon Dunn v City of Milwaukie, Court of Appeals, A139386, February 23, 2011-  City of Milwaukie appealed a judgment awarding a homeowner $58,000 in just compensation when her home was damaged after raw sewage spewed from the toilets and faucets as a result of City workers performing maintenance by blasting water into the sewer line to clean the lines. The homeowner had sewer water dripping from her ceilings and flowing over the floor after the cleaning of the sewer lines in her neighborhood. The homeowner sued the City for the damages to her home claiming that the City inversely condemned, or had taken her property, when the sewer water entered her home and caused damages to the fair market value of her home.  The Court of Appeals reviewed the inverse condemnation claim and applied the test of whether the City’s actions had substantially interfered with the use and enjoyment of her property.  The proper test was whether the use and enjoyment was sufficiently direct, sufficiently peculiar and of sufficient magnitude to support the conclusion that the interference had reduced the fair market value of the home.  The question on Appeal included if the jury instructions had sufficiently addressed, as an element of the inverse claim, that the government intended to have taken the property by its actions.  The Court of Appeals held that homeowner had presented a legally sufficient claim of inverse condemnation and the jury had been properly instructed on the law.

Court of Appeals Confirms LUBA Ruling:

Posted on December 29th, 2010 by

PORTLAND, OR – December 29, 2010Garvey Schubert Barer, representing Waste Not of Yamhill County, is pleased to report the Oregon Court of Appeals issued a final order in Waste Not v. Yamhill County, Court of Appeals No. A146170, issued December 29, 2010.  The decision affirms the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (“LUBA”) final order in Waste Not v. Yamhill County, LUBA No. 2010-002 that Yamhill County violated the law in authorizing the expansion of the Riverbend Landfill.  (more…)