City of Coeur D'Alene v. Simpson, Docket No. 29299 (ID 2/8/2005)
| Decision Date | 08 February 2005 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 29299. |
| Parties | THE CITY OF COEUR D'ALENE, an Idaho Municipal Corporation, Plaintiff-Counterdefendant-Respondent, v. JACK W. SIMPSON and VIRGINIA S. SIMPSON; and BEACH BROTHERS, INC., an Idaho corporation, Defendants-Counterplaintiffs-Appellants. |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho, Kootenai County. Hon. Charles W. Hosack, District Judge.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
John F. Magnuson, Coeur d'Alene; Runft Law Offices, PLLC, Boise, for appellants. John L. Runft argued.
Quane, Smith, Coeur d'Alene, for respondent. Michael L. Haman argued.
The Simpsons and Beach Brothers, Inc. appeal the district court's decision, which granted injunctive relief by summary judgment regarding the waterward parcel of their property and dismissed their amended counterclaims relating to the waterward parcel. The counterclaims included deprivation of substantive and procedural due process, violations of equal protection and inverse condemnation. The Simpsons and Beach Brothers, Inc. also appeal the denial of their motion for disqualification of the district judge. This Court affirms the decisions of the district court.
In 1907, the Lakeshore Addition subdivision on Lake Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, was recorded and admitted into the City of Coeur d'Alene (the City). In 1928, the City enacted Ordinance No. 676, seeking to preserve the Lakeshore Addition area by proscribing the establishment or maintenance of buildings, structures, wood, rocks and rubbish on the portion of that Addition commonly referred to as Sanders Beach. In 1965, the City adopted Ordinance No. 1197, Ordinance No. 676. Ordinance No. 1197 prohibits landowners from building structures in the area of Lakeshore Addition commonly known as Sanders Beach. In 1982, Ordinance No. 1722 was enacted and had the effect of reinforcing the proscriptions set forth in Ordinance No. 676. Ordinance No. 1722 applied to all of the Shoreline within the City limits. Ordinance No. 1722 stated that all construction within forty feet of the shoreline, defined at elevation 2128 WWP datum, shall be prohibited except as provided therein. Ordinances 676, 1197 and 1722 (the Shoreline Ordinances) sought to preserve the Lake Coeur d'Alene beachfront.
In April 1994, Jack and Virginia Simpson purchased property from Donald Wagstaff by warranty deed. The property is located in Coeur d'Alene, with a general street address of 1321 E. Lakeshore Drive. It consists of Lots 11, 12, 13 and 14 of Block 29 of Lakeshore Addition (upland parcel) and parcels 1506, 1507 and 1508 (waterward parcel). The waterward parcel includes approximately 230 feet of frontage along Lake Coeur d'Alene and is separated from the upland parcel by Lakeshore Drive and lies directly south of the upland parcel. Kootenai County assessed the value of the upland and waterward parcels as one unit from 1995 through 1998, in addition to treating both parcels of the Simpsons' property as one unit for purposes of assessing taxes in 1999.
The Simpsons installed a wrought iron fence around the upland parcel. In December 1997, after experiencing some problems with people entering their waterward parcel, the Simpsons installed two sections of chain link fence on the waterward parcel at or near the western and eastern boundaries so as to preclude public access to the waterward parcel. The City issued a "Stop Work" notice and informed the Simpsons that the erection of non-conforming structures on the waterward parcel violated city ordinances prohibiting construction of fences within forty feet of the shoreline. The City followed up with a letter outlining the ordinances violated by the waterward fence. The Simpsons' non-removal of the fences prompted the City of Coeur d'Alene to file a Complaint for Injunctive Relief against the Simpsons. The City sought an order of permanent injunction for the removal of the fences on both the waterward and upland parcels of land.
On September 25, 1998, the Simpsons filed their Answer and Counterclaim, asserting various affirmative defenses and counterclaims. The Simpsons claimed the Shoreline Ordinances were unconstitutional in that they deprived the property of all economically viable use with no concomitant payment of just compensation, and because the ordinances had been applied unequally. The Simpsons also asserted counterclaims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for inverse condemnation, seeking recovery for alleged violations of their due process and equal protection rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The Simpsons later filed a First Amended Answer and Counterclaim, which included a jury demand.
On December 23, 1999, the Simpsons filed a Motion for Disqualification for Cause of the district judge assigned to the case. The Simpsons' Motion For Disqualification was based on, among other things, the fact that the district judge represented the City prior to becoming a district court judge. The Motion was denied by the district court on January 24, 2000.
Also in December 1999, the City filed its initial Motion for Summary Judgment seeking entry of a permanent injunction for the removal of the nonconforming fences and a dismissal of the Simpsons' counterclaims. On August 17, 2000, the district court entered a Memorandum Decision on the City's initial Motion For Summary Judgment. Regarding the fence on the upland parcel, the district court held that the City was not entitled to injunctive relief on summary judgment and also denied the City's Motion for Summary Judgment on the equal protection claim related to the upland parcel. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the City regarding the waterward parcel, finding the ordinances prohibiting the fence within the forty-foot setback zone on the waterward parcel do not constitute a taking. The district court also dismissed the Simpsons' equal protection claim regarding the waterward parcel.
In March 2001, Jack Simpson, acting as incorporator, formed Beach Brothers, Inc. (Beach Brothers), an Idaho Corporation, naming the Simpsons' adult sons as the only shareholders of Beach Brothers. On March 26, 2001, Jack and Virginia Simpson conveyed the waterward parcel to Beach Brothers. The transfer of the waterward parcel to Beach Brothers was for estate planning purposes and to protect Jack and Virginia Simpson from unwanted potential personal liabilities associated with personal ownership of the waterward parcel. Jack and Virginia Simpson personally paid taxes on the waterward parcel after they conveyed it to Beach Brothers.
The City made a second Motion for Summary Judgment. However, at the hearing the City moved to amend its complaint to include Beach Brothers as a defendant, so the district court declined to consider the second Motion for Summary Judgment until the Amended Complaint had been filed and Beach Brothers was added as a party. In June of 2002, the City renewed its Motion for Summary Judgment for a third time. Prior to ruling on the third Motion for Summary Judgment, the district court vacated the jury demand made by the Simpsons.
On October 24, 2002, the district court entered its Memorandum Decision on the City's third Motion For Summary Judgment. The court found that there were questions of fact precluding a grant of injunctive relief by summary judgment as to the upland parcel. The court also denied the Motion for Summary Judgment as to the equal protection and due process claims regarding the upland parcel. The court found that the City was entitled to injunctive relief by summary judgment as to the fences on the waterward parcel that were within the forty-foot setback zone. Additionally, the court dismissed the counterclaims related to the waterward parcel. Two months later, the district court entered its Judgment and Order of Permanent Injunction, ordering the removal of the fences from the waterward parcel within thirty days.
The Simpsons and Beach Brothers (collectively the Simpsons) timely appeal to this Court. The only issues on appeal to this Court relate to the waterward parcel. Issues relating to the upland parcel are still pending in district court. This Court granted the Simpsons' Motion for Stay of Order and Permanent Injunction during the pendency of this appeal.
This Court reviews a district court's grant of summary judgment by using the same standard properly employed by the district court originally ruling on the motion. Samuel v. Hepworth, Nungester & Lezamiz, Inc., 134 Idaho 84, 87, 996 P.2d 303, 306 (2000). Summary judgment is proper "if the pleadings, depositions, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." I.R.C.P. 56(c). This Court construes the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of that party. Samuel, 134 Idaho at 87, 996 P.2d at 306. If the evidence reveals no genuine issue as to any material fact, then all that remains is a question of law over which this Court exercises free review. McCuskey v. Canyon County Comm'rs, 128 Idaho 213, 215, 912 P.2d 100, 102 (1996).
An action for inverse condemnation is an eminent domain proceeding initiated by the property owner rather than the condemnor. Covington v. Jefferson County, 137 Idaho 777, 780, 53 P.3d 828, 831 (2002). "The Fifth Amendment forbids the taking of private property for public use without just compensation." Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg'l Planning Agency, 535...
To continue reading
Request your trial