J.D. Francis Inc v. Bremer County
| Decision Date | 17 March 2011 |
| Docket Number | No. C09-2065,C09-2065 |
| Parties | J.D. FRANCIS, INC. Plaintiff, v. BREMER COUNTY, IOWA, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa |
I. INTRODUCTION....................................... 1
II. RELEVANT FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS...................... 2
A. The Requests for Re zoning............................. 2
B. The State Court Action................................ 3
C. The Instant Federal Action............................. 4
III. LEGAL STANDARD FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT................6
IV. DISCUSSION..........................................7
A. The Parties' Arguments...............................7
B. Determination of Ripeness in a Takings Claim................8
C. The "Private Taking" Exception......................... 10
V. SUMMARY........................................... 13
VI. ORDER............................................. 14
I. INTRODUCTION
On the 14th day of March 2011, this matter came on for hearing on the Motion for Summary Judgment (docket number 17) filed by Defendant Bremer County, Iowa ("Bremer County") on December 21, 2010; the Resistance (docket number 20) filed by Plaintiff J.D. Francis, Inc. ("Francis") on February 1, 2011; the Reply (docketnumber 23) filed by Bremer County on February 10, 2011; and the Surreply (docket number 25) filed by Francis on March 11, 2011. Plaintiff J.D. Francis, Inc. was represented by its attorney, Matthew M. Craft. Defendant Bremer County, Iowa was represented by its attorney, John T. McCoy.
II. RELEVANT FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
A. The Requests for Rezoning
J.D. Francis is a real estate developer and homebuilder.1 On November 14, 2006, Francis purchased approximately 35 acres of land located outside the City of Waverly, Iowa, in Bremer County. Francis purchased the land from Edna C. Anhalt ("Anhalt").2 Francis intended to develop the land for residential purposes.
In June 2006, prior to the sale and purchase of the land, Anhalt and Francis submitted a request to Bremer County to rezone the land (34.5 acres) from agricultural to residential. Following a public hearing on June 20, 2006, the Bremer County Planning and Zoning Commission (the "Commission") unanimously recommended that Anhalt and Francis' request for rezoning be denied. On July 31, 2006, following another public hearing, the Bremer County Board of Supervisors (the "Board") followed the Commission's recommendation, and unanimously denied Anhalt and Francis' request for rezoning. According to the Board minutes, the application was denied "so that good Agricultural Farm land not be taken out of production and because of many other environmental concerns."3On August 1, 2006, Anhalt and Francis submitted a revised rezoning request to Bremer County. In the new application, Anhalt and Francis requested that 30.75 acres of Anhalt's land be rezoned from agricultural to residential. That is, Anhalt and Francis severed approximately four acres of land from the initial request. This modification had the effect of reducing the properties' average corn suitability rating ("CSR").4
On August 15, 2006, the Commission held a public hearing on Anhalt and Francis' revised rezoning request. The Commission made no recommendation at that time, and tabled the request until the next Commission meeting in September. On September 19, 2006, the Commission, on a 4-1 vote, recommended that the revised rezoning request be denied. On October 9, 2006, following another public hearing, the Board voted unanimously to deny the rezoning request.5
B. The State Court Action
On November 1, 2006, Francis and Anhalt filed a Petition at Law in the Iowa District Court for Bremer County, challenging the Board's decision to deny their rezoning requests. Specifically, Francis and Anhalt alleged that: (1) the Board's failure to approve their rezoning requests was arbitrary and capricious and in violation of the County's Comprehensive Land Use Plan ("Comprehensive Plan"); and (2) refusal to rezone the property violated their substantive due process and equal protection rights under both the United States Constitution and the Iowa Constitution.
On June 22, 2007, Bremer County filed a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of Francis and Anhalt's petition. On July 18, 2007, Francis and Anhalt filed a resistance to Bremer County's motion; and filed their own motion for summary judgment, seeking judgment as a matter of law on their claims against Bremer County. On September 10, 2008, the Iowa District Court entered an Order granting Bremer County's motion and dismissing Francis and Anhalt's petition. The Iowa District Court concluded, among other things, that:
the board acted rationally in denying [Francis and Anhalt's] zoning request. The board had discretion to decide whether to rezone the property and did not exercise that discretion arbitrarily or capriciously. I cannot conclude that the board's motives were improper and I do not conclude that they were pretextual.
Moreover, Plaintiff Anhalt6 still enjoys economically viable use of the parcel in question under the current zoning. It is zoned for agricultural purposes and is currently farmed. She can continue to enjoy that use of the parcel in question because the land can continue to be farmed or used for any other agricultural purpose within the meaning of the zoning provision.
There is no basis for setting aside the board's denial of the proposed rezoning.
See Defendant's Appendix (docket number 17-3) at 84.
On October 3, 2008, Francis and Anhalt timely filed a Notice of Appeal. On October 21, 2009, the Iowa Court of Appeals entered a decision affirming the ruling of the Iowa District Court. See Francis v. Bremer County Board of Supervisors, 776 N.W.2d 886 (Table), 2009 WL 3369263 (Iowa Ct. App. 2009).
C. The Instant Federal Action
On December 11, 2009, Francis filed a Complaint and Jury Demand (docket number 1) alleging an unconstitutional taking of his property without compensation in violation of the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Iowa. Specifically, Francis claims that Bremer County's actions constitute a taking of hisproperty in the following respects: (1) the refusal to rezone his land "completely deprived [him] of all economically beneficial use of his property"; (2) the rezoning denial "interfered with [his] distinct investment backed expectations"; (3) the denial of his rezoning requests "is so onerous that its effect constitutes a direct appropriation or ouster of Plaintiff entitling him to compensation as a result of the taking"; and (4) Bremer County's actions constitute intentional interference with his prospective business and profits anticipated therefrom.7 On February 12, 2010, Bremer County filed an Answer and Jury Demand (docket number 5), generally denying the material allegations contained in the complaint, and asserting certain affirmative defenses.
On June 21, 2010, Francis amended his complaint, adding an additional claim. In its Comprehensive Plan adopted in 2003, Bremer County designated the subject property as "future residential." On December 7, 2009-shortly after the Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed the summary dismissal of Francis and Alhalt's state court action-the Board amended the 2003 Comprehensive Plan to reclassify certain land designated for residential development to agricultural land. The property which is the subject of the instant action was included in the land which was redesignated.8 Francis asserts that Bremer County's amendment to its Comprehensive Plan-redesignating his property as agricultural, and removing it from the category of residential growth and development-constitutes a taking.9 On June 30, 2010, Bremer County filed an Answer to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and Jury Demand (docket number 12), generally denying the material allegations contained in the amended complaint, and asserting certain affirmative defenses. Trial is scheduled before the undersigned on May 2, 2011.10
III. LEGAL STANDARD FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Summary judgment is appropriate if the moving party shows that "there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." FED. R. Civ. P. 56(a).11 A genuine dispute as to a material fact '"exists if a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the party opposing the motion.'" Anderson v.Durham D & M, L.L.C., 606 F.3d 513, 518 (8th Cir. 2010) (quoting Humphries v. Pulaski County Special School District, 580 F.3d 688, 692 (8th Cir. 2009)). A fact is a "material fact" when it "might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law...." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., All U.S. 242, 248 (1986). In order to establish the existence of a genuine dispute as to a material fact, the non-moving party "'may not merely point to unsupported self-serving allegations.'" Anda v. Wickes Furniture Co., 517 F.3d 526, 531 (8th Cir. 2008) (quoting Bass v. SBC Communications, Inc., 418 F.3d 870, 872 (8th Cir. 2005)). Instead, the non-moving party "'must substantiate [its] allegations with sufficient probative evidence that would permit a finding in [its] favor.'" Anda, 517 F.3d at 531 (quoting Bass, 418 F.3d at 873); see also Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248 (). '"Evidence, not contentions, avoids summary judgment.'" Reasonover v. St. Louis County, Mo., 447 F.3d 569, 578 (8th Cir. 2006) (quoting Mayer v. Nextel W. Corp., 318 F.3d 803, 809 (8th Cir. 2003)). The court must view the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and afford it all reasonable inferences. Baer Gallery, Inc. v. Citizen's Scholarship Foundation of America, Inc., 450 F.3d 816, 820 (8th Cir. 2006) (citing Drake ex rel. Cotton v. Koss, 445 F.3d 1038, 1042 (8th Cir. 2006)).
IV. DISCUSSION
A. The Parties' Arguments
Bremer County filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment (docket...
To continue reading
Request your trial