Rogers v. United States
| Decision Date | 19 February 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. 07-426L,No. 08-198L,No. 07-273L,No. 10-187L,No. 10-200L,07-273L,07-426L,08-198L,10-187L,10-200L |
| Parties | STEPHEN J. ROGERS, et. al., Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. Claims Court |
Fifth Amendment Taking; Motion to
Dismiss; Rule 12(b)(1); Standing;
Jurisdiction; Declaration of Protective
Covenants; Beneficial Title; Equitable
Conversion; Sufficiency of Property
Description; Ability of Members of
Homeowners' Association to Maintain
Takings Suit.
Mark F. (Thor) Hearne, II, Arent Fox LLP, 112 S. Hanley Road, Suite 200, Clayton, MO 63105; Lindsay S.C. Brinton, and Meghan S. Largent, Arent Fox LLP, 1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20036; Debra J. Albin-Riley and Joseph L. Cavinato, III, Arent Fox LLP, 555 West Fifth Street, 48th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90013, for Plaintiffs.
Ignacia S. Moreno, United States Department of Justice, Environment & Natural Resources Division, 601 D Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20044 and Kristine S. Tardiff, United States Department of Justice, Environment & Natural Resources Division, 53 Pleasant Street, 4th Floor, Concord, NH 03301, for Defendant. Charlotte M. Youngblood, United States Department of Justice, Environment & Natural Resources Division, Natural Resources Section, 601 D Street, N.W., PHB Room 3131, Washington, DC 20044, Of Counsel.
This Fifth Amendment taking action comes before the Court on Defendant's motion to dismiss the claim of Plaintiffs Peter and Bernadette Calamaras for lack of standing.1 The Calamaras, as members of the Silver Oak Neighborhood Association ("SONA"), claim standing based on SONA's interest in the property at issue. Because the Calamaras and SONA did not own the property at the time of the taking, Plaintiffs' claim is dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
The property at issue consists of 3.87 acres of land designated as common areas within the Silver Oak residential development that are adjacent to an abandoned railroad corridor that was converted into a recreational trail pursuant to the Trails Act and the Surface Transportation Board's April 2, 2004 order. Rogers v. United States, 90 Fed. Cl. 418, 433 (2009); see Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss ("Def. Mot."), Ex. 2; Pls.' Resp., Ex. D (ROG-PLTF-010243). In 2009, this Court held the Government liable for a taking and ruled that landowners who owned property on April 2, 2004, that abuts the railroad right-of-way established by the Honore deed were entitled to just compensation under the Fifth Amendment. Rogers, 90 Fed. Cl. at 433. As members of SONA, Plaintiffs claim to own a 1/108th pro rata interest in the Silver Oak neighborhood's common areas.
On April 16, 1999, the Calamaras acquired property in Sarasota County, Florida, via deed. Def.'s Reply, Ex. 4; 2d Am. Compl. ¶ 151. The Calamaras' property is located within a gated residential development, known as Silver Oak on Palmer Ranch. SONA owns the common areas within the development, and the Calamaras are members of SONA. At the time of the taking, April 2, 2004, the Calamaras did not own property abutting or underlying the rail-trail corridor; nor do they currently own such property. Instead, the Calamaras purport to bring their takings claims solely as members of SONA alleging a private ownership interest in Silver Oak's common areas, which abut the corridor. Def.'s Mot., Ex. 1. SONA opted not to file a takings suit.
Silver Oak Development of Sarasota, L.C. ("Silver Oak Development") was created in 1998, to facilitate the development of the Silver Oak subdivision. Pls.' Resp., Ex. A. SONA's Articles of Incorporation, filed in 1998, described SONA's purpose as follows:
The purposes for which this corporation is organized are to take title to (when conveyed by Declarant as provided in the Neighborhood Declaration), operate, administer, manage, lease and maintain the Neighborhood Common Area of such portions thereof or of Silver Oak as are dedicated to or made the responsibility of the Neighborhood Association in the Neighborhood Declaration or in any other Silver Oak Documents, in accordance with the terms of and purposes set forththerein; and to conduct any lawful business permitted under the laws of the State of Florida for corporations not-for-profit in order to carry out the covenants and enforce the provisions of any Silver Oak Documents. The Neighborhood Association is not a condominium association under Chapter 718, Florida Statutes.
Pls.' Resp., Ex. C.
On December 7, 1998, Silver Oak Development and SONA executed the Declaration of Protective Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Silver Oak ("Covenants"), and the Covenants were filed with Sarasota County on January 28, 1999. Covenants at 32.3 The Covenants defined neighborhood common areas as:
those portions of the COMMITTED LANDS including any improvements and fixtures thereon, owned by, leased to, or the use of which has been granted to or dedicated by PLAT to the NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION for the common use and enjoyment of the NEIGHBORHOOD OWNERS as set forth in this NEIGHBORHOOD DECLARATION.
Covenants ¶ 1.23. The Covenants described the common areas with reference to other documents as follows:
The Covenants further provided that Silver Oak Development would convey fee simple title to the neighborhood common areas to SONA by a defined Transfer Date -- no later than 120 days after 95% of the dwelling units had been conveyed to homeowners. Covenants ¶¶ 1.38, 3.2(d). The Covenants also allowed Silver Oak Development to convey title to the common areas before the Transfer Date, stating: "notwithstanding, DECLARANT shall have the right, but not the obligation, to convey all or portions of the NEIGHBORHOOD COMMON AREAS to the NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION at such time prior to the TRANSFER DATE as DECLARANT may determine." Covenants ¶ 3.2(d). Like the Articles of Incorporation, the Covenants distinguished SONA from a condominium association, stating: "[t]heNEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION is not a condominium association and, therefore, shall not be affected by the provisions of Chapter 718, Florida Statutes." Covenants ¶ 2.3.
The Covenants reserved rights over the common areas to Silver Oak Development, stating, in relevant part:
(b) Other DECLARANT'S RIGHTS: DECLARANT shall have the right, in its sole discretion, to alter the boundaries of the NEIGHBORHOOD COMMON AREAS and construct, develop, enlarge, or modify the NEIGHBORHOOD COMMON AREAS and any improvements, easements and use rights thereon or appurtenant thereto in a manner determined appropriate by DECLARANT for the best interest of the TOTAL LANDS without the joinder or consent of any PERSON, including, without limitation, the NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, the neighborhood associations, or the OWNERS for so long as DECLARANT shall own any portion of the TOTAL LANDS. DECLARANT shall have the right, at any time that it owns any portion of the TOTAL LANDS, to designate additional NEIGHBORHOOD COMMON AREAS, or RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY from areas which were previously designated as RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY or NEIGHBORHOOD COMMON AREAS, as the case may be, or other types of areas, or by causing portion(s) of UNCOMMITTED LANDS to become COMMITTED LANDS by executing an AMENDMENT without the joinder or consent of any PERSON.
Finally, the Covenants set forth a provision related to litigation, requiring a vote of three-fourths of SONA's members before SONA could initiate an action such as a takings case:
On October 26, 2006, Silver Oak Development transferred the common areas by quitclaim deed to SONA. Def.'s Mot., Ex. 2. Thus, at the time of the taking on April 2004, Silver Oak Development had legal title to all common areas.
Defendant claims that because Plaintiffs do not have standing, the Court must dismiss this action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. See Myers Investigative & Sec. Servs., Inc. v. United States, 275 F.3d 1366, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (). Plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing subject-matter jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence before the Court proceeds to the merits of the action. Reynolds v. Army & Air Force Exch. Serv., 846 F.2d 746, 748 (Fed. Cir. 1998); BearingPoint, Inc. v. United States, 77 Fed. Cl. 189, 193 (2007). When deciding a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, the Court...
To continue reading
Request your trial