Town of Flower Mound v. Stafford Estates Ltd. Partnership
135 S.W.3d 620 · Texas Supreme Court · 2004
Facts
The Town of Flower Mound required Stafford Estates Limited Partnership to rebuild an abutting road with concrete as a condition for approving its residential subdivision, even though the existing asphalt road was not in disrepair and the improvements were not fully necessitated by the subdivision's impact. Stafford rebuilt the road at a cost of over $484,000 and then sued the Town for compensation, alleging a taking without compensation under the Texas and U.S. Constitutions and federal civil rights law. The district court found a taking and awarded damages, expert witness fees, and attorney fees, but the court of appeals reversed the fee awards while affirming the taking.
Issue
1. Can a developer sue for inverse condemnation after complying with a development condition, or must they challenge the condition before compliance? 2. Does the Nollan/Dolan 'essential nexus' and 'rough proportionality' test apply to non-dedicatory exactions and those imposed through general legislation, or only to dedicatory exactions and ad hoc adjudicative decisions? 3. Is Stafford entitled to attorney and expert witness fees under federal civil rights laws when compensation is awarded under state law?
Holding
1. A developer can sue for inverse condemnation after complying with a development condition, as no statute or rule requires an earlier suit. 2. The Nollan/Dolan test applies to non-dedicatory exactions, such as requiring a developer to fund road improvements, and to conditions imposed under general authority that take individual circumstances into account. 3. Stafford is not entitled to attorney and expert witness fees under federal civil rights laws because, having received adequate compensation under state law, its federal constitutional rights were not violated.
Rule
The Nollan/Dolan standard for a compensable taking applies when government approval of property development is conditioned on an exaction. This standard requires that the condition (1) bears an essential nexus to the substantial advancement of a legitimate government interest and (2) is roughly proportional to the projected impact of the proposed development. The burden of proof is on the government to demonstrate this relationship. If a state provides an adequate procedure for seeking just compensation for a taking, and that procedure yields compensation, then a federal constitutional violation under the Fifth Amendment has not occurred, precluding recovery under federal civil rights laws like 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and associated fee statutes.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.