Summary
The Supreme Court of Texas held that a property owner who failed to appeal an administrative nuisance determination could not later bring takings claims challenging the demolition of her property. The court reversed in part the court of appeals’ judgment and rendered judgment dismissing the owner’s claims.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a property owner who does not appeal an administrative nuisance determination may later collaterally attack that determination through a separate constitutional takings action.
- Whether the court of appeals erred by holding that Como was entitled to de novo review of the City's nuisance determination despite failing to appeal it.
Holdings
- A party asserting a takings claim based on an allegedly improper administrative nuisance determination must appeal the nuisance determination and assert the takings claim in that proceeding; the party must also pursue available statutory remedies that may moot the takings claim. Because Como did not appeal the nuisance determination, her takings claims were barred.
Key quotations
“Because she “cannot attack collaterally what she cho[se] not to challenge directly,”” (361 S.W.3d at 580)
“A party asserting a taking based on an allegedly improper administrative nuisance determination must appeal that determination and assert [her] takings claim in that proceeding.” (381 S.W.3d 538)
Factual background
Yvonne Como owned a commercial building in Beaumont that the City deemed vacant, neglected, deteriorated, and dilapidated. The City conducted administrative hearings, ultimately declared the building a public nuisance, and condemned it; Como did not attend the hearings or appeal the nuisance determination. Six months later the City demolished the building, after which Como filed constitutional takings and other claims.
Procedural history
Beaumont declared Como's building a public nuisance and condemned it after administrative hearings, but Como did not appeal that determination. After the building was demolished, Como sued the City asserting state and federal takings, equal-protection, equal-rights, public-information, and improper-seizure claims. The trial court granted the City's immunity-based plea to the jurisdiction. The court of appeals initially affirmed, then on rehearing held that Como could obtain de novo review of the nuisance determination, reversed and remanded on the takings claims, affirmed most of the remaining judgment, and dismissed the Public Information Act claim as moot. The Supreme Court of Texas granted review and reversed in part.