Alpine Village Co. v. City of McCall
303 P.3d 617
Idaho2013Background
- Ordinance 819 required affordable housing; Alpine pursued Alpine Village development under McCall’s regime.
- McCall repealed 819 via Ordinance 856 after a separate litigation; first amendment to the Development Agreement then lifted restrictions on Alpine Village.
- Alpine filed state court complaints alleging takings under US and Idaho constitutions and claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; case was removed to federal court and remanded back due to ripeness.
- District court granted McCall summary judgment: state claims time-barred under ITCA; federal claims unripe or time-barred under applicable statutes.
- Alpine’s cross-motions asserted state takings and federal takings claims; district court held lack of timely notice and lack of final decision under Williamson County.
- This appeal challenges whether the district court erred in dismissing Alpine’s state and federal takings claims and whether attorney fees on appeal are warranted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court properly dismissed Alpine’s state takings claim | Alpine contends notice under ITCA 180-day window was not properly triggered or validly applied | McCall argues notice requirements were met and claim untimely under ITCA §§50-219, 6-906, 6-908 | Yes; state inverse condemnation claim barred by untimely notice under ITCA. |
| Whether district court properly dismissed Alpine’s federal takings claims as ripe or time-barred | Alpine argues final decision and compensation procedures exist; claims ripe under Williamson County | McCall argues no final decision and LLUPA avenues not exhausted; claims not ripe or timely | Yes; federal claims unripe under Williamson County ripeness; also time-barred. |
| Whether Alpine is entitled to attorney fees on appeal | Alpine seeks fees as prevailing party | McCall seeks fees under I.C. § 12-117(1) for lack of reasonable basis | McCall awarded attorney fees and costs on appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172 (U.S. 1985) (ripeness; final decision required for regulatory takings claim)
- Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (U.S. 1978) (development regulation taking; framework for final decision)
- BHA Investments, Inc. v. City of Boise, 141 Idaho 168 (Idaho 2004) (notice accrual under ITCA 180-day period)
- Sweitzer v. Dean, 118 Idaho 568 (Idaho 1990) (ITCA §50-219 incorporation of §6-906 notice rules)
- Buckskin Properties, Inc. v. Valley County, 300 P.3d 18 (Idaho 2013) ( LLUPA context for taking analyses (Idaho))
- Ada County Highway Dist. v. Acarrequi, 105 Idaho 873 (Idaho 1983) (equal protection considerations in takings/relief)
- Allied Bail Bonds, Inc. v. County of Kootenai, 151 Idaho 405 (Idaho 2011) (ITCA notice requirements are jurisdictional bar absent exceptions)
- Shobe v. Ada Cnty., Bd. of Comm’rs, 130 Idaho 580 (Idaho 1997) (equal protection / disparate treatment principles)
- Mitchell v. Zilog, Inc., 125 Idaho 709 (Idaho 1994) (quasi-estoppel doctrine)
- Rudeen v. Cenarrusa, 136 Idaho 560 (Idaho 2001) (equal protection standard; burdens and benefits)
- Bon Appetit Gourmet Foods, Inc. v. State, Dep’t of Employment, 117 Idaho 1002 (Idaho 1989) (equal protection considerations in employment context)