226 N.C. App. 30
N.C. Ct. App.2013Background
- City Fayetteville appeals from an order denying its motion to dismiss Hillsboro Partners' complaint.
- Plaintiff acquired a 2.1-acre Hillsboro Street lot with a damaged former church building.
- In July 2010, the City inspector deemed the building a fire, health, and safety hazard and ordered repair or demolition.
- The City later passed an ordinance (Oct 2010) to demolish the building after plaintiff failed to comply, with a 60-day compliance window.
- Plaintiff filed a first suit in March 2011 challenging the City's actions; the court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
- Plaintiff filed a second suit in November 2011 seeking just compensation for the demolition; the trial court denied defendant's motion to dismiss, and defendant appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether collateral estoppel bars plaintiff’s takings claim | Plaintiff argues estoppel does not apply due to mutual mistake and new evidence. | Defendant contends the prior quasi-judicial finding that the building was a hazard is binding. | Yes; collateral estoppel applies and bars the takings claim. |
| Whether the prior hearing was quasi-judicial for estoppel to apply | Plaintiff contends the hearing was administrative, not quasi-judicial. | Defendant argues the hearing satisfied quasi-judicial criteria with notice, opportunity to be heard, and finality on no appeal. | Yes; the hearing was quasi-judicial, making collateral estoppel applicable. |
| Whether plaintiff can state a just compensation claim after estoppel | Plaintiff asserts a taking claim can proceed regardless of the hazard finding. | Defendant asserts no compensation is due where the property was a nuisance posing a public hazard. | No; estoppel precludes a taking claim because the structure was found hazardous and demolition was proper. |
| Whether the trial court correctly granted summary judgment on collateral estoppel | Plaintiff claims genuine issues of fact remain about the evidence. | Defendant asserts the elements of collateral estoppel were satisfied and summary judgment is proper. | Summary judgment was proper; the trial court should be reversed and the case dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Maines v. City of Greensboro, 300 N.C. 126 (1980) (collateral estoppel in administrative decisions context)
- Royster v. McNamara, ? S.E.2d 126 (-) (elements and application of collateral estoppel)
- Montana v. United States, 440 U.S. 147 (1979) (change in facts may defeat collateral estoppel)
- Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992) (police power and takings concepts)