2025 ND 62
N.D.2025Background
- Casey Hoff, a licensed contractor and homeowner, sought and obtained a building permit from the City of Burlington to add to his home located in a floodplain.
- Hoff’s construction ultimately exceeded the scope and value described in his permit application; he remodeled more than indicated and spent more than estimated.
- The City later determined Hoff’s construction was a "substantial improvement" under floodplain ordinances, requiring more stringent compliance measures, and withheld a certificate of occupancy.
- Hoff sued the City asserting mandamus, declaratory judgment, injunction, inverse condemnation, and negligence, arguing the City improperly shifted its interpretation and enforcement after nearly all work was done.
- The district court denied all of Hoff’s claims and granted summary judgment to the City on negligence, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court. A dissent argued for remand to consider estoppel against the City.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusion of Evidence | Exclusion of 3 exhibits was an abuse of discretion | Exhibits irrelevant or inadmissible under evidentiary rules | Exclusion was not reversible error; no effect on substantial rights |
| Writ of Mandamus (Certificate of Occupancy) | Clear legal right to occupancy since he complied with permit; City changed rules mid-project | No clear right; Hoff did not comply with all ordinances or permit | No abuse of discretion; no clear right established |
| Declaratory Judgment | Built addition in compliance with codes; entitled to judgment | Noncompliance with ordinances and inaccurate info in permit | Denied; evidence supports noncompliance |
| Injunction | Entitled to injunction prohibiting City action | Any injunctive relief moot or barred by law | Denied; not properly preserved or briefed on appeal |
| Inverse Condemnation | City’s actions amounted to a taking by denying occupancy | Enforcement of floodplain rules is legitimate regulation | No taking occurred; property not deprived of all economic use |
| Negligence & Immunity | City is liable for negligent permit issuance; special relationship existed | Governmental immunity applies; no special relationship | Summary judgment for City; immunity applies |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Fargo v. Harwood Twp., 256 N.W.2d 694 (N.D. 1977) (landowner protection and reliance on existing zoning pre-change)
- Wild Rice River Estates, Inc. v. City of Fargo, 705 N.W.2d 850 (N.D. 2005) (regulatory takings standard and parcel-as-a-whole analysis)
- Buegel v. City of Grand Forks, 475 N.W.2d 133 (N.D. 1991) (estoppel and reliance on government action when municipality changes stance after reliance)
- Tangedal v. Mertens, 883 N.W.2d 871 (N.D. 2016) (scope of governmental immunity and special relationship exception)
- Johnson v. City of Burlington, 942 N.W.2d 816 (N.D. 2020) (estoppel principles against municipalities and application requirements)