Lawndale Restoration Ltd. Partnership ex rel. Boulevard Realty Services Corp. v. United States
95 Fed. Cl. 498
Fed. Cl.2010Background
- HUD authorized Restoration Investors to manage South Side Properties for lower-income families; ownership transferred to Lawndale Restoration in 1995 via Trust with ANBT Chicago under IHDA financing; mortgage and regulatory agreements insured by HUD; default and foreclosure proceedings initiated by HUD culminating in 2005–2006 foreclosures and transfer to City of Chicago then Community Investment Corporation; Boulevard Realty (general partner of Lawndale) filed suit in 2009 asserting breach of contract, takings, and promissory estoppel; court granted HUD motions for dismissal/summary judgment on multiple counts and concluded Lawndale dissolved in 2008; standing found for Boulevard Realty as winding-up plaintiff.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction under Tucker Act for Count I | Plaintiff contends Court has jurisdiction under Tucker Act for breach claims | Government argues insufficient jurisdiction for implied/contract claims | Count I jurisdiction acknowledged for breach contract against Government under Tucker Act |
| Count III promissory estoppel and implied-in-law contract | Promissory estoppel or implied-in-fact contract viable | Estoppel is a shield, not a cause of action; implied-in-law contract lacks jurisdiction | Count III dismissed for lack of jurisdiction (implied-in-law contract) |
| Statute of limitations for Count I | Claims accrued later; timely under §2501 | Accrual date fixed by March 1, 2005 forewarning of foreclosure | Count I claims not barred; accrual March 1, 2005; §2501 not tolled |
| Standing of Boulevard Realty | Boulevard Realty has standing as Lawndale’s winding-up successor | Lawndale dissolved; standing questioned | Boulevard Realty has standing through wind-up authority under Illinois law |
Key Cases Cited
- Hercules Inc. v. United States, 516 U.S. 417 (1996) (jurisdiction under Tucker Act requires a substantive right to money damages (not implied-in-law))
- Schooner Harbor Ventures, Inc. v. United States, 569 F.3d 1359 (Fed.Cir. 2009) (takings claims money-mandating under Fifth Amendment; Tucker Act jurisdiction)
- Moden v. United States, 404 F.3d 1335 (Fed.Cir.2005) (Takings jurisdiction where money-mandating provision exists)
- St. Christopher Associates, L.P. v. United States, 511 F.3d 1376 (Fed.Cir.2008) (takings/contract remedies; government acts in proprietary capacity)
- Hanlin v. United States, 316 F.3d 1325 (Fed.Cir.2003) (implied-in-fact contract elements; authority to bind government)
- Sun Oil Co. v. United States, 572 F.2d 786 (Ct.Cl.1978) (taking claims in contract context; remedies arise from contract)
- Ingrum v. United States, 560 F.3d 1311 (Fed.Cir.2009) (accrual when liability fixed and action allowed)