M.A.K. Investment Group v. City of Glendale
897 F.3d 1303
10th Cir.2018Background
- M.A.K. Investment Group owns multiple parcels in Glendale, Colorado; Glendale pursued a Riverwalk Urban Renewal Plan and held a May 7, 2013 hearing declaring several parcels (including M.A.K.’s) "blighted."
- Colorado law allows a governing body to declare areas "blighted," which (1) starts a 7‑year period during which the municipality may commence condemnation, and (2) opens a 30‑day statutory window for property owners to seek judicial review of the blight determination.
- Colorado statute requires notice when a study or a hearing about an urban renewal plan will occur, and requires mailed notice to owners whose property is NOT found blighted, but does not require mailed notice to owners whose property IS found blighted.
- Glendale notified M.A.K. of the study/hearing but (allegedly) did not tell M.A.K. the hearing resulted in a blight determination or that the 30‑day review clock had begun; a city representative allegedly told M.A.K. it "did not need to worry about the notice."
- M.A.K. learned of the blight determination months later, after the 30‑day window had passed, and sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging procedural due process violations (facial and as‑applied). The district court dismissed; the Tenth Circuit reviewed dismissal de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether M.A.K. had a constitutionally protected property interest in the statutory right to judicial review of a blight determination | M.A.K.: the statute creates a right to judicial review for abuse of discretion, which is a state‑created property interest | Glendale: no protected interest because the blight finding is legislative and does not necessarily affect property values | Held: M.A.K. has a protected property interest in the statutory cause of action to seek review (Logan principle applies) |
| Whether due process required individualized (direct) notice of an adverse blight determination | M.A.K.: Mullane requires notice reasonably calculated to inform affected parties; direct mailed/e‑mail/personal notice was required here | Glendale: no individualized notice required (relies on older precedents and general duty of owners to monitor) | Held: Due process required direct notice of an adverse blight determination when owners are identifiable and will lose a statutory right without notice; failure to notify violated due process |
| Whether due process required notice of the 30‑day deadline and how to seek review | M.A.K.: City should have informed owners of the 30‑day exclusive review window | Glendale: owners are presumptively charged with knowledge of the law; no need to inform about remedies/deadlines | Held: Due process did not require the city to notify owners of the 30‑day review deadline or procedural details once they received notice of the blight finding; owners can consult published statutes/case law (West Covina governs) |
| Whether later condemnation proceedings or defenses in such proceedings cure lack of initial notice | M.A.K.: losing the immediate statutory review remedy is not cured by possible future defenses or litigation in condemnation | Glendale: owners can raise challenges during any future condemnation, so no prejudice | Held: Condemnation proceedings do not substitute for the immediate statutory review remedy; future or hypothetical proceedings are inadequate to preserve the right to prompt review |
Key Cases Cited
- Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (notice must be reasonably calculated to inform interested parties)
- Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422 (a state‑created cause of action is a property interest protected by due process)
- Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220 (government must take additional reasonable steps when initial mailed notice fails)
- Mennonite Bd. of Missions v. Adams, 462 U.S. 791 (constructive/publication notice must be supplemented by mailed notice when addressees are known)
- Walker v. City of Hutchinson, 352 U.S. 112 (publication notice alone can fail Mullane standard in condemnation contexts)
- City of West Covina v. Perkins, 525 U.S. 234 (once informed of a deprivation, the owner must consult public sources for remedies; no blanket duty to detail remedies in individualized notice)
- Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238 (no property interest if regulatory scheme grants unbounded discretion)