Pater v. City of Casper
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 15280
| 10th Cir. | 2011Background
- Cottonwood Addition landowners Pater and Gasdek face a subdivision agreement with Casper requiring cost-sharing for Trevett Lane improvements.
- City undertook improvements and sought reimbursement from property owners; it later issued letters demanding payment and a pro rata share.
- City recorded Notices of Assessment against plaintiffs' parcels, creating a cloud on title and signaling encumbrance.
- Plaintiffs sued in state court for declaratory judgment, breach, and due process; City removed and counterclaimed.
- District court granted summary judgment against § 1983 claims; court dismissed equal protection claim; this court reverses in part and remands.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the Notices deprive a property interest without due process? | Pater and Gasdek allege the Notices encumber land and impair alienability. | City contends no protected property interest and notices are only informational. | Remanded; genuine fact issue on deprivation recognized. |
| Did City’s selective assessment violate equal protection? | Other Cottonwood owners were not assessed; disparate treatment lacks rational basis. | City followed historical practice of assessing adjacent-property owners. | District court did not abuse discretion; equal protection claim not considered on merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Doehr, 501 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1991) (prejudgment attachments implicate due process)
- Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606 (U.S. 2001) (takings vs. due process standards differ)
- Doehr, 501 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1991) (doehr - attachments implicate due process)
- Cobb v. Saturn Land Co., 966 F.2d 1334 (10th Cir. 1992) (preexisting property interest justifies limited process)
- Ward v. Anderson, 494 F.3d 929 (10th Cir. 2007) (due process requires meaningful opportunity to be heard)