Pater v. City of Casper, 646 F.3d 1290

Pater and Gasdek own residential lots in Casper's Cottonwood Addition and are successors to the developer under a subdivision agreement.
Subdivision Agreement authorizes the City to construct Trevett Lane and to seek reimbursement from lot owners if the owners fail to proceed, including remedies such as completing the improvements and charging costs to owners.
After Trevett Lane was built by a developer under a related agreement, the City demanded payment from Pater and Gasdek and sent formal notices specifying pro rata assessments.
The City adopted resolutions approving the assessments and recorded Notices of Assessment against the plaintiffs' properties, threatening encumbrances on their titles.
Plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging due process and equal protection violations; the district court dismissed § 1983 claims and remanded state-law claims to state court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the Notices of Assessment deprive a property interest without due process?	Notices encumber title; contract doesn't obligate payment; state breach is proper remedy.	No protected property interest created by the Subdivision Agreement; notices inform third parties only.	Issue of material fact exists that notices impair property interests and may constitute a deprivation.
What process is due before depriving property interests by notices?	Due process requires hearing and protections before encumbering property.	Proceedings and preexisting interests may justify limited process; not yet determined.	Remand to assess preexisting City interest and adequacy of post-deprivation process under Matthews factors.
Did the district court err in failing to address an equal protection claim raised late?	City selectively taxed similar landowners; disparate treatment lacks rational basis.	Equal protection claim raised in summary judgment, not in complaint; no preserved error.	District court did not abuse its discretion in not considering the late-raised equal protection claim.

Doehr v. City of Cleveland, 501 U.S. 1 (1991) (prejudgment attachments can implicate due process even without full deprivation)
Diaz v. Paterson, 547 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2008) (lis pendens can function as encumbrance raising due process concerns)
Kirby Forest Indus. v. United States, 467 U.S. 1 (1984) (takings discussion; not controlling for due process alienation)
Doehr, 501 U.S. 1, 501 U.S. 1 (1991) (See above: due process implications of encumbrances)
Ward v. Anderson, 494 F.3d 929 (10th Cir. 2007) (procedural due process balancing framework)
Matthews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (three-factor test for process due)
Hyde Park Co. v. Santa Fe City Council, 226 F.3d 1207 (10th Cir. 2000) (distinguishes between procedural and substantive due process)
Cobb v. Saturn Land Co., 966 F.2d 1334 (10th Cir. 1992) (preexisting interest can justify limited process for liens)
Farthing v. City of Shawnee, 39 F.3d 1131 (10th Cir. 1994) (procedural due process considerations and notice)