Powell v. State
238 Or. App. 678
Or. Ct. App.2010Background
- Powell owned property in Jefferson County, originally acquired in 1967, later transferred as security in a fraud-induced transaction and then reconveyed.
- In 1985 Powell regained title after rescission of the fraudulent transfer.
- Powell filed a Measure 37 claim in 2005 seeking compensation for land use regulation impacts under ORS 195.305 (formerly ORS 197.352).
- DLCD denied the Measure 37 claim, arguing the relevant regulatory burdens were those in effect when Powell reacquired title in 1985.
- Measure 49 was enacted in 2007, altering remedies for property-value losses from land use regulations and potentially moot ongoing Measure 37 claims.
- The circuit court dismissed Powell’s claim as moot after Measure 49; Powell appealed alleging retroactivity and due process challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Measure 49 retroactively applicable to pending Measure 37 claims | Powell asserts Measure 49 applies prospectively only | DLCD and state contend retroactive application valid | Measure 49 retroactively replaces Measure 37 remedies |
| Whether retroactive application of Measure 49 violates due process | Powell has a vested right in ongoing Measure 37 litigation | Measure 49 rationally furthers legitimate governmental purpose | Measure 49 passes rational-basis substantive due process review |
| Whether the case was moot due to Measure 49 | Ongoing litigation should not be mooted by retroactive reform | Measure 49 extinguishes Measure 37 remedies and moots pending claims | Circuit court properly dismissed; claims moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Bleeg v. Metro, 229 Or.App. 210 (2009) (retroactivity issue in Measure 49 context)
- Corey v. DLCD, 344 Or. 457 (2008) (Measure 37 framework and remedies)
- Ettor v. City of Tacoma, 228 U.S. 148 (1913) (vested property right under retroactive repeal and due process)
- Coombes v. Getz, 285 U.S. 434 (1932) (retroactive liability rights protected by due process)
- West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379 (1937) (modern substantive due process approach to economic regulation)
- Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. v. Romein, 503 U.S. 181 (1992) (retroactivity requires legitimate purpose and rational means)
- United States v. Hemme, 476 U.S. 558 (1986) (harshness inquiry linked to arbitrary/irrational legislation)
- United States v. Carlton, 512 U.S. 26 (1994) (retroactivity standard tied to legitimate legislative purpose)
- Hall v. Northwest Outward Bound School, 280 Or. 655 (1977) (retroactivity discussion in Oregon context; precedential limitations noted)
- Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905) (historical Lochner era cited to contextualize vested-right critique)
- Honeywell, Inc. v. Minn. Life & Health Ins. Guaranty Ass'n, 110 F.3d 547 (8th Cir. 1997) (rejects vested-right approach for modern substantive due process review)
- General Motors Corp. v. Romein, 503 U.S. 181 (1992) (retroactive legislation must be rationally related to a legitimate purpose)