Schanzenbach v. Town of La Barge, Wyoming
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 2672
| 10th Cir. | 2013Background
- Schanzenbach owned two LaBarge properties and planned to install mobile manufactured homes (>10 years old) on both lots.
- The town granted a building permit for the Groves Addition lot but revoked it within two weeks after a special meeting.
- Mayor Sakai notified that the permit was revoked because the home was the only singlewide trailer in the block and because mobile homes are not permitted in R-2 zoning without a conditional use permit.
- Ordinance 2006-16, enacted in Fall 2006 and effective December 23, 2006, imposed a 10-year age limit on buildings at permit application.
- Following the ordinance, Schanzenbach’s permit for the Piper’s Way lot and requests for a variance and a conditional-use permit were denied.
- Schanzenbach sued in March 2011 asserting takings, due-process, preemption, municipal authority, and attorney-fee claims; district court granted summary judgment for defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ripeness of takings claim | Schanzenbach argues takings claim ripe. | Defendants contend no final agency action and remedies available. | Takings claim unripe; remanded to dismiss without prejudice |
| Procedural due process | Schanzenbach asserts denial of due process due to revocation without notice. | Defendants argue no protected property interest under Wyoming law. | Schanzenbach had no protected property interest; due process claim allowed but fails on interest analysis |
| Preemption by the Manufactured Housing Act | Act preempts the 10-Year Rule. | Act does not preempt state/local age restrictions like the 10-Year Rule. | Act does not preempt the 10-Year Rule |
| Wyoming authority to enact the 10-Year Rule | Town lacked authority to restrict age of manufactured homes. | Home-rule provisions give broad power; statute does not foreclose age restrictions. | LaBarge had authority to enact the rule |
| Attorney-fees | Schanzenbach seeks attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. | District court ruling on fees was erroneous or moot. | Attorney-fee issue moot; no award |
Key Cases Cited
- Williamson Cnty. Reg'l Planning Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172 (1985) (takings ripeness requires final agency action and just-compensation remedy)
- Ebzery v. City of Sheridan, 982 P.2d 1251 (Wy. 1999) (property interests in permits require detriment-based vesting under state law)
- Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247 (1978) (procedural due process and notice/hearing rights; harms may be non-compensable)
- Landmark Land Co. v. Buchanan, 874 F.2d 717 (10th Cir. 1989) (procedural due process in permitting decisions; ripeness considerations)
- Jordan-Arapahoe, LLP v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 633 F.3d 1022 (10th Cir. 2011) (due-process claims tied to zoning decisions; independent from takings)
- Miller v. Campbell Cnty., 945 F.2d 348 (10th Cir. 1991) (due-process and takings ripeness considerations in land-use cases)
- Burns v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 544 F.3d 279 (3d Cir. 2008) (distinct meaning of property under due process vs. takings)