Schanzenbach v. Town of Opal, Wyoming
706 F.3d 1269
10th Cir.2013Background
- Schanzenbach owned multiple Opal properties and sought permits to place four manufactured homes on four lots.
- The town approved permits in January 2009, with expiration tied to a 45-day commencement deadline.
- Ordinance 2009-001, enacted March 2009, added a 10-Year Rule restricting age of moved-in homes to 10 years at application.
- Schanzenbach requested a two-year permit extension in late 2009; the request was denied in December 2009.
- Mayor Summers later stated the denial was due to homes not meeting the 10-Year Rule; his September 2010 permits were denied for the same reason.
- Schanzenbach sued Opal and its officials in district court alleging preemption under the Manufactured Housing Act and constitutional violations; the district court granted summary judgment for defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preemption of the 10-Year Rule | Schanzenbach argues the 10-Year Rule is preempted by the Manufactured Housing Act. | Opal asserts the rule regulates aesthetics, not construction or safety, thus no preemption. | Not preempted; rule targets aesthetics, not construction/safety. |
| Equal protection | Schanzenbach claims the 10-Year Rule irrationally singles out older manufactured homes. | Town contends any rational basis related to neighborhood aesthetics supports the rule. | Rule upheld; rational basis exists. |
| Substantive due process | Schanzenbach argues the rule arbitrarily infringes a property interest. | Town asserts broad zoning discretion and no extreme arbitrariness. | Rule not clearly arbitrary; survives substantive-due-process review. |
Key Cases Cited
- Arizona v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2492 (Supreme Court 2012) (preemption framework and implied limits)
- Scurlock v. City of Lynn Haven, 858 F.2d 1521 (11th Cir. 1988) (local aesthetics-related regulation preemption under MH Act)
- Georgia Manufactured Housing Ass’n, Inc. v. Spalding County, 148 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 1998) (aesthetic regulation not preempted when not tied to safety/construction)
- Texas Manufactured Housing Ass’n, Inc. v. City of Nederland, 101 F.3d 1095 (5th Cir. 1996) (regulation of placement not preempted when not tied to safety/construction)
- Massachusetts Bd. of Retirement v. Murgia, 427 U.S. 307 (Supreme Court 1976) (rational-basis review under equal protection)
- Messiah Baptist Church v. County of Jefferson, 859 F.2d 820 (10th Cir. 1988) (arbitrary zoning actions require substantial relation to public welfare)
- Klen v. City of Loveland, 661 F.3d 498 (10th Cir. 2011) (substantive due process requires extreme arbitrariness)
- Copelin–Brown v. N.M. State Pers. Office, 399 F.3d 1248 (10th Cir. 2005) (rational basis review for equal protection in non-suspect classifications)
- Merrifield v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 654 F.3d 1077 (10th Cir. 2011) (summary judgment standards and de novo review considerations)