Village of Maineville, Ohio v. Hamilton Township Board of Trustees
726 F.3d 762
6th Cir.2013Background
- Salt Run develops residential properties and incurred Hamilton Township impact fees of $2,100 per lot after a 2007 resolution.
- Salt Run sought annexation by the Village of Maineville to avoid the fees, resulting in a joint regulatory regime over the annexed land.
- Hamilton recorded a continuing lien on Salt Run’s property for the impact fees after annexation efforts.
- Salt Run filed federal and state law claims, including a takings claim under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which the district court partially denied.
- The Ohio Supreme Court later held Hamilton lacked authority to collect the fees, and the district court denied Salt Run’s takings claim and later rejected its § 1988 attorney’s fees request; Salt Run appeals.
- The court affirms, holding the takings claim was not ripe and that Salt Run forfeited facial-challenge arguments; attorney’s fees were not available under § 1988(b) since Salt Run did not prevail on federal claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ripe takings claim for lien challenged | Salt Run argues facial challenge to lien should not be barred by ripeness | Hamilton contends Williamson County ripeness applies and no state relief pursued | Claim not ripe; Williamson County applies; no state relief pursued to render takings ripe. |
| Whether Salt Run forfeited facial-challenge argument | Salt Run asserts facial challenge to lien should be considered | Salt Run did not raise facial challenge below; forfeited | Forfeited; appellate review denied on facial challenge. |
| Whether Salt Run is a prevailing party entitled to § 1988 fees | Salt Run seeks fees for federal claims | District court denied; no prevailing federal claim | Not a prevailing party for § 1988(b) since district court ruled against its federal claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Williamson Cnty. Reg’l Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172 (1995) (ripeness and compensation procedures for takings)
- Keystone Bituminous Coal Ass’n v. DeBenedictis, 480 U.S. 470 (1987) (facial vs. as-applied takings challenges)
- Muscarello v. Ogle Cnty. Bd. of Comm’rs, 610 F.3d 416 (7th Cir. 2010) (as-applied takings analysis guidance)
- Horne v. Dep’t of Agric., 133 S. Ct. 2053 (2013) (ripeness and alternative remedial schemes)