Village of Tiki Island v. Jerry D. Ronquille and Wife Janelle L. Ronquille, Milton Chang and Wife, Marie, Angelia G. Hill and Richard Samaniego
01-14-00823-CV
| Tex. App. | Jan 14, 2015Background
- Village of Tiki Island sought to enforce a ban on short-term rentals of single-family homes.
- Homeowners Milton and Maria Chang and Angelia Hill challenged the ban as an unconstitutional taking under Article I, §17 of the Texas Constitution.
- The trial court granted injunctive relief; the City filed pleas to jurisdiction and opposed the relief.
- The appellate issue centers on whether Homeowners have a viable Penn Central takings claim and whether the court had subject-matter jurisdiction.
- Evidence showed Homeowners purchased homes without a planned short-term rental investment and the city’s ban affected use but not value in a manner constituting a taking.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Homeowners have a viable takings claim to confer jurisdiction. | Chang/Hill contend the ban effects a taking under Penn Central. | Tiki Island argues no viable taking; no investment-backed expectation or severe economic impact. | No viable Penn Central takings claim; no subject-matter jurisdiction over takings. |
| Whether the trial court properly exercised jurisdiction over injunctive relief. | Homeowners claim jurisdiction existed due to takings claim. | City challenged jurisdiction; trial court granted injunctive relief anyway. | Jurisdiction lacking for takings claim; injunctive relief improper. |
| Whether land-use regulation to protect residential areas from short-term rentals is valid police power. | Regulation is an improper restraint on property use for non-regulatory reasons. | Regulation valid under police power to preserve residential character. | Regulation valid; not an abuse of police power. |
| Whether Homeowners can establish investment-backed expectations for short-term rentals. | Investments premised on ability to rent short-term. | No investment-backed expectation; purchase did not anticipate short-term rentals. | No viable investment-backed expectation; no taking. |
| Whether the alleged taking can be addressed via declaratory relief or injunctive relief. | DJA relief sought for inverse condemnation; injunctive relief requested. | Declaratory relief inappropriate; sovereign immunity; no justiciable relief. | Declaratory relief not justiciable; no irreparable injury shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (1926) (upheld zoning to protect residential districts; police power recognized)
- Lombardo v. City of Dallas, 124 Tex. 1 (1934) (validates police power in zoning context)
- City of Brookside Village v. Comeau, 633 S.W.2d 790 (Tex. 1982) (land-use regulation to protect residential areas)
- Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393 (1922) (regulatory takings; some values yield to police power)
- Mayhew v. Town of Sunnyvale, 964 S.W.2d 922 (Tex. 1998) (investment-backed expectations in takings analysis)
- Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 544 U.S. 528 (2005) (takings analysis; economic impact not sole determinant)
- Texas Ass’n of Business v. Texas Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440 (Tex. 1993) (statutory/tax/regulatory considerations in regulatory actions)
- Kemp Hotel Operating Co. v. City of Wichita Falls, 170 S.W.2d 217 (Tex. 1943) (no vested right in particular business use)
- City of Guthrie, 332 S.W.3d 578 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2009) (no vested property rights in certain business activities)