This page uses extracted PDF text. Text can misread numbers, dates or table columns. Check the PDF before quoting or interpreting it. Redacted areas remain redacted.
the city asserting, among other claims, an inverse condemnation claim under Virgina law.1
He disagreed with the city’s nuisance determination, alleging the property was simply in
need of certain repairs. He also claimed that determination was a pretext for the city to
increase its tax base.
The district court granted summary judgment for the city. It held that whether or not
the house was a public nuisance, Fox’s inverse condemnation claim failed. The court also
held the record contained no evidence creating a genuine dispute of material fact on Fox’s
claim that the city demolished the house as a pretext for increasing its tax base.
On appeal, Fox argues that the nuisance and pretext questions can only be answered
by a jury. We disagree. If the property was a public nuisance, the city had the authority to
abate the nuisance without paying compensation. If the property was not a nuisance, Fox
cannot show a danger to health and safety which, in this case, is critical to the public use
requirement of an inverse condemnation claim. That doesn’t mean a property owner has
no recourse if the government wrongfully declares a nuisance and demolishes his property.
Other claims exist. Indeed, Fox sought to bring one—a due process claim under the United
States Constitution. Unfortunately for Fox, the district court held that the statute of
limitations has run on his due process claim, and Fox did not appeal that determination.
1
The suit was actually brought by Fox and D.A. Realestate Investment, LLC
(“DARI”), which Fox solely owned and directed. But for convenience, we will collectively
refer to the plaintiffs as Fox.
4Jump to an indexed page (18 of 18)