|
<br />F:J.ge'2 - September 10, 2004
<br />
<br />Z.B.
<br />
<br />Taking - Tenants claim zoning eviction violates property rights
<br />Landlord ordered to remove tenants) mobile homes
<br />
<br />Citation: Rui: v. :Ve,v Garden Township, 3rd. U.S. Circuit Courr of AppeaLs,
<br />No. 02 -4-+3-+ 004-)
<br />
<br />The 3rd. u.s. Circuit COUrT of AppeaLs has jurisdiction over Dela,;vare. New
<br />Jersey, Pennsylvania, ana the Virgin Islands.
<br />
<br />PENNS'YL VANL'-\ to; /26/04) - Since the 1990s, Ruiz and several others were
<br />tenants in mobile homes lOC<lIed OD property designated as a C-I-'2 Limited
<br />COffiiTIerciai Industrial DiStrict. Dil:baldo was their landlord, and the length of
<br />tenancies was according to his discretiOn.
<br />On June 2::2, 2000, New Garden Township issued an enforcement notice
<br />citing DiUbaldo for allowing mobile homes on the property. The zoning notice
<br />was issued because the light industrial zoning designation of that propeny did
<br />not allow it to be used as a mobile home parle
<br />The notice required DiUbaldo to begin removinoz the mobile homes within
<br />.. -- '-'
<br />10 days and [0 complete the process wIthin 45 days. The notice also informed
<br />him that he could appeal the enforcement action to the New Garden Township
<br />Zoning Hearing Board.
<br />Di'lJbaldo did appeal, but the tenants did not participate, although notice of
<br />the bearings was apparently pOSed on the property. The board d~nied
<br />DilJbaldo's appe;ll, but it altered the terms of the enforcement order. DiUbaldo
<br />was ordered to give the tenants notice to quit the property by March 1, 2001,
<br />and he was ordered to remove the mobile homes by July 2001.
<br />As instructed, Di1;"'oaldo served the notices to quit on the tenants around
<br />March 1,2001. ""fany of the tenants claimed this was the f.irst time they knew of
<br />the hearing, and despite the notice to quit, the tenants failed to vacate the
<br />property by July 2001. DiUbaldo ultimately had the tenants evicted.
<br />The tenants sued, claimin~ the board was unconstitutionally takinz their
<br />~ ~ -
<br />
<br />propeny. Tne coun ruled in their favor.
<br />The township appealed, arguing the tenants had no reasonable expectation
<br />of future occupancy on the propeny.
<br />
<br />DECISION: Reversed.
<br />It was clear the tenants had DO reasonable CXDectation of occupancy be-
<br />L .
<br />
<br />yond the period chac the landlord might agree to in the event of termination.
<br />Toae period W.J.S undefined Jnd lefl completely to the discretion of the landlord.
<br />State la \v reg ui.red tenants be give n at leaSe 3D days' Douce of termination.
<br />~. ,......,..""\r-i;n :J1..,' 1; -1"T'_,=>')rer. -1 ~he f;:::l.r"'\.)n,.,.... -..nU'1 -~ ro:,! -,--....n.-~ '0; 1~_ '='V1'""\e'" [l() m--""'ra :-'na. n '('
<br />,,,~,-,-,,U, !,;<J. iL "'l-!-'v~''-'U L1" _.v,"U C:::' '-'U ,u ,~,.:::'U LL .i} ,-",1-" '-'L L.\J v U -' J
<br />days JddincQJ.l .=>ccupaDcy' upon i1o[ice ~hat :helr landlord de~icied tc i:erminaLe
<br />JD:.i of theL[ lc~lses.
<br />The b<.J;lf'j ~)rdered DilJb~iJo Lo'Qccify che (cDan[S ~)ri(s ruling D;/ )iIarch 1.
<br />=C{)l. J.fld~:) c:::n1C"i;: ~he D10bile homes ~icm ~b.e ?rc:?erIY O;i Jul:-11. :001 Thus.
<br />
<br />i; 2C-C;.:l ,':Uin!2n ='_iclisrHng~(C:Llc, ..:.nv "scr(tJUC:lcnS:-fOiliCI[EIJ. ::,)( llCf!: .nTGrrnallC'n :182S2 :::.311 c:~. :.1;;:"10-J.3.
<br />
<br />106
<br />
|