Justia Zoning, Planning & Land Use Opinion Summaries

The board of directors of a nonprofit condominium association approved necessary but nonemergency repairs to the association's parking garage without a full vote by its members. The repairs were completed at an amount eight times greater than the theshold in the bylaw, which required preapproval of a supermajority of owners to authorize certain expenditures exceeding $25,000. Several condominium owners sued for a judicial declaration that the board's violation of the bylaw's preapproval requirement excused their obligation to pay. The association counterclaimed against the owners to collect their share of the completed repairs and for attorney fees. The district court ruled in favor of the owners. The Supreme Court reversed, (1) holding that the business judgment rule applies to the governance decisions of this board when it acts within its authority; and (2) because the bylaw at issue was ambiguous, the Court deferred to the board's authority under the governing declaration to decide questions of interpretation or application of the bylaws. Remanded. View "Oberbillig v. W. Grand Towers Condo. Ass'n" on Justia Law

In this condemnation case, Plaintiffs brought an action against the Iowa Department of Transportation (IDOT) and the State. IDOT's motion to dismiss was granted. Subsequently, the district court granted summary judgment for the State, concluding that Plaintiffs' exclusive remedy was a mandamus action to compel condemnation proceedings. The court then dismissed the first action. Before the district court had entered its summary judgment ruling, Plaintiffs petitioned for writ of mandamus against IDOT in a second action. After the court granted summary judgment for the State, IDOT filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the dismissal of the first action barred Plaintiffs from bringing the second action under both claim and issue preclusion. The district court disagreed and granted Plaintiffs' requested writ of mandamus. Defendants appealed on the issue of claim preclusion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that when a court order dismissing an action reveals the court's intent to preserve a claim arising out of the same transaction that is pending in another lawsuit, the claim in the other lawsuit should be allowed to proceed.

Plaintiffs, landowners, challenged special assessments against their property for public improvements to a residential subdivision made by the city. Plaintiffs argued that the city council's decision to make public improvements within a subdivision rendered the city unable to assess the costs of the improvements to the landowners when a city ordinance provided for the improvements to be made by the subdivider. The district court (1) determined the city failed to enforce a subdivision ordinance requiring the subdivider to pay for street improvements but concluded that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted because a city cannot be sued for its failure to enforce ordinances; and (2) found the assessments were not excessive. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, (2) the city's failure to require the subdivider to personally make all improvements did not invalidate the authority of the city to assess property owners, and (3) the Plaintiffs did not establish the assessments to their property exceeded the special benefits provided by the improvement.