# Reply Brief — Torromeo v. Town of Fremont, New Hampshire

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386015_1436%3A6

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Reply Brief
- **Published:** January 1, 2003
- **Citation:** 539 U.S. 923

## Text

Supreme Court, U.S.
FILED
a MAY 15 2003
et | OFFICE OF THE CLERK
No. 02-1507
sae ane nennnNineeneennnenenene aimmnemammanenteaetnetieteemennmmameantenatttttedeaiaammaadeaal
In The

Supreme Court of the United States

HENRY TORROMEO AND MDR CORPORATION,

Petitioners,
Vv.

TOWN OF FREMONT,

Respondent.

On Petition for Writ Of Certiorari To
The Supreme Court of New Hampshire

PETITIONERS’ REPLY TO BRIEF IN OPPOSITION

DUANE J. DESIDERIO SUMNER F. KALMAN

JON W. LUTHER Counsel of Record
THOMAS J. WARD THEA S. VALVANIS
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF 147 MAIN STREET, BOXx 988
HOME BUILDERS PLAISTOW, NH 03865

1201 15™ STREET, NW ; (603) 382-4003

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005
(202) 266-8200

Attorneys for Petitioners

ad

24

ra
met

pes

:

i
QUESTIONS PRESENTED

Liability for_a Fifth Amendment Taking: When a
state’s highest court declares a growth control regulation
“invalid ab initio,” but a town had enforced that illegal
regulation in excess of its police powers against a
specific piece of property, is the town liable to the
affected property owner for a taking because it has failed
to “substantially advance legitimate state interests’?
(Agins v. City of Tiburon, 447 U.S. 255, 260 (1980)).

Liability for a Fifth Amendment Taking:
Alternatively, when a state’s highest court declares a
growth control regulation “invalid ab initio” but a town
had enforced that regulation against a specific piece of
property, should that illegal municipal conduct be
considered under the “character of government action”
factor set forth in Penn Central Transp. Co. v. City of
New York, 438 U.S. 104, 124 (1978), as one element to
determine whether the town is liable for a taking?

Remedy for a Fifth Amendment Taking: Does the
“self-executing character” of the Takings Clause compel
the payment of “just compensation” to an aggrieved
property owner for the time period in which a growth
control regulation, declared “invalid ab initio” by a
state’s highest court, was enforced against a specific
piece of property? (First English Evangelical Lutheran
Church v. County of Los Angeles, 482 U.S. 304, 315
(1987)).

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
QUESTIONS PRESENTED. .............cceeceeccceeeceeeeeeeeeeeeees i
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES. ...0............ccc cece eee eeeeees ee il

1. The Town’s Argument, That The Invalid Growth
Control Ordinance Was Never Challenged On A
Constitutional Basis But Was Merely Procedurally
Defective, Is Meritless .....................ccccccccceceeeeeeeeeeeees l

2. The Court Must Grant Certiorari To Clarify
Whether Landowners Must Litigate The Validity Of
A Land-Use Regulation First, Before Government
Action Can Be Considered A Fifth Amendment
IEE sccecinscotnssapiitateteniccibibaiiliampeaanpaciaiicsaunndasatentaitidebiids 3

3. Petitioners Did Not “Waive” The Penn Central
MI scsiniciccsinsuiioisiesciictiinasaiiiialiniaiiainaan Sabina bluestem 7

CR TY snvnicnicintinnnsnnnimstispidiiaiinitiiidiaaiesmmmeniiionnniiat 9

ili
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES Page
Agins v. City of Tiburon, 447 U.S. 255 (1980) .....ccseseseeeeees i
Ali v. City of Los Angeles, 77 Cal. App. 4" 246 (2000) ........ 6
Armstrong v. United States, 364 U.S. 40 (1960) ..............000- 3

Brown v. Legal Found. of Washington, 538 U.S. ---,
ai SGD ns ssicsnicensnsunecsaevicebersnsenveninnevundinvennes 1,8

First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v.
County of Los Angeles, 482 U.S. 304 (1987) ..........cc0ccee i, 4

Healing v. California Coastal Comm’n,
MR PU ELBE IGIG) sssscsnsecsnscsscencsscscsnssvesssussvensnsss 6

Landgate, Inc. v. California Coastal Comm’n,
953 P.2d 1188 (Cal. 1998), cert. denied,

I ceuetibmobennaes 4,5
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council,
ce dnandntibandaandalbies 6-7
Manor v. Reisma, 2003 WL 1224248, No.

C.A. PC 89-2447 (R.I. Super. Feb. 24, 2003).............cccccceee 7
Nollan v. California Coastal Comm’n,

a lis betes sodaledi I
Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606 (2001) .........0...00. 3

2 |

iV

Penn Central Transp. Co. v. City of New York,

le ee veiibisirtn nica acedsaiincca eicncavaspadunniiteiaomaiiees 1

Rock Island, A. & L.R. Co. v. United States,

Es Fe BE ie ieinencinceniciaenisimendian 2

San Diego Gas and Elec. Co. v.

City of San Diego, 450 U.S. 621 (1981) ...cceeeeeeessesseessceeeees 6

Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council v. Tahoe Regional

Planning Agency, 535 U.S. 302 (2002) ...........:ccccssessreeeeees 1-2

United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes,

CP Wak AERO Aiitiaieneeneinic i,2
OTHER

Jon Lycett, Landgate, Inc. v. California Coastal Commission—
Why Temporary Takings Law is “Screwed Up,”
7 Hastings W-N.W. J. Envtl. L. & Pol’y 55 (2000) .............. 6

Qn ore rarer ee a

~ Manor v. Reisma, 2003 WL 1224248, No. C.A. PC 89-2447 (R.1.
Super. Feb. 24, 2003) at *11 - *12 (expressly rejecting analysis of
Landgate majority, and following analysis of Landgate dissenting
Justice Brown).

° In response, counsel for both Petitioners and Respondent stated that
Tahoe-Sierra was not dispositive in the case at bench. Counsel for

Central to the point of homage. Takings claims under the
United States and New Hampshire Constitutions were pled and
briefed. Just because the New Hampshire Supreme Court failed
to cite Penn Central in its decision does not mean that
Petitioners waived the argument.

The New Hampshire Supreme Court’s failure to conduct
the ad hoc balancing test first enunciated in Penn Central, and
reconfirmed in Tahoe-Sierra, Palazzolo, and as recently as last
March in Brown v. Legal Found. of Washington, 538 U.S. ---,
123 S.Ct. 1406, 1417-18 (2003), is fairly in play.

[CONCLUSION PAGE FOLLOWS]

Petitioners reasoned that Tahoe-Sierra did not apply because the
moratoria halting development in the Lake Tahoe basin were valid,
while the Ordinance at issue here was “invalid, ab_ initio.”
Petitioners have requested a transcript of the oral argument before the
New Hampshire Supreme Court, and will expeditiously file a
supplemental appendix with this Court once it is received.

CONCLUSION

Tahoe-Sierra emphasizes _ that “{cJonsiderations of
fairness and justice” underlie the takings analysis. 535 U.S. at
333. It is neither fair nor just for municipalities to immunize
themselves from takings liability when they fail to follow thei:
own laws and enforce illegal ones.

For the foregoing reasons, and for those stated in the
underlying Petition, the writ for certiorari should be granted.

DATED: May 15, 2003

Respectfully submitted,

Duane J. Desiderio Sumner F. Kalman

Jon W. Luther Counsel of Record

Thomas Jon Ward Thea S. Valvanis

National Association of 147 Main Street, Box 988
Home Builders Plaistow, NH 03865

1201 15" Street, NW (603) 382-4003

Washington, D.C. 20005
(202) 266-8200

Attorneys for Petitioner

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386015_1436%3A6. Public record. Not legal advice.