Opinion ID: 210344
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Need To Consider the Duration of the Legislation

Text: In its decision, the Court of Federal Claims did not consider the duration of the legislation. We believe existing takings law requires consideration of the duration of the legislation as part of the takings analysis. See Tahoe-Sierra, 535 U.S. at 342, 122 S.Ct. 1465. The LIHPRHA restrictions remained in effect from November 28, 1990, until the HUD appropriations statute, implementing HOPE, was enacted on April 29, 1996. [18] Four owners did not enter into use agreements and were thus relieved of the LIHPRHA restrictions in April 26, 1996, when the HOPE appropriation was enacted. [19] These owners only had their prepayment rights restricted for at most a short periodfrom nineteen to twenty-seven monthswhen the legislation was in effect. [20] The Court of Federal Claims erred in not considering the duration of the legislation in deciding whether a taking had occurred. On remand, the court must consider that the owners who did not enter into use agreements were only subjected to the legislation for a limited period of 19 to 27 months. Four of the owners elected to enter into use agreements after the enactment of LIHPRHA but before the HOPE enactment: Cienega Gardens, Del Amo Gardens, Las Lomas Gardens, and Chancellor Manor. The temporary nature of the legislation is irrelevant with respect to those who had use agreements in place when HOPE was enacted since those owners acted reasonably on the assumption that the restrictions were permanent.