Opinion ID: 3063818
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Takings Clause Claims

Text: Busse contends that the Resolution constituted an unconstitutional taking of his property rights in Lot 15A. The Fifth Amendment prohibits the taking of private property “for public use, without just compensation” — a condition made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment. U.S. Const. amend. V; Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606, 617, 121 S. Ct. 2448, 2457 (2001) (noting that the Fourteenth Amendment made the Takings Clause applicable to the States). A plaintiff can bring a federal takings claim only if he can show that he did not receive just compensation in return for the taking of his property. See Eide v. Sarasota County, 908 F.2d 716, 720 (11th Cir. 1990). As a result, for a takings claim to be ripe, a plaintiff must demonstrate that he unsuccessfully “pursued the available state procedures to obtain just compensation” before bringing his federal claim. Id. at 721. In this case, Busse’s claim would not be ripe because he has not shown that he attempted to obtain or secure relief under established Florida procedures. Since at least 1990, Florida courts have recognized that an inverse-condemnation remedy is available for alleged takings violations. See Reahard v. Lee County, 30 F.3d 6 1412, 1417 (11th Cir. 1994). Busse contends that his claim would still be ripe since that remedy was unavailable in 1969 when the Board of Commissioners enacted the Resolution. However, our past circuit precedent dictates “that a Florida property owner must pursue a reverse condemnation remedy in state court before his federal takings claim will be ripe, even where that remedy was recognized after the alleged taking occurred.” Id. Accordingly, regardless of whether Busse has a valid property interest in Lot 15A, because he has not alleged that he sought and was denied compensation through available state procedures, his Takings Clause claim would not be ripe for review. We thus conclude that the district court did not err in finding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Busse’s Takings Clause claim.