Opinion ID: 1651686
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Property Owners' claims survive summary judgment

Text: Property Owners' claims in this case allege genuine issues of disputed material fact relating to whether the City's actions constituted aggravated delay or untoward activity in instituting or continuing the condemnation proceedings on the property. They have alleged a de facto taking of their property resulting from the exodus of rental tenants from their property after the City declared it blighted. They contend that the City failed to enforce plan timetables for acquisition and redevelopment of the property, which has been declared blighted for five years. They also assert that the City has harassed them with building inspections and notices of code violations and by discouraging new tenants from renting in the property. In contrast, the City denies the redevelopment plans have been unduly delayed, and it contends that it has not violated the time requirements imposed by section 99.810.1(3). It argues that there are no applicable plan timetables at issue and maintains that it has spent five years consistently moving forward to redevelop the property. It denies any harassment of Property Owners or their tenants, and it contends that Property Owners' damages are caused by their inability to attract and keep tenants for a reasonable rate of return on the property [because of their] own inability to properly manage [the] property. The variance between the facts alleged by Property Owners and the City sufficiently demonstrates that there are genuine issues of material fact in dispute about whether the City's actions show aggravated delay or untoward activity that could merit recovery of precondemnation damages. As such, Property Owners' claims survive summary judgment. [14]