Opinion ID: 776662
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Protected Property Interests.

Text: 34 The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants-appellees as to the plaintiffs-appellants' Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment claims for the removal and destruction of the duck blinds on the alternative ground that the plaintiffs-appellants' interests in the duck blind structures did not rise to the level of a constitutionally protected property interest. The district court noted that in 1986, the TWRC, as the agency directed and authorized to promulgate necessary rules and regulations for activities at Reelfoot Lake, began to regulate the number of permanent waterfowl blinds on Reelfoot Lake. See Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs., ch. 1660-1-2-.02(3)(c). Pursuant to this objective, the TWRC promulgated a regulation requiring all waterfowl blind sites to be registered. See id. Between 1986 and 1991, permanent waterfowl blinds could be registered only by an original 1986 registrant or his or her alternate. See id. During the 1991 registration period, either the registrant or the alternate was required to be declared as the site's permanent registrant, and thereafter, only the permanent registrant was authorized to register the blind site. See id. An individual who properly registered his or her waterfowl blind between 1986 and 1991, was allowed to retain the blind as a permanent blind site provided that he or she obtained from the TWRC an annual waterfowl permit, timely registered the blind each year, and complied with other TWRC regulations. See id. As previously mentioned, the regulations specifically provide that 35 [n]o blind may be constructed, or repaired, or any floating blinds moved onto the area that has not met the deadline for registering the blind and displaying the registration number, as prescribed. Unregistered and/or unnumbered blinds are subject to removal at the discretion of the area manager or a designee of the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency.... 36 Id. The district court noted that because the Arnetts did not comply with the applicable permit regulations, the duck blinds they claimed to own were not authorized, and were subject to removal by the TWRA. The court held that by virtue of the State of Tennessee's public trust ownership of the Reelfoot Lake bed, and in accordance with the TWRC's interpretation of its own regulations, the removal and destruction of the blinds to which the Arnetts claimed ownership was lawful, and the Arnetts were unable to demonstrate any constitutionally protected property interest in the blinds that would entitle them to due process or just compensation for their removal and destruction. 37 In considering procedural due process claims, this court first determines whether the interest at stake is within the Fourteenth Amendment's protection of liberty and property. See Ferencz v. Hairston, 119 F.3d 1244, 1247 (6th Cir.1997). Only after reaching a conclusion that the interest claimed is within that protection does this court consider the form and nature of the process that is due. See id. (citing Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 570-71, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 2705-06, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972)). Thus, in a section 1983 due process claim for deprivation of a property interest, a plaintiff first must show a protected property interest, and only after satisfying this first requirement can a plaintiff prevail by showing that `such interest was abridged without appropriate process.' Id. (quoting LRL Properties v. Portage Metro Hous. Auth., 55 F.3d 1097, 1108 (6th Cir.1995)). 38 Property interests protected by the due process clause must be more than abstract desires or attractions to a benefit. See Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 2709, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972). The due process clause protects only those interests to which one has a legitimate claim of entitlement. Id. at 577, 92 S.Ct. at 2709. This has been defined to include `any significant property interests ... including statutory entitlements.' See Brotherton v. Cleveland, 923 F.2d 477, 480 (6th Cir.1991) (citations omitted). Property interests are not created by the Fourteenth Amendment, rather they are created and defined by independent sources, such as state law. See Brotherton, 923 F.2d at 480 (quoting Roth, 408 U.S. at 577, 92 S.Ct. at 2709). State supreme court decisions are controlling authority for such determinations, but if the state supreme court has not ruled on the precise issue in question, this court must look at other indicia of state law, including state appellate court decisions. See Brotherton, 923 F.2d at 480. This court may rely on those other indicia of state law unless there is persuasive data that the state supreme court would decide the issue otherwise. See id. 39 This court's review of Tennessee jurisprudence has revealed that the Supreme Court of Tennessee evidently has never had occasion to pass judgment on whether private parties have constitutionally protected property interests in unregistered duck blinds on a lake vested in public trust in the State of Tennessee. See State ex rel. Cates v. West Tennessee Land Co., 127 Tenn. 575, 158 S.W. 746 (Tenn.1913). In Hamilton v. Cook, a Tennessee Court of Appeals stated in a footnote as follows: 40 The parties have directed this court's attention to the case of State ex rel. Cates v. West Tennessee Land Co., ... in which our supreme court discussed the rights of property owners whose lands became submerged when Reelfoot Lake was created by an earthquake in 1810. We note, however, that the Hamiltons' complaint asserts that their boat, duck blind, and decoys were placed in Reelfoot Lake `a short distance from' their property rather than in the portion of the lake which `covers' their property. We further note that the Hamiltons have a property interest in their boat, duck blind, and decoys which is independent of any property rights which they might assert as riparians of Reelfoot Lake. Accordingly, our resolution of the Hamiltons' section 1983 claim against the individual Defendants does not require this court to resolve the nature or extent of the Hamiltons' asserted riparian rights to Reelfoot Lake. 41 No. 02A01-9712-CV-00324, 1998 WL 704528, at  n. 7 (Tenn.Ct.App.1998) (citation omitted)(emphasis added). The court in Hamilton provided no analysis to support its conclusion as to the Hamiltons' property interest in their duck blind, and it was a genuine issue of material fact in that case whether the Hamiltons' blind was registered. See id. at . 42 The Arnetts argue that they have a constitutionally protected property interest in the duck blinds under the rules and regulations promulgated by the TDEC. In 1986, the Tennessee legislature enacted a statute granting the Department of Health and Environment permitting authority over any activities that may impair or obstruct the navigability of watercourses in Tennessee. See 1986 Tenn. Pub. Acts 818. In 1992, the Tennessee legislature substituted the TDEC as the permitting authority. See 1992 Tenn. Pub. Acts 693 § 1 (codified at Tenn.Code Ann. § 69-1-117). The Tennessee legislature expressly authorized and directed the Commissioner of the TDEC to establish rules implementing the permitting system. See Tenn.Code Ann. § 69-1-117(b). These rules, which were first promulgated in 1988, include provisions relating specifically to duck blinds on Reelfoot Lake. See Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs., ch. 1200-4-8-.03(5). The rules state that [d]uck blinds authorized by the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency [on Reelfoot Lake] pursuant to T.C.A. §§ 70-1-206 and 70-4-107 are authorized by this rule. Id. at 1200-4-8-.03(5)(c). 43 The TDEC rule that the Arnetts rely on to support their argument that they had protected property interests in the duck blinds is rule 1200-4-8-.03(4)(e) which provides that [a]ny activity or structure which was commenced before July 1, 1986, does not need a permit under this Act. Id. The TDEC rules define structure as any building, pier, wharf, dolphin, weir, boom, breakwater, bulkhead, revetment, riprap, jetty, mooring structure, moored floating vessel, piling, aid to navigation, or any other obstacle or obstruction. Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs., ch. 1200-4-8-.02(2)(i). The Arnetts claim that the three duck blinds to which they claim ownership, which may qualify as other obstacles or obstructions to navigation under rule 1200-4-8-.02(2)(i), were erected on Reelfoot lake prior to July 1, 1986, and therefore are exempt from permitting requirements under TDEC rule 1200-4-8-.03(4)(e). The Arnetts claim ownership interests in the duck blinds in the Cranetown and Net Raft Timber areas of Reelfoot Lake by having claimed and refurbished them after they were abandoned by their previous owners, and an ownership interest in the blind in the Rushing Pond area of Reelfoot Lake, by having obtained title to it by conveyance from its previous owner. The Arnetts claim that it is customary for individuals to claim private ownership of abandoned duck blinds on Reelfoot Lake, and that these ownership interests are recognized by state officials if, but only if, the alleged owners participate in the TWRA registration process. This alleged customary ownership interest is not disputed by the defendants-appellees, and this court's review of Tennessee law has revealed no authority stating that individuals cannot assert valid ownership interests over abandoned duck blinds on Reelfoot Lake. 44 The defendants-appellees contend that TDEC rule 1200-4-8-.03(4)(e), when read in conjunction with rule 1200-4-8-.03(5)(c), only exempts from permitting requirements those waterfowl blinds authorized by the TWRC and TWRA. The defendants-appellees have cited no authority interpreting these rules in this fashion, and it is not clear from the rules themselves precisely which kinds of structures commenced before July 1, 1986 do not need permits under the relevant TDEC rules. In short, a genuine issue of material fact exists as to this issue, and the district court erred when it granted summary judgment citing only to the TWRC's permit requirements. 45 Ultimately, no clear indicia of Tennessee law exists to guide this court's determination of whether the Arnetts had a constitutionally protected property interest in the duck blinds at issue in this case. Genuine issues for trial exist in this case as to (a) whether the Arnetts have constitutionally protected property interests in the duck blinds to which they claim ownership; (b) if so, what form and nature of procedural process the Arnetts were due before the blinds were removed and destroyed, and whether the defendants complied with these due process requirements; (c) whether the removal and destruction of the duck blinds constituted a taking and, if so, the amount of just compensation the Arnetts were due for that taking; and (d) whether the Arnetts have constitutionally protected riparian rights pursuant to a Doherty land grant that have been violated by the defendants-appellees. 46