Stephanie Ladas

GARP 0225
17 December 2016

Roberta Gove vs. Zoning Board of Appeals of Chatham

1. Name, Citation and Parties (Defendant and Plaintiff)

Roberta Gove (plaintiff in error) vs. Zoning Board of Appeals of Chatham (defendant in error)
Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts 444 Mass. 754 (2005)

2. One-line Procedural History

A two-day bench trial in the Superior Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the defendants (ZBA of
Chatham). Gove’s application was sent to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial for further
appellate review.

3. One-line Legal Issue

Has Gove’s property been “taken” without “just compensation”? Does the coastal conservancy
district regulations further a legitimate state interest? Challenges to the 5th and 14th
amendments of the US constitution and Article 10 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.

4. Bullet List of Facts of Case

● Roberta Gove inherited lot 93 in 1975, at a time when residential development was
permitted.

● Ten years later, the town placed all of the land within the hundred year coastal flood
plain (including lot 93) into the coastal conservancy district. Although residential
development was restricted, nonresidential uses are allowed by right or special permit
● Before zoning regulations were amended, Gove attempted to sell lot 93 and another with
no offers, forcing her to withdraw them from the market.
● In 1998, the Greniers contracted to purchase lot 93, “contingent upon their ability to
obtain permits for a home”; the zoning officer denied Greniers a permit to build.

5. Arguments
ARGUMENTS BY GOVE (plaintiff in error)
● Board effected a taking of lot 93 which subjects property to zoning regulations which
failed to advance legitimate state interests.
● No beneficial use of lot 93
● Disrupted reasonable expectation of developing the property
ARGUMENTS BY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF CHATHAM (defendant in error)
● There is a legitimate relationship between prohibition of residential development on lot
93 and legitimate State interests. Ex. protection from natural disaster; inundation by
seawater etc.
● No testimony offered by Gove in accounts to meaningfully questioning the conservancy
district’s ability to provide/support the the well being of the town and residents within it.
● Gove does not prove the challenged regulation rendered her property valueless nor did
she prove her entitlement to compensation
● Lot 93 still has potential nonresidential uses.
● “She cannot prove a total regulatory taking by proving only that one potential use of her
property --i.e., as the site of a house-- is prohibited.” (5)

6. Decision (Holding)
● Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court upholds the ruling of the trial court: Gove has
failed to prove the legitimacy of the conservancy district regulations having substantial
“economic impact”
● The conservancy district regulations still allow nonresidential uses, by right or by special
permit.
● Gove has not been deprived of her “distinct investment-backed expectations” in lot 93
● There is not enough evidence to consider that Gove has suffered economic loss and
should be compensated.
● There has been no physical invasion of property nor has Gove been deprived of all
economically beneficial uses of lot 93 to effect a taking.
● Takings claim overruled on account that Gove lacks substantial personal financial
investment and also the “inability to demonstrate that she ever had any reasonable
expectation of selling that particular lot for residential development…” (6)

7. Legal Precedence

Cases which “[do]es not involve a “total” regulatory taking or a physical invasion, typically [do]es
not require compensation.” (7)

8. Jot down any “notable quotes”

“”The takings clause was never intended to compensate property owners for property rights they
never had” (6)

“the Takings Clause does not require compensation when an owner is barred from putting land
to a use that is prescribed by…’existing rules or understandings’” (6)
“This is not a case where bona fide purchaser for value invested reasonably in land fit for
development, only to see a novel regulation destroy the value of her investment.” (6)

“”the character of governmental action”...is the type of limited protection against harmful private
land use that routinely has withstood allegations of regulatory takings.” (7)

How does this case compare to Lucas? Write about the level of the court, and the
decisions of the courts, including the key difference in FINDINGS between these two
cases.

Both of these cases deal with violations of the 5th and 14th amendments of the US constitution
in terms of regulatory takings and compensation matters. (Substantive due process and equal
protection considered).

Key Differences <--Highlighted in Blue

Lucas had paid 975,000 for two residential lots which he had not been required to obtain a
permit at the time of purchase. A few years later, a State had enacted a law which restricted all
construction on property rendering it valueless.

The Supreme Court of South Carolina reversed the trial court decision; they claimed Lucas did
not challenge the validity of police power within the act, therefore, no compensation would be
granted. From this point, the case was brought to the US Supreme Court.

The US Supreme Court upheld trial court findings (lots rendered valueless). There is no proper
nuisance law in place; if there were there would be a way to regulate landowner’s actions. A few
years later and after revisions to nuisance and property law, special permits were allowed to be
obtained.

Gove had inherited lot 93 in 1975 when residential development was permitted. Ten years later,
the town placed all of the land within the hundred year coastal flood plain (including lot 93) into
the coastal conservancy district. Although residential development was restricted, nonresidential
uses are allowed by right or special permit.
A two-day bench trial in the Superior Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the defendants (ZBA of
Chatham). Gove’s application was sent to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial for further
appellate review.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court upholds the ruling of the trial court: Gove has failed to
prove the legitimacy of the conservancy district regulations having substantial “economic
impact”. The conservancy district regulations still allow nonresidential uses, by right or by
special permit. Gove has not been deprived of her “distinct investment-backed expectations” in
lot 93. There is not enough evidence to consider that Gove has suffered economic loss and
should be compensated. There has been no physical invasion of property nor has Gove been
deprived of all economically beneficial uses of lot 93 to effect a taking. Takings claim overruled
on account that Gove lacks substantial personal financial investment and also the “inability to
demonstrate that she ever had any reasonable expectation of selling that particular lot for
residential development…” (6)

A total regulatory taking (seen in Lucas), “requires that the challenged regulation “denies all
economically beneficial use” of land” (5).

Also “in Lucas context “the complete elimination of a property’s value is the determinative
factor”” (5)