Aspetuck Land Trust v. City of Bridgeport - Memorandum of Decision
About This Legal Opinion
The trial court held that land preservation alone, evidenced by a lack of use of the property, is not a charitable use justifying property tax exemption.
Membership Required
This resource is a Land Trust Alliance member benefit for the staff, board and volunteers of land trust and affiliate member organizations, and Alliance donors at the Protector level.
Aspetuck Land Trust v. City of Bridgeport
The trial court held that land preservation alone, evidenced by a lack of use of the property, is not a charitable use justifying property tax exemption. To qualify for exemption, preservation must be accompanied by at least minimal educational or recreational activities on or near the property.
Adirondack Land Trust v. Town of Putnam Assessor
The appellate court reversed, holding that use of property as a wildlife or nature sanctuary is a charitable use, and that restricted access is acceptable where consistent with protecting wildlife so that the land trust was entitled to a tax-exemption.
Romulus Land Preserve v. City of Romulus
The appellate court affirmed the denial of the property tax exemption, holding that RLP's management and the public's use of the property was 'de minimis' and therefore that RLP had not 'occupied' the property for charitable purposes.
Mohonk Trust v. Board of Assessors of Town of Gardiner
New York Court of Appeals held that environmental and conservation purposes are charitable within the meaning of New York's property tax exemption statute, and that especially where conservation land is open to and enjoyed by the public, it should enjoy exemption.
Idaho Rivers United v. Hudson
In a road use dispute case, the trial court issued a declaratory judgment that the State's use of the road was not allowed by the Forest Service except by a special use permit. The decision did not turn on the 1977 scenic easement, although that might affect the ultimate resolution of the case.
Nature Conservancy of New Hampshire v. Nelson et al.
The Supreme Court held that TNC-NH was a charitable organization and thus could in theory qualify for property tax exemption. However, it determined that the property at issue was not used for charitable purposes.
In the Matter of Scenic Hudson Land Trust, Inc. v. Sarvis et al.
The appellate court held that SHLT was entitled to property tax exemption as a matter of law, finding that whether the management agreement was a lease is immaterial, as the property was being used exclusively for charitable purposes.
Little Miami, Inc. v. Kinney
In a brief, one-page opinion, the Ohio Supreme Court reversed, holding that conservation and preservation was indeed a charitable use of the property.
Holbrook Island Sanctuary v. The Inhabitants of the Town of
In a 1963 opinion the Maine Supreme Court held that the property did not qualify for property tax exemption because protecting wildlife was not a charitable purpose. The court found that the Sanctuary's purpose was plainly to benefit wild animals.
Pecos River v. San Miguel
The appellate court affirmed holding that conservation of a property is a charitable use if it confers a substantial public benefit but tax exemption would not be granted for routine activity or inactivity which benefits only the owner or a limited number of people.