Town of Woodside v. Gava
About This Legal Opinion
The appeal was held to be frivolous and the Gavas were ordered to pay the Town's attorney fees and costs and the court's costs in processing the appeal.This case is a prime example of a court's losing patience with a landowner who refuses to comply with the terms of an easement.
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.
The Nature Conservancy v Sims
In a Memorandum Opinion and Order dated March 5, 2009, the court granted TNC's Motion for Summary Judgment. Section 5.1 of the Conservation Easement provides that "[a]ll reasonable costs incurred by the Conservancy in enforcing the terms of this Easement against Grantor, including, without limitation, costs and expenses of suit and reasonable attorneys' fees, and any costs of restoration necessitated by Grantor's violation of the terms of this Easement shall be borne by Grantor." Accordingly, the court also determined that TNC is entitled to recoup from Defendants the reasonable fees and costs it incurred in enforcing the Conservation Easement, and ordered further briefing to determine the amount to be awarded to TNC.
Conservation Commission of the Town of Fairfield v. Dimaria
The appellate court dismissed the appeal as moot, because the defendant had already removed the fill during the course of the appeal. This case serves as another example of how easement parties can be tripped up over the terms 'farming' and 'agriculture,' especially in connection with livestock.
Costs and Fees Recovery
The possibility that a land trust could be required to pay substantial fees and costs if it loses a legal challenge can be a significant deterrent. States take a variety of approaches to costs and fees, so as a first step, land trusts should have experienced local counsel in their state determine what the standard practice or statute is so that you can draft to prevail on the fee recovery clause, without exposing your land trust to prevailing party risks.
Bosque Canyon Ranch, L.P. v. Commissioner – Appeal
This is the appeal to the 5th Circuit that overturned the Tax Court and limited the reach of the Belk line of cases.
In the Matter of Girard v. Town of East Hampton
The appellate court affirmed in a very brief opinion, holding that the Town's zoning requirement of a conservation easement was arbitrary and capricious.
Historic Boardwalk v. Commissioner (Appeal)
Appeal to USCA Third Circuit in which the 3d Circuit reversed the Tax Court agreeing with the IRS.
Murray v. Webster
This case relates to a challenge of a town's abandonment of a public road and the parties entitled to notice of the discontinuance hearing. The court held that the town acted in accordance with the law by not granting any of the abandoned road or giving notice to trespassers on adjacent property.
A Guide to Assessing Green Infrastructure Costs and Benefits for Flood Reduction
This guide lays out a six-step watershed-based approach for documenting the costs of flooding, projecting increased flooding and associated costs under future land use and climate conditions, and calculating the long-term benefits and costs of a green infrastructure approach.
Deerfield River Co. v. Wilmington Power and Paper Co.
The court held that when the purpose of a taking is to provide a town electricity at the town's request, it is a public use.
McCulloch v. Town of Milan
To date, this is the only reported case in which a landowner has claimed racial discrimination as a version of selective enforcement in a conservation easement violations context. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Town.