Buck v. Hope, CA 08-709.
After Hurricane Katrina, FEMA approached the city of Hope to lease part of the Hope Municipal Airport for storage of mobile homes. Plaintiff owns land adjacent to the airport and operates a chicken farm there. After the city agreed to lease the land to FEMA, FEMA later requested permission to gravel part of the property. The city granted permission on March 21, 2006.
In June 2007, plaintiff filed a complaint against the city for nuisance, inverse condemnation, trespass, and negligence. Plaintiff specifically alleged that the graveling of the airport property caused flooding of his land, which threatened his business, caused soil erosion, and decreased the value of his property. The city moved to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint because it had not been filed within the thirty-day deadline for challenging the city’s decision contained in Ark. Code Ann. 14-56-425 and Rule 9 of the District Court Rules. Plaintiff countered that the rules did not apply to his complaint. The trial court disagreed and dismissed the complaint.
On appeal, the Arkansas Court of Appeals agreed with plaintiff, noting that Ark. Code Ann. 14-56-425 and Rule 9 of the District Court Rules applied to cases in which the city was taking direct action against a person’s land. Here, the city made decisions relating to its own land, which indirectly impacted plaintiff’s land. As such, plaintiff was not actually challenging the city’s decision to allow graveling of the property, only the results of that decision. The court reversed and remanded the case.
