S-23-0940 Main Street Properties, LLC (MSP) (Appellant) v. City of Bellevue (Appellee)
Appeal from the District Court for Sarpy County, Judge George A. Thompson
Attorneys: Adam J. Sipple (Sipple Law for Appellant) Ryan M. Kunhart and Claire E. Monroe (Dvorak Law Group, LLC for Appellee) and Aimee Bataillon (City Attorney for the City of Bellevue for Appellee)
Civil: Zoning ordinances and declaratory judgment
Proceedings Below: In Main Street Properties, LLC v. City of Bellevue, 310 Neb. 669, 968 N.W.2d 625 (2022), this Court reversed the district court’s decision to dismiss Appellant’s complaint to enjoin a rezoning ordinance. On remand, the district court entered a summary judgment in favor of Appellee.
Issues: Appellant makes the following assignments of error: 1) The district court erred by denying MSP summary judgment because the City introduced and passed Ordinance 4004 in contravention of the statutory stay found at Neb Rev Stat. §19-909 prohibiting “all proceedings in furtherance of” its zoning violation notice while MSP’s appeal of the notice was pending before the Board of Adjustment and District Court: a) The district court misinterpreted Neb Rev Stat §19-909; b) The district court erred by finding passage of the ordinance was not “in furtherance of” the zoning violation notice issued by Code Enforcement officials June 19, 2020; 2) The district court erred by awarding the City summary judgment, denying MSP’s claim that statutory stay prohibited introduction and passage of an ordinance returning MSP’s property to a residential zoning classification while MSP’s appeal was pending before the board of adjustment and district court; 3) The district court erred by awarding the City summary judgment despite evidence creating a genuine dispute as to whether MSP breached the agreement; a) Whether prior counsel for MSP made a judicial admission waiving MSP’s position as to the meaning of the words “north of the north face of the building” in the development agreement; b) Whether the evidence leaves a genuine dispute as to whether MSP committed and received notice of three or more violations of the agreement; c) Whether the evidence leaves a genuine dispute as to whether the City is estopped from claiming the violations; and 4) The district court erred by denying MSP summary judgment on its claim the City’s actions were taken out of ill will, or in bad faith, arbitrary and unreasonable.