Furlong Companies v. City of Kansas City
2006 WL 696494, 189 S.W.3d 157, 2006 Mo. LEXIS 45 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A government entity's intentional disregard of its own valid laws to deny a land use application that meets all legal requirements constitutes a "truly irrational" action that violates the applicant's substantive due process rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Facts:
- Furlong Companies, Inc. owned 2.76 acres of land in Kansas City, Missouri, which was already zoned for its intended commercial use: two fast-food restaurants and a car wash.
- Furlong entered into contracts to sell one tract for a Wendy's and lease another for a Sonic, with both contracts being contingent upon final plat approval.
- On October 1, 1999, Furlong applied for a preliminary plat. After Furlong agreed to all suggested conditions, the city staff recommended that the city plan commission approve the application.
- Despite the staff's recommendation, the city plan commission denied the application on December 7, 1999, without providing any findings of fact or conclusions of law.
- The plat application was then reviewed by a city council subcommittee, which held multiple hearings, required Furlong to conduct traffic studies that showed little impact, and ultimately delayed a decision by voting the matter 'off the docket.'
- The city's legal counsel advised the city council in a closed session that there was no legal basis for rejecting Furlong's application.
- On May 4, 2000, the full city council voted 9-4 to deny the preliminary plat, again without issuing findings of fact or conclusions of law.
- Out of 197 plat applications submitted to the city in the ten years including Furlong's, Furlong's application was the only one that was denied.
Procedural Posture:
- Furlong Companies, Inc. filed suit against the City of Kansas City in state trial court, seeking a writ of mandamus to compel approval of its plat application and damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- After a bench trial on the first claim, the trial court issued an order of mandamus compelling the city to approve the plat.
- The trial court then held a subsequent hearing on the § 1983 claim and entered a judgment for Furlong, awarding $224,871.00 in actual damages and $148,435.20 in attorney's fees.
- The City of Kansas City, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Supreme Court of Missouri.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a city's intentional denial of a preliminary plat application that complies with all ordinances, in defiance of its own staff's recommendations and legal counsel's advice, constitute a 'truly irrational' action that violates substantive due process under 42 U.S.C. § 1983?
Opinions:
Majority - William Ray Price, Jr.
Yes, the city's action was truly irrational and violated Furlong's substantive due process rights. The court distinguished between legislative zoning decisions, which grant wide discretion, and ministerial plat approvals, which do not. If a plat application complies with all subdivision ordinances, the city has a ministerial duty to approve it and lacks the discretion to deny it. The court found substantial evidence that Furlong's plat complied with all city requirements regarding traffic, lot dimensions, and other conditions. The city's conduct—ignoring the recommendations of its professional staff, defying the advice of its own legal counsel, imposing numerous delays, and denying the only plat out of 197 in a decade—went beyond a mere mistake or arbitrary action. This intentional disregard of its own valid laws, with the knowledge that it was depriving Furlong of its property rights, met the high standard of 'truly irrational' conduct required for a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the high threshold for establishing a substantive due process violation in land use disputes. It demonstrates that while courts are reluctant to second-guess routine zoning or planning decisions, a municipality's authority is not absolute. The ruling establishes that when a government entity intentionally ignores its own clear, non-discretionary legal duties, in defiance of advice from its own staff and counsel, its actions can rise from merely 'arbitrary and capricious' to 'truly irrational,' triggering federal liability under § 1983. This precedent provides a crucial, though narrow, avenue for relief for property owners and developers who face bad-faith obstructionism from local governments, warning municipalities that ministerial acts cannot be politicized without risking significant financial damages.
