Eminent Domain
Verified Update
Ruling Issued
Kentucky's Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of Lampton Securities' reverse condemnation suit over an Ohio River floodplain tract, holding the claim wasn't ripe because Lampton never sought a variance from the floodplain board.
Lampton Securities Partnership, LLP sued Louisville-Jefferson County Metro Government and the Louisville and Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District for reverse (inverse) condemnation, alleging that 1997 floodplain ordinances stripped all economically beneficial use from a roughly two-acre Ohio River tract it bought for $800,000 in 1998. On October 30, 2026, the Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for the government defendants, holding that Lampton's claim was not ripe because it never applied to the Metro Sewer District's Floodplain Board for a variance -- relief the ordinance made available and that the Board had granted to other landowners.
Reverse condemnation claim over a 2-acre tract Lampton bought for $800,000 in 1998; the opinion states no damages figure sought
Oct 30, 2026
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Zoning & Land Use
Verified Update
Ruling Issued
New Jersey's Appellate Division affirmed a zoning board's approval letting a historic Point Pleasant Beach building be converted into a restaurant, spa, and boutique hotel, rejecting a neighboring owner's repeat variance challenge.
The Appellate Division of New Jersey's Superior Court affirmed a trial court's dismissal of a neighboring commercial property owner's prerogative-writs challenge to use variances the Point Pleasant Beach Zoning Board of Adjustment granted for a mixed-use redevelopment of the historic Gottlieb Building. The Board had unanimously approved a restaurant and spa on the ground floor and a previously approved boutique hotel use on the second floor; objector 637 Arnold, LLC argued the public notice was deficient and the Board misapplied New Jersey's variance standards, but the per curiam panel found no basis to disturb the trial court's reasoning and affirmed.
no damages at issue; dispute over use variances for a mixed hotel/restaurant/spa redevelopment of a historic downtown building
Oct 30, 2026
Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division
Zoning & Land Use
Verified Update
Ruling Issued
Answering a certified question from the Eleventh Circuit, Florida's Supreme Court held an easement's prevailing-party attorney's-fee clause is a personal covenant that doesn't bind successors like Crown Castle.
The Florida Supreme Court, answering a certified question from the Eleventh Circuit, held on October 29, 2026 that a prevailing-party attorney's-fee provision in an easement agreement is a personal covenant that does not run with the land. Crown Castle South, LLC therefore cannot be forced to pay RJ's International Trading, LLC's attorney's fees under a fee clause that Crown Castle's predecessors-in-interest, not Crown Castle itself, agreed to decades earlier, even though Crown Castle was bound by -- and lost on -- the underlying easement and trespass claims.
$40,001 jury verdict ($1 for breach of easement, $40,000 for trespass); the attorney's-fee amount actually in dispute is not stated in the opinion
Oct 29, 2026
Supreme Court of Florida
