Fourteenth Amendment Due Process

Listen to this article

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Tracy Luster v. Village of Ashmore

Case No.: 22-3065

Officials: Rovner, Hamilton, and Scudder, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Fourteenth Amendment Due Process

Luster was in the process of purchasing a house on contract and had already paid the owner a substantial portion of the home’s price (at least 20 percent). However, the village approached Luster with the intention of acquiring the property to create a municipal park. Despite Luster’s rejection of their offer, the village proceeded to contact the seller directly. Luster asserts that the village was aware of his contract but still persuaded the seller to transfer a warranty deed to the village without informing him. Subsequently, the village sent a letter to Luster demanding immediate possession of the property. This situation led to Luster being unable to insure the house due to the ownership dispute.

While Luster was trying to resolve the title issue in court to establish his ownership, the house caught fire, destroying his family’s belongings and leaving them homeless. In response to these events, Luster filed a lawsuit against the village under 42 U.S.C. 1983, seeking damages for the loss of his property and alleging the village’s “malicious conduct.” He claimed that the village had taken the house without providing him with sufficient notice and the opportunity to be heard before the seizure occurred.

The Seventh Circuit overturns the previous dismissal of the complaint finding that Luster’s complaint did not allege or imply that he was deprived of his property by random or unauthorized actions of individual village employees. Since there was no apparent justification for why the village could not have given advance notice and a hearing before taking over Luster’s property interest, the question of whether a post-deprivation remedy was adequate became irrelevant in this context.

Vacated and remanded

Decided 08/02/23

Full Text