Representative Image (AI-generated)
In an opinion rendered on October 30, 2026, the Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed a Jefferson Circuit Court decision granting summary judgment to Louisville-Jefferson County Metro Government and the Metropolitan Sewer District. The judges therefore concluded that Lampton had filed its compensation lawsuit before obtaining a final administrative decision on the property’s permitted uses.
Available on Justia under Lampton Securities Partnership, LLP v, according to the court’s ruling . Louisville-Jefferson County Metro Government, the landowner had not obtained a final decision from the relevant authorities about what could be built on the property. It had also failed to seek a variance, an administrative exception that could have allowed development despite the restrictions. The appellate court consequently concluded that the compensation claim was premature. The appellate judges explained that a regulatory taking cannot be established until the relevant authorities have made a final decision about how a property can be used. Property owners must generally follow reasonable administrative procedures, including pursuing available variance procedures, before claiming that regulations have eliminated the property’s economic value. In this case, Lampton had received no final decision from the Floodplain Board. The court also noted that an opinion expressed by a Metropolitan Sewer District staff member was not an official determination of the property’s permitted uses. The court rejected Lampton’s argument that seeking a variance would have been futile. The Floodplain Board had the authority to grant exceptions, and the record showed that it had approved variances for other property owners. The Court of Appeals also found insufficient evidence to establish that the Floodplain Board would inevitably reject Lampton’s application. They affirmed the Jefferson Circuit Court’s summary judgment in favour of Louisville-Jefferson County Metro Government and the Metropolitan Sewer District.
The district’s representative had testified that the decision rested with the board, not individual staff members, and that no similar condominium development variance had previously been requested.