Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

For 30 years, GE manufactured electric capacitors containing Pyranol, an insulation containing PCBs and stored scrap in drums. It sold the scrap to Fletcher, who used it as a paint additive. Fletcher purchased more than 200,000 gallons of GE's scrap Pyranol until 1967. After failing to pay for 14 shipments, Fletcher proposed that GE retrieve the drums. GE did not follow up. In 1987, EPA found hundreds of unmarked drums containing scrap Pyranol at the Fletcher Site. Several had leaked. EPA installed a temporary cap, added the site to the Superfund List, and sought to recover costs under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9607(a)(3). A 1994 consent decree stipulated that GE would pay costs incurred through April, 1993. GE did not concede liability. In 2006, the government sought recovery for post-1993 costs. The First Circuit affirmed the district court's entry of judgment for the government on "arranger" liability. GE was aware that Fletcher had drums that would not be used and made no effort to deal with it. The court also rejected a statute of limitations defense.

In this forfeiture action, the State alleged that Defendant Basil Ryan unlawfully placed and maintained a sunken barge on the bed of the Menomonee River in violation of Wis. Stat. Ann. chapter 30. The circuit court concluded that the doctrine of judicial estoppel precluded Ryan from asserting that he did not own the barge, and it granted summary judgment in favor of the State. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the circuit court erroneously invoked the doctrine of judicial estoppel, as two essential elements of the doctrine were not satisfied; and (2) summary judgment is not permitted in forfeiture actions for violations of chapter 30. Remanded.

Christopher McCormick filed a complaint against Lawrence Crane alleging breach of warranty because the warranty deed by which Crane and his wife conveyed oceanfront property to McCormick inaccurately specified the location of an easement across the land. The superior court granted McCormick's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) because the alleged confusion about the easement's boundaries did not disrupt McCormick's possessory rights in a way that constituted a functional eviction from a portion of his property, McCormick failed to state a claim for relief based on the breach of the covenant of warranty; and (2 )because the deed from the Cranes fully disclosed the existence of an easement that provided certain nearby parcels with ocean access, McCormick failed to state a claim for breach of the warranty of freedom from encumbrances.

The Town of Westport Island issued a building permit to George Richardson to build a single-family residence on his property. Abutting landowner Deirdre Dunlop filed a notice of appeal, and the Westport Island board of appeals (Board) affirmed the issuance of the permit. The superior court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed the issuance of the building permit, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence in the record to support the Board's finding that Richardon's property met minimum lot-size requirement for construction of a residential dwelling; and (2) the Board correctly determined that Richardson's road lot could be included in his property's acreage calculation.

In a petition filed in the fall of 2010, Plaintiff-Appellee Deutsche Bank National Trust Company alleged to be the "present holder" of the note and mortgage, and initiated a foreclosure action against Defendant-Appellant Cory Richardson. A review of the note, filed as an exhibit to the Motion for Summary Judgment, revealed an undated blank indorsement. This blank indorsement was filed with the lower court for the first time in the Motion for Summary Judgment. Nowhere in the original petition did Deutsche Bank reference the undated blank indorsement. The Bank purported to have received an "Assignment of Real Estate Mortgage" from the original lender, WMC Mortgage Corporation, which was dated in 2011, claiming to be effective as of December, 2010. A summary judgment was granted in Deustche Bank's favor against Defendant, dated July 1, 2011, signed by the trial judge in September. Defendant appealed the summary judgment, arguing Deutsche Bank failed to demonstrate standing. Upon review, the Supreme Court found there was a question of fact regarding whether the Bank was a "person entitled to enforce" its note prior to the filing of the foreclosure proceeding, and as such, summary judgment was not appropriate. The Court reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Bank and remanded the case for further proceedings.

In 2009, Plaintiff-Appellee Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee for J.P. Morgan Mortgage Acquisition Trust 2007-CH3 (Deutsche Bank) filed a foreclosure action against Defendant-Appellant Theron Matthews. Deutsche Bank claimed at that time to hold the note and mortgage, and that the note and mortgage were indorsed in blank. However from the face of the note attached to the Petition, no such indorsement was found. The Bank then filed a document entitled "Assignment of Real Estate Mortgage" with the County Clerk of Creek County six months after the filing of the foreclosure proceeding. A trial court granted partial summary judgment in Deutsche Bank's favor against Defendant a month later. Defendant appealed the grant of summary judgment arguing Deutsche Bank failed to demonstrate standing. Finding that the Bank did not have the proper supporting documentation in hand when it filed suit, the Supreme Court reversed the trial court's grant of partial summary judgment in its favor. The Court remanded the case for further proceedings.

Defendants Maryse and Emilio Guillaume failed to make their mortgage payment in April 2008, and made no payments since. In May 2008, the mortgage servicer "ASC" delivered a Notice of Intention to Foreclose informing them that the lender intended to file a foreclosure action and that they should seek the advice of an attorney. The notice of intention identified ASC, with a telephone number, as the entity to contact if they wished to dispute the calculation of the payment due or that a default had occurred. The name and address of the lender, Plaintiff U.S. Bank, did not appear anywhere on the notice. One month later, the Bank filed a foreclosure action. The complaint warned that judgment could be entered if Defendants failed to file an answer to the complaint within thirty-five days and that exercising their rights to dispute the debt did not excuse them from this requirement. For several months thereafter, the Guillaumes corresponded with ASC about the possibility of a loan modification to reduce their payment and to restore the loan to active status. However, the Guillaumes did not file an answer in the foreclosure action. The court entered a final judgment of foreclosure. The Guillaumes attempted to vacate the default judgment against them, arguing that the failure to provide the lender's name on the May 2008 notice of intent to foreclose was in violation of the Fair Foreclosure Act. The trial court denied the motion to vacate. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that because the trial court ordered the Bank to reissue a notice of intention and because the Guillaumes' other arguments did not warrant relief, the Court affirmed the denial of their motion to vacate the default judgment.

This case arose from a district court's dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies of Petitioner-Appellant Daniel Fuchs's petition for judicial review and complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief. Petitioner challenged the Alcohol Beverage Control's (ABC) removal of his name from liquor license priority waiting lists. He argued that the agency's action constituted an informal rule that was not promulgated in accordance with the Idaho Administrative Procedure Act (Idaho APA). In response, ABC argued that Petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies before bringing his action before the district court, and that the removal was done in accordance with Idaho APA. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the district court erred in finding that Petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies, but that Petitioner did not have a property interest in his place on the priority list (since the legislature did not have the authority to create such an interest). Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court's decision.

This appeal involved a title to a house and lot in a residential subdivision in Forsyth County. The trial court granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and defendants appealed. The court held that the trial court properly rejected defendants' claim of bona fide purchaser status; defendants' argument that the trial court erred in holding that the children acquired a collective two-thirds interest in the property by virtue of the 1998 quitclaim deed from their father was without merit; the trial court properly dismissed defendants' claim for equitable subrogation; the trial court did not err in dismissing defendants' counterclaim for unjust enrichment; and the trial court did not err in dismissing defendants' laches defense. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.

Appellant appealed from the trial court's order granting partial summary judgment in favor of appellee on its claim for ejectment. Appellant contended that the trial court erred by granting summary judgment because the ejectment action was filed in violation of the bankruptcy court's automatic stay and because appellee failed to file a proof of claim to the property in her bankruptcy action. The court held that the record evidence demonstrated that neither the complaint nor the summary judgment order were entered in violation of the automatic stay. In addition, the court found no merit in appellant's contention that appellee was estopped from asserting a claim on the property based on its failure to file a proof of claim in the bankruptcy proceedings. The court also held that the trial court erred by giving res judicata effect on the quiet title judgment and granting summary judgment in favor of appellee in spite of affidavit evidence that appellant was not served with the summons and complaint in the quiet title action. Because there remained a question of fact regarding whether appellant was a party to the prior action, the grant of summary judgment on the ground of res judicata was error. Accordingly the court reversed the judgment.