Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

This case arose from a dispute between property owners in a subdivision developed by Christopher and Jeffrey Houden. In 2007, twenty-three lot owners (“Defendants”) voted to record an amendment (“second amendment”) to the original covenants for the subdivision that prohibited division of the Houdens’ lot. The Houdens filed a complaint against Defendants seeking injunctive relief to declare the second amendment invalid. During the ensuing litigation, the lot owners passed another amendment (“third amendment”) purporting to revoke the second amendment. In 2010, the Houdens and all Defendants except Wayne Todd entered into a settlement agreement which set forth restated covenants expressly prohibiting amendment to prevent subdivision of the Houdens’ lot. The district court subsequently entered partial summary judgment in favor of the Houdens and against Todd, declaring the second and third amendments null and void and ordering that the Houdens were entitled to attorneys’ fees pursuant to a provision in the original covenants. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the judgment in the Houdens’ favor, as the restated covenants mooted the underlying merits of the case; and (2) affirmed the district court’s determination that the Houdens’ were entitled to attorney’s fees. View "Houden v. Todd" on Justia Law

Defendant Mark Bosworth appeals from an order evicting him from land. In August 2013, Vlad Gasic commenced this action against several defendants, including Bosworth, Blake Bosworth, Catherine Fletcher, Matthew Fletcher, and James Legg, seeking an order requiring the defendants to vacate land in Epping, or requiring the sheriff to evict the defendants from the premises. Gasic's complaint asserted that he was the record title owner of the land, that defendants were unauthorized tenants, that defendants were using the premises in an unauthorized manner and not paying their fair share of utilities and garbage removal, and that Gasic had demanded the defendants vacate the premises immediately, but they refused to do so. Gasic also alleged he had served a notice of intent to evict under state law. The defendants answered the complaint and counterclaimed. After a hearing, the district court entered an "order for eviction" requiring the defendants and all occupants to vacate the premises on or before September 16, 2013. On September 16, 2013, the defendants moved to stay the eviction and requested a hearing, in addition to filing a notice of appeal. The district court entered a "stay of eviction" on September 16, 2013. Only Mark Bosworth filed a brief in this appeal. Bosworth raised multiple issues on appeal, including that Gasic did not own the land and had no legal authority to file this case, that the three-day notice required under state law was deficient, that Gasic never posted nor served by legal process the three-day notice required, and that the defendants have not been afforded due process. The Supreme Court found that neither the district court's order of eviction, nor the court's stay of eviction, provided any specific findings regarding these issues. Moreover, the Court concluded that defendants' appeal of the order for eviction was not an appeal from a final order or judgment, and therefore the Court dismissed the appeal. View "Gasic v. Bosworth" on Justia Law

Plaintiff owned rural property, including a tract referred to as Section 27, that Defendants, who owned adjacent property, used to cross with their cattle and to conduct other ranching operations. Plaintiff filed an action seeking to exclude Defendants from crossing Section 27 and claiming damages for trespass. Defendants counterclaimed, seeking a declaration that the road across Section 27 was a public road or, alternatively, for a declaration that they had a prescriptive easement to use the road. After a trial, the district court concluded that Defendants established a prescriptive right to cross Section 27 for their ranching and other uses of their adjacent land. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in determining that Defendants established a prescriptive easement across Plaintiffs’ property and properly determined the scope of the easement based upon the evidence in the record. View "Lyndes v. Green" on Justia Law

Salt Creek Road is an unimproved 12.3-mile road intertwined with the creek bed in Salt Creek Canyon. The state and county wanted to use their claimed right-of-way to prevent the United States from closing the Salt Creek Road to vehicle traffic. The road is the primary way for tourists to reach several scenic sites within the Canyonlands National Park, including Angel Arch. Without vehicle access, the only way to access Angel Arch is to make the nine-mile trek by foot. The state and county based their claim on Revised Statute (R.S.) 2477: "[T]he right of way for the construction of highways over public lands, not reserved for public uses, is hereby granted." Congress enacted R.S. 2477 in 1866, and it remained in effect until 1976. Even then, however, Congress preserved the rights-of-way established under the statute. This Quiet Title Act case presented to the Tenth Circuit the issue of whether the district court erred in rejecting the claims of San Juan County and the State of Utah to Salt Creek Road. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "San Juan County, Utah v. United States " on Justia Law

The plaintiffs invested $3 million in a multi‐use real‐estate project in Caseyville, Illinois, called Forest Lake, having previously worked with the developers. Their agreement with the developers promised a first‐priority mortgage, but they received only a junior mortgage. Meridian Bank had acquired a mortgage on Forest Lakes ($20 million) in 2005. When the bank foreclosed in 2009, the plaintiffs lost everything. They sued Belco, which had been created to carry out title work for the Forest Lakes transactions, including the Meridian mortgage. None of the plaintiffs’ $3 million were ever escrowed with Belco, but went directly to the developer. Belco never contacted the plaintiffs, before, during, or after the closing. After the development failed, the plaintiffs alleged Illinois state‐law claims of breach of fiduciary duty against Belco, claiming that as the “closing agent” for the transaction, Belco owed a duty to disclose that they were not receiving the first‐priority mortgage. The magistrate judge granted summary judgment for Belco, finding that Belco was the plaintiffs’ agent for the purposes of the escrow and closing, but, under Illinois law, owed only the very limited duty “to act only according to the terms of the escrow instructions.” Belco complied with the terms of the escrow agreement in that the funds were disbursed according to the agreement. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. View "Edelman v. Belco Title & Escrow, L.L.C." on Justia Law

After debtors filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection, GMAC filed this adversary proceeding claiming that it was entitled to a first-priority lien on a home and surrounding twenty-two acres of land by operation of the Arkansas doctrine of equitable subrogation, or to reformation correcting the mutual mistake in its mortgage. The court concluded that, at the time Summit and Southern State made their new loans, knowledge that GMAC made a mistake by describing the wrong property on its earlier mortgage was not knowledge that GMAC had or even claimed to have a superior unrecorded interest, because GMAC had for many months made no attempt to correct the known error, or to reform its mortgage; the principle of Killam v. Tex. Oil & Gas Corp. did not apply to mortgage priority disputes; and the blame for the uncertainty regarding GMAC's lien position lies with GMAC. Had GMAC taken timely action, it would have held the senior recorded lien. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of relief for GMAC. View "Owcen Loan Servicing, LLC v. Summit Bank, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants, including Lyle Sukup and Kristen Sukup, seeking payment for a boundary fence he built between his property and the property in which Defendants had an interest. Specifically, Defendant alleged that he had an agreement with the Sukups to build the fence between his property and the Sukups’ property and that the Sukups agreed to share equally in the cost. The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that Plaintiff's cause of action arose under Nebraska's "fence law" and that the county courts had exclusive jurisdiction over fence contribution cases. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Plaintiff’s complaint was not simply an action for contribution but was also a common-law contract action that was subject to the district court’s jurisdiction. View "Kotrous v. Zerbe" on Justia Law

Patriot was authorized to issue title policies underwritten by First American in Michigan. In 2007, Patriot closed a transaction and provided title insurance and a closing protection letter (CPL) when which WaMu loaned $4,543,593.07 to Truong for the purchase of property in Grosse Ile. In the CPL, First American agreed to indemnify WaMu for actual losses arising from Patriot’s fraud or dishonesty in connection with the closing. In 2008, First American discovered that the Truong transaction was a sham, orchestrated by Patriot’s owner, and obtained title to the property. During negotiations concerning sale of the property, federal regulators closed WaMu. The FDIC became its receiver and sold most of WaMu’s assets to Chase, including the title insurance commitment issued in connection with the Truong transaction. Attempting to resolve the claim, First American tendered a quitclaim deed. Chase refused to accept that deed. First American sought a declaration that First American had fulfilled its obligations under the commitment by tendering a deed to the property. Chase sought a declaration that the deed was void and requested money damages. The FDIC intervened, alleging breach of contract against First American based on the CPL. After the property was sold, First American and Chase stipulated to dismissal of Chase’s claims against First American and First American’s claims against Chase. Chase and the FDIC entered into a stipulation that Chase did not acquire the CPL claim that the FDIC was pursuing. A jury awarded the FDIC $2,263,510.78. The Sixth Circuit affirmed.View "JP Morgan Chase Bank NA v. First Am. Title Ins. Corp." on Justia Law

Chiwawa Communities Association appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to owners of homes in the Chiwawa River Pines community. Respondents Ross and Cindy Wilkinson asked the trial court to invalidate a 2011 amendment to the community covenants prohibiting rental of their homes for less than 30 days. The issue this case presented for the Supreme Court was whether short-term vacation rentals conflicted with the covenants in place prior to 2011, if the Association validly amended the covenants to prohibit them, and if the trial court erred by striking portions of the offered evidence. Upon review, the Court concluded that short-term rentals did not violate the covenants barring commercial use of the property or restricting lots to single-family residential use. Furthermore, the Court held the Association exceeded its power to amend the covenants when it prohibited short-term vacation rentals in 2011, and the trial court did not err by granting in part motions brought by the Wilkinsons to strike evidence. View "Wilkinson v. Chiwawa Cmtys. Ass'n" on Justia Law

In 2013, the Supreme Court dismissed without prejudice a condemnation proceeding by plaintiff-appellee, the State of Delaware Department of Transportation (“DelDOT”), against the defendants-appellants, Jack and Mary Ann Lawson. Thereafter, the Lawsons moved for an award of litigation expenses and costs, which the Superior Court denied. The Lawsons appealed that order, claiming they were entitled to reimbursement for the litigation expenses they incurred by virtue of the condemnation proceeding, under both the Real Property Acquisition Act, and the common law bad faith exception to the so-called “American Rule.” They also claimed they were statutorily entitled to an award of costs. As a matter of first impression, the Supreme Court construed certain language in 29 Del. C. 9503, and held that that provision required reimbursement for litigation expenses related to a condemnation proceeding where a court determines that the subject property cannot be acquired by the governmental entity’s particular exercise of its underlying eminent domain power in that specific proceeding. Accordingly, the Court determined that the Superior Court erred by denying the Lawsons' motion for litigation expenses under 29 Del. C. 9503. The Court also concluded, however, that the Superior Court correctly determined that the Lawsons were not entitled to litigation expenses under the bad faith exception to the American Rule. Finally, the Court held that the Superior Court erred by not addressing the Lawsons' application for costs. View "Lawson v. Delaware" on Justia Law