Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs, the owners of real property in Linn County, brought an inverse condemnation action against the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). Plaintiffs alleged that ODOT, by repeatedly making representations to others about its intention to landlock their property and initiate a condemnation action, created a nuisance that "blighted" plaintiffs' property, resulting in a compensable taking of the property under Article I, section 18, of the Oregon Constitution. A jury agreed and awarded plaintiffs more than $3,000,000 in damages. ODOT appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that no taking had occurred. The Supreme Court allowed plaintiffs’ petition for review, and agreed with the Court of Appeals decision. Therefore the Court affirmed the appellate court, reversed the trial court and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Hall v. Oregon" on Justia Law

Corporation obtained a loan from Lenders to help pay for real property that was secured by a deed of trust on the property. Appellant, the principal and sole owner of Corporation, signed a personal guaranty of the loan, which included a waiver of his right to receive notice of any default on the loan. Corporation defaulted on the loan, and Lender purchased the property at a trustee’s sale. Lender then filed a complaint seeking a deficiency judgment from Appellant as guarantor. The district court awarded a deficiency judgment in favor of Lender, concluding (1) Appellant’s waiver of his right to receive a notice of default was invalid pursuant to Nev. Rev. Stat. 40.453; but (2) Lender substantially complied with Nev. Rev. Stat. 107.095’s notice requirement. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the Legislature intended for section 40.453 to invalidate a guarantor’s purported waiver of the right to be mailed a notice of default; and (2) substantial compliance can satisfy section 107.095’s notice requirements. View "Schleining v. Cap One, Inc." on Justia Law

Petitioner personally guaranteed a commercial real estate loan that Bank purchased. The borrowers defaulted on the loan, and Bank sought recovery of the loan’s balance from Petitioner. While the case against Petitioner was pending, Bank foreclosed and took ownership of the property securing the underlying loan at a trustee’s sale. Bank subsequently moved for summary judgment regarding Petitioner’s liability for his breach of the loan guaranty. Petitioner also moved for summary judgment, arguing that Nev. Rev. Stat. 40.455 precluded Bank from obtaining a judgment for the deficiency on the loan balance after the trustee’s sale. The district court granted summary judgment for Bank. The Supreme Court subsequently issued a writ of mandamus compelling the district court to dismiss the guaranty action against Petitioner, concluding that Bank was barred from recovery under the guaranty because it failed to apply for a deficiency judgment under section 40.455 within six months after the property’s sale. The Supreme Court denied Bank's petition for rehearing because it considered and resolved Bank’s arguments in its order granting mandamus relief and did not misread or misapply the pertinent law. View "Lavi v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court" on Justia Law

In this dispute over a real estate transaction, the real party in interest (KB Home) took the deposition of one of Defendants’ principals. During the deposition, the principal testified that he had refreshed his recollection and prepared for the deposition by reviewing two memoranda prepared by his attorneys and his own handwritten notes. When KB Home requested that the principal divulge the contents of the memoranda and notes, however, the principal refused on the grounds that they were privileged. KB Home filed a motion to compel production of the documents. The district court granted the motion, concluding that Nev. Rev. Stat. 50.125 mandates disclosure of any documents used before a deposition to refresh one’s recollection. Defendants sought writ relief from the Supreme Court. The Court denied the petition, holding (1) reviewing a document for the purpose of refreshing one’s memory prior to giving testimony serves as a waiver to the attorney-client privilege under section 50.125; and (2) section 50.125 applies to depositions as well as to in-court hearings. View "Las Vegas Dev. Assocs., LLC v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court" on Justia Law

Defendants and Plaintiff executed a purchase and sale agreement under which Defendants agreed to sell real property to Plaintiff. Later, Defendants’ attorney (“Attorney”) falsely told Plaintiffs that Defendants had received a higher offer for the property and to calculate its liquidated damages. Later, due to Attorney’s withholding of information before the closing, the parties were unable to close the sale. Plaintiff filed suit for specific performance. The superior court judge concluded that Defendants anticipatorily repudiated the agreement and that Attorney’s attempt to “scuttle the deal” at closing constituted an actual breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. As a result, the court allowed Plaintiff to choose either compensatory damages, as provided by the agreement, or specific performance. Plaintiff elected to receive compensatory damages. Defendants appealed, contending that they did not commit an actual breach, and therefore, monetary damages were not available. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial judge did not err finding of an actual breach by Defendants, and therefore, the judge’s decision offering Plaintiff a choice of remedy was proper. View "K.G.M. Custom Homes, Inc. v. Prosky" on Justia Law

In 2006 Iroanyah obtained first and second mortgage loans of $192,000 and $36,000. The Disclosure Statement for each displayed the repayment schedule, including the number of payments, the amount due for each, and the due dates for the first and last payments. Neither disclosure included the dates on which each payment was due, nor did they include the frequency with which payment should be made. The Iroanyahs admitted that they understood that payments were to be made monthly. They stopped making payments in 2008. In response to foreclosure proceedings in state court, the Iroanyahs sent a rescission notice for the first loan, citing deficient disclosure statements in violation of the Truth in Lending Act. The lender denied violation, but agreed to rescind the loan upon payment of $169,015.30. The Iroanyahs sent rescission notices for the second loan, to which there was no response They filed suit. The court agreed that the disclosures violated TILA, which extended the right of rescission to three years; statutory damages were denied under a one year limitation period. The court held that failure to respond to the rescission notices violated TILA, triggering an award of statutory damages for failure to respond and actual damages for attorneys’ fees. The Iroanyahs sought awards of $38,812 and $33,849. The district court awarded fees and costs in the amount of $16,433 against one lender and $13,433 against the other. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. View "Iroanyah v. Bank of America, N.A." on Justia Law

In 2006, Plaintiff refinanced her home in Massachusetts. The mortgage contract identified MortgageIT as the lender and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) as the mortgagee. MortgageIT sold Plaintiff’s note, which changed hands several times before being deposited into a Trust, of which U.S. Bank was trustee. MERS assigned the mortgage to OneWest Bank. Following the 2011 foreclosure on her home, Plaintiff filed suit against U.S. Bank, OneWest, and MERS, contending that OneWest was never assigned valid legal title, rendering the foreclosure void. The district court dismissed Plaintiff’s suit for failure to state a claim, finding that the First Circuit’s decision in Culhane v. Aurora Loan Services of Nebraska was fatal to Plaintiff’s claim. Plaintiff appealed, challenging the district court’s reliance on Culhane. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Culhane was on point, as Plaintiff’s argument was a variation of the same challenge raised in Culhane. View "Mills v. U.S. Bank N.A." on Justia Law

For the tax year 2011, the county assessor decided to assess property taxes on parcel of land owned by Central Nebraska Public Power and Irrigation District (Central) but leased to private parties. Central protested the tax assessment, and the Board of Equalization recommended not taxing the land. The Tax Equalization and Review Commission (TERC) affirmed, concluding that the parcels should not be taxed because Central had already made a payment in lieu of tax pursuant to Neb. Const. art. VIII, 11 for the relevant tax year. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed TERC’s finding that Central was not subject to property taxes for tax year 2011 because it had already made a payment in lieu of tax for that year; but (2) vacated the portion of TERC’s order that could be interpreted to mean that a lessee’s property tax obligation is included in Central’s payment in lieu of tax, as the issue of a lessee’s liability was not before TERC. View "Conroy v. Keith County Bd. of Equalization" on Justia Law

Bryant Bank appealed the grant of partial summary judgment in favor of defendants Talmage Kirkland & Company, Inc., d/b/a Kirkland & Company ("TKC"), and Quentin Ball and Jason Stoutamire, appraisers for TKC. This case arose out of an appraisal of real property conducted by TKC for Bryant Bank in the course of Bryant Bank's consideration of a loan application submitted by Wallace Seafood Traders, Inc. ("WST"), in September 2007 for the purchase of the property, which WST was renting and out of which it was operating its business. The Bryant Bank employees responsible for approving WST's loan application suspected that the value of the property might have been overstated in TKC's appraisal. However, Bryant Bank approved WST's loan application and issued the loan to WST. Ultimately, WST defaulted on the loan. Bryant Bank obtained another appraisal of the property from a different appraisal firm; this new appraisal indicated that the property had a value that differed drastically from that which TKC had appraised. Bryant Bank sued the defendants, alleging breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation arising from its reliance on TKC's appraisal report in issuing the loan to WST. In their partial-summary-judgment motion, the defendants argued that Ball and Stoutamire were entitled to a summary judgment as to the breach-of-contract claim because they were acting as agents of a disclosed principal, Bryant Bank. As to the negligent misrepresentation claim, the defendants argued that they were entitled to a summary judgment in their favor because: (1) the opinion of value expressed in TKC's appraisal report could not serve as the basis of a negligent-misrepresentation claim; (2) Bryant Bank had not relied upon TKC's valuation; and (3) the claim was barred by the statute of limitations. The Supreme Court concluded the Bank presented substantial evidence that it relied on TKC's appraisal of the property, and that each of the arguments defendants raised in their partial-summary-judgment motion did not warrant the entry of a summary judgment in their favor with respect to the Bank's negligent misrepresentation claim. Therefore, Court reversed the trial court's order and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Bryant Bank v. Talmage Kirkland & Company, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff brought this eminent domain action seeking damages from the Commonwealth on account of land takings that the Commonwealth made in connection with the Sagamore Bridge Flyover Project in Bourne that eliminated a traffic rotary north of the bridge. Plaintiff owned parcels of land near the former rotary and operated a gas station on one of the parcels. After a jury trial, Plaintiff was awarded almost $3 million in damages. The Appeals Court affirmed. The Supreme Judicial court vacated the judgment of the superior court and remanded for a new trial, holding (1) because the flyover project was not laid over a public way that directly abutted Plaintiff’s property, Plaintiff was not entitled to damages under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 81, 7C as a matter of law; and (2) because Plaintiff retained reasonable and appropriate access to and from the gas station parcel, Plaintiff was not entitled to impairment of access damages under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 79, 12. View "Sorenti Bros., Inc. v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law