Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

A tenant and her adult son rented a house in Arlington, Virginia, for a year. Several months into the lease, they noticed water leaking through a skylight and informed the landlord. The landlord and a contractor inspected the skylight and confirmed it was leaking, but no repairs were made. After a period of snow and rain, the tenant slipped on water that had accumulated from the leak, suffering significant injuries. She then sued the landlord, alleging breach of contract for failing to complete repairs as required by the lease and state law, and common-law negligence in failing to take steps to prevent injury from the leak.The landlord removed the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, which treated the landlord’s demurrer as a motion to dismiss. The district court dismissed the negligence claim, finding the complaint did not allege that the landlord or contractor undertook repairs or performed any negligent acts—only that they inspected and confirmed the leak. The court concluded Virginia law does not impose a tort duty on landlords for failing to repair, but only for negligent acts in the course of repair. The breach of contract claim survived the motion to dismiss, but the parties later stipulated to voluntarily dismiss it to allow an immediate appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit first determined it had appellate jurisdiction, accepting the tenant's binding representation that she was abandoning the contract claim with prejudice. The court then affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the negligence claim. It held that, under Virginia law, a landlord is not liable in tort for failing to make repairs unless the landlord undertakes repairs and does so negligently. Because the complaint did not allege any negligent repair or positive act, only nonfeasance, the negligence claim failed as a matter of law. View "Metz v. McCarthy" on Justia Law

A group of cities in Idaho, each holding junior ground water rights within the Eastern Snake Plain Aquifer, became subject to curtailment proceedings initiated by senior surface water users represented by the Surface Water Coalition. The Coalition argued that pumping by junior ground water rights holders diminished water available to senior rights holders drawing from the Snake River. In response, the Director of the Idaho Department of Water Resources has periodically updated the methodology used to determine whether material injury to the senior rights has occurred, issuing a series of orders—the most recent being a Sixth Methodology Order.Following the issuance of a Fifth Methodology Order and an associated Post-Hearing Order, the cities challenged those orders in the Snake River Basin Adjudication district court, raising several concerns about the Director’s factual determinations and legal standards. During the administrative process, the Director simultaneously issued a Sixth Methodology Order that expressly superseded all prior methodology orders. The cities, however, did not include a direct challenge to the Sixth Methodology Order in their petition for judicial review. The district court affirmed the Director’s Post-Hearing Order, supporting the agency’s methodology and factual findings.The Supreme Court of the State of Idaho held that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the appeal because the cities failed to petition for review of the operative Sixth Methodology Order in the district court, as required under Idaho administrative law. As a result, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and declined to address the substantive claims raised by the cities. The court also denied requests for attorney fees under Idaho Code section 12-117(1), finding the statute inapplicable, but awarded costs to the prevailing parties. View "City of Idaho Falls v. Idaho Department of Water Resources" on Justia Law

In 2019, the governing body of a Tennessee county adopted a resolution regulating the operation and location of quarries and similar activities in unincorporated areas. The resolution prohibited quarries from being located within 5,000 feet of residences, schools, parks, and various other establishments. After purchasing property and leasing it for quarry operations, the plaintiffs were informed by the county mayor that their quarry violated this resolution and were asked to cease operations. The plaintiffs filed a declaratory judgment action, arguing that the resolution was void because it functioned as a zoning ordinance and was not enacted in compliance with statutory zoning procedures. The county, in response, maintained that the resolution was not a zoning ordinance but rather a proper exercise of its police powers.The case was first heard in the Chancery Court for Grundy County, which granted summary judgment in favor of the county. The court reasoned that, because the county did not have a comprehensive zoning plan, the resolution could not be considered tantamount to zoning and thus was not subject to the County Zoning Act’s requirements. The Tennessee Court of Appeals affirmed, but on different grounds. It held that the absence of a comprehensive zoning plan was not determinative but concluded that the resolution did not divide the county into districts and thus was not a zoning ordinance.The Supreme Court of Tennessee reviewed the case and reversed the lower courts. The Court held that the resolution was, in effect, a zoning ordinance because it divided the county into zones—prohibiting quarrying in certain areas based on proximity to designated establishments—and substantially affected land use. The Court found that the county failed to comply with the procedural requirements of the County Zoning Act, rendering the resolution unenforceable. The judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for entry of summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. View "Tinsley Properties, LLC v. Grundy County, Tennessee" on Justia Law

The property in question had operated as a tavern under a nonconforming-use exception in an area zoned for residential use. The tavern ceased operations in April 2019 after its liquor license became inactive in January 2019. In March 2022, one of the property’s owners and a representative inquired with the township zoning inspector about the property’s status, prompted by interest from a potential buyer who wanted to reopen the tavern. The inspector responded by email, stating that the property no longer qualified as a nonconforming use due to over two years of discontinued operation and referenced the applicable zoning resolution provision.Following this, the property owners, through counsel, requested clarification and formal notice regarding the property’s zoning status. The township’s legal counsel confirmed the inspector’s position by forwarding the original email as the official communication. The owners then appealed to the Hinckley Township Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA), which dismissed the appeal as untimely, finding that the email constituted a “decision” under Ohio law and that the 20-day appeal period had lapsed. The Medina County Court of Common Pleas affirmed the BZA’s dismissal, concluding that the email was a “decision” and that notice was sufficient. On further appeal, the Ninth District Court of Appeals disagreed, holding that the email was not a formal “decision” under the relevant statutes and therefore did not trigger the appeal deadline.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case and affirmed the Ninth District’s judgment. The Court held that the zoning inspector’s email was not a “decision” as contemplated by Ohio Revised Code sections 519.14 and 519.15, and so did not trigger the statutory appeal deadline. The BZA therefore lacked jurisdiction to entertain the property owners’ appeal. View "729 W. 130th St., L.L.C. v. Hinckley Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals" on Justia Law

Two water users on Mill Creek in Montana claimed rights to divert and use water based on historical court decrees. Their claims, filed in the 1980s as part of Montana’s general water rights adjudication, asserted periods of use that were broader than those described in a 1964 district court decree, the Petrich Decree, which had granted rights to “surplus” water in Mill Creek from May 1 to approximately July 15. The claimants’ filings instead asserted periods stretching from as early as April 1 to as late as October 1. After the Montana Water Court issued a preliminary decree for Basin 43B, Trout Unlimited, a conservation organization, objected, contending that the claimants overstated their periods of use.The Water Court consolidated the objections and granted Trout Unlimited partial summary judgment, limiting the claimants’ decreed periods of use to May 1 through July 15, as reflected in the Petrich Decree. The claimants then requested the generation of “implied claims” for water use outside this period, arguing they had historically used water beyond those dates. The Water Court generated implied claims with later priority dates for those additional periods but made them junior to other existing rights. Both sides appealed: Trout Unlimited challenged the creation of implied claims, and the claimants challenged Trout Unlimited’s standing and the summary judgment.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana affirmed the Water Court’s ruling that Trout Unlimited had standing to object and upheld the limitation of the decreed periods of use to May 1–July 15. However, it reversed the Water Court’s generation of implied claims, finding that the claimants had not met their burden to show sufficient evidence of pre-1973 historic use outside the decree and that other water users lacked adequate notice. The Court remanded for further proceedings, requiring notice and specific factual findings regarding any implied claims. View "Petrich Family Limited Partnership v. Trout Unlimited" on Justia Law

Four brothers who had previously formed a diamond partnership later entered into an oral agreement in 1995 with a fifth brother to create a separate real estate partnership. The agreement was never reduced to writing, consistent with family custom. Over several years, the brothers jointly acquired and managed a large portfolio of California real estate. Tensions arose after the original real estate owner repaid a loan that was a condition for his partnership interest. One brother, who controlled the partnership’s entities, began excluding the others and denied the existence of any partnership, asserting sole ownership over the assets.The litigation began in 2003 when the excluded brother sued his siblings and related entities for his partnership share and damages. Two other brothers, who initially disclaimed the partnership under alleged economic coercion, later filed cross-complaints for their shares in both the diamond and real estate partnerships. The case saw multiple prior appeals and writ proceedings. After the trial court initially granted summary adjudication against the main plaintiff on most claims, the California Court of Appeal reversed, allowing contract, fiduciary duty, and fraud claims to proceed. Further cross-complaints were filed by the brothers, which survived demurrer on statute of limitations grounds.In 2024, after a lengthy jury trial, the Superior Court of Los Angeles County entered judgment in favor of the three plaintiff brothers, awarding declaratory relief, partnership shares, compensatory and punitive damages, and prejudgment interest totaling about $6.85 billion against the controlling brother and the partnership entities. On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One, rejected most challenges to the trial court’s evidentiary rulings and instructions, but held the court erred in admitting an undisclosed expert opinion concerning lost investment profits. The appellate court conditionally affirmed the judgment, ordering a reduction of the economic damages awards relating to the real estate partnership by amounts attributable to this opinion, unless the plaintiffs opt for a new trial on those damages and related punitive damages. The judgments were otherwise affirmed. View "Jogani v. Jogani" on Justia Law

The dispute arose when beneficiaries of a land trust owning commercial property in Hammond, Indiana, declined an offer from a city redevelopment commission to purchase their property. When the commission subsequently initiated a condemnation action to acquire the property for a purported public street, the landowners alleged that the taking was arbitrary, capricious, and motivated by improper, private interests rather than a legitimate public purpose. After the landowners' attempt to file a counterclaim for abuse of process in the condemnation action was denied, they pursued a separate lawsuit alleging abuse of process and seeking damages.The Lake Superior Court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss under Indiana Trial Rule 12(B)(6), finding that the landowners’ abuse-of-process claim should be addressed in the pending condemnation action to avoid conflicting rulings. The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed, holding that a parallel abuse-of-process claim was permissible, that the complaint stated a claim suitable for judicial review, and that the question of immunity under the Indiana Tort Claims Act (ITCA) could not be resolved on the pleadings because it was disputable whether the defendants acted outside the scope of their employment.Upon granting transfer and thereby vacating the appellate court’s opinion, the Indiana Supreme Court reviewed the application of the ITCA’s immunity provisions. The Court held that the alleged conduct by the mayor, redevelopment commission members, and city fell within the scope of their employment and that the abuse-of-process claim directly resulted from the initiation of a judicial proceeding—the condemnation action. Therefore, the ITCA provided immunity from suit as a matter of law for all defendants. The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the landowners’ claims. View "Indiana Land Trust #3082 v. Hammond Redevelopment Commission" on Justia Law

New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC applied to install six antennas on top of a water tower owned by the York Water District. The Town of York Planning Board approved the application. Two nearby property owners opposed the project, claiming it violated the local Wireless Communications Facilities Ordinance, specifically regarding fencing and setbacks from residential structures. They filed an administrative appeal with the Town of York Board of Appeals, which held public hearings. During the process, the Board asked New Cingular Wireless to provide a more accurate site plan showing distances to neighboring residences. After reviewing the updated information, the Board denied the neighbors’ appeal, stating it was satisfied with the information provided.The neighbors then sought judicial review in the York County Superior Court, arguing that the project did not comply with fencing and setback requirements. The Superior Court affirmed the Board’s decision. The neighbors appealed to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, continuing to dispute whether the project met the ordinance’s requirements.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court concluded that the neighbors did not preserve their argument about fencing requirements, as this issue was not raised before the Board of Appeals and was therefore waived. However, the Court found that the setback issue had been properly preserved for review. The Court determined that the Board’s findings regarding setbacks were insufficient for appellate review, as the Board did not explain from where the setback was measured or whether the project met the ordinance’s requirements. The Court vacated the Superior Court’s judgment and remanded the matter to the Superior Court with instructions to remand it to the Board of Appeals for further factual findings and explanation regarding compliance with setback requirements. View "Drew v. Town of York" on Justia Law

The case involved a property owner in Euless, Texas, who had an ongoing dispute with the local post office regarding mail delivery to her two rental properties. She alleged that United States Postal Service employees intentionally withheld her mail and interfered with its delivery, resulting in personal and financial harm, including lost rental income and difficulty attracting tenants. Despite her attempts to resolve the issue through administrative complaints and by requesting alternative mail-handling services, the problems persisted.After these efforts failed, the property owner filed suit against the United States in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, asserting various state-law tort claims such as nuisance, conversion, tortious interference with prospective business relations, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The District Court dismissed her complaint, holding that the Federal Tort Claims Act’s (FTCA) postal exception preserved the government’s sovereign immunity for claims relating to the loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission of mail, regardless of whether the conduct was negligent or intentional. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed, holding that the statutory terms did not encompass intentional acts of non-delivery.The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the case to resolve a split among federal appellate courts. The Supreme Court held that the FTCA’s postal exception bars claims against the United States for the intentional nondelivery of mail. The Court found that, at the time the statute was enacted, the terms “miscarriage” and “loss” of mail included failures to deliver mail regardless of intent, and thus sovereign immunity applies even to claims alleging intentional misconduct by postal workers. The Supreme Court vacated the Fifth Circuit’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Postal Service v. Konan" on Justia Law

A married couple leased a commercial property from a landlord for use as a salon. As their lease approached expiration in March 2020, one of the tenants decided to retire, and the COVID-19 pandemic led to a state-issued stay-at-home order. The tenants left their salon equipment on the premises at the landlord’s repeated assurances not to worry about it. One day before the lease expired, the tenants paid an amount equivalent to one month’s rent with a note indicating the payment was a gesture of support during the pandemic. Three months later, they made a smaller payment. There was no discussion or agreement to continue the tenancy month-to-month. Several months after returning the keys, the landlord demanded rent for the months following lease expiration, asserting that the initial payment created a month-to-month tenancy under California Civil Code section 1945.The Superior Court of San Bernardino County held a bench trial and found the tenants credible, particularly regarding the nature of the payment as a gift rather than rent. The court concluded the statutory presumption of a renewed month-to-month tenancy was rebutted by the parties’ actions and lack of communication about continuing the tenancy. The court found no contract existed after the lease expired and entered judgment for the tenants. The landlord’s motion to vacate the judgment was denied.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, affirmed the judgment. The appellate court held that the trial court did not err in its application of section 1945, finding no contract arose after the lease expired. The court emphasized that the presumption of a month-to-month tenancy is rebuttable by objective evidence showing the parties did not mutually agree to continue the lease. The judgment in favor of the tenants was affirmed. View "Ashirwad, LLC v. Bradbury" on Justia Law