Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

The dispute centers on land in Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana, owned by a public entity, where oil and gas exploration occurred for decades under a mineral lease originally granted in 1943. The plaintiff acquired several tracts of this land between 1968 and 1987, with prior owners reserving mineral rights. The mineral lease was assigned multiple times before terminating in 2020. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants, or their predecessors, caused environmental damage to the property through oil and gas operations predating the plaintiff’s ownership, and sought damages under both tort and contract theories.Defendants filed exceptions of no right of action, arguing that under the “subsequent purchaser rule” articulated in Eagle Pipe and Supply, Inc. v. Amerada Hess Corp., a property owner cannot recover for damage inflicted before their purchase unless assigned the prior owner’s rights. The trial court denied these exceptions. On appeal, the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, reversed in part. It dismissed all claims against one defendant (Honeywell) for preacquisition damage, and limited claims against the other (Texas Pacific) to an 87-day period when both the plaintiff and Texas Pacific’s predecessor simultaneously held interests in one tract.The Supreme Court of Louisiana granted review. It extended the subsequent purchaser rule from Eagle Pipe to cases involving mineral leases, holding that a purchaser of property, absent an assignment or subrogation, has no right of action for preacquisition property damage caused by mineral lessees. However, the court recognized an exception for damages occurring during the period when the plaintiff owned the property and the defendant held lease rights. Additionally, the court held that a current surface owner may enforce the prudent operator standard under Mineral Code article 122 for end-of-lease obligations that become due upon termination, but not for historic operational damage. The judgment was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. View "VINTON HARBOR & TERMINAL DISTRICT VS. REUNION ENERGY COMPANY" on Justia Law

A property development company sought to build mixed-use housing developments near a public-use airport operated by the City of Longmont, Colorado. The proposed developments were located under the airport’s approach and departure paths. The company received preliminary approvals from the City for its projects and obtained “Determinations of No Hazard” from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), which found the developments would not obstruct flight paths. However, the FAA sent letters to the City warning that approving the developments would violate a grant assurance tied to the airport’s federal funding, specifically regarding land use compatibility. The City subsequently denied the company’s proposal, citing multiple reasons, including the FAA’s letters, concerns from state authorities, its own findings of incompatibility, and public opposition.After the City’s decision, the developer asked the FAA to withdraw its letters, but the FAA declined. The company then petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to order the FAA to vacate and withdraw these letters, arguing that the FAA’s actions directly caused its injury by influencing the City’s denial.The D.C. Circuit dismissed the petition for lack of standing. The court held that the developer failed to demonstrate that vacating the FAA’s letters would likely result in the City approving the developments, as the City had provided multiple independent reasons for its denial beyond the FAA’s communications. The court also found that the company did not comply with the court’s procedural rule requiring petitioners to argue and provide evidence of standing in their opening brief. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed. View "ModernWest Longmont, LLC v. FAA" on Justia Law

A borrower obtained a home equity line of credit from a lender, secured by his Texas homestead. The promotional loan terms offered a reduced interest rate provided certain conditions were met, but one such condition—maintaining a $25,000 loan balance within fifteen days of closing—did not apply to Texas homestead loans under the state constitution. After several years, the borrower realized the lender had charged him a higher interest rate than agreed, resulting in an overcharge of approximately $10,000. The lender initially disputed the error but later acknowledged it and offered to pay the overcharged amount plus interest. The borrower, however, sought a much larger remedy: forfeiture of the entire outstanding loan based on the Texas Constitution’s home equity loan provisions.The case was first heard in the 68th District Court of Dallas County, which granted summary judgment for the lender, ruling that the borrower was entitled to actual damages only, not forfeiture of the loan principal and interest. The lender paid the borrower his actual damages. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas affirmed the trial court’s judgment, holding that the forfeiture remedy described in Article XVI, Section 50(a)(6)(Q)(x) of the Texas Constitution is limited to breaches of constitutionally mandated terms and conditions, not any and all breaches of a loan agreement.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case. It held that the constitutional forfeiture remedy applies only to breaches of the terms and conditions specifically enumerated in the Texas Constitution’s home equity loan provisions, not to ordinary contract breaches or errors outside those constitutional requirements. The Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals, concluding that the borrower was not entitled to forfeiture because the lender’s error did not violate a constitutional obligation. View "STAUB v. BBVA USA" on Justia Law

Emily Lehmberg sued Studio E. Architecture and Interiors, Inc. and other parties over the remodeling of her home. Studio E. moved to dismiss the claims against it, arguing that Lehmberg failed to file a certificate of merit as required by Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 150.002, which mandates such a certificate for claims against certain professionals. Lehmberg contended that her claims were not based on professional services but rather on alleged dishonesty and fraud. She also argued that Studio E. had waived its right to seek dismissal by waiting more than two years to file its motion. While the case against other defendants remained pending, the trial court denied Studio E.’s motion, and Studio E. filed an interlocutory appeal.The Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas reversed the trial court’s decision, holding that Section 150.002 applied, and that Studio E. had not waived its right to seek dismissal. The appellate court remanded the case to the trial court to determine whether dismissal should be with or without prejudice. The trial court dismissed the original claims against Studio E. without prejudice, but allowed Lehmberg to file an amended petition with a certificate of merit, reasserting her claims. Studio E. moved to dismiss the amended petition, arguing that reassertion was not permitted in the same lawsuit, but the trial court denied the motion. Studio E. appealed again, and the court of appeals affirmed, holding that amending the petition was proper.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case and held that when claims against a defendant are dismissed without prejudice under Section 150.002, and the underlying lawsuit remains pending, the plaintiff may reassert those claims in an amended petition along with a certificate of merit. The Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals. View "STUDIO E. ARCHITECTURE AND INTERIORS, INC. v. LEHMBERG" on Justia Law

A local school district board of education filed complaints with a county board of revision, challenging the property tax valuations for two parcels owned by private entities, seeking to increase their assessed values for the 2022 tax year. The county board of revision dismissed the complaints, citing lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the relevant statute governing complaints against property valuation.After these dismissals, the school board appealed to the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas, relying on a general statute for administrative appeals. The property owners moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the school board lacked statutory standing. The Court of Common Pleas agreed and dismissed both appeals. The board then appealed to the Fifth District Court of Appeals, contending that the general statute provided an independent right of appeal. The appellate court, however, affirmed the dismissals, concluding that statutory amendments had eliminated the school board’s ability to appeal property valuation decisions to either the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) or a court of common pleas, unless the board owned or leased the property at issue.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case. It held that decisions of a county board of revision regarding property valuation are not appealable to a court of common pleas under the general administrative appeal statute (R.C. 2506.01), because those decisions are appealable to a higher administrative authority, the BTA, under R.C. 5717.01. Further, an appeal to the court of common pleas under R.C. 5717.05 is only available to the property owner. Because the school board did not own the properties, it could not appeal under either provision. The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the judgment of the Fifth District Court of Appeals. View "Olentangy Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Revision" on Justia Law

A major equity investor contributed $65 million to a joint venture formed to acquire and develop a luxury residential tower in New York City. The project was financed with significant loans, including a $325 million mezzanine loan from Apollo entities. After construction cost overruns put the mezzanine loan in default, Apollo and the joint venture entered a forbearance agreement splitting the loan and securing a portion with the joint venture’s equity. Apollo later assigned the junior mezzanine loan to Spruce Capital Partners, which then initiated a strict foreclosure under the Uniform Commercial Code. This process extinguished the joint venture’s equity—including the plaintiff’s investment—while allegedly allowing the project sponsor to retain a role and equity interest. The investor claimed that Apollo, Spruce, and the sponsor colluded to cut it out of the project’s value through assignment and foreclosure.The Supreme Court, New York County, dismissed the investor’s breach of implied covenant claim against Spruce but allowed the claim against Apollo to proceed, while dismissing tortious interference claims. The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed in part by dismissing the implied covenant claim against Apollo, holding that Apollo’s sole discretion to assign the loan foreclosed such a claim, and otherwise affirmed the dismissal of the tortious interference claims.The New York Court of Appeals held that a party’s sole discretion to assign a loan does not exempt it from the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Court concluded that the plaintiff sufficiently pleaded that Apollo may have exercised its assignment right as part of a bad faith scheme to deprive the investor of the benefit of its bargain, reviving the implied covenant claim against Apollo. The Court affirmed the dismissal of the tortious interference claims for insufficient pleading. The case was remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings on the implied covenant claim. View "111 W. 57th Inv. LLC v 111 W57 Mezz Inv. LLC" on Justia Law

Leonard and Pauline Cortellino executed a promissory note and mortgage in 2006 for the purchase of property in Maine. The mortgage, originally granted to Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) as nominee for Mortgage Lenders Network USA, Inc. (MLN), was later assigned multiple times, ultimately to Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, as Trustee for Brougham Fund I Trust in 2016. However, MLN filed for bankruptcy in 2007 and ceased operations after the bankruptcy concluded in 2012. Due to deficiencies in prior assignments following the Maine Supreme Judicial Court’s decision in Bank of America, N.A. v. Greenleaf, parties sought to cure the assignment defects. In 2021, a receiver for MLN, appointed by the Delaware Court of Chancery, assigned the Cortellino mortgage to Wilmington Savings, which was recorded in 2022.After the Cortellinos defaulted on their mortgage payments in 2014, Wilmington Savings sent them a notice of default and right to cure in August 2022. Wilmington Savings filed a foreclosure action in the Maine Superior Court (Androscoggin County) in October 2022. Following a trial in October 2024 and post-trial submissions, the Superior Court entered a judgment of foreclosure and sale in April 2025. The court found Wilmington Savings owned the mortgage and denied the Cortellinos’ motion for additional findings. The Cortellinos appealed.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the Superior Court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. The Court held that Wilmington Savings was the rightful owner of the mortgage due to the valid receiver’s assignment, but found that the right-to-cure notice was legally defective. The notice overstated the amount required to cure the default and contained numerical inconsistencies, failing to strictly comply with Maine’s statutory requirements. The Court vacated the judgment and remanded for entry of dismissal. View "Wilmington Savings Fund Society v. Cortellino" on Justia Law

Aberdeen Developers, LLC obtained a $41 million loan secured by a mixed-use building in Chicago. The loan was governed by two agreements: a Loan Agreement and a Cash Management Agreement (CMA). During the COVID-19 pandemic, a major tenant filed for bankruptcy, which under the CMA allowed the loan servicer, LNR Partners, LLC, to trigger a Cash Sweep Event Period. As a result, building income was redirected to a special account controlled by LNR Partners. The dispute arose over how long LNR Partners could retain the excess revenue (Excess Cash Flow) in this account: Aberdeen Developers argued for monthly disbursement, while LNR Partners asserted that it could hold the funds until a specific cure event occurred, which had not and might never happen.The case was initially filed by Aberdeen Developers in Illinois state court, alleging breach of contract. The defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The district court concluded that the relevant agreements unambiguously allowed LNR Partners to retain the Excess Cash Flow until the end of the contract term and dismissed the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6).Upon appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s dismissal de novo. The Seventh Circuit determined that the language in the Loan Agreement and CMA was ambiguous because both parties’ interpretations were reasonable. The court held that ambiguity in the contract meant the case could not be resolved on a motion to dismiss and factual development was required to determine the parties’ intent. The Seventh Circuit therefore reversed the district court’s dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Aberdeen Developers, LLC v Wells Fargo Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

A property owner in Bay County, Michigan, failed to pay property taxes in 2019, resulting in the county initiating a foreclosure process under Michigan’s General Property Tax Act (GPTA). After a three-year timeline, a Michigan circuit court entered a foreclosure judgment in February 2022, which would vest absolute title in the county treasurer if the tax debt was not paid by March 31, 2022. The owner did not pay, and the county received title. Shortly after, the owner filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy and sought to avoid the transfer of title as a preferential transfer under the Bankruptcy Code. The county treasurer withdrew the property from auction due to the bankruptcy filing. The parties stipulated to key facts, including the amount of debt, estimated property value, and minimum bid, but disputed whether the transfer met the requirements for avoidance under 11 U.S.C. § 547(b).The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granted summary judgment to the county treasurer, finding that although the transfer occurred within the 90-day lookback period, the owner failed to satisfy the "more than" test under § 547(b)(5). The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan affirmed, agreeing that the owner could not show the transfer enabled the treasurer to receive more than he would in a hypothetical Chapter 7 liquidation.Upon appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the legal conclusions de novo and factual findings for clear error. The Sixth Circuit held that the transfer occurred within the 90-day lookback period, and that the owner established the transfer was preferential under § 547(b)(4) and § 547(b)(5), specifically because the treasurer would receive a 5% sales commission not available in Chapter 7 liquidation. The district court’s judgment was reversed. View "Reinhardt v. Prince" on Justia Law

A dispute arose following a failed real estate transaction involving the sale of a hotel property in Warwick, Rhode Island. The property was to be sold by Shiva, LLC, of which Jay Patel was the registered agent, to LandingPartners LLC under a Purchase and Sale and Discounted Pay-Off Agreement. Centreville Bank held a mortgage on the property, which was in default. When Shiva, Airport Hospitality (another entity linked to Patel), and Patel failed to respond to an earlier lawsuit brought by LandingPartners, the Superior Court entered a default judgment against them, ordering specific performance of their obligations under the agreement and appointing a commissioner to facilitate the closing. Afterward, LandingPartners and Centreville Bank reached a consent order with new terms for the sale and discharged the mortgage, and the case was dismissed with prejudice.Shortly after the dismissal of the first case, Patel filed a new lawsuit in the Washington County Superior Court against LandingPartners, Centreville, and a related entity, 1850 Post Road Owner LLC. He alleged violations of the agreement, fraud, misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing the claims were barred by res judicata because they arose from the same transaction addressed in the prior litigation. The Superior Court agreed, finding that the parties or their privies were the same, the issues arose from the same transaction, and there was a final judgment in the first action.The Supreme Court of Rhode Island affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment. The Court held that res judicata barred Patel’s claims, as all issues now raised were or could have been raised in the initial suit, and the new claims concerned the same transaction. The dismissal of Patel’s complaint with prejudice was therefore upheld. View "Jay Patel v. LandingPartners LLC et al." on Justia Law