Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

Jamie Wallace was biking home from work through the promenade part of the Inner Harbor Park in Baltimore when her bike’s front tire became wedged in a gap between the bricks and granite bulkhead, causing her to fall and sustain injuries. She sued the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore for negligence, alleging the City failed to warn of the gap. The City sought judgment under the Maryland Recreational Use Statute, arguing it owed no duty of care as the promenade was designated for recreational purposes and biking is a recreational activity.The Circuit Court for Baltimore City denied the City’s motion for summary judgment, ruling the statute did not apply because Wallace was commuting, not engaging in recreational activity. The court also denied the City’s motions for judgment during the trial and judgment notwithstanding the verdict after the jury awarded Wallace $100,000 in compensatory damages. The Appellate Court of Maryland affirmed, concluding the promenade functioned primarily as a public pedestrian walkway and shared bicycle path, not a recreational facility, and the statute did not abrogate the City’s common law duty.The Supreme Court of Maryland reviewed the case and held that the Maryland Recreational Use Statute did not shield Baltimore City from liability. The court determined that by incorporating the promenade into its transportation infrastructure, the City established an independent right of access separate from any recreational invitation and assumed the corresponding common law duties. The judgment of the Appellate Court was affirmed, and the City was not protected by the Recreational Use Statute in this instance. View "Mayor of Baltimore v. Wallace" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, a tenant, brought a personal injury action against the defendants, his landlords, under the Oregon Residential Landlord and Tenant Act (ORLTA). The plaintiff sought damages for injuries sustained when a plastic cover of a light fixture fell from the ceiling of a shared, exterior hallway outside his apartment and struck him on the head. The plaintiff argued that the landlords were liable for his injuries due to their failure to maintain the premises in a habitable condition as required by ORS 90.320(1).The landlords moved for summary judgment, arguing that their habitability obligations under ORS 90.320(1) applied only to the interior of the tenant’s dwelling unit and not to common areas like the hallway. The trial court granted the landlords' motion for summary judgment, agreeing with their interpretation of the statute. The plaintiff appealed, and the Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that the landlords' habitability obligations did not extend to areas outside the tenant’s dwelling unit.The Oregon Supreme Court reviewed the case and reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court held that a landlord’s habitability obligations under ORS 90.320(1) do extend to common areas of an apartment building that are adjacent to a tenant’s apartment and used by the tenant to access the apartment. The court concluded that conditions in these common areas can render a dwelling unit unhabitable. The case was remanded to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings consistent with this interpretation. View "Jackson v. KA-3 Associates, LLC" on Justia Law

In April 2011, JJJTB, Inc. initiated a foreclosure action against Stephen Schmidt and Schmidt Farms, Inc. in Hillsborough County. In 2015, the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit denied the foreclosure judgment, and the Second District Court of Appeal affirmed this decision. Over two years later, JJJTB amended its complaint to include new defaults. Schmidt moved to dismiss the amended complaint but did not argue lack of case jurisdiction. The trial court denied the motion, and Schmidt filed an answer with affirmative defenses and a counterclaim but again did not raise the issue of case jurisdiction. In 2021, the court entered a foreclosure judgment against Schmidt, who then unsuccessfully moved for rehearing, asserting lack of subject matter jurisdiction.Schmidt appealed to the Second District Court of Appeal, arguing the trial court lacked jurisdiction. The Second District reversed the foreclosure judgment, holding that the trial court lacked case jurisdiction and that such objections cannot be waived. The court certified conflict with the Fourth District Court of Appeal's decision in MCR Funding v. CMG Funding Corp., which held that case jurisdiction is waivable.The Supreme Court of Florida reviewed the case to resolve the conflict. The court held that case jurisdiction is waivable and that objections must be timely raised, or they are waived. The court quashed the Second District's decision and approved the Fourth District's decision in MCR Funding. The Supreme Court concluded that Schmidt waived the objection to the trial court's lack of case jurisdiction by not raising it timely and by seeking affirmative relief. The Second District erred in reversing the foreclosure judgment based on untimely objections to case jurisdiction. View "JJJTB, Inc. v. Schmidt" on Justia Law

The case involves MP PPH, LLC, the owner of the Marbury Plaza apartment complex in Washington, D.C., which was found in contempt by the Superior Court of the District of Columbia for failing to comply with a consent order. The consent order was designed to address severe housing code violations, including pest infestations, mold, broken air conditioning, lack of heat, unsecured doors, leaks, and major plumbing issues. The trial court ordered a 50% rent abatement for all tenants, retroactive to the latest possible date by which MP PPH had agreed to complete the consent order’s requirements.The Superior Court of the District of Columbia initially denied the District of Columbia’s motion for contempt, finding that MP PPH had made good faith efforts to comply. However, upon a renewed motion, the court held a three-day evidentiary hearing and found MP PPH in contempt, citing extensive noncompliance with the consent order. The court noted that MP PPH had failed to conduct proper mold assessments, complete necessary repairs, and provide pest control services, among other violations. The court imposed sanctions, including a 50% rent abatement for all tenants, increasing to 60% and then 75% if compliance was not achieved within specified timeframes.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the case and affirmed the trial court’s contempt finding and sanctions. The appellate court found that the evidence of MP PPH’s contempt was overwhelming and that the trial court was not required to follow a three-step contempt process as argued by MP PPH. The court also held that the trial court’s sanctions did not interfere with the discretion of courts presiding over related landlord-tenant cases and that any improper reference to the wealth of MP PPH’s principal was harmless. The appellate court concluded that MP PPH had forfeited many of its arguments on appeal by not raising them in a timely manner before the trial court. View "MP PPH, LLC v. District of Columbia" on Justia Law

In this case, 4022 Georgia Avenue, LLC (4022 LLC) acquired a townhouse in Washington, D.C., in April 2018, which it later sold in two units in 2020. In June 2021, the new owners reported significant structural issues, leading to an inspection by the Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs (DCRA). DCRA issued an order to correct (December OTC) to 4022 LLC in December 2021, directing it to address various building code violations. 4022 LLC appealed the order, arguing it could not comply without the cooperation of the new owners.The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) held a hearing in April 2024 and issued a final order in May 2024, affirming the December OTC. OAH found that 4022 LLC's appeal did not meet the criteria for appeals under the relevant regulations, as it did not specify which provisions of the building code were incorrectly interpreted or applied. OAH also found that 4022 LLC was responsible for the violations due to its warranty obligations under the Condominium Act.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the case and held that OAH did not err in its findings. The court concluded that 4022 LLC's failure to identify specific provisions of the building code in its appeal constituted a failure to comply with the criteria for appeals. The court also found that OAH's reliance on the Property Maintenance Code, instead of the Building Code, did not constitute reversible error, as the criteria for appeals were substantively similar. Finally, the court held that OAH did not err in finding 4022 LLC responsible for the violations, as substantial evidence supported this finding based on the LLC's warranty obligations.The court affirmed OAH's order, upholding the December OTC and the requirement for 4022 LLC to address the building code violations. View "4022 Georgia Avenue v. Department of Buildings" on Justia Law

John and Stacy Bang own several parcels of real property in Dunn County, including the subject property in this dispute. They own both the surface and mineral estates. In May 2004, John Bang executed an oil and gas lease agreement with Diamond Resources, Inc., whose successor, Continental Resources, Inc., is the operator and holds the mineral lease. Continental notified the Bangs of its intent to install oil and gas facilities on the property, which the Bangs objected to. Continental subsequently constructed various facilities on the property.The Bangs filed a lawsuit against Continental in 2022, alleging trespass, seeking an injunction, and claiming damages under North Dakota law. The district court denied the Bangs' motions for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. Continental filed a separate action seeking a declaratory judgment and an injunction against John Bang, which was consolidated with the Bangs' case. In January 2024, the district court granted Continental partial summary judgment, declaring Continental had the right to install a pipeline corridor and denied the Bangs' claims for trespass and permanent injunction. The court also denied Continental summary judgment on damages. A jury trial in February 2024 awarded the Bangs $97,621.90 for their compensation claims. The Bangs' motions for a new trial and other relief were denied.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's amended judgment and order denying a new trial. The court held that the lease was unambiguous and provided Continental the authority to install pipeline facilities on the subject property. The court also upheld the district court's evidentiary rulings, including the exclusion of certain expert testimony and evidence of settlement agreements, and the exclusion of speculative evidence of future agricultural damages. The court found no error in the jury instructions and concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Bangs' motions under N.D.R.Civ.P. 59 and 60. View "Bang v. Continental Resources" on Justia Law

In this case, Donald Neuens entered into a contract for deed with Dorothy Czajkowski for the sale of property in Golden Valley County, North Dakota. Czajkowski agreed to pay $60,000 for the property, with a down payment and the remaining balance to be paid in monthly installments at an interest rate of 6%, along with property taxes. After Neuens passed away, the Axvigs purchased his interest from his estate. The Axvigs then initiated a quiet title action against Czajkowski to cancel the contract for deed, alleging that Czajkowski had abandoned the property, failed to make the required payments, and failed to pay the property taxes.The District Court of Golden Valley County awarded summary judgment in favor of the Axvigs, concluding that the contract for deed was canceled and awarding the property to the Axvigs. The court found that the contract allowed the Axvigs to proceed with a court action without providing notice and an opportunity to cure the default. Czajkowski appealed, arguing that the court erred in its interpretation of the contract and failed to allow a redemption period.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and reversed the amended judgment. The court held that the contract for deed was unambiguous and required the seller to provide notice of default and an opportunity to cure before seeking cancellation. The court found that the district court misinterpreted the contract by allowing the Axvigs to proceed with the cancellation action without first providing the required notice and time to cure the default. The Supreme Court concluded that the Axvigs breached the contract by not providing the necessary notice of default before initiating the cancellation action. View "Axvig v. Czajkowski" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, who owned real property in Southfield, Michigan, became delinquent on their property taxes between 2012 and 2014. Oakland County foreclosed on their properties under the General Property Tax Act (GPTA). The plaintiffs had the opportunity to redeem their properties by paying the delinquent taxes, but they failed to do so. Consequently, the properties were foreclosed, and the city of Southfield exercised its right of first refusal to purchase the properties for the minimum bid, which included the unpaid taxes and associated fees. The properties were then conveyed to the Southfield Neighborhood Revitalization Initiative (SNRI).The plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit in the Oakland Circuit Court, alleging violations of their constitutional rights, including the Takings Clauses of the Michigan and United States Constitutions. The trial court granted summary disposition in favor of the defendants, citing lack of jurisdiction, lack of standing, and res judicata. The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision. However, the Michigan Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals' decision and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of its decision in Rafaeli, LLC v Oakland Co, which held that retaining surplus proceeds from tax-foreclosure sales violated the Takings Clause of the Michigan Constitution.On remand, the trial court again granted summary disposition to the defendants, but the Court of Appeals reversed in part, holding that Rafaeli applied retroactively and that the plaintiffs had valid takings claims. The Michigan Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that a taking occurs when a governmental unit retains property without offering it for public sale and the value of the property exceeds the amount owed in taxes and fees. The Court also held that MCL 211.78m, as amended, applies prospectively, while MCL 211.78t applies retroactively but does not govern this case. The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. View "Jackson v. Southfield Neighborhood Revitalization Initiative" on Justia Law

Craig Lussi, a homeowner on Gibson Island, Maryland, sought to build an assisted living facility for elderly people with disabilities. The Gibson Island Corporation, a homeowners association, opposed the project, citing a restrictive covenant prohibiting business use of homes without approval. Lussi requested an exemption as a reasonable accommodation under the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and Maryland law, but the Corporation imposed four conditions, which Lussi found unreasonable. Negotiations failed, leading to litigation.The United States District Court for the District of Maryland granted summary judgment to the Corporation, finding that Lussi could not show the requested accommodation was necessary for providing equal housing opportunities. The court also dismissed Lussi's retaliation and discrimination claims, concluding there was no evidence of adverse actions or discriminatory intent by the Corporation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the district court erred in its analysis of the necessity element by focusing on the removal of the Corporation's conditions rather than the requested exemption itself. The appellate court held that the exemption was necessary to provide equal housing opportunities for disabled individuals on Gibson Island. The court also found genuine disputes of material fact regarding the reasonableness of the Corporation's conditions, which should be resolved by a jury.Additionally, the appellate court determined that Lussi's retaliation and discrimination claims presented jury questions. The court noted evidence suggesting the Corporation's stated reasons for opposing the project might be pretextual and that community hostility towards disabled residents could imply discriminatory intent.The Fourth Circuit vacated the district court's summary judgment in favor of the Corporation and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Group Home on Gibson Island, LLC v. Gibson Island Corp." on Justia Law

Brian and Susan Fernaays own a house on lot 31 in Brewers Creek Subdivision, Isle of Wight County, Virginia. A 20-foot drainage easement, shared with lot 32, contains an underground stormwater drainage pipe that has deteriorated over time, causing significant erosion. The Fernaayses estimate the repair cost at $150,000 and sued Isle of Wight County, claiming the County owns the easement and is responsible for maintaining the pipe. They argued that the County's failure to maintain the pipe resulted in an unconstitutional taking of their property under both the Virginia and U.S. Constitutions.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia reviewed the subdivision plat and the Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions. The court found that the easement was not dedicated to the County, meaning the County had no duty to maintain the drainage pipe. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the County.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court concluded that the Brewers Creek Partnership did not unequivocally dedicate the drainage easement to the County. The court noted that the plat and the Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions did not manifest an intent to dedicate the easement or the pipe to the County. The language in the documents suggested that the easements were for the benefit of the lot owners and that the County was only permitted to use them, not obligated to maintain them. Therefore, the County was not responsible for the damage, and the Fernaayses, as property owners, would have to bear the maintenance costs. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Fernaays v. Isle of Wight County" on Justia Law