Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

Mark Mullee, an expert-level skier, was injured at Whitefish Mountain Resort (WMR) after losing control on a beginner-level ski trail and falling down an embankment into a streambed. Mullee had skied this trail over 100 times before the accident. On January 16, 2019, he lost control after exiting a skier’s tunnel and fell, seriously injuring his hip. Mullee claimed that Winter Sports, Inc. (WSI), the operator of WMR, was negligent for not maintaining a fence that would have prevented his fall.The Eleventh Judicial District Court, Flathead County, granted summary judgment in favor of WSI, determining that WSI had no duty to maintain a fence capable of catching Mullee and preventing his fall. The court found that Mullee’s accident was an inherent risk of skiing, for which WSI was not liable under the Montana Skier Responsibility Act (MSRA). The court also granted summary judgment on Mullee’s premises liability claim.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court’s decision. The court held that WSI did not owe a duty of reasonable care to install and maintain fencing to catch Mullee after he lost control. The court emphasized that skiing involves inherent risks, including collisions with natural objects and variations in terrain, which skiers must accept. The court also noted that imposing such a duty on ski area operators would be contrary to public policy and the economic viability of the ski industry. Therefore, the court concluded that WSI was not negligent and upheld the summary judgment in favor of WSI. View "Mullee v. Winter Sports" on Justia Law

EdgeRock Development, LLC developed a planned unit development in Westfield, Indiana, comprising retail and residential projects. EdgeRock contracted with C.H. Garmong & Son, Inc. and Fox Contractors Corp. to develop the lots. When EdgeRock fell behind on payments, Garmong and Fox recorded construction liens on all five lots, including those sold to ZPS Westfield, LLC and a nonparty. The contractors sued EdgeRock for breach of contract and sought to foreclose the liens.The Hamilton Superior Court awarded the contractors most of the relief they sought, including foreclosure of the construction liens. The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the foreclosure, concluding the liens were overstated as they were not limited to debts for improvements directly benefiting the properties to which the liens attached.The Indiana Supreme Court reviewed the case to address the validity and scope of the construction liens and the priority between the construction liens and First Bank Richmond’s mortgage lien. The court held that a construction lien secures only the debt for improvements directly benefiting the property to which the lien attaches. Therefore, the contractors can foreclose the liens on each property to recover only those amounts. The court also concluded that First Bank’s mortgage lien is senior to the construction liens for the amount loaned to satisfy Garmong’s prior construction lien but junior for the remaining amounts.The court affirmed the trial court’s judgment in part, reversed in part, and remanded for the trial court to amend the judgment consistent with its opinion. The court also noted that its holdings do not disturb the in personam judgments against EdgeRock on Garmong’s and Fox’s breach-of-contract claims. View "Edgerock Development, LLC v. C.H. Garmong & Son Inc" on Justia Law

Leslie J. Knoles (Decedent) and Ruth Catello co-owned a property as joint tenants with a right of survivorship. In 2020, Decedent recorded a quitclaim deed to herself, which, if valid, severed the joint tenancy and created a tenancy in common. Decedent died shortly after recording the deed. Decedent's four surviving siblings initiated probate proceedings to distribute her estate, including the property. Catello filed a competing petition for letters of administration and later a petition to administer a will. Concurrently, Catello sued two siblings to cancel the quitclaim deed and quiet title to the property. The siblings filed a cross-claim to partition the property by sale.The Superior Court of San Diego County entered an interlocutory judgment for partition by sale, identifying the property owners as Catello and Decedent’s estate. The judgment ordered the sale proceeds to be distributed equally between Catello and Decedent’s estate after expenses. Catello appealed, arguing that the siblings lacked standing to sue for partition because the probate court had not yet determined ownership of the property.The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, State of California, reviewed the case. The court held that the siblings lacked standing to bring the partition claim because their ownership interest in the property was not confirmed and was contingent upon the outcome of the ongoing probate proceedings. The court emphasized that a party seeking partition must have clear title, which the siblings did not possess. Consequently, the court reversed the judgment and directed the case to be dismissed. View "Amundson v. Catello" on Justia Law

Cashman Equipment Corporation, Inc. (Cashman) was contracted by Cardi Corporation, Inc. (Cardi) to construct marine cofferdams for the Sakonnet River Bridge project. Cashman then subcontracted Specialty Diving Services, Inc. (SDS) to perform underwater aspects of the cofferdam installation. Cardi identified deficiencies in the cofferdams and sought to hold Cashman responsible. Cashman believed it had fulfilled its contractual obligations and sued Cardi for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and quantum meruit. Cardi counterclaimed, alleging deficiencies in Cashman's construction. Cashman later added SDS as a defendant, claiming breach of contract and seeking indemnity and contribution.The Superior Court denied SDS's motion for summary judgment, finding genuine disputes of material fact. The case proceeded to a jury-waived trial, after which SDS moved for judgment as a matter of law. The trial justice granted SDS's motion, finding Cashman failed to establish that SDS breached any obligations. SDS then moved for attorneys' fees, which the trial justice granted, finding Cashman's claims were unsupported by evidence and lacked justiciable issues of fact or law. The trial justice ordered mediation over attorneys' fees, resulting in a stipulated amount of $224,671.14, excluding prejudgment interest.The Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the Superior Court's amended judgment. The Supreme Court held that the trial justice did not err in granting judgment as a matter of law, as Cashman failed to provide specific evidence of justiciable issues of fact. The Court also upheld the award of attorneys' fees, finding no abuse of discretion. Additionally, the Court determined that the attorneys' fees were not barred by the Bankruptcy Code, as they arose post-confirmation and were not contingent claims. View "Cashman Equipment Corporation, Inc. v. Cardi Corporation, Inc." on Justia Law

Newfield Sand, a Maine corporation engaged in mineral extraction, owns a nearly three-hundred-acre parcel in the Town of Newfield. In 1994, the Planning Board granted a permit to the previous owner for a five-acre gravel-extraction operation with specific conditions on hours of operation and truck trips. Newfield Sand acquired the property in 1998 and sought to expand its operations. In May 2022, Newfield Sand applied for a conditional use permit to operate on thirty acres of open pit at a time and extract minerals from about eighty-five acres. The Planning Board approved the application in November 2023, subject to conditions, including provisions allowing the Board to reevaluate the hours of operation and truck trip limits.The Business and Consumer Docket affirmed the Planning Board’s decision. Newfield Sand appealed, arguing that the Planning Board lacked the authority to retain jurisdiction and modify permit conditions post-approval. The Town contended that the Board’s authority to impose such conditions was implied.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the case and concluded that the ordinance did not explicitly or implicitly authorize the Planning Board to modify or revoke a permit after issuance or retain jurisdiction over it. The Court found that the conditions allowing reevaluation of hours of operation and truck trips were outside the Board’s authority and did not clearly define compliance requirements. Consequently, the Court vacated the lower court’s judgment and remanded the matter to the Planning Board for further consideration of Newfield Sand’s application for a conditional use permit. View "Newfield Sand v. Town of Newfield" on Justia Law

A group of landlords and property owners in New York's Hudson Valley region challenged the constitutionality of the 2023 amendments to New York's rent stabilization law. These amendments, known as the Vacancy Provisions, allow municipalities to impose civil penalties on landlords who do not cooperate with vacancy surveys and to presume zero vacancies for nonresponsive landlords. The landlords argued that these provisions authorize warrantless searches of their records without an opportunity to challenge the searches' scope, violating the Fourth Amendment, and that they prevent landlords from contesting vacancy calculations, violating procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.The United States District Court for the Northern District of New York denied the landlords' motion for a preliminary injunction and dismissed their complaint for failure to state a claim. The landlords appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. The court held that the Vacancy Provisions are facially valid under the Fourth Amendment because landlords have adequate pre-compliance review available under Article 78 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules. The court also found that the searches authorized by the Vacancy Provisions are not unreasonable in every situation, given the ample notice and minimal penalties involved. Additionally, the court held that the Vacancy Provisions do not violate procedural due process because landlords can contest vacancy calculations at public hearings before rent stabilization is adopted and through Article 78 after adoption. View "Hudson Shore v. State of New York" on Justia Law

Plaintiff purchased a rural property in Santa Cruz County, which was accessed via a private road crossing his neighbor's property. A dispute arose when the neighbor claimed an easement over the road, leading to increased traffic due to marijuana cultivation. The neighbor filed two lawsuits asserting an easement, both of which were dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff then sued to quiet title, and the neighbor cross-complained, asserting an easement based on a 1971 deed. The trial court ruled in favor of the neighbor, finding an express easement, a decision affirmed on appeal.Plaintiff funded his defense using retirement savings after Chicago Title Insurance Company, his title insurer, denied his tender for defense, citing policy exclusions. Plaintiff sued Chicago Title for breach of contract and bad faith. The trial court found Chicago Title had a duty to defend from the initial tender but rejected Plaintiff's bad faith claim and request for punitive damages. The court awarded damages for the diminution in property value but denied damages for periods outside the litigation.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, found that Chicago Title acted in bad faith by failing to defend Plaintiff despite the potential for coverage indicated by the 1971 deed. The court reversed the trial court's judgment on the bad faith claim and remanded for a determination of damages resulting from the breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The court affirmed the trial court's denial of punitive damages and its award of prejudgment interest on the additional diminution in value. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court's findings. View "Bartel v. Chicago Title Insurance Co." on Justia Law

Old Golden Oaks LLC applied for an encroachment permit and a grading permit from Amador County for a housing development project. The county deemed the applications incomplete and requested additional information. Old Golden Oaks filed a petition for writ of mandate, arguing that the county violated the Permit Streamlining Act by requesting information not specified in the submittal checklists for the permits.The Superior Court of Amador County sustained the county’s demurrer without leave to amend, finding that the encroachment permit checklist allowed the county to request additional information and that the county had statutory authority to seek information necessary for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Third Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court agreed with Old Golden Oaks that the catch-all provision in the county’s encroachment permit submittal checklist violated the Permit Streamlining Act because it did not specify in detail the required information. However, the court found that the county could condition the completeness of the grading permit application on additional environmental information because the grading permit checklist informed Old Golden Oaks that the project must comply with CEQA. The court reversed the trial court’s judgment regarding the encroachment permit but affirmed the judgment regarding the grading permit. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs on appeal. View "Old Golden Oaks v. County of Amador" on Justia Law

William Elam and his relatives, the Earlys, are in a dispute over the ownership of a set of Norman Rockwell drawings given to their grandfather, Stephen T. Early, by the artist in 1943. Elam claims sole ownership, while the Earlys assert they are part-owners. The drawings were allegedly gifted to Elam's mother, Helen, by her father upon her college graduation in 1949, but there is no documentary evidence of this gift. The drawings remained in the family home until 1956, then moved with Grandmother Early to a new house, and eventually to Helen's house in 1960. Helen later loaned the drawings to the White House in 1978.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted summary judgment in favor of Elam, finding that his possession of the drawings created a presumption of ownership under Virginia law, which the Earlys failed to rebut. The court determined that Helen had actual possession of the drawings from 1960 to 1978, and the Earlys' evidence, including hearsay testimony, was insufficient to create a genuine dispute of material fact.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court agreed that the presumption of ownership applied due to Helen's possession and that the Earlys did not provide sufficient evidence to establish superior title. The court also upheld the dismissal of the Earlys' common law counterclaims for conversion, detinue, and breach of bailment, as well as their conspiracy claim, as these claims could not survive without establishing superior title to the drawings. View "Elam v. Early" on Justia Law

Landowners Stephen and Sharon Wille Padnos appealed two Environmental Division decisions that granted summary judgment to landowner Jason Struthers. The court ruled that the City of Essex Junction could not regulate Struthers' duck-raising and cannabis-cultivation operations. The court found that the duck-raising operation was exempt from municipal regulation under 24 V.S.A. § 4413(d)(1)(A) as it constituted a commercial farming operation subject to the Required Agricultural Practices (RAPs) Rule. Additionally, the court concluded that the City could not enforce its zoning regulations on Struthers' cannabis-cultivation operations under 7 V.S.A. § 869(f)(2).The City’s zoning regulations do not permit agricultural, farming, or cannabis-cultivation establishments in the Residential-1 Zoning District. The City’s zoning officer initially declined to enforce these regulations against Struthers. The City’s Development Review Board (DRB) reversed the zoning officer’s decision regarding the duck-raising operation but upheld it for the cannabis-cultivation operation. The Environmental Division later granted summary judgment in favor of Struthers in both cases, concluding that the City could not regulate the duck-raising and cannabis-cultivation operations.The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that neither 24 V.S.A. § 4413(d)(1)(A) nor 7 V.S.A. § 869(f)(2) exempts Struthers' operations from all municipal regulation. The court clarified that § 4413(d)(1)(A) prohibits municipal regulation of the specific agricultural practices required by the RAPs Rule, not all farming activities subject to the RAPs Rule. Similarly, § 869(f)(2) prevents municipal regulation of licensed outdoor cannabis cultivators only concerning the water-quality standards established by the RAPs Rule, not all aspects of cannabis cultivation. Consequently, the Vermont Supreme Court reversed the Environmental Division’s decisions and remanded the cases for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "In re 8 Taft Street DRB & NOV Appeals" on Justia Law