Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

In this case, the Prince George’s County Council, sitting as the District Council, engaged in a 2009 comprehensive rezoning process known as a sectional map amendment for subregions 5 and 6. Several property owners, including Christmas Farm and MCQ Auto Servicenter, were affected by this rezoning. Christmas Farm sought a more intensive zoning classification but failed to file the required ethics affidavit. MCQ’s property was downzoned, but MCQ successfully petitioned for a revisory petition, resulting in the restoration of its original zoning classification.The Circuit Court for Prince George’s County and the Appellate Court of Maryland reviewed the zoning decisions multiple times, resulting in several remands to the District Council. The courts found that the District Council failed to comply with procedural requirements, including the failure to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard. The most recent remand occurred in 2019, where the District Council adopted sectional map amendments without holding a public hearing or notifying the affected property owners.The Supreme Court of Maryland reviewed whether a 2021 countywide rezoning constituted a substantive change in the law that rendered moot the property owners' assertions of error from the 2019 proceeding. The Court also examined whether the District Council erred in failing to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard and whether it complied with the Appellate Court’s prior remand order.The Supreme Court of Maryland held that the 2021 countywide rezoning was not a comprehensive rezoning or a substantive change in the law that rendered the property owners' assertions moot. The rezoning was a technical mapping exercise intended to align zoning classifications with the new zoning ordinance. The Court also held that the District Council failed to comply with state and local laws requiring notice and a public hearing and did not follow the Appellate Court’s remand instructions. The judgment of the Appellate Court was affirmed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. View "County Council of Prince George's County. v. Robin Dale Land LLC" on Justia Law

In this case, the plaintiffs, Kristina Urbonas and Arunas Aniukstis, purchased property at 5 Bowser Court in Newport, Rhode Island. The defendant, NRI 51 Kingston Partnership (NRI), acquired adjacent property at 51 Kingston Avenue. A dispute arose when NRI's representative, John Gullison, conducted renovations and removed part of the plaintiffs' cobblestone landing, claiming it encroached on NRI's property. Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit seeking a declaration of ownership over the disputed land based on the doctrine of acquiescence, adverse possession, and an easement by prescription.The Superior Court awarded title to the plaintiffs for the disputed land, finding that the plaintiffs had acquired the land through the doctrine of acquiescence. The court also granted title to other abutters of Bowser Court, even though they had not requested such relief. NRI appealed, arguing that the trial justice misapplied the doctrine of acquiescence and erred in awarding title to other abutters.The Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that the trial justice erred in granting relief to the other abutters who had not requested it. The court also determined that the doctrine of acquiescence was not applicable because the disputed boundary was not solely on the parties' adjoining lots but also bordered Bowser Court. However, the court found that the plaintiffs had established an easement by prescription over the five-foot strip of land, as they had used the walkway openly, continuously, and hostilely for the statutory period.The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court's judgment in part, recognizing the plaintiffs' easement by prescription, and vacated the part of the judgment granting relief to the other abutters. View "Urbonas v. Gullison" on Justia Law

Bighorn Construction, LLC (Bighorn) and JED Spectrum, Inc. (JED) filed mechanic’s liens against property owned by Keith Stoakes, seeking to foreclose on the liens. Stoakes denied the validity of the liens and counterclaimed for slander of title against both companies, and for breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and fraud against JED. After a bench trial, the circuit court denied Bighorn’s and JED’s claims for lien foreclosure and ruled in favor of Stoakes on his slander of title claims, awarding him $252,225.27 in damages and $33,394.20 in attorney fees. The court denied relief on the remaining claims.The circuit court found that Bighorn had no reasonable grounds to file the lien after receiving a check for full payment, and that JED’s lien was untimely and insufficiently itemized. The court also found that Stoakes reasonably relied on JED’s promise of a shared well system, awarding him damages for promissory estoppel. However, the court later reversed its decision on the promissory estoppel claim and reduced the attorney fee award accordingly.The Supreme Court of South Dakota reviewed the case. It reversed the circuit court’s ruling on the slander of title claims, finding insufficient evidence to prove that Jerry, acting on behalf of Bighorn and JED, knew or recklessly disregarded the falsity of the liens. The court affirmed the denial of Stoakes’s promissory estoppel claim, concluding that Stoakes did not suffer substantial economic detriment. The court also affirmed the attorney fee award of $33,394.20 to Stoakes, as it was within the court’s discretion under SDCL 44-9-42. View "Jed Spectrum, Inc. v. Stoakes" on Justia Law

Grange Hill LLC sought approval from Yamhill County to operate a nine-guestroom bed and breakfast on its vineyard property, which is zoned for Exclusive Farm Use (EFU). The county approved the application, determining that the proposed bed and breakfast would operate as a "home occupation" within a "dwelling" that Grange Hill had yet to build. Friends of Yamhill County challenged this approval, arguing that the proposed structure did not meet the statutory requirements for a home occupation on EFU land, specifically that it must operate within a "dwelling" as defined by ORS 215.448(1).The Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) affirmed the county's decision, reasoning that the proposed structure qualified as a "dwelling" because it met the design standards for a single-family residence and would be used as a residence for the innkeeper. LUBA dismissed Friends' argument that the structure needed to satisfy all requirements for a "primary dwelling in conjunction with farm use," including being the home of a farm operator.The Oregon Court of Appeals reversed LUBA's decision, concluding that the proposed structure was not a "dwelling" as a matter of law because it resembled a motel more than a home. The court emphasized that the entire structure must be a farm dwelling occupied by a group of people sharing a household on a long-term basis.The Oregon Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed in part and reversed in part the Court of Appeals' decision. The Supreme Court held that the "dwelling" requirement in ORS 215.448 means a structure that satisfies the requirements for a category of dwelling allowed in the zone, specifically a "primary dwelling" on EFU land, which must be the home of a farm operator. The court concluded that LUBA erred in affirming the county's approval without ensuring the proposed structure met this requirement. The case was remanded to LUBA for further consideration. View "Friends of Yamhill v. Yamhill County" on Justia Law

A property dispute arose between 790 Montclair, LLC and The Station at Crestline Heights, LLC, among others, regarding the construction of an entrance by The Station that allegedly violated a reciprocal easement agreement. The property in question, a former hospital campus, had an easement agreement from 2018 that granted non-exclusive easements for access across certain facilities, including private drives and sidewalks. The Station constructed an entrance on Dan Hudson Drive, which 790 Montclair claimed altered the sidewalk in violation of the easement agreement.The Jefferson Circuit Court denied 790 Montclair's request for a preliminary injunction to stop The Station from using the new entrance. The court found that the sidewalk where the entrance was constructed was not an "access facility" as defined in the easement agreement, and thus, the construction did not require prior approval from all property owners. The court also found that 790 Montclair had not demonstrated how the new entrance interfered with its use and enjoyment of the easement.The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that the trial court correctly interpreted the easement agreement and found that the sidewalk in question was not depicted as an access facility in the agreement's exhibit. Additionally, the court agreed that 790 Montclair had an adequate remedy at law through damages and that the hardship imposed on The Station by blocking access outweighed any benefit to 790 Montclair. The court concluded that 790 Montclair failed to demonstrate entitlement to injunctive relief. View "790 Montclair, LLC v. The Station at Crestline Heights, LLC" on Justia Law

Marjorie Johnson, the owner of farmland, was denied a permit by the Village of Polk to drill a new well for irrigating her farmland. She sought a declaratory judgment that the ordinance requiring a permit for new wells in the village’s wellhead protection area was invalid, arguing it was preempted by the Nebraska Ground Water Management and Protection Act (NGWMPA) and violated state law by interfering with her existing farming operations.The district court for Polk County denied her request for declaratory judgment and her petition in error. The court found that the ordinance was not preempted by the NGWMPA, as the Legislature intended for both local natural resources districts (NRDs) and municipalities to have control over water sources. The court also found that the ordinance did not interfere with Johnson’s existing farming operations, as the land was previously irrigated through an agreement with a neighbor, and it was the dispute with the neighbor, not the ordinance, that resulted in the land being dryland.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that the ordinance was enacted under the necessary statutory grant of power to the municipality, as the Wellhead Protection Area Act and other statutes granted villages the authority to adopt controls to protect public water supplies. The court also found no field or conflict preemption by the NGWMPA, as the Legislature did not intend to deprive municipalities of their statutory authority to require permits for wells within wellhead protection areas. Finally, the court agreed that the ordinance did not interfere with Johnson’s existing farming operations, as the existing farming at the time of the permit request was dryland farming, and it was the neighbor’s actions, not the ordinance, that prevented irrigation. View "Johnson v. Village of Polk" on Justia Law

A real estate developer, HK Baugh Ranch, LLC, petitioned the Texas Public Utility Commission (PUC) to release its undeveloped land, River Bend Ranch, from the certificate of convenience and necessity (CCN) issued to Crystal Clear Special Utility District (Crystal Clear). Crystal Clear, a federally indebted utility district, sued the PUC’s Chair and Commissioners in federal court, alleging that Texas Water Code § 13.2541, which allows for decertification, was preempted by 7 U.S.C. § 1926(b). This federal statute protects certain federally indebted utilities from curtailment of their service areas while their loans are outstanding.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas issued a preliminary injunction preventing the PUC from decertifying River Bend Ranch. The district court applied the “physical ability” test from Green Valley Special Utility District v. City of Schertz, determining that Crystal Clear likely made its service available to HK Baugh and was thus entitled to the protections of § 1926(b). The court concluded that § 1926(b) likely expressly preempts Texas Water Code § 13.2541, resolving the remaining preliminary injunction factors in favor of Crystal Clear.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court did not err in concluding that Crystal Clear would likely satisfy the “physical ability” test. However, the appellate court found that the district court erred in holding that § 1926(b) expressly preempts Texas Water Code § 13.2541. The appellate court remanded the case to the district court to determine whether § 1926(b) otherwise preempts Texas Water Code § 13.2541 and to address all preliminary injunction factors as necessary. The preliminary injunction remains in place pending further proceedings. View "Crystal Clear v. HK Baugh Ranch" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, Dino J. Guilmette, owned a property in North Providence, Rhode Island, and executed a mortgage in favor of Option One Mortgage Corporation in 2006. The mortgage was later assigned to Wells Fargo, with PHH Mortgage Services as the servicing company. Guilmette requested a modification of his mortgage in 2014, resulting in a Shared Appreciation Modification Agreement. This agreement increased the principal balance and included a provision for a shared appreciation amount if the property value increased and was sold.Guilmette sold the property in 2022 and disputed the calculation of the shared appreciation amount provided by PHH. He argued that PHH's calculation was incorrect and that they overcharged him by $40,708.33. Guilmette filed a breach of contract action, claiming that PHH did not properly calculate the shared appreciation amount according to the modification agreement.The Superior Court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, PHH and Wells Fargo, concluding that the modification agreement was clear and unambiguous. The court found that the defendants correctly calculated the shared appreciation amount based on the terms of the agreement and the attached disclosure statement, which provided specific examples of the calculation method.The Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the Superior Court's judgment. The Supreme Court held that the modification agreement was unambiguous and that the defendants' calculation of the shared appreciation amount was correct. The court emphasized that the disclosure statement, which was part of the agreement and signed by Guilmette, clearly illustrated the calculation method, and there was no ambiguity in the contract terms. View "Guilmette v. PHH Mortgage Services FKA Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC" on Justia Law

Kratzer Construction entered into a subcontract with Hardy Construction Co. to perform work on a building addition for Ekalaka Public Schools. Kratzer completed the work and submitted pay applications, including one for $92,856.45, which Hardy partially disputed due to unapproved change orders. Hardy offered to pay $81,153 upon Kratzer signing a release, but Kratzer refused, demanding the full amount plus interest. Hardy later offered the same amount without requiring a release, but Kratzer still declined, insisting on interest.The Sixteenth Judicial District Court granted summary judgment to Kratzer, ruling that Hardy owed $81,153 plus 18% interest from January 6, 2022, and attorney fees, as Kratzer was deemed the prevailing party. Hardy appealed, arguing that Kratzer failed to meet a condition precedent in the subcontract requiring submission of releases from his subcontractors before final payment.The Supreme Court of Montana reviewed the case and concluded that the subcontract's provisions were clear and unambiguous. The court determined that Kratzer's failure to submit the required releases constituted a breach of the subcontract, and Hardy was entitled to withhold payment. The court found that Hardy's offers to settle did not constitute a waiver of the condition precedent or a novation of the contract.The Supreme Court reversed the District Court's summary judgment in favor of Kratzer, including the awards for interest and attorney fees. The court remanded the case for entry of judgment in favor of Hardy, requiring Hardy to pay Kratzer $81,153 for services rendered under the subcontract, less reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred by Hardy. View "Kratzer Construction v. Hardy Construction" on Justia Law

Upper Missouri Waterkeeper and seven Broadwater County residents challenged the approval of a subdivision by 71 Ranch, LP, arguing it did not meet the "exempt well" exception for a water rights permit. They sought attorney fees under the Montana Water Use Act, the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act (UDJA), and the Private Attorney General Doctrine. The District Court denied their request for fees under all three claims.The First Judicial District Court found that the subdivision's environmental assessment was inadequate and that the County abused its discretion in approving the subdivision. The court ruled in favor of Upper Missouri on most claims but denied their request for attorney fees. The plaintiffs appealed the denial of fees.The Montana Supreme Court reviewed the case and agreed with the District Court that the Water Use Act did not authorize fees. However, the Supreme Court reversed the denial of fees under the UDJA, finding that the District Court abused its discretion. The Supreme Court held that the equities supported an award of attorney fees and that the declaratory relief sought by Upper Missouri was necessary to change the status quo. The case was remanded to the District Court to determine a reasonable amount of fees and their apportionment. The Supreme Court did not address the private attorney general claim. View "Upper Missouri v. Department of Natural Resources and Conservation" on Justia Law