Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

The case involves a dispute between a property owner and a city regarding the validity of a lien placed on the property. The property, an apartment building, was destroyed by arson, leading to the displacement of its tenants. The city incurred costs relocating the tenants and placed a lien on the property to recover these expenses under the Uniform Relocation Assistance Act (URAA).The trial court ruled in favor of the property owner, determining that the lien was invalid because the displacement was caused by a third party's arson, not by the city's enforcement of its building code. The court allowed the property owner to challenge the lien using an affirmative defense provided by the URAA, which is typically available only in civil actions brought by a municipality to recover relocation expenses.The Supreme Court of Connecticut reviewed the case and reversed the trial court's decision. The Supreme Court held that the tenants were "displaced persons" under the URAA because their displacement was a direct result of the city's enforcement of its building code, regardless of the arson being the initial cause. The court further held that the affirmative defense provided by the URAA, which allows a landlord to argue that the displacement was not due to their violation of housing codes, is only available in civil actions brought by the municipality and cannot be used to challenge a lien in an application to discharge it.The Supreme Court directed the trial court to deny the property owner's application to discharge the city's lien, thereby upholding the city's right to recover its relocation expenses through the lien. View "PPC Realty, LLC v. Hartford" on Justia Law

Parker Water and Sanitation District, a Colorado special district, applied for six permits to construct wells to withdraw nontributary groundwater from the Denver Basin aquifers. The State Engineer approved the applications and issued the permits, including an allowed average annual withdrawal rate and, for the first time, an explicit condition limiting the total volume of groundwater that could be withdrawn over the life of the permits. Parker challenged this condition, arguing that the State Engineer lacked the authority to impose such a limit.The Water Division One court found in favor of the State Engineer, concluding that section 37-90-137, C.R.S. (2024), and the Statewide Nontributary Ground Water Rules unambiguously set forth a total volumetric limit on the amount of nontributary Denver Basin groundwater a permittee may withdraw. The court determined that the statute and rules require a total volumetric limit equal to the quantity of nontributary groundwater underlying the land owned by the applicant, as determined by the State Engineer at the time the well permit is issued.The Supreme Court of Colorado affirmed the water court's decision, holding that section 37-90-137 unambiguously imposes a total volumetric limit on nontributary groundwater withdrawals over the lifetime of a well permit. The court also held that this limit applies to well permits issued under both the current statute and the earlier version enacted through Senate Bill 213. Additionally, the court concluded that the Statewide Nontributary Ground Water Rules unambiguously impose a total volumetric limit and that the State Engineer has the authority to include such a limit in well permits. The court further held that water court decrees determining use rights for nontributary Denver Basin groundwater set forth a total volumetric limit on withdrawals unless an underlying decree explicitly provides otherwise. Finally, the court found that the water court did not abuse its discretion in staying discovery. View "Parker Water & Sanitation Dist. v. Rein" on Justia Law

Kenneth and Kathy Zangara defaulted on a $2.3 million loan secured by a mortgage on their home. Bank of America (BOA), the original lender, filed a foreclosure action in 2011, which was dismissed in 2013 for lack of prosecution. BOA later sold the note to LSF9 Master Participation Trust (the Trust). The Trust filed a foreclosure action in 2018, which was dismissed for lack of standing. The Trust then filed a second foreclosure action, invoking New Mexico’s six-month savings statute.The district court dismissed the Trust’s second foreclosure action, interpreting the savings statute as inapplicable because the initial foreclosure was deemed a "nullity." The Trust appealed, and the New Mexico Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the Trust, concluding that a dismissal for lack of standing does not fall within the negligence in prosecution exception to the savings statute.The New Mexico Supreme Court reviewed the case and clarified the meaning of "negligence in its prosecution" under the savings statute. The Court held that this phrase is equivalent to a dismissal for failure to prosecute. The Court rejected previous interpretations that extended the negligence in prosecution exception to other circumstances. The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision that the Trust’s first foreclosure action’s dismissal for lack of standing did not constitute negligence in prosecution, allowing the Trust to benefit from the savings statute. The Court overruled prior cases that were inconsistent with this interpretation. View "Zangara v. LSF9 Master Participation Trust" on Justia Law

The case involves two sisters, Stacey Martin and Christine Lyon, who inherited their family residence as tenants in common after their father's death in 2019. Their mother lived on the property until her death in 2022, after which the sisters agreed to prepare the property for sale. They decided to restore the property, with Christine performing most of the labor. However, their relationship deteriorated, leading Stacey to file a complaint seeking partition of the property.The Superior Court, Windsor Unit, Civil Division, held a one-day bench trial and issued written findings. The court calculated the contributions each sister made towards the mortgage, taxes, insurance, utilities, and agreed-upon maintenance and improvements. It credited Christine for her labor but excluded her discretionary improvements due to lack of evidence of increased property value. The court concluded that Christine's share of the equity was $187,450 and ordered her to take assignment of the property by paying Stacey $92,550. If Christine chose not to take assignment, the property would be sold, and the proceeds divided.Christine appealed the denial of her request for prejudgment interest, arguing it should be awarded as of right under Vermont Rule of Civil Procedure 54(a) or as a matter of discretion. The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the lower court's decision. The Supreme Court held that prejudgment interest is not available for partition awards, as partition is an equitable remedy, not an action for damages. The court concluded that the credits for Christine's contributions were part of the equitable distribution of the property and did not qualify as damages, thus not triggering prejudgment interest. View "Martin v. Lyon" on Justia Law

Fitzgerald Fruit Farms, LLC leased land from Whitaker Farms, LLC for a peach orchard. After being locked out of the leased premises, Fitzgerald Farms sued Whitaker Farms for damages. A jury awarded compensatory damages to Fitzgerald Farms. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part but reversed the trial court’s ruling that Fitzgerald Farms could not seek punitive damages. On remand, a second jury awarded punitive damages to Fitzgerald Farms. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that statements made during a settlement negotiation by Whitaker Farms’s Chief Operating Officer to Fitzgerald Farms’s owner were properly admitted under OCGA § 24-4-408.The trial court initially ruled that Fitzgerald Farms could not seek punitive damages, but the Court of Appeals reversed this decision. On remand, the trial court conducted a second jury trial focused on punitive damages, where the jury awarded $500,000 in punitive damages to Fitzgerald Farms. Whitaker Farms appealed again, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting statements made during a settlement negotiation. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision, stating that the statements were admissible to show Whitaker’s intent and state of mind.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case and vacated the Court of Appeals’s judgment. The Supreme Court determined that the statements made during the settlement negotiation were inadmissible under OCGA § 24-4-408. The Court concluded that the statements were offered to prove Whitaker Farms’s liability for punitive damages, which is not permissible under the statute. The case was remanded to the Court of Appeals to determine whether the admission of the statements was harmful and if a new trial on punitive damages is required. View "Whitaker Farms, LLC v. Fitzgerald Fruit Farms, LLC" on Justia Law

A highway construction project in Johnson County, Indiana, required the widening of State Road 37 and the closure of an intersection at Fairview Road. The State initiated an eminent domain action to acquire a 0.632-acre strip of land from Franciscan Alliance, Inc., and the owners of easement rights over the strip, including The Market Place at State Road 37, LLC, and SCP 2010-C36-018, LLC, contested the action and sought damages due to changes in traffic flow from the intersection closure.The Johnson Superior Court appointed appraisers who valued the land and assessed damages. A jury trial followed, resulting in a verdict awarding $680,000 to Franciscan and $1,500,000 to SCP. The State appealed, arguing that damages for changes in traffic flow were not compensable. The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that the damages awarded were erroneous under existing caselaw on circuity of travel and traffic flow. Franciscan and SCP petitioned for transfer, which the Indiana Supreme Court granted.The Indiana Supreme Court reaffirmed the rule that when a road-improvement project leaves a property’s access points unchanged, a landowner cannot recover damages from changes in traffic flow, as these do not result from the taking of a property right. The Court held that the State’s construction project did not affect the owners’ access points to their properties, and thus, damages from the intersection closure were not compensable. The Court reversed the trial court’s judgment and remanded for proceedings to determine the just compensation owed to Franciscan for the 0.632-acre strip of land. View "State v. Franciscan Alliance, Inc." on Justia Law

Naomi Bermudez, a tenant in a federally subsidized housing complex managed by Mercy Housing Management Group Inc., faced eviction after Mercy Housing alleged she violated her lease by having an unauthorized guest who stayed beyond the allowed period, repaired vehicles on the property, and harassed another resident. Bermudez denied these allegations and requested a jury trial to resolve the factual disputes.The Denver County Court denied Bermudez's request for a jury trial, stating that there is no constitutional right to a jury trial in civil matters in Colorado. Bermudez then filed a petition with the Supreme Court of Colorado, arguing that she was entitled to a jury trial under the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure and the statutory framework governing forcible entry and detainer (FED) actions.The Supreme Court of Colorado reviewed the case and held that Bermudez is entitled to a jury trial on the factual disputes in the FED-possession action. The court found that the right to a jury trial in such cases is rooted in the statutory framework and the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure, specifically C.R.C.P. 338(a), which provides for a jury trial in actions for the recovery of specific real property. The court also determined that the FED statute and C.R.C.P. 338(a) are compatible and that the statutory right to a jury trial applies to factual disputes in FED-possession actions.The court acknowledged concerns about the potential burden on the county courts but concluded that the limited nature of the jury-trial right would not prove unworkable. The court reversed the county court's denial of Bermudez's jury demand, made absolute the order to show cause, and remanded the case with instructions for the county court to schedule a jury trial on the factual issues related to the possession dispute. View "Mercy Housing Management Group Inc. v. Bermudez" on Justia Law

The case involves a challenge to the County of Los Angeles's decision to ban new vineyards in the Santa Monica Mountains North Area. The area is a significant ecological and scenic resource, with most of its land designated as open space. In 2016, the County began updating the North Area Plan and Community Standards District, which included regulations for vineyards. Initially, the draft environmental impact report proposed stringent regulations but did not ban new vineyards. However, after public comments, the County Board of Supervisors decided to impose a total ban on new vineyards.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County denied the petition for a writ of mandate filed by John Gooden and the Malibu Coast Vintners and Grape Growers Alliance, Inc. The petitioners argued that the County violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by not recirculating the environmental impact report after the vineyard ban was added and that the County failed to follow Government Code section 65857 by not referring the ban back to the Department of Regional Planning.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Two, affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that the addition of the vineyard ban did not alter the nature or main features of the project described in the environmental impact report, thus not rendering the project description unstable. The court also found that the petitioners had waived any claim for recirculation. Additionally, the court assumed a procedural error under Government Code section 65857 but concluded that the petitioners failed to demonstrate that this error was prejudicial or that a different outcome was probable if the error had not occurred. View "Gooden v. County of Los Angeles" on Justia Law

Santa Rita Holdings, Inc. applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) from the County of Santa Barbara to cultivate cannabis on a 2.54-acre parcel owned by Kim Hughes. The only access to the parcel is through a private easement over land owned by JCCrandall, LLC. JCCrandall objected to the use of its easement for cannabis transportation. Despite the objection, the County granted the CUP, and the County’s Board of Supervisors upheld the decision, finding the road adequate for the project.JCCrandall petitioned for a writ of administrative mandate, challenging the County’s determination. JCCrandall argued that the use of the easement for cannabis activities was prohibited by the easement deed and federal law, required JCCrandall’s consent under state law, and violated County standards for private roads. The trial court denied the petition, applying the substantial evidence standard and finding the County’s decision supported by substantial evidence.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Six, reviewed the case. The court held that the trial court erred in applying the substantial evidence standard instead of the independent judgment standard, as JCCrandall’s right to exclude unauthorized persons from its property is a fundamental vested right. The appellate court also found that under federal law, cannabis is illegal, and thus, the use of the easement for cannabis transportation exceeds the scope of the easement. The court concluded that the County’s reliance on Civil Code section 1550.5, subdivision (b) was misplaced, as it defies the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The judgment was reversed, and costs were awarded to JCCrandall. View "JCCrandall v. County of Santa Barbara" on Justia Law

This case involves a dispute over two adjacent properties, each containing a multi-unit apartment complex with on-site parking. The plaintiffs, Eli and Maha Batta, sought to establish easement rights for additional parking and trash dumpsters on a disputed area of the adjacent property owned by the defendant, Therese Hunt. The Battas purchased their property from Hunt in 1994 and claimed that their tenants had used the disputed area for parking and dumpsters since then. Hunt refused to sign a parking covenant in 2019, leading the Battas to file a lawsuit seeking to quiet title to an easement by grant, prescription, or irrevocable license, and for breach of contract.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County conducted a bench trial and ruled in favor of the Battas, finding they had established easement rights by oral grant, prescription, and implication. The court ordered that the easement would expire upon a bona fide sale of either property. Both parties appealed the decision. Hunt argued that the trial court erred in granting the easement rights, while the Battas contended that the court abused its discretion by ruling that the easement would expire upon a sale.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, reviewed the case and found that the trial court's findings were inconsistent. The trial court had found both that Hunt had granted an easement and that the Battas' use of the property was adverse, which are mutually exclusive conditions. The appellate court concluded that these inconsistent findings required reversal. Additionally, the appellate court found that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the Battas to amend their complaint to add a cause of action for an easement by implication without giving Hunt the opportunity to rebut the evidence. Consequently, the judgment was reversed and the case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Batta v. Hunt" on Justia Law