Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

Four property-specific limited liability companies owned real estate in Wisconsin, which was leased to skilled nursing facilities operated by Kevin Breslin through his company, KBWB Operations, LLC. Breslin and his co-guarantors executed personal guaranties ensuring payment and performance under the leases. The nursing facility tenants defaulted on their rent obligations starting in 2018 and subsequently lost their operating licenses after a court-appointed receiver moved residents out. The tenants also failed to complete a purchase option for the properties, triggering a liquidated damages clause. Plaintiffs later sold the properties at a loss.The plaintiffs sued Breslin, his company, and co-guarantors in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to enforce the guaranties and recover damages. During the litigation, plaintiffs discovered that one co-guarantor was a California citizen, which destroyed complete diversity and thus federal jurisdiction. Plaintiffs moved to dismiss this non-diverse defendant, arguing he was not indispensable because the guaranties provided for joint and several liability. The district court agreed and dismissed him. Breslin did not oppose the dismissal. Plaintiffs then moved for summary judgment; Breslin, facing criminal charges, invoked the Fifth Amendment and presented no evidence on liability or damages. The district court granted summary judgment to plaintiffs and awarded nearly $22 million in damages across several categories.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that jurisdiction was proper because the dismissed co-guarantor was not an indispensable party under Rule 19, given joint and several liability. The court affirmed the district court’s findings on most damages but vacated the awards for accelerated rent under one lease (pending further consideration of its enforceability as a liquidated damages clause) and for liquidated damages related to the purchase option (finding it unenforceable as a penalty). The case was remanded for recalculation of damages consistent with these holdings. In all other respects, the judgment was affirmed. View "CCP Golden/7470 LLC v. Breslin" on Justia Law

Several tenants of a subdivided property in Los Angeles, each with separate oral lease agreements for individual units, were forced out of their homes after the landlord obtained a default unlawful detainer judgment against the tenant of a different unit. The landlord did not inform these tenants of the proceedings or provide proper notice. Although only the tenant of unit seven was behind on rent, the landlord sought and obtained possession of the entire property. The sheriff’s deputies, acting on the writ of possession, evicted all the tenants, leaving them homeless and unable to retrieve most of their belongings.The tenants filed suit in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, asserting claims such as wrongful eviction, breach of quiet enjoyment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, fraud, and violations of statutory and local ordinances. The landlord responded by filing a special motion to strike under California’s anti-SLAPP statute, arguing that the tenants’ claims arose from protected petitioning activity—the prosecution of the unlawful detainer action. The Superior Court granted the motion for ten of the eleven causes of action, concluding that the tenants’ claims were premised on the landlord’s protected activity in pursuing the unlawful detainer case.Upon review, the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, Division Four, held that the tenants’ claims did not arise from protected activity under the anti-SLAPP statute. The appellate court found that the gravamen of the tenants’ complaint was the landlord’s improper termination of their tenancies without judicial process or notice—not the act of filing or prosecuting the unlawful detainer action against another tenant. Therefore, the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order granting the anti-SLAPP motion and directed the lower court to deny the motion. View "Noon v. Fuentes" on Justia Law

The dispute centers on a real estate transaction in which a buyer agreed to purchase a property in Miami for $5,450,000 from two sellers, with a closing set for October 2021. The sellers subsequently discovered a mortgage restriction preventing them from closing until January 2022, which resulted in their failure to close on time. They acknowledged the breach, but subsequent negotiations to revive the deal fell through because the buyer wanted a discounted price to account for damages incurred from the delay, which the sellers refused.The matter proceeded to litigation. The buyer sued for specific performance and damages in state court; the sellers removed the action to federal court and also brought their own federal suit seeking a declaratory judgment that the buyer, not they, had breached. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida dismissed the sellers’ declaratory action and granted summary judgment to the buyer on breach of contract, reserving the amount of damages for trial. After a bench trial, the district court awarded the buyer specific performance and damages, ordering the sale to proceed. The parties closed the transaction as ordered.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that the issue of specific performance was moot because the sale had already occurred and the property was now owned by third parties not before the court, making further relief impossible. However, the court found the damages issue remained live. It affirmed the district court’s damages award in all respects except for damages for lost tax savings, which it reversed due to insufficient evidence that the buyer itself suffered those losses. The case was remanded for recalculation of damages consistent with the appellate decision. View "Marmol v. Kalonymus Development Partners, LLC" on Justia Law

A homeowners association in San Diego, governed by the Davis-Stirling Act and its own bylaws, held a recall election to remove a board director. The association distributed recall ballot materials, including a candidate statement from the sole candidate seeking to replace the director if the recall succeeded. The sitting director sought to include her own statement in these materials to advocate against her removal but was denied by the elections inspector, who reasoned that only candidate statements were included. The association’s election rules defined “association media” to exclude candidate forms or statements attached to ballots.Previously, the Superior Court of San Diego County, in a separate action brought by the same director, found no violation of the statutory equal-access requirement for association media, concluding that all candidates had equal opportunity to submit statements using the association’s forms for regular board elections. Following the recall, the director filed a new petition and complaint challenging the association’s refusal to distribute her statement, alleging violations of Civil Code section 5105, various Corporations Code provisions, and negligence. After a bench trial, the Superior Court again ruled for the association and the inspector, finding the candidate statement was not “association media” under the relevant statute and that the recall vote met statutory requirements.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, reversed. It held that “association media” as used in Civil Code section 5105 does encompass ballot materials containing candidate statements distributed by the association during an election. The court concluded the director was entitled to equal access to these materials to advocate her position. The court remanded for further proceedings to determine, under Civil Code section 5145, whether the association’s failure to provide equal access affected the election outcome. The judgment was reversed and remanded with directions. View "Arroyo v. Pacific Ridge Neighborhood Homeowners Assn." on Justia Law

A credit union recorded a judgment lien against an individual, Troy Lewis, in January 2017. Several months later, the Alaska Department of Revenue, Child Support Services Division (CSSD), recorded a child support lien against Lewis’s property. Subsequently, a law firm acting as trustee initiated a nonjudicial foreclosure on Lewis’s property to satisfy a deed of trust held by a bank. After paying the bank, the trustee was left with surplus proceeds from the foreclosure sale. Both the credit union and CSSD claimed entitlement to these surplus funds, with the credit union asserting priority based on the earlier recording of its lien, and CSSD asserting priority under statutes specific to child support liens and withholding orders.The District Court of the State of Alaska, Anchorage, ruled in favor of CSSD, finding that the statutory provisions governing child support liens and withholding orders gave CSSD priority to the surplus funds, despite its lien being recorded after the credit union’s. The district court also found that CSSD’s withholding order applied to the surplus. The Superior Court of the State of Alaska, Third Judicial District, Anchorage, affirmed this decision, relying primarily on the child support withholding order statute as more specific and therefore controlling over the general lien priority statute.The Supreme Court of the State of Alaska held that CSSD’s withholding order was ineffective in this scenario because, at the relevant time, the surplus funds were not “due, owing, or belonging” to Lewis, as required by the statute. However, the court ruled that the statutory prohibitions on transferring property subject to a CSSD child support lien (AS 25.27.230(d)) do apply to judgment lienholders in nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings. This effectively grants CSSD’s lien priority over other judgment liens, regardless of recording order. The Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s judgment. View "Alaska USA Federal Credit Union v. The Sayer Law Group, P.C." on Justia Law

A city in Alaska amended its zoning code through an ordinance designed to streamline permitting processes, reduce costs, and encourage development. The planning department reviewed the history of conditional use permits and identified certain uses that could be changed to permitted uses across multiple zoning districts. This proposed amendment underwent a series of public meetings and hearings before the city’s planning commission and city council. Notices about these meetings and the ordinance were published, and the ordinance was ultimately adopted by the city council after public participation and minor amendments.A resident challenged the ordinance in the Superior Court for the State of Alaska, Third Judicial District, Homer, claiming the city failed to comply with procedural requirements in its code, did not provide adequate public notice, and that the ordinance lacked a legitimate government purpose, violating substantive due process. He also argued the ordinance was unenforceable and objected to the award of attorney’s fees to the city. The superior court granted summary judgment in favor of the city, finding no genuine issues of material fact, and awarded attorney’s fees to the city, concluding that the city was the prevailing party and the plaintiff’s constitutional claims were frivolous.The Supreme Court of the State of Alaska reviewed the case. It held that the city code required only substantial, not strict, compliance with procedural rules and that the city had substantially complied. The court found the city’s public notices adequate and determined that the ordinance served a legitimate public purpose, rejecting claims of arbitrariness or vagueness. The court also upheld the award of attorney’s fees, finding no abuse of discretion, and concluded the constitutional claims were frivolous, thus not barring a fee award. The Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s rulings on all issues. View "Griswold v. City of Homer" on Justia Law

A property management company leased a single-family home to a tenant under an agreement that limited pets to “outside cat & chickens,” as handwritten in the lease. Despite this, the tenant kept two large dogs—a pit bull and a German shepherd—at the property. Neighbors described these dogs as aggressive, vicious, and frequently unrestrained, with some reporting prior biting incidents and expressing fear for their children’s safety. The landlord regularly visited the property but claimed to be unaware of the dogs' presence or their behavior. One day, while retrieving a baseball from the yard, a young boy was bitten by the pit bull.The boy’s father, acting as his guardian, sued the landlord in the Second District Court, Weber County, alleging negligence for allowing a dangerous condition—the pit bull—on the premises. Following discovery, the district court granted summary judgment to the landlord, holding that, as a matter of law, the landlord did not owe a duty to protect third parties from injuries caused by the tenant’s dog. The court also denied the plaintiff’s postjudgment motion challenging this ruling.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Utah considered whether Utah law recognizes circumstances in which a landlord may be held liable in negligence for injuries inflicted by a tenant’s dog. The court examined several premises liability theories, including those treating the dog as a dangerous condition or activity on the land, and reviewed relevant provisions from the Restatement (Second) of Torts. Ultimately, the court found no basis under Utah law, or the proposed extensions, to impose a duty on the landlord in this context. The Supreme Court of Utah affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment, holding that the landlord did not owe a duty to protect third parties from injuries caused by a tenant’s dog under the facts presented. View "Tesch v. Bonneville" on Justia Law

Two young children, ages four and two, were severely injured after falling from a second-floor bedroom window in an apartment building in Lodi, California, where they lived with their mother. The accident occurred shortly after the property owner replaced the apartment’s windows during a renovation that did not include installing fall prevention devices on the upper-floor windows. The children’s guardian ad litem sued the property owner and its manager, alleging negligence based on both general negligence and negligence per se, claiming that the absence of fall prevention devices violated the California Building Standards Code and proximately caused the injuries.The case was heard in the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda. Prior to trial, the defendants sought to defeat the negligence per se claim, arguing the building was exempt from current code requirements because it complied with the code at the time of its original construction in 1980. The trial court denied their motion, allowing both negligence theories to proceed to trial. After plaintiffs presented their case, the court granted a nonsuit for the entire complaint, ruling there was no duty owed under general negligence given lack of foreseeability, and that the window replacement qualified for a code exemption, negating negligence per se.On appeal, the Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the matter de novo. The appellate court affirmed the nonsuit on the general negligence claim, finding the harm was not sufficiently foreseeable to impose a duty. However, it reversed the nonsuit as to negligence per se, holding that replacing the window did not qualify for the “original materials” exemption in the Building Code, and thus the defendants were required to comply with current safety standards. The case was remanded for retrial on the negligence per se claim. View "Jimenez v. Hayes Apartment Homes" on Justia Law

A city in California owned a downtown parking garage known as Garage 5, which was in poor condition and underutilized according to studies conducted in 2019 and 2022. The city had previously adopted a housing plan to identify public land suitable for housing development. In public meetings and study sessions throughout 2021 and 2022, city staff and consultants presented data showing declining demand for public parking and the high cost of necessary repairs to Garage 5. After further study and public comment, the city’s council passed a resolution in December 2022 declaring Garage 5 to be surplus land under the Surplus Land Act, provided that any future development retain at least 75 public parking spaces.The owner of nearby properties, Airport Business Center, filed a petition for writ of mandate and complaint for declaratory relief in Sonoma County Superior Court. The petitioner argued the city had violated the Surplus Land Act by declaring the garage surplus while there was still an ongoing need for public parking and contended that the city’s findings were not supported by the evidence. The Superior Court denied the petition, finding the city’s actions were not arbitrary or capricious, and that there was substantial evidentiary support for the resolution. A temporary stay was granted pending appeal, but the Court of Appeal denied a request for further stay.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. It held that the Surplus Land Act’s requirement that property be “not necessary for the agency’s use” allows a city to designate property as surplus if it is not indispensable for agency operations, even if the property serves a public purpose like parking. The evidence supported the city’s determination, and the findings in the resolution satisfied statutory requirements. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, awarding costs to the city. View "Airport Business Center v. City of Santa Rosa" on Justia Law

A property owner in Los Angeles obtained a density bonus from the city in 2005, allowing him to build one additional housing unit beyond what zoning would otherwise permit, in exchange for agreeing to rent one of the units to low-income households for at least 30 years. This agreement was formalized and recorded against the property in 2006. The owner had previously taken out a mortgage, and the lender recorded its deed of trust against the property in 2005. After the owner defaulted, the lender foreclosed on the property in 2013. Several years later, new owners purchased the property, allegedly unaware of the recorded agreement requiring the low-income rental restriction.Following a notice from the City demanding compliance with the affordable housing agreement, the new owners filed suit in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, seeking quiet title and declaratory relief. They argued that the affordable housing agreement, recorded after the original deed of trust, was a junior encumbrance extinguished by the foreclosure. The City countered that the agreement was a condition of a building permit and survived foreclosure. The trial court sustained the City’s demurrer without leave to amend, finding that the agreement was a covenant running with the land and survived foreclosure.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One, affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The appellate court held that the affordable housing agreement was equivalent to a “condition attached to a permit” under Government Code section 65009, subdivision (c)(1)(E), and thus survived foreclosure. Permit conditions that have not been timely challenged run with the land and remain enforceable against successor owners, even those who acquire the property through foreclosure. The court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to state a valid claim and were not entitled to amend their complaint. View "Rodriguez v. City of Los Angeles" on Justia Law