Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

Leslie and Karen Turgeon own property in Spearfish, South Dakota, which can only be accessed by the Thoen Stone Road. The City of Spearfish owns the Thoen Stone Monument and the surrounding parkland, and has maintained a locked gate at the northern entrance of the Road for over forty years, providing keys to certain property owners, including the Turgeons. The Turgeons occasionally experienced issues with the key, hindering their access. They filed a declaratory action seeking a determination that the Road is a public right-of-way, asking the court to order the City to remove the gate and any other obstructions, and to enjoin the City from restricting access for themselves and the public.The Circuit Court for the Fourth Judicial Circuit, Lawrence County, reviewed cross-motions for summary judgment. The court determined that earlier documents (the 1953 Easement, 1971 Agreement, and 1972 Warranty Deed) did not manifest an intent to dedicate the Road for public use. The court found that the 2012 Plat expressly dedicated the Road as a public right-of-way but concluded that the City had not accepted this dedication, either expressly or impliedly, in part because the locked gate was inconsistent with public use. On this basis, the court granted summary judgment to the City and denied all relief to the Turgeons.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota affirmed the lower court's decision that the Road was not dedicated for public use until the 2012 Plat, and that there was no express acceptance of dedication by the City. However, it reversed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment regarding implied acceptance, finding that genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether the City impliedly accepted the dedication of the Road as a public right-of-way. The case was remanded for trial on this issue. View "Turgeon v. City Of Spearfish" on Justia Law

An Irish company leased two airplanes to an Indian airline under agreements designating English courts as the forum for resolving disputes. After the airline failed to keep up with lease payments, the lessor sued in England and secured a monetary judgment. Seeking to enforce that judgment in Washington, the lessor filed a recognition action in King County Superior Court, claiming the airline had interests in personal property within the state but did not identify specific assets.The airline challenged the action in King County Superior Court, arguing that the court lacked personal jurisdiction because it had no contacts, assets, or business in Washington. The superior court denied the airline’s motion to dismiss, holding that jurisdiction was not required to recognize a foreign-country judgment under Washington’s Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act. The court ultimately entered summary judgment recognizing the English judgment and ordering payment. The Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that neither statute nor constitutional law required the creditor to show personal jurisdiction or a property nexus for recognition of such a judgment.The Supreme Court of the State of Washington granted review and reversed the lower courts. The court held that, under chapter 6.40A RCW, a judgment creditor must establish either general or specific jurisdiction over the debtor or, in the absence of such jurisdiction, demonstrate that the debtor has property within Washington before a foreign-country money judgment may be recognized. The court found that recognition actions under the Act are not purely ministerial and require adjudicative jurisdiction. The Supreme Court remanded the case for further proceedings to determine whether the debtor has property in Washington sufficient to support jurisdiction. View "Alterna Aircraft V B Ltd. v. SpiceJet Ltd." on Justia Law

The dispute centers on a 50-foot-wide easement for ingress and egress over land owned by Thibault Enterprises, LLC, which is used by the Yosts to access their home. The easement is much wider than the gravel road the Yosts actually use, which is about 12 feet wide. Thibault has placed fences, grapevines, hay bales, and other objects within the easement's boundaries but not in the gravel road itself. These objects have not prevented or impeded the Yosts from traveling to and from their home. The Yosts requested an injunction to prohibit Thibault from placing anything within the 50-foot easement, arguing their entitlement to unrestricted use of the entire width.The Dinwiddie County Circuit Court granted an injunction, finding that although the objects did not interfere with the Yosts’ current use, their placement within the easement was improper. The Court of Appeals of Virginia affirmed, holding that any object placed within the easement’s defined width was an impermissible narrowing of the easement.Reviewing the case, the Supreme Court of Virginia concluded that Virginia law does not require the removal of all objects within an easement of defined width unless those objects unreasonably interfere with the easement holder’s rights. The Court held that the correct rule is one of reasonableness, which requires examining the deed and the purpose of the easement, and determining whether the servient owner’s actions unreasonably interfere with the easement. Because the objects did not impede the Yosts’ ingress or egress, Thibault was not required to remove them. The Supreme Court of Virginia reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and entered final judgment for Thibault. View "Thibault Enterprises, LLC v. Yost" on Justia Law

Yerano Martinez was seriously injured in a car accident after he drove through a stop sign at an intersection. Martinez alleged that an overgrown bush, located on property owned by Jeffrey Smith, obscured the stop sign. The bush extended from Smith's property into the county's right-of-way, which is a strip of land adjacent to the roadway. Martinez argued that Smith failed in his duty to maintain his property so as not to obstruct the stop sign for passing motorists.The Marion Superior Court granted summary judgment to Smith, finding that, under the Indiana Supreme Court’s previous decision in Reece v. Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., Smith owed no duty to motorists unless a hazardous condition actually extended onto the paved portion of the roadway. The Indiana Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed, interpreting Reece to mean that a landowner’s duty to motorists is limited to conditions that extend onto the roadway itself, not merely into the public right-of-way or county easement.The Indiana Supreme Court reviewed the case on transfer. The Court held that a landowner’s common-law duty under Reece to refrain from creating hazardous conditions for passing motorists on adjacent highways includes traffic-control devices, such as stop signs, located within the public right-of-way. The Court clarified that the duty is not confined to the paved part of the road but extends to conditions that obstruct traffic-control devices within the right-of-way. Because Smith admitted the bush encroached into the public right-of-way and created a visual obstruction, the hazardous condition was not wholly contained on his property. The Supreme Court concluded that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to Smith and reversed the lower court’s decision. View "Martinez v. Smith" on Justia Law

A public hospital district in California established and recorded covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs) in 1991 for a common interest development known as the Tulare Medical Center. These CC&Rs included a prohibition on abortion clinics within the development. In 2001, certain property subject to these CC&Rs was transferred to individual owners, who later sought to lease it to a family planning organization that provides a range of services, including abortion. The property owners association, comprised of all parcel owners and authorized to enforce the CC&Rs, objected to the lease and sought to enjoin the operation of the clinic, arguing that any abortion services would violate the CC&Rs.The Superior Court of Tulare County reviewed the association’s request for a preliminary injunction. After considering the parties’ submissions and arguments, the court denied the injunction. The court found there was a credible threat that abortion services would be provided but concluded the association had not shown a likelihood of prevailing on the merits. Specifically, the trial court noted unresolved legal questions regarding whether restrictions on abortion clinics in CC&Rs violated the Unruh Civil Rights Act or California constitutional protections, and found the association failed to demonstrate that the balance of harms favored an injunction.The California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, reviewed the case. It held that the prohibition on abortion clinics, adopted by a public entity, constituted government action that interfered with the fundamental constitutional right to reproductive choice under the California Constitution. The court applied the compelling interest test, found no compelling interest justifying the restriction, and concluded the prohibition violated fundamental public policy. Additionally, the court held that the prohibition was void under Civil Code section 53 because it indirectly limited property use based on a characteristic protected by the Unruh Act. The order denying the preliminary injunction was affirmed. View "Tulare Medical Center Property v. Valdivia" on Justia Law

Two families owned adjacent lots in a five-lot subdivision in Gallatin County, Montana. The land, formerly a horse pasture, was subdivided in 2006. As a condition of subdivision approval, the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) required the developer to abandon certain small irrigation ditches crossing the lots, except for one on the east boundary. These requirements were recorded with the subdivision’s plat and were to be referenced in all future property transfers. Despite these requirements, the disputed ditch continued to carry water across several lots, including those eventually purchased by the plaintiffs.After purchasing their lots, the plaintiffs used the ditch water for irrigation, believing they had rights to the ditch based on representations by previous owners and realtors. Years later, the DEQ and local health authorities notified subdivision owners that the continued existence of the ditch violated the terms of the subdivision approval and related sanitation regulations. To comply, the defendants installed culverts, which were approved by authorities. The plaintiffs then sued, claiming the installation of culverts interfered with their implied ditch easement.The case was first reviewed by the Montana Eighteenth Judicial District Court, which granted summary judgment for the defendants. The District Court found that the plaintiffs had no ditch easement—implied or otherwise—because the recorded conditions for subdivision approval required abandonment of the ditches. The court further determined that any intent to allow continued ditch use, necessary for an implied easement, was negated by these recorded conditions.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Montana affirmed the District Court’s rulings. The Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs did not hold an implied easement by existing use, as the circumstances and recorded subdivision restrictions demonstrated no intent to continue the ditch’s use. The Supreme Court also upheld the award of attorney fees and costs to the defendants and remanded for determination of additional fees incurred on appeal. View "Dolan v. Guenther" on Justia Law

A public entity contracted with a general contractor to construct a major rail line project. The general contractor, in turn, subcontracted a significant portion of the work to a subcontractor. As the project progressed, it experienced numerous delays and disruptions, which the subcontractor claimed increased its costs. After completing its performance, the subcontractor, relying on expert analysis of its additional costs, filed a verified statement of claim under the Colorado Public Works Act, asserting it was owed additional millions for labor, materials, and other costs, including those stemming from delay and disruption.Following the filing, the general contractor substituted a surety bond for the retained project funds and the subcontractor initiated litigation in Denver District Court. After a bench trial, the trial court found in favor of the subcontractor, concluding that its verified statement of claim was not excessive and that there was a reasonable possibility the claimed amount was due. The court awarded the subcontractor damages for delay, disruption, and unpaid funds. The general contractor appealed, contending the claim was excessive and should result in forfeiture of all rights to the claimed amount. The Colorado Court of Appeals reversed in relevant part, holding that the verified statement of claim was excessive as a matter of law and that the subcontractor forfeited all rights to the amount claimed. This disposition left certain issues raised by the subcontractor on cross-appeal unaddressed.The Supreme Court of Colorado granted review and held that, under the Public Works Act, disputed or unliquidated amounts—including delay and disruption damages—may be included in a verified statement of claim if they represent the specified categories of costs and the claim is not excessive under the statute. The court also held that filing an excessive claim results only in forfeiture of statutory remedies under the Act, not all legal remedies. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "Ralph L. Wadsworth Constr. Co. v. Reg'l Rail Partners" on Justia Law

The case involves two drainage districts in Pottawattamie County, Iowa, which undertook a reclassification process after proposing improvements to levees under their management. The reclassification determined how costs for the improvements would be apportioned among properties benefitting from the work. The Iowa Department of Transportation (IDOT) owns state highway land running through the districts, comprising less than 5% of the land but, under the reclassification, was assigned more than 75% of the costs. The method for assessing IDOT’s benefit relied largely on projected benefits to motorists, such as avoided delays from fewer road closures, rather than on direct benefits to the highway property or its owner.The boards of trustees for the districts approved the reclassification despite IDOT’s objections. IDOT then sought judicial review in the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, arguing that the assessment method violated Iowa Code section 307.45 and that assessments should be based on benefits to the property or its owner, not third-party users. The district court set aside the reclassifications, agreeing that section 307.45 applied and that the assessments were not conducted in a uniform manner as required by that statute. However, the district court did not limit the scope of “benefits” solely to those accruing to the property or its owner.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Iowa affirmed the district court’s decision to set aside the reclassification but modified the reasoning. The court held that Iowa Code section 307.45 does not apply to drainage districts, as they are not cities, counties, or subdivisions thereof. The court further held that assessments against IDOT highway property must be based only on benefits to the property and its owner—the State—not on benefits to non-owner users such as motorists. The judgment was affirmed as modified. View "State of Iowa, ex rel. Iowa Department of Transportation v. Honey Creek Drainage District No. 6 Board of Trustees" on Justia Law

A dispute arose between neighbors in Illinois over a property line, with one party, Mr. Barker, seeking to quiet title to land upon which the Boettchers had built a garage. The Boettchers counterclaimed, asserting adverse possession and contesting the property’s boundaries. During this litigation, the Boettchers issued subpoenas to two employees of the United States Department of Agriculture for documents and testimony relating to farm acreage. The Department refused compliance, citing federal regulations, and when the Boettchers would not withdraw the subpoenas, the Department removed only the subpoena proceeding—not the entire case—to federal court under the federal officer removal statute.The Boettchers subsequently attempted to remove the entire state case to federal court, invoking both the general removal statute and federal question jurisdiction, arguing that federal law originally defined the disputed property lines. Mr. Barker moved to remand, arguing that the property dispute was governed by Illinois law. The United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois retained jurisdiction over the subpoena proceeding but remanded the property dispute to state court. The court later granted summary judgment to the Department of Agriculture, quashing the subpoenas.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that it had jurisdiction to review the remand order under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d), since federal officer jurisdiction was invoked. The court affirmed the district court’s decision, concluding that the Department’s removal of only the subpoena proceeding was proper under the statute, and that there was no independent federal jurisdiction over the property dispute. The court also held that the district court properly quashed the subpoenas, as neither the state nor federal court had jurisdiction to enforce them against federal employees under the circumstances. The judgment was affirmed. View "Barker v Boettcher" on Justia Law

A condominium unit was owned by Diane Marchetti, who did not reside in the unit but allowed her daughter, Caroline Thibeault, and Thibeault’s son to occupy it. The condominium’s association initiated a foreclosure action against Marchetti alleging she was in default for failing to pay assessments, fines, and fees—some of which related to Thibeault’s alleged commercial use of the unit. Thibeault’s son has a disability, and both Thibeault and Marchetti asserted that the association had failed to provide reasonable accommodation under federal and state disability laws.After the foreclosure action commenced in the Sagadahoc County Superior Court, Marchetti filed an answer and raised several defenses, including alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Maine Human Rights Act. Thibeault, who was not a party to the action, then moved to intervene, claiming both a direct interest in the property and statutory civil rights at stake. She sought intervention as of right or, alternatively, permissive intervention, arguing her interests were not adequately represented and that her defenses raised common questions of law and fact with the main action. The Superior Court denied her motion to intervene on both grounds, finding her interest insufficient and noting that her mother’s defenses already encompassed her concerns.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the order denying intervention. The court held that Thibeault did not satisfy the criteria for intervention as of right under Maine Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) because she lacked a direct, legally protectable interest in the foreclosure action, her ability to protect her interests would not be impaired by denial, and her interests were adequately represented by Marchetti. The court also found no abuse of discretion in denying permissive intervention under Rule 24(b) because Thibeault’s participation would be duplicative and cause undue delay. The order denying intervention was affirmed. View "Oak Hill Condominiums v. Marchetti" on Justia Law