Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

A nonprofit organization representing manufactured home community owners and a mobilehome park owner challenged the City of Santa Rosa’s enforcement of California Penal Code section 396 during a multi-year wildfire state of emergency. Section 396 prohibits increasing the rental price of mobilehome spaces by more than 10 percent during a declared emergency. The plaintiffs argued that, under Santa Rosa’s rent control ordinance, park owners should be able to impose annual increases according to the ordinance’s Consumer Price Index (CPI) formula, even if those increases cumulatively exceeded the 10 percent cap in section 396. Alternatively, they sought to “reset” post-emergency rents as if the suppressed CPI increases during the emergency had been implemented.The Sonoma County Superior Court denied the plaintiffs’ motions for summary judgment and granted the City’s, finding that section 396’s 10 percent cap was fixed at the rent authorized when the emergency began and that owners could not recoup lost increases after the emergency ended. The court reasoned that allowing such recoupment would defeat the statute’s purpose to protect consumers from excessive rent hikes during emergencies. The court entered judgment for the City after the plaintiffs’ third cause of action was dismissed by stipulation.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the case de novo. The appellate court held that section 396’s cap applies to the rent authorized at the start of the emergency and lasts for its duration, regardless of local rent control provisions. The court further ruled that nothing in section 396 or the local ordinance entitles park owners to recoup suppressed rent increases once the emergency ends. The court affirmed the trial court’s judgment in favor of the City and awarded costs to the City. View "Western Manufactured Housing Cmty. Assn. v. City of Santa Rosa" on Justia Law

Applicants sought to build two principal residences on a single residential property in the Forest Hills neighborhood of Washington, D.C. Because the proposed construction did not comply with the minimum lot width requirement for the area, the applicants, Nezahat and Paul Harrison, requested a special exception for a “theoretical subdivision” from the District of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustment (BZA), which would allow multiple principal buildings on one record lot by waiving certain development standards, including lot width. In the alternative, they applied for a variance from the minimum lot width requirement. Neighbors who held an easement over the property opposed the applications, expressing concerns about property values, stormwater drainage, and neighborhood character.The BZA considered both requests. The D.C. Office of Planning and the local Advisory Neighborhood Commission both recommended approval of the special exception, though opinions varied about the variance. After public hearings, the BZA granted the special exception for the theoretical subdivision, thereby waiving the minimum lot width requirement, but denied the request for a variance. The neighbors, Deborah Hernandez and Mary Lee, appealed, arguing that the BZA could not lawfully waive lot width requirements through a special exception while denying a variance for the same requirement.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the BZA’s decision. The court held that the applicable zoning regulations allow the BZA to grant a theoretical subdivision as a special exception and to waive minimum lot width requirements without the need to also grant a variance. The court found that the standards for special exceptions and variances are independent and that the BZA did not act arbitrarily. The court affirmed the BZA’s decision. View "Hernandez v. District of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustment" on Justia Law

A developer purchased property in the Brookland neighborhood that included a historic mural and an adjacent parking lot providing clear sightlines to the mural. Another individual, who sought to preserve the mural, had previously contracted to buy the property but the deal fell through amid allegations of contract forgery by the seller. The developer, holding a promissory note secured by a deed of trust, initiated foreclosure and ultimately purchased the property at auction. The unsuccessful buyer accused the developer of fraud and publicly made statements labeling him as corrupt and claiming he had “problems with the DOJ” and had taken the property “by theft and fraud.” These statements were repeated online via a media outlet controlled by the unsuccessful buyer.The developer sued for defamation and false light in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. The defendant moved to dismiss under the District’s Anti-SLAPP Act, arguing that his statements were protected advocacy on matters of public interest and that the developer was a limited-purpose public figure, thus requiring proof of actual malice. The trial court found the developer to be a limited-purpose public figure and denied most of the motion, allowing the claims to proceed except those related to certain statements outside the statute of limitations.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the case. It held that the Anti-SLAPP Act applied because the statements addressed issues of public interest, such as urban development and historic preservation. The court concluded that the developer was a limited-purpose public figure and therefore must show actual malice by clear and convincing evidence. The court found that the developer failed to demonstrate that the statements were false or made with actual malice. As a result, the court reversed the trial court’s denial of the Anti-SLAPP motion and remanded for further proceedings. View "Capitol Intelligence Group, Inc. v. Waldman" on Justia Law

A tenant who lived in an apartment complex for twelve years experienced severe habitability problems, including lack of heat for seven years, no functioning toilet for at least a year, no refrigerator for two years, a collapsed ceiling, and frequent mice infestations. The tenant sued his landlord, requesting only monetary damages, and later alleged that the landlord attempted to force him out by cutting off his electricity. The landlord argued it had offered relocation assistance or money to persuade the tenant to move out so renovations could be completed.The Superior Court of the District of Columbia found that the landlord breached the implied warranty of habitability, as the record showed the apartment was uninhabitable and the landlord did not contest the poor conditions. However, the court reduced the damages award to $7,500, reasoning that the tenant failed to mitigate his damages by refusing to vacate the apartment when offered relocation. The court also ordered the tenant to vacate within seven days, though the propriety of this order was not challenged on appeal.On appeal, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals held that a tenant does not have a duty to mitigate damages by vacating a rental unit in response to a landlord’s request for renovation unless the landlord first complies with D.C. Code § 42-3505.01(f)(1). This statute requires landlords to follow a specific process involving notice and approval by the Rent Administrator before temporarily recovering possession for renovations. The appellate court found no evidence the landlord had complied with this process. It reversed the trial court’s reduced damages award and remanded for a recalculation, directing that the tenant must be awarded at least $22,788. View "Woodley v. Woodberry Village Apartment" on Justia Law

Several property owners challenged the City of Waveland’s approval of applications submitted by a developer for a residential planned development project near their properties. The developer sought conditional use and preliminary plat approval to create nineteen residential lots on approximately six acres. After the city’s Planning and Zoning Commission held hearings and recommended approval, the City’s Board of Aldermen also approved the applications. The property owners objected, arguing that the proposed development would improperly alter existing lots and that the city failed to follow required legal procedures. They also asserted that the development was inconsistent with zoning rules and that the city’s attorney’s involvement as a hearing officer was improper.After the initial Board approval, the property owners appealed to the Hancock County Circuit Court, which first reversed the approval on procedural grounds. The developer then resubmitted nearly identical applications, which again received Commission and Board approval after additional hearings. The property owners appealed, but the circuit court dismissed the appeal due to a procedural defect in the notice of appeal. The Supreme Court of Mississippi reversed this dismissal, holding that the failure to name all necessary parties in the notice was not jurisdictional and could be corrected. On remand, the circuit court affirmed the Board’s approval of the development.On further appeal, the Supreme Court of Mississippi held that the city’s approval was supported by substantial evidence and was neither arbitrary nor capricious. The Court concluded that the statutory notice requirements for altering a recorded plat did not apply because there was no evidence of a properly recorded plat. The Court also found that the city’s process complied with local ordinances, and the appointment of the city attorney as hearing officer was not prejudicial. Accordingly, the Supreme Court of Mississippi affirmed the circuit court’s judgment. View "Longo v. The City of Waveland" on Justia Law

Shirley R. Hulsey and her husband purchased a residence in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, which was adjacent to a vacant lot owned by Yellow Hammer Capital Management, LLC. In 2017, Build Art, LLC was retained by Yellow Hammer to construct a residence on the adjacent lot, which was at a higher elevation and sloped toward Hulsey’s property. After construction began, Hulsey observed water and debris flooding her property, which she attributed to changes in the grading and runoff from the construction. She alleged that the construction caused damage to her home’s foundation and sought damages and injunctive relief against Build Art, Yellow Hammer, and unnamed defendants, claiming trespass, nuisance, negligence, wantonness, emotional distress, and violation of her common-law rights concerning surface water flow.The Tuscaloosa Circuit Court granted summary judgment in favor of Build Art on all claims against it, while the claims against Yellow Hammer and other defendants remained pending. Hulsey moved for reconsideration, which was denied. The court subsequently certified the summary judgment as final under Rule 54(b) of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure, allowing Hulsey to file an appeal to the Supreme Court of Alabama.The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed whether the trial court’s order was a final judgment suitable for appeal. The Supreme Court determined that the claims against Build Art and Yellow Hammer were so closely intertwined, arising from the same operative facts, that certifying the summary judgment as final was improper. The Supreme Court held that such certification posed risks of inconsistent results and wasted judicial resources. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the order was not a final judgment capable of supporting appellate review. View "Hulsey v. Build Art, LLC" on Justia Law

A fatal collision occurred when a Volkswagen Jetta, driven by Raul Lopez with Emilio Martinez-Arroyo as a passenger, rear-ended a utility trailer owned by Ron J. Peterson Construction, Inc. (RJP) on a Utah highway. The trailer, which was transporting construction equipment and did not have underride protection, was traveling significantly below the speed limit with its emergency flashers on. Both occupants of the Jetta died instantly after their car slid under the trailer. Yesneiri Maldonado-Velasquez, the decedent’s wife, sued RJP alleging negligence both in operating the vehicle and in using a trailer that lacked safety features that could have mitigated the injuries.In the Third District Court, Summit County, RJP moved for summary judgment, arguing that it had no duty to upgrade the trailer beyond federal safety standards and that the crash was solely caused by Lopez. The district court found a general statutory duty to operate safe equipment but determined that there was no specific duty to alter the trailer, based on federal preemption and application of factors from B.R. ex rel. Jeffs v. West. As a result, the court excluded much of the plaintiff's expert testimony on enhanced injury and trailer design, allowing only claims related to negligent operation. The jury ultimately found RJP not at fault.On direct appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Utah held that the district court erred by applying the Jeffs factors to narrow an already established broad statutory duty to operate safe vehicles. The Supreme Court clarified that federal regulations set a minimum standard, not a ceiling, and that state law may impose greater obligations unless direct conflict preemption applies. The court also held that the exclusion of expert testimony premised on the erroneous duty ruling was an abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Maldonado-Velasquez v. Ron J Peterson Construction" on Justia Law

Cuevas Machine Company entered into a subcontract with O’Neal Constructors for fabrication and machining work at a filtration plant owned by Calgon Carbon Corporation in Mississippi. Under the subcontract, Cuevas was to be paid after Calgon paid O’Neal. Despite nonpayment from O’Neal, Cuevas continued its work. In October 2023, Cuevas recorded two construction liens totaling over $1.2 million against Calgon’s property, but the lien documents did not explicitly state the last date labor, services, or materials were supplied—a statutory requirement. Instead, Cuevas attached invoices to the liens, which included dates, but it was unclear whether these dates satisfied the statutory requirement.After Cuevas filed suit to foreclose on the liens in Mississippi state court, Calgon removed the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi and moved to dismiss. The district court granted Calgon’s motion, dismissing Cuevas’s complaint with prejudice under Rule 12(b)(6). The district court concluded, making an Erie guess, that the liens were unenforceable because they did not clearly specify the required “last date” in the manner demanded by Mississippi law, and found that the attached invoices did not sufficiently cure this defect.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision de novo. Finding Mississippi law ambiguous on whether attachments that do not plainly state the “last date” can satisfy the statutory requirement, the Fifth Circuit certified the following question to the Mississippi Supreme Court: whether attaching invoices that do not explicitly state the “last date labor, services or materials were supplied” satisfies the requirement under Miss. Code Ann. § 85-7-405(1)(b) that a lien “specify the date the claim was due.” The Fifth Circuit did not decide the merits, instead certifying the question for authoritative resolution. View "Cuevas Machine v. Calgon Carbon" on Justia Law

A property owner operating a shopping mall in Orange County, California, faced significant restrictions on access and operations due to government orders issued during the COVID-19 pandemic. These restrictions, which included closures and limited entry, led the owner to file applications with the county tax assessor seeking disaster-related property tax relief under Revenue and Taxation Code section 170, subdivision (a)(1), on the basis that the pandemic and resulting government responses had caused a loss in property value through restricted access.The Orange County tax assessor summarily denied the applications, stating there was no physical damage to the property. The owner appealed this decision to the Orange County Assessment Appeals Board No. 1. The Board found it had jurisdiction but determined that relief under section 170(a)(1) required evidence of physical damage to the property, either direct or indirect, and that neither the pandemic nor the associated government orders constituted such damage. The Board’s decision made further proceedings unnecessary. The property owner then sought review in the Superior Court of Orange County, which, after a court trial, agreed with the Board’s interpretation and ruled that the owner was not entitled to relief because there was no physical damage to the property as required by the California Constitution and relevant statutes.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case de novo. The court held that, to obtain reassessment under section 170(a)(1), physical damage to the property—either direct or indirect—remains a constitutional requirement. The court found that neither the presence of the virus nor government-imposed access restrictions amounted to physical damage. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed, and both parties’ requests for judicial notice were denied. View "The Retail Property Trust v. Orange County Assessment" on Justia Law

A sign operator installed two advertising signs near Interstate 85 in Atlanta in 1993, after obtaining permits under the city’s 1982 sign code. These permits were renewed several times. In 2015, after the Supreme Court’s decision in Reed v. Town of Gilbert, the city amended its sign code, removing several content-based provisions but allowing lawful, nonconforming signs to remain. When the sign operator later sought to upgrade the signs, the city approved the changes, but private parties challenged the decision. The Superior Court of Fulton County found that the original permits were unlawful under the 1982 code, making the signs illegal. The city then ordered removal of the signs and issued citations when the order was not followed.The sign operator, joined by the property owner and its president, sued the City of Atlanta in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, seeking a declaration that the 1982 sign code was unconstitutional under the First Amendment and seeking to enjoin its enforcement. The district court initially dismissed some claims for lack of jurisdiction, then reconsidered and ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, concluding that the code was content-based and subject to strict scrutiny, which the city had not attempted to satisfy.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that the plaintiffs only had standing to challenge the provision of the 1982 code that applied to their signs—section 16-28.019(7)—rather than the entire code. The court further held that this provision, which distinguished between on-premises and off-premises signs, was content-neutral under the Supreme Court’s decision in City of Austin v. Reagan National Advertising of Austin, LLC. The Eleventh Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and injunction and remanded for further proceedings to determine whether the provision meets the applicable intermediate scrutiny standard. View "Anderson v. City of Atlanta, Georgia" on Justia Law