Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

A coalition of trade associations, real estate brokerage firms, landlords, and related entities challenged New York City’s Fairness in Apartment Rental Expenses Act (FARE Act), passed in November 2024. The Act prohibits brokers from charging tenants fees for apartments where they have published listings with a landlord’s permission or agreed to work for the landlord, and prevents landlords from making rental conditional on prospective tenants hiring agents. The plaintiffs argued that the Act infringed their federal and state free speech rights, particularly by burdening their ability to publish listings and receive compensation, and violated the Contracts Clause of the U.S. Constitution by rendering certain existing agreements unenforceable.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York heard the case, with the City opposing injunctive relief and moving to dismiss the claims. The district court dismissed the plaintiffs’ First Amendment claims, finding the FARE Act to be content-neutral regulation of commercial speech that survived intermediate scrutiny under the Central Hudson test. The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction on those claims. As for the Contracts Clause argument, the district court denied the City’s motion to dismiss, reasoning that factual issues remained, but denied a preliminary injunction after finding plaintiffs unlikely to succeed on the merits. The district court also rejected a state preemption claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the appeal, affirming the district court’s judgment. The Second Circuit held that the FARE Act regulates commercial speech in a content-neutral manner and is valid under the Central Hudson test. It also concluded that the Act does not violate the Contracts Clause, as plaintiffs failed to establish a substantial likelihood of success on that claim. The court thus affirmed denial of injunctive relief and dismissal of the constitutional claims. View "Real Estate Board of New York, Inc. v. The City of New York" on Justia Law

Several property owners and ranching entities challenged amendments adopted in 2023 by the Albany County Board of County Commissioners to the Aquifer Protection Overlay Zone (APOZ) regulations. The Casper Aquifer, which supplies drinking water to many residents of Albany County and the City of Laramie, had been the subject of prior regulatory efforts. The 2023 amendments included a 35-acre minimum lot size requirement and revised procedures for changing the APOZ boundaries. Appellants argued that the Board exceeded its authority, violated equal protection guarantees, and acted arbitrarily and capriciously in enacting the amendments.Previously, in Bienz v. Board of County Commissioners, County of Albany, 2024 WY 102 (Bienz I), the Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed whether amendments to the APOZ regulations were subject to direct judicial review under the Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act (WAPA). The district court had concluded it lacked jurisdiction, finding the Board's actions legislative and not reviewable under the WAPA. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that legislative agency actions are reviewable, and remanded the case for the district court to consider the merits. While litigation was pending, the Board further amended the APOZ regulations, requiring the district court to identify which amendments remained at issue. The district court ultimately upheld the Board’s authority and the amendments.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Wyoming addressed whether the Board exceeded its authority, whether the amendment procedures violated equal protection, and whether the arbitrary and capricious standard applied to agency legislative action. The Court held the Board acted within its statutory authority in protecting the Casper Aquifer, the distinct procedures for overlay zone amendments did not violate equal protection guarantees, and agency legislative actions are subject to the arbitrary and capricious standard. It concluded the 2023 APOZ amendments, including the 35-acre minimum lot size, were not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law, and affirmed the district court’s decision. View "Warren Livestock, LLC v. Board of County Commissione" on Justia Law

A developer applied to the zoning board of a New Jersey township for a use variance to construct a senior living facility on a residentially-zoned eight-acre property. The proposed development, which included independent, assisted living, and memory care units, was undisputedly an “inherently beneficial use” as defined by the state’s Municipal Land Use Law. The application also sought several bulk variances. The planning board had previously declined to include the property in a newly created Senior Housing Overlay Zone, following public opposition and a policy goal of preserving farmland and open space. After a multi-day hearing, the zoning board denied the variance, finding that the detrimental impact on the zoning plan and ordinance, including concerns about density, impervious coverage, drainage, traffic, and prior zoning decisions, outweighed the public benefits of the proposed use.The developers challenged the denial in the Superior Court, Law Division, which reversed the board’s decision, finding insufficient evidence of substantial negative impact and remanding for the imposition of reasonable conditions, but barring reduction in the number of units. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that the zoning and master plan did not specifically preclude the use, and that the board’s concerns did not justify denial under the deferential review standard.The Supreme Court of New Jersey reviewed the case to clarify the standard for granting use variances for inherently beneficial uses after a 1997 legislative amendment to the Municipal Land Use Law. The Court held that the fourth step of the Sica v. Board of Adjustment of Wall test must be revised: before balancing positive and negative criteria, the zoning board must now specifically determine whether the applicant has shown that the variance “will not substantially impair the intent and the purpose of the zoning plan and zoning ordinance.” The Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Division’s judgment and remanded for application of the revised standard. View "Monarch Communities, LLC v. Township of Montville" on Justia Law

A group of homeowners and their associations opposed amendments to a planned unit development in Baltimore City, actively communicating their disapproval to the Planning Commission. After the Commission approved the amendments, the developer filed suit against the homeowners and associations, seeking damages and alleging breach of contract and tortious interference. The homeowners and associations, believing the suit to be a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP), moved to dismiss under Maryland’s anti-SLAPP statute, Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-807. The Circuit Court for Baltimore City found the lawsuit was a SLAPP and dismissed it, and the Appellate Court of Maryland affirmed the dismissal, citing evidence that the suit was intended to deter the homeowners from exercising their rights.Two years after the Appellate Court affirmed the SLAPP dismissal, the homeowners and associations filed a class action for malicious use of process against the developer, its law firm, and its attorney. They alleged unique injuries, including emotional distress, intimidation, diminished property values, and burdensome discovery demands. The Circuit Court for Baltimore City dismissed the suit, concluding that the plaintiffs had not pleaded the “special injury” required for malicious use of process. The Appellate Court of Maryland affirmed, holding that the alleged injuries were typical of litigation and not “special” as required by Maryland law.The Supreme Court of Maryland reviewed the case and held that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim for malicious use of process because they did not plead a special injury. The Court clarified that litigation expenses, temporary property value diminution, emotional distress, and chilling of constitutional rights are not special injuries under Maryland law. The Court also declined to adopt a rule that victims of a SLAPP inherently satisfy the special-injury requirement. Accordingly, the Supreme Court of Maryland affirmed the judgment of the Appellate Court. View "Millrace Condo. v. Shapiro Sher etc., PA" on Justia Law

The dispute centers on whether the City of Twin Falls has valid easements for underground water and sewer lines running beneath parcels owned by Christy Hamilton, who operates Hamilton Manufacturing, Inc. The City’s water line, installed in 1918 and subject to repairs over the decades, runs under the West Parcel, while a sewer line installed under the East Parcel traces back to an express easement granted in 1947. Following a significant water line break in 2018 that disrupted business operations and damaged property, HMI sued the City for trespass, nuisance, overburdening of easements, and negligence, questioning the City’s authority to maintain its utility lines under the parcels.The Fifth Judicial District Court of Twin Falls County conducted a bench trial and found that the City possessed either an express easement or, alternatively, a prescriptive easement for the sewer line under the East Parcel. The court also concluded that the City had established a prescriptive easement for the disputed portion of the water line on the West Parcel based on long-standing, open, adverse use and communications with property owners that manifested the City’s claim. The court dismissed HMI’s claims, finding substantial and competent evidence supporting the City’s easement rights.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Idaho reviewed the trial court’s findings for support by evidence and its legal conclusions de novo. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s judgment, holding that the City had an express easement for the sewer line under the East Parcel and a prescriptive easement for the water line under the West Parcel. The Court also determined that the district court was not required to provide detailed physical descriptions of the easement locations in its judgment, as no declaratory relief was sought. The judgment for the City was affirmed, and costs were awarded to the City. View "HMI, HAMILTON MANUFACTURING,INC. v. CITY OF TWIN FALLS" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute among members of the O’Farrell family and related entities regarding farmland, family trusts, and a sale of land to a third-party corporation. Paul O’Farrell, having longstanding involvement with the family land and farming operations, brought a lawsuit naming himself, his estate, and Skyline Cattle Company as plaintiffs. He asserted claims for declaratory relief, rescission of a land sale to Grand Valley Hutterian Brethren, Inc., and damages for alleged torts. Paul argued he was acting not only in his individual capacity but also on behalf of the Estate of Victoria O’Farrell, VOR, Inc., and the Raymond and Victoria O’Farrell Living Trust, based on allegations of undue influence and mismanagement involving his brother Kelly and his father Raymond.The Circuit Court of the Third Judicial Circuit, Grant County, South Dakota, previously granted summary judgment for the defendants, dismissing VOR and the Estate as plaintiffs on the grounds that Paul lacked authority to act on their behalf. The court also denied Paul’s request to conduct further discovery under Rule 56(f), his motion to amend the complaint, and his request for a physical and mental examination of Raymond under Rule 35(a). The court additionally awarded attorney fees to certain defendants, finding Paul’s action frivolous.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota affirmed the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment, agreeing that Paul lacked authority to sue on behalf of VOR and the Estate and could not seek rescission of the land sale as he was not a party to the contract. The Supreme Court also affirmed the denial of additional discovery. However, it vacated the circuit court’s denial of the motion to amend the complaint (insofar as it prevented joining VOR and Raymond as defendants), the denial of the Rule 35(a) examination, and the award of attorney fees, finding those decisions either premature or not sufficiently supported by the record. View "Estate Of O'Farrell v. O'Farrell" on Justia Law

A residential subdivision in Black Hawk, South Dakota, known as Hideaway Hills, was constructed atop land with a history of both underground and surface gypsum mining. The State of South Dakota, through the South Dakota Cement Plant Commission, purchased the property, conducted surface mining, and reclaimed the land to pasture before selling it at public auction, while retaining subsurface mineral rights. Subsequent private owners and developers, aware of prior mining activity, developed the land into residential lots. Years later, residents began experiencing foundational problems and sinkholes, which culminated in a significant sinkhole event in 2020, leading to evacuation and property devaluation.After previous lawsuits against various parties were dismissed, a class action was brought in the Circuit Court of the Fourth Judicial Circuit, Meade County, against the State and related entities. The plaintiffs alleged inverse condemnation, asserting that the State’s reclamation and retention of subsurface rights amounted to a taking or damaging of private property for public use under the South Dakota Constitution. The circuit court granted summary judgment to the State, holding that the plaintiffs’ claims were, in essence, tort claims barred by sovereign immunity.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota affirmed the circuit court’s decision. The Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish a viable inverse condemnation claim because the alleged governmental actions occurred while the State owned the property, and thus did not implicate “private property.” The Court further found that the State’s activities were not for “public use” within the meaning of the state constitution, as the retained mineral rights did not confer a public right of use. The Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for the State. View "Morse v. State" on Justia Law

Five individuals residing near a New Orleans hospital brought suit after the hospital moved its helicopter landing pad from a one-story building near the Mississippi River to the top of a new tower in the center of the hospital complex. The plaintiffs, claiming that the new helipad created excessive noise and vibrations, sought a mandatory injunction requiring the hospital to relocate the helipad or otherwise abate the disturbance, as well as damages for nuisance and negligence.The defendants removed the case from state court to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. The district court denied the plaintiffs’ request to remand the case to state court, finding that their subsequent removal of class-action allegations and request to decline supplemental jurisdiction amounted to improper forum shopping. The district court then granted the defendants partial summary judgment, holding that Federal Aviation Administration regulations preempted any permanent injunction to relocate the helipad. The court also dismissed some of the plaintiffs’ claims for damages, but allowed their claims for general nuisance damages to proceed to trial. Before trial, the plaintiffs appealed the order, seeking review of the denial of their request for an injunction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the appeal. The court held that it lacked jurisdiction over the interlocutory appeal because the district court’s order did not explicitly deny an injunction and, even if it had the practical effect of denying injunctive relief, the plaintiffs did not show that they satisfied the requirements for interlocutory review under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) and Carson v. American Brands, Inc. The appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. View "Rey v. LCMC Health Care Partners" on Justia Law

A local government entity, which owns and operates Ventura Harbor, entered into a master lease for commercial property and a sublease with the appellant, who operates a restaurant and bar on the premises. Both the master lease and sublease required the lessee or sublessee to pay not only a fixed monthly rent but also a percentage of gross income from all sales, including food and alcoholic beverages. The appellant had been paying three percent of its income from food and alcohol sales as percentage rent.The appellant sued the government entity in the Ventura County Superior Court, alleging that the percentage rent clause violated two provisions of the California Constitution: article XIII C, which restricts local governments from imposing taxes without voter approval, and article XX, section 22, which gives the state exclusive authority to regulate the sale and purchase of alcoholic beverages. The Superior Court granted summary judgment for the government entity, finding that the percentage rent was not an unconstitutional tax nor an unlawful regulation of alcoholic beverage sales. The court also awarded attorney’s fees to the government entity as the prevailing party.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Six, reviewed the consolidated appeals challenging both the summary judgment and the postjudgment award of attorney’s fees. The appellate court held that the percentage rent clause falls within the constitutional exception for charges imposed for the rental or lease of government property, and thus is not a tax requiring voter approval. The court further found no reasonableness requirement applies to this exception. Additionally, it determined that the clause does not violate the state’s exclusive authority over alcoholic beverage regulation because the rent is not intended to regulate alcohol sales. The appellate court affirmed the lower court’s judgment and attorney’s fee award. View "Ventura Harbor Restaurant Associates v. Ventura Port Dist." on Justia Law

A special independent recreation district was established in 2018 to manage and improve recreational facilities within a residential community, including a country club and golf course. In 2019, the district issued $24 million in bonds to purchase and maintain these facilities, pursuant to a referendum and a master trust indenture. A provision in the first supplemental indenture for the 2019 bonds included bracketed language suggesting that no further bonds would be issued, except for certain purposes. However, in 2023, the district's Board proposed a new $21 million bond issue to fund additional improvements, which was approved by a majority of residents in a 2024 referendum. The Board subsequently amended the 2019 indenture, clarifying that the bracketed language was never formally adopted and authorized the new bonds.In the Twelfth Judicial Circuit Court for Manatee County, a resident who moved into the district in 2021 challenged the district’s authority to issue the new bonds, arguing that the language in the 2019 indenture barred further bond issues, and questioned whether the special assessments to repay the bonds provided sufficient special benefit to the properties. He also raised due process concerns about the proceedings. The circuit court admitted evidence, including expert testimony on property value benefits, and found for the district, validating the 2024 bond issue. The court found the district had authority to issue the bonds and that the special benefits exceeded the debt burden.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Florida affirmed the circuit court’s judgment. The Court held that the district had statutory and referendum-based authority to issue the 2024 bonds, that the Board properly clarified and amended the indenture, and that legislative findings and expert testimony supported the conclusion that the special assessments conferred a special benefit. The Court also found no due process violation. View "Matt v. State of Florida" on Justia Law