Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

Romero owned a home in Chicago but failed to pay property taxes from 2018 to 2021, resulting in Cook County holding a lien on his property. Rather than foreclosing, the county conducted a tax sale, at which Corona Investments acquired a Certificate of Purchase for Romero’s property in November 2021. This certificate gave Corona the right to take title after a waiting period unless Romero redeemed the property by paying the outstanding taxes plus penalty interest. Romero had until October 2024 to redeem, but filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy one week before the deadline, triggering an automatic stay and preventing Corona from seeking a tax deed.In the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois, the judge determined that Corona Investments held a secured claim of $26,134.95 in the bankruptcy proceeding. The bankruptcy court classified Corona's claim as a "tax claim" under 11 U.S.C. § 511(a), which meant that the interest rate on the claim would be governed by applicable nonbankruptcy law. The court found that the relevant rate was 18%, as provided by 35 ILCS 200/21-15 of the Illinois Property Tax Code. The court rejected arguments for applying a lower redemption rate or the rate determined by the "formula approach" from Till v. SCS Credit Corp.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the bankruptcy court’s decision. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that a tax sale purchaser’s secured claim qualifies as a “tax claim” under 11 U.S.C. § 511(a), and that the applicable nonbankruptcy law—the Illinois Property Tax Code—provides an 18% annual interest rate for such claims in Cook County. The court also declined to impose sanctions related to briefing errors, concluding they did not materially affect the appeal. View "Romero v Corona Investments, LLC" on Justia Law

The case concerned property owners who sought approval from the City of Cannon Beach to build a house on an oceanfront lot and to develop an adjacent public right-of-way to provide vehicular access. Both the lot and the right-of-way are located in a landslide hazard zone, and the city code imposes restrictions requiring applicants to demonstrate either the absence of geologic hazard or that proposed engineering methods will eliminate or minimize the hazard. The dispute arose because a state statute requires local standards regulating the “development of housing” to be “clear and objective,” while the city’s geologic hazard standard includes a subjective component.After initial conditional approval, the city ultimately denied both applications—one for the house and one for the road—based on grounds unrelated to geologic hazards. However, it did not apply its geologic hazards standards to either application, reasoning that the “clear and objective” statutory requirement precluded it from applying subjective standards to the housing development. Both parties appealed to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA), which agreed with the city’s interpretation and held that the statute preempted application of the geologic hazard standards to the road development. The Court of Appeals, however, reversed LUBA’s decision in part, holding that the “clear and objective standards” requirement did not prevent the city from applying its geologic hazard standards to the application to develop a public road.The Supreme Court of the State of Oregon reviewed the case and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The court held that the statutory requirement of “clear and objective” standards for “the development of housing” applies only to the housing itself, not to the development of a public road on an adjacent public right-of-way, unless the city requires the road development as a condition of approving housing. The city and LUBA’s interpretation was incorrect, and the case was remanded to LUBA for further proceedings. View "Roberts v. City of Cannon Beach" on Justia Law

The case concerns a dispute arising from an oral agreement between a homeowner and a contractor regarding the construction of a wheelchair ramp and a covered addition at the homeowner’s residence. The parties did not sign a written contract or agree to a specific price, instead communicating the project’s scope via text messages. The homeowner paid the contractor $73,000, including $30,000 for siding, but the project was plagued by construction delays, quality concerns, and code violations. Work ceased before completion, and the contractor did not deliver or install the siding. The homeowner and his wife continued living in the property, though it did not receive a final certificate of compliance.The homeowner sued in the District Court of Sweetwater County, asserting claims including breach of contract, negligence, and breach of warranty. During discovery, the homeowner failed to provide a specific calculation of damages, only indicating he would supplement disclosures later. Before trial, the contractor moved to exclude any evidence of damages not previously disclosed. The district court partially granted this motion, limiting the homeowner’s evidence to what had been disclosed. At a bench trial, the homeowner did not call his retained expert and offered only the total amount paid as the measure of damages. The district court concluded the oral contract was unenforceable due to indefinite terms and found insufficient evidence to support a damages award.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed the district court’s rulings. The Supreme Court held that, because the homeowner failed to make an offer of proof regarding excluded damages evidence, there was no basis to review the trial court’s exclusionary ruling. The court further held that the district court’s finding—that the homeowner did not prove damages by a preponderance of the evidence—was not clearly erroneous. As the damages element was not satisfied, the Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the claims. View "Lacher v. Case" on Justia Law

Appellants, owners of rowhouses abutting a proposed residential development in Washington, D.C., challenged the actions of the D.C. Zoning Commission regarding the approval of a Design Review application submitted by a developer. Their properties shared an easement with the development site, and a prior agreement in 2017 and a subsequent one in 2022 set the terms of access. During the Commission’s public hearing, both Appellants and Developer discussed the easement, with Developer assuring that the agreement was signed, though not yet recorded. Appellants voiced concerns about the easement’s finality and requested further review.After the Commission approved the Design Review application and issued its Order of Approval, Appellants pursued separate legal actions against the Developer, which were dismissed following the new easement agreement. Subsequently, Appellants filed a complaint against the District of Columbia in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, claiming violations of their substantive due process rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. They alleged the Commission deliberately ignored statutory requirements by failing to collect their signatures for the application and by neglecting to properly investigate the easement’s final status.The Superior Court dismissed the complaint, citing lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to Appellants’ failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and also found that Appellants failed to state a viable due process claim. On appeal, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals determined that dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction was improper, as exhaustion of administrative remedies is not a jurisdictional requirement. However, the Court affirmed the dismissal for failure to state a claim, concluding that Appellants’ allegations amounted at most to negligence, not the egregious conduct required for a substantive due process violation. The judgment of the Superior Court was affirmed. View "Samaddar, DDS v. District of Columbia" on Justia Law

A company owned a vacant shopping center located within a city. The city repeatedly identified the property as blighted and unsafe, urging the owner to submit an abatement plan and later ordering the property to be boarded up and fenced. Over time, city officials considered and ultimately planned for the demolition of the shopping center by means of a controlled burn, citing concerns over trespassing and public safety. The owner neither expressly agreed to the controlled burn nor provided an alternative abatement plan. The city proceeded with the demolition by fire, after notifying the owner, and later removed the resulting debris.The owner filed suit in the Circuit Court of the City of Hopewell, asserting claims against the city and contractors for intentional trespass, statutory business conspiracy, tortious interference with a business expectancy, waste, and a takings claim under the Virginia Constitution. The owner also sought declaratory relief concerning costs and penalties imposed by the city. The city raised sovereign immunity as a defense, filing a plea in bar to dismiss all claims except the takings claim. The Circuit Court denied the plea in bar, finding it could not determine whether the city’s actions were within its governmental function. The city then pursued an interlocutory appeal.The Supreme Court of Virginia reviewed the denial of the plea in bar de novo, based on the pleadings and exhibits. It held that the city’s actions in demolishing the shopping center constituted a governmental function—blight abatement—which is protected by sovereign immunity, even if the city had additional motives or failed to comply with all statutory requirements. The court therefore reversed the circuit court’s judgment, holding the city immune from all tort and statutory claims, as well as most declaratory relief sought, but not from the constitutional takings claim. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the takings claim and claims involving third parties. View "City of Hopewell v. Shree Arihant Motel, Inc." on Justia Law

The case concerns a property dispute in Hampstead, New Hampshire, where the owners of a non-conforming lakefront cottage sought a special exception from the zoning ordinance to add a second story to their seasonal residence. Because their lot is smaller than what the ordinance requires and lacks sufficient frontage, any alteration required a special exception from the Town’s Zoning Board of Adjustment. The owners applied for the exception, and after a hearing where they described their plans but did not address how their proposal met the ordinance’s criteria, the Zoning Board granted the exception. The petitioner, an abutter whose property faces the cottage across the road, objected that the addition would block her lake view and decrease her property value, and she introduced photographic evidence.After the Zoning Board of Adjustment granted the exception without making specific written findings, the petitioner requested a rehearing, which was denied. She then appealed to the New Hampshire Housing Appeals Board, arguing that the applicants failed to demonstrate compliance with the special exception criteria, specifically the requirement that the project not diminish surrounding property values. The Housing Appeals Board affirmed the Zoning Board’s decision, concluding that it was not unreasonable or unlawful.The Supreme Court of New Hampshire reviewed the case and held that the applicants did not meet their burden of proof to show their addition would not diminish surrounding property values, as required by the zoning ordinance. The court found that the evidence presented by the applicants was insufficient, and the Zoning Board’s implicit finding to the contrary was not supported by the record. The Supreme Court of New Hampshire reversed the Housing Appeals Board’s decision and remanded the case with instructions to reverse the Zoning Board’s grant of the special exception. View "Appeal of Murray" on Justia Law

Wells Fargo Bank initiated a foreclosure action against Grace Doberdruk, alleging default on a promissory note secured by a mortgage. After both parties filed motions for summary judgment, the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas granted Wells Fargo’s motion, denied Doberdruk’s, and entered a judgment of foreclosure. Despite Doberdruk’s efforts to secure a stay, including posting motions to stay the sheriff’s sale and confirmation of sale, she was unable to post the required supersedeas bond. The property was sold at auction, the sale was confirmed, and proceeds were distributed to the judgment creditors.Doberdruk appealed both the judgment of foreclosure and the confirmation of sale to the Eighth District Court of Appeals. The Eighth District denied her motions to stay further proceedings and distribution of sale proceeds. The court subsequently ordered briefing on whether her appeal was moot due to her failure to obtain a stay. Relying on its own precedent, the Eighth District concluded that, absent a stay and after confirmation and distribution of proceeds, Doberdruk’s appeal was moot and dismissed it. The court also certified a conflict with several other Ohio appellate districts that had interpreted the statutory remedy differently.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case, addressing whether an appeal of a judgment of foreclosure is moot after sale proceeds are distributed when the appellant sought but could not secure a stay. The court held that the statutory remedy of restitution under R.C. 2329.45 remains available even after the distribution of proceeds, preserving a live controversy and enabling appellate relief. Therefore, the appeal is not moot solely because a stay was not obtained or proceeds were distributed. The Supreme Court of Ohio reversed the Eighth District’s dismissal and remanded the case for consideration on the merits. View "Wells Fargo Bank, Natl. Assn. v. Doberdruk" on Justia Law

Sunpin Energy Services, LLC and Ralph P. Lapinkas, Jr. sought to construct a large-scale ground-mounted solar energy system on a parcel of undeveloped, mostly forested land in Petersham, Massachusetts. Because the proposed site was outside the town’s designated solar electric overlay district, Sunpin applied for a special permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals. The project would require clearing trees from approximately 14.3 acres, and Sunpin secured an order of conditions from the town conservation commission under the Wetlands Protection Act. The permit application was denied after one of three board members voted against it, citing concerns about deforestation and referencing the town’s bylaw goals of maintaining the town’s beauty and proper land use.The plaintiffs challenged the board’s denial in the Land Court Department. The Land Court judge granted summary judgment in favor of the board, concluding that the board member properly applied the zoning bylaw criteria, including the protection of public health, safety, and welfare, and concerns about tree removal. The plaintiffs appealed, and the Massachusetts Appeals Court vacated the judgment, holding that the board’s decision was arbitrary and capricious, improperly favoring forest preservation over solar energy siting and relying on speculation about future development.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the case and held that, under the Dover Amendment’s solar provision (G. L. c. 40A, § 3, ninth paragraph), municipalities must provide reasonable opportunities for solar energy systems and may not deny a special permit unless it is necessary to protect public health, safety, or welfare. The Court found that the denial, based on general concerns about tree cutting, amounted to a blanket prohibition in a town that is ninety-seven percent forested, which was improper. The Court vacated the Land Court’s judgment and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Sunpin Energy Services, LLC v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Petersham" on Justia Law

A homeowners association obtained a money judgment against a homeowner for unpaid assessments and placed a levy on the homeowner’s property. The homeowner did not satisfy the judgment prior to a sheriff’s auction, and the property was sold to a third-party purchaser. After the auction, but before the court ratified the sale, the homeowner satisfied the judgment by paying the full amount to the association. The association then asked the court to vacate the sale and return the purchase funds to the buyer, arguing that the post-sale satisfaction of the judgment should nullify the auction outcome.The District Court of Maryland sitting in Prince George’s County agreed with the association, finding it proper to vacate the sale since the judgment was satisfied before ratification. On appeal, the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County held a de novo hearing and affirmed the District Court’s decision, maintaining that the sale was not complete until ratified and thus could be undone by satisfaction of the judgment at that stage. The purchaser sought review from the Supreme Court of Maryland.The Supreme Court of Maryland held that a judgment-debtor’s post-sale satisfaction of the judgment cannot be raised as an exception to a sheriff’s sale under Maryland Rule 14-305(e)(1). The Court explained that such satisfaction is not an irregularity with respect to the sale, and that a purchaser acquires an inchoate equitable interest after the auction, with a right to the ratification process. Allowing satisfaction of the judgment after the sale to void the auction would undermine that right and negatively affect the sheriff’s sale system. Accordingly, the Supreme Court of Maryland reversed the Circuit Court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, permitting the homeowner thirty days to file exceptions to the sale under the proper rule. View "Baltimore XV Props. V. Newsteps' Choice N." on Justia Law

Two neighboring property owners became embroiled in a dispute when the plaintiffs, who reside at 141 Post Road in Warwick, Rhode Island, began experiencing persistent and disruptive noises from the adjacent property at 175 Post Road, owned by the defendants. The plaintiffs moved into their home in 2021 without incident, but beginning in July 2024, they reported loud construction-related noises including hammering, vehicle alarms, and machinery, linked first to activities by JOGO Corporation, a tenant of a crane company on the defendants’ property, and later to other similar operations. The plaintiffs and their witnesses described the sounds as intolerable and detrimental to their use and enjoyment of their home, affecting their emotional well-being and daily activities. Additionally, plaintiffs complained of intrusive conduct, including filming or photographing by the defendants.The plaintiffs filed a complaint in the Rhode Island Superior Court in October 2024, seeking damages and injunctive relief for private nuisance. After a multi-day evidentiary hearing with testimony from neighbors, police officers, and the parties, the Superior Court judge found that the plaintiffs had established a likelihood of success on their nuisance claim, irreparable harm, that the balance of equities favored the plaintiffs, and that injunctive relief would preserve the status quo. The court issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting the defendants from harassing, filming, or interfering with the plaintiffs' enjoyment of their property and from conducting activities that violated the city’s noise ordinance or unreasonably interfered with the plaintiffs’ use of their home.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Rhode Island affirmed the Superior Court’s order. The Supreme Court held that the lower court did not abuse its discretion in granting the preliminary injunction, finding that the requirements for such relief—including likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balancing of equities, and preservation of the status quo—were properly considered and satisfied. The Court also held that objections to the specificity of the order were waived. View "Carlton v. Avagyan" on Justia Law