Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

In August 2015, Plaintiff-appellant, TIB-The Independent Bankers Bank ("TIB"), filed a foreclosure action against Kyle Goerke, based on a mortgage executed and recorded in 2007. TIB also included claims against Kyle Goerke's brother, defendant-appellee, Joseph Goerke ("Goerke"), and several of their family members because they possessed a right of first refusal recorded in the chain of title. At the time, Goerke also possessed a second interest in the property, a mortgage recorded in 2015. Although the title report ordered by TIB reflected both of Goerke's interests, TIB only named him as a defendant in the 2015 foreclosure based on his right of first refusal--and not on his mortgage interest. Goerke, an attorney, filed an answer in the 2015 foreclosure on behalf of himself and the other family members, noting that their right of first refusal had expired. Accordingly, Goerke claimed they had been improperly named as defendants and demanded that the claims against them be dismissed with prejudice. Goerke did not assert or reference his mortgage interest in his answer. TIB complied with Goerke's demand and dismissed the claims against him and his family members with prejudice. Kyle Goerke later resolved the default, and TIB dismissed the 2015 foreclosure action. Kyle Goerke defaulted again shortly thereafter, and TIB initiated a second foreclosure action. In the 2016 foreclosure, TIB discovered Goerke's mortgage interest and named him as a defendant on that basis. Goerke filed an answer to the 2016 foreclosure, claiming TIB was barred from bringing further claims against him because TIB dismissed him with prejudice from the 2015 foreclosure. Both TIB and Goerke filed motions for summary judgment. The district court entered an order denying TIB's motion for summary judgment and a journal entry granting Goerke's motion. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the trial court. On certiorari, the Oklahoma Supreme Court held that Plaintiff's claim against Goerke was not barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion. View "TIB-The Independent Bankers Bank v. Goerke" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the county court denying Petitioner's petition for relief under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3, holding that the single justice did not err or abuse his discretion in denying relief.Petitioner was awarded monetary damages after a jury trial on a breach of contract claim against Respondent. The appellate division affirmed. Petitioner later moved for the appointment of a special process server to conduct a sale of Respondent's real property in order to satisfy the amended judgment and execution. Thereafter, Respondent presented a check for the execution amount plus postjudgment interest. Petitioner refused to accept payment and continued to litigate its motion. A judge declined to take action and ordered that further accrual of postjudgment interest would be tolled. Petitioner moved to vacate the judge's tolling ruling, but the trial court declined to rule on the motion. Petitioner then filed this petition requesting relief from the tolling order. The single justice denied the petition. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that Petitioner was not entitled to relief. View "Suburban Electric Contracting, Inc. v. Ozdemir" on Justia Law

A group of Oklahoma landowners petitioned for a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, claiming that the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority violated the Open Meeting Act, 25 O.S.2021, §§ 301 to 314, regarding its notice to the public of the ACCESS Oklahoma Program. Both parties sought summary judgment. The district court rendered summary judgment in the landowners' favor, finding that the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority willfully violated the Open Meeting Act. The Oklahoma Supreme Court held that the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority gave sufficient notice of the agenda items that the landowners challenged. Furthermore, the Court found that the lack of notice regarding the announcement of the ACCESS Oklahoma Program at the February 2022 meeting did not violate the Open Meeting Act because the announcement was for informational purposes only. View "Hirschfeld, et al. v. Oklahoma Turnpike Authority" on Justia Law

This was one of several similar cases filed in the fall of 2020 by the owners of hundreds of commercial properties in eleven different Colorado counties seeking to compel the assessors in each of the counties to revalue their properties and lower their property tax assessments for the 2020 tax year. This matter involved the valuation of over 60 parcels of commercial property in Douglas County, Colorado. The taxpayers here—and in the other cases—contended that the pandemic and various state and local public health orders issued in response were “unusual conditions” that required revaluation of their properties under section 39-1-104(11)(b)(I), C.R.S. (2022). To this, the Colorado Supreme Court concluded the orders were not "unusual conditions:" COVID-19 was not a “detrimental act[] of nature,” and the orders issued in response to COVID-19 were not “regulations restricting . . . the use of the land” under section 39-1-104(11)(b)(I). Therefore, section 39-1-104(11)(b)(I) did not require the Douglas County property assessors to revalue the taxpayers’ 2020 property valuations. View "Educhildren v. City of Douglas" on Justia Law

This was one of several cases filed in Colorado in which commercial property owners have sued to compel the county assessor to revalue their properties and lower their property tax assessments for the 2020 tax year to account for the economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. This case concerned the valuation of commercial real property located in the City and County of Broomfield, Colorado. The taxpayers here—and in the other cases—contended that the pandemic and various state and local public health orders issued in response were “unusual conditions” that required revaluation of their properties under section 39-1-104(11)(b)(I), C.R.S. (2022). To this, the Colorado Supreme Court concluded the orders were not "unusual conditions:" COVID-19 was not a “detrimental act[] of nature,” and the orders issued in response to COVID-19 were not “regulations restricting . . . the use of the land” under section 39-1-104(11)(b)(I). Therefore, section 39-1-104(11)(b)(I) did not require the City and County of Broomfield Assessor to revalue the taxpayers’ 2020 property valuations, and it did not require the Board of Equalization to correct the Assessor’s valuations. View "Hunter Douglas v. City & County of Broomfield" on Justia Law

This was one of several similar cases filed in the fall of 2020 by the owners of hundreds of commercial properties in eleven different Colorado counties seeking to compel the assessors in each of the counties to revalue their properties and lower their property tax assessments for the 2020 tax year. This matter involved the valuation of 130 parcels of commercial property in Larimer County, Colorado. The taxpayers here—and in the other cases—contended that the pandemic and various state and local public health orders issued in response were “unusual conditions” that required revaluation of their properties under section 39-1-104(11)(b)(I), C.R.S. (2022). To this, the Colorado Supreme Court concluded the orders were not "unusual conditions:" COVID-19 was not a “detrimental act[] of nature,” and the orders issued in response to COVID-19 were not “regulations restricting . . . the use of the land” under section 39-1-104(11)(b)(I). Therefore, section 39-1-104(11)(b)(I) did not require the Larimer County property assessors to revalue the taxpayers’ 2020 property valuations. View "Larimer County v. 1303 Frontage Holdings" on Justia Law

This was one of several cases filed in Colorado in which commercial property owners sued to compel the county assessor to revalue their properties and lower their property tax assessments for the 2020 tax year to account for the economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. This case concerned the valuation of hundreds of parcels of commercial real property located in Jefferson County, Colorado. The taxpayers here—and in the other cases—contended that the pandemic and various state and local public health orders issued in response were “unusual conditions” that required revaluation of their properties under section 39-1-104(11)(b)(I), C.R.S. (2022). To this, the Colorado Supreme Court concluded the orders were not "unusual conditions:" COVID-19 was not a “detrimental act[] of nature,” and the orders issued in response to COVID-19 were not “regulations restricting . . . the use of the land” under section 39-1-104(11)(b)(I). Therefore, section 39-1-104(11)(b)(I) did not require the Jefferson County Assessor to revalue the taxpayers’ 2020 property valuations, and it did not require the Board of Equalization to correct the Assessor’s valuations. View " MJB Motel v. County of Jefferson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment of the superior court that reversed and modified the decision of the tax assessor of the Town of Vinalhaven denying Hurricane Island Foundation a local property tax exemption under Me. Rev. Stat. 36, 652(1)(B), holding that the Town's tax assessor correctly denied the tax exemption.In denying the Foundation's application, the Town's tax assessor concluded that the Foundation failed to meet the standard for a "literary and scientific" institution under the statute. The superior court twice remanded the case. For both the second and the third time, the assessor denied the tax exemption to the Foundation. The superior court modified the decision to designate the Foundation as tax exempt, concluding that there was an error of law in the assessor's decision. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment below and remanded for the court to enter a judgment declaring that the Foundation was not exempt, holding that the Foundation failed to show it was a "scientific" institution. View "Hurricane Island Foundation v. Town of Vinalhaven" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Minnesota Tax Court, though its adjustments, increasing the market value of the real estate of the Minneapolis Hyatt Regency Hotel for the tax years 2016 through 2018, holding that when a county opposes discovery and the taxpayer moves to compel discovery, the balancing test found in Minn. Stat. 13.03, subdivision 6 is applicable.Relator, which owned the Hotel, challenged the market values assessed by the County of Hennepin for the tax years at issue, arguing that the tax court clearly erred when it accepted the appraisal report of Relator's expert but then made unsupported and unexplained adjustments to the expert's valuations. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the tax court (1) did not err or abuse its discretion in its discovery and evidentiary rulings; and (2) did not clearly err in adjusting Relator's valuation of the hotel real estate. View "1300 Nicollet, LLC v. County of Hennepin" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals reversing Appellant's unjust enrichment award, holding that the district court did not clearly err in its award to Appellant.Over the course of the parties' romantic relationship Appellant made $282,736.02 in net cash payments to Respondent to renovate Respondent's home. Respondent sold her home for $1.2 million after the couple ended their relationship, and Appellant sued to recover his contribution. The district court awarded Appellant $282,736.02 for his contributions, concluding that Respondent had been unjustly enriched by Appellant's financial contributions. The court of appeals reversed because Appellant did not prove before the district court the increase in value to Respondent's home attributable to his financial contributions. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the net amount of money that Appellant contributed directly to and on behalf of Respondent was an appropriate measure of relief for unjust enrichment; and (2) the district court did not clearly err in its award to Appellant. View "Herlache v. Rucks" on Justia Law