Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

Beginning in 2007, the City of Lewiston assessed stormwater fees on Robert Gladu's property, which contained a small shopping mall and parking lot, pursuant to the City's stormwater ordinance. The ordinance at issue created the Stormwater Management Utility and gave it the authority to assess and collect fees for stormwater management system and facilities. Gladu did not pay the fees, and in 2010, the City filed a civil complaint alleging that Gladu owed the City for unpaid stormwater fees. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment. In his motion, Gladu argued that the stormwater assessment was a tax, not a fee, and that the Utility was not authorized to impose a tax. The superior court granted the City's motion and denied Gladu's motion and ordered that Gladu pay the delinquent stormwater fees, interest, attorney fees, collection costs, and a penalty. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) under the test set forth in Butler v. Supreme Judicial Court, the stormwater assessment is a fee and not a tax; and (2) the superior court did not err in awarding a civil penalty, attorney fees, and other costs.

Charles and Lisa Hart filed a complaint against TICOR Title Insurance Company for breach of contract after TICOR refused to defend the Harts under their title insurance policy against an escheat claim asserted by the State. The district court entered judgment in favor of TICOR and awarded TICOR attorneys' fees and costs. The Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) affirmed. The Supreme Court vacated the ICA's judgment and reversed the judgment of the district court in favor of TICOR and vacated the district court's award of attorneys' fees and costs to TICOR, holding that TICOR owed a duty to defend the Harts under the policy against the State's claim and prayer for affirmative relief. Remanded to the district court with instructions (1) to enter judgment in favor of the Harts, and (2) to determine an award of attorneys fees and costs to the Harts.

The issue before the Supreme Court was the determination of the proper test for evaluating whether an oil or gas lease has produced "in paying quantities," as first discussed "Young v. Forest Oil Co.," (194 Pa. 243, 45 A. 1 (1899)). Appellant Ann Jedlicka owned a parcel of land consisting of approximately 70 acres. The Jedlicka tract is part of a larger tract of land consisting of approximately 163 acres, which was conveyed to Samuel Findley and David Findley by deed dated 1925. In 1928, the Findleys conveyed to T.W. Phillips Gas and Oil Co. an oil and gas lease covering all 163 acres of the Findley property which included the Jedlicka tract. The lease contained a habendum clause which provided for drilling and operating for oil and gas on the property so long as it was produced in "paying quantities." Notably, the term "in paying quantities" was not defined in the lease. Subsequently, the Findley property was subdivided and sold, including the Jedlicka tract, subject to the Findley lease. A successor to T.W. Philips, PC Exploration made plans to drill more wells on the Jedlicka tract. Jedlicka objected to construction of the new wells, claiming that W.W. Philips failed to maintain production "in paying quantities" under the Findley lease, and as a result, the lease lapsed and terminated. After careful consideration, the Supreme Court held that when production on a well has been marginal or sporadic, such that for some period profits did not exceed operating costs, the phrase "in paying quantities" must be construed with reference to an operator's good faith judgment. Furthermore, the Court found the lower courts considered the operator's good faith judgment in concluding the oil and gas lease at issue in the instant case has produced in paying quantities, the Court affirmed the order of the Superior Court which upheld the trial court's ruling in favor of T.W. Phillips Gas and Oil Co. and PC Exploration, Inc.

In 1974, Amos and Lois Harper purchased property in a subdivision. In 2001, the property was sold at a foreclosure sale to the Bank of New York. Because the property taxes were not paid, the sheriff sold the tax lien on the property in 2007 to Marquis Development. Marquis sold the property to Gavin Smith, who subsequently served an eviction notice on Lois Harper's son, Mike Harper. The Harpers filed this declaratory judgment action against Marquis and Smith, claiming that they were the owners of the subject property. Ultimately, the circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants and declared that Smith was the owner of the subject real estate. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court erred to the extent it concluded that Smith was a bona fide purchaser given the fact that he was on notice of a potential defect in the tax deed received by Marquis; but (2) because the Harpers lost title to the property as a result of the foreclosure sale in 2001, the Harpers had no standing to challenge Smith's status as a bona fide purchaser.

This case required the court to determine whether a mortgage company violated Hawaii state law when it did not publicly announce the postponement of a foreclosure sale of property owned by appellant, and if so, to ascertain the proper remedy for that violation. The court held that the lack of public announcement did violate Hawaii's nonjudicial foreclosure statute, and this defect was a deceptive practice under state law. Accordingly, the court affirmed the bankruptcy court's avoidance of the foreclosure sale. However, the court remanded to the bankruptcy court for a proper calculation of attorney's fees and damages under Hawaii Revised Statute 480-13.

Plaintiff owned land near lots intended for development. The Puerto Rico Highway and Transportation Authority planned to condemn most of plaintiff's land, in aid of the development. Plaintiff's motion to dismiss the condemnation proceeding was rejected; he filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against the developer, PRHTA, and PRHTA employees, alleging conspiracy to deprive him of his property without just compensation or due process and torts claims under commonwealth law. The district court entered summary judgment for defendants and awarded $92,149 in attorney fees. The First Circuit vacated the fee award. Puerto Rican law provides process to get compensation for property takings by the government. Plaintiff did not take advantage of that process. Those were the only facts that needed to be shown for the dismissal, so the award was not justified.

Micah L. Haffner filed this action to quiet title to a parcel of land in Haralson County that he claimed to have purchased from his mother's estate. The trial court granted summary judgment to James and Regina Davis and Community and Southern Bank and denied Haffner's motion for summary judgment. Because Haffner had been in possession of the property at issue for less than 20 years and failed to exercise reasonable diligence, the court affirmed the judgment.

At issue in this case was a district court's grant of a motion for voluntary dismissal of a suit filed by Fern Peterson against Cecil and Yu Wen Davis, Kevin and Sherri Murray, David Lawrence and Private Wilderness, LLC (collectively, Private Wilderness). The issues arose from Peterson's attempt to sell property to the Davises, Murray and Lawrence. Private Wilderness asserted an easement over the property. Ultimately the case ended with the dismissal of a third-party complaint filed by Private Wilderness against Robert and Nancy Peterson (the Petersons). In resolving the appeal, the Supreme Court addressed issues raised by Private Wilderness concerning whether the district court erred when it concluded there was no prevailing party when it granted the voluntary dismissal. The Court also addressed the Petersons' cross-appeal, in which they argued that the district court erred in denying their motion for reconsideration of their I.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) and 12(c) motion to dismiss on the basis that it was moot, and by not addressing their pending summary judgment motion at the time of dismissal. Upon review, the Supreme Court vacated in part and remanded, upholding the district court's discretion concluding no prevailing party, but found the court erred by denying the motion for reconsideration.

James McClammer, Jr., Trustee of the Profit Sharing Plan of the Connecticut Valley Environmental Services, Inc., appealed a superior court order that ruled in favor of Michael and Marie O'Hearne on the parties' crosspetitions to quiet title and for injunctive relief. The parties owned adjoining lots in the vicinity of the Little Sugar River in North Charlestown. Historically, both lots were part of a larger parcel bisected by the river, which generally ran in an east-west direction at that point. McClammer acquired title to his lot in 1999 from the estate of Louise Hinchliffe, who had acquired her title upon the intestate deaths, in 1944 and 1957, of the grantees of a 1929 deed. The property description in McClammer’s deed was identical to the description in the 1929 deed. The dispute in this case arose when McClammer began removing trees from the strip of land lying to the north of several monuments and to the south of the river. The O'Hearnes filed a petition to enjoin McClammer from trespassing on their land, asserting that the parties' common boundary was established by the monuments. McClammer, in turn, filed his own petition to quiet title, claiming that his title ran either to the "so-called thread or center of the river," or to its low water mark on "the south side of [its] main northerly channel." McClammer later amended his petition, asserting that his title extended to the high water mark on the northern bank of the river, and included a 0.15 acre piece of land to the north of the river where, he claimed, the "mill spot" referenced in a 1790 deed was located. In their answers to McClammer’s petition and amended petition, the O'Hearnes claimed not only that they had record title to the areas in dispute, but that they had also acquired title by adverse possession and the doctrine of boundary by acquiescence. The trial court consolidated the matters, and following a trial on the merits, ruled in favor of the O'Hearnes. McClammer moved for reconsideration, arguing that the trial court had improperly raised the statute of limitations sua sponte. Additionally, he challenged the trial court's rulings on the merits, arguing that it had erroneously found that the O'Hearne chain of title referenced the monuments, that it improperly construed the relevant deeds, and that it ignored other evidence inconsistent with a finding of adverse possession. The trial court denied the motion, and McClammer timely appealed. After review, the Supreme Court affirmed: "[t]o the extent the trial court incorrectly found that the O'Hearne chain of title referenced the monuments, this finding cannot have affected the outcome of the case since the trial court's findings and rulings relative to Hinchliffe's acquiescence in the boundary are supported by the record and compel the result reached by the trial court."

Intervener Parade Residence Hotel, LLC appealed a superior court order that vacated and remanded a decision of the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) of the City of Portsmouth that upheld the City Planning Board's approval of Parade's application to amend its previously approved site plan. Parade's property abuts Plaintiff Harborside Associates, LP's property. In 2008, the Board approved Parade's application to construct a five-story building that included a hotel, restaurant and retail space. Parade began construction in 2009. The City adopted a new zoning ordinance later that year to become effective in 2010. The terms of the new ordinance changed those that were in effect when Parade was granted its site plan. When Parade applied for an amendment to its site plan, Harborside objected. Following a hearing, the Board approved the application without requiring Parade to comply with the new ordinance. Harborside appealed to the ZBA, who subsequently denied Harborside's objection. Harborside appealed, and the superior court vacated the ZBA's decision, finding that Parade presented a "major change" in its site plan requiring compliance with the changed ordinance. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the superior court did not err in arriving at its decision, and affirmed.