Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioners, David and Shirley Finch, appealed from an order entered by the circuit court, which granted summary judgment to Defendant, Inspectech, LLC. The circuit court concluded that, by signing the parties' inspection agreement, which contained a clause entitled "unconditional release and limitation of liability," the Finches had released Inspectech from liability for any defects it failed to report in its inspection of the house the Finches planned to, and ultimately did, purchase. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Inspectech was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law based upon the terms of the parties' inspection agreement and the release language therein because anticipatory releases contained in home inspection contracts are void and unenforceable as contrary to the public policy of the State.

This case presented the question of whether the doctrine of equitable subrogation may be used to reorder the priority of a mortgage lien where the mortgage holder had constructive but not actual knowledge of a pre-existing lien when it paid off an earlier mortgage as part of a refinancing deal and there was no fraud or other misconduct that would have prevented the discovery of the lien. The trial court applied the doctrine to reorder the priority of liens. The court of appeals reversed, finding that the doctrine did not apply under the facts of this case. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because equitable subrogation is not available to a lienholder who has actual or constructive knowledge of a preexisting lien, the court of appeals was correct in concluding that the remedy was not available to the mortgage holder.

Between 2004 and 2008, Brown ran an elaborate scheme that tricked lenders into issuing fraudulent mortgage loans in Chicago and Las Vegas. Brown recruited or directed dozens of individuals: lawyers, accountants, loan officers, bank employees, realtors, home builders, and nominee buyers. Of his accomplices, 32 people were criminally charged. The Chicago scheme resulted in about 150 fraudulent loans, totaling more than $95 million in proceeds from victim lenders. The Las Vegas scheme resulted in approximately 33 fraudulent loans totaling about $16 million. Brown entered guilty pleas and was sentenced to 216 months’ imprisonment for the Las Vegas scheme and 240 months’ imprisonment for the Chicago scheme, to run concurrently. The district court also imposed a restitution amount of more than $32.2 million. The Seventh Circuit affirmed Brown’s sentence, rejecting a challenge to the loss calculation. The court remanded the 66-month sentence and $7.1 restitution order against another participant in the Chicago scheme because the court incorrectly determined the number of victims.

A provision of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), 12 U.S.C. 2607(b), prohibited giving and accepting "any portion, split, or percentage of any charge made or received for the rendering of a real estate settlement service... other than for services actually performed." Petitioners, three couples who obtained mortgage loans from respondent, filed separate state-court actions, alleging that respondent had violated section 2607(b) by charging them fees for which no services were provided in return. At issue was whether, to establish a violation of section 2607(b), a plaintiff must demonstrate that a charge was divided between two or more persons. The Court held that, in order to establish a violation of section 2607(b), a plaintiff must demonstrate that a charge for settlement services was divided between two or more persons. Because petitioners did not contend that respondent split the challenged charges with anyone else, summary judgment was properly granted in favor of respondent. Therefore, the Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

Appellants, a power plant limited partnership and a power plant, leased from the City of Baltimore two adjoining pieces of real estate. After the properties were valued by the City's supervisor of assessments, Appellants challenged the valuations. The property tax assessment appeals board and tax court affirmed. In both cases, Appellant introduced appraisals and testimony that valued the properties at a lower figure based in part on the existence of ground leases owned by the City. The leases, however, were not introduced into evidence during the proceedings. The circuit court affirmed the valuation. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the tax court did not err in its decision to disregard the effect of the ground leases because Appellants did not establish that the leases in issue restricted its use of the properties.

Defendant, the property manager of the Galleria Shopping Mall in Houston, was charged with unauthorized discharge of industrial waste after a pressure-washing contractor allegedly discharged contaminated water while cleaning the Galleria Mall's underground parking garages. Defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence. The trial judge concluded that the two searches were improper under the Fourth Amendment because both the owner of the pressure washing company, who worked with police on investigating competing pressure-washing companies, and the law enforcement officer were trespassers upon the property at the time they entered, searched, and seized evidence from the Galleria premises. The State appealed and the court of appeals reversed. The court granted defendant's petition for discretionary review and remanded the case for further consideration in light of the Supreme Court's recent decision in United States v. Jones.

Acting as settlors, Wilbert and Genevieve Gore signed two separate trust instruments in 1972 - the May Instrument and the October Instrument - both purporting to transfer the same property into the Pokeberry Trust. Susan Gore, one of their daughters, claimed that the earlier May Instrument controlled while the other four siblings contended that the settlors never intended the May Instrument to be final and enforceable. The Vice Chancellor rejected Susan's claims and she, along with her children, appealed. The court found none of Susan's claims had merit and affirmed the judgment.

Plaintiff, a private college, brought suit against a town and a local zoning authority (defendants), seeking, among other things, a declaration that its proposed development of residential and education facilities for older adults (Regis East) qualified for protection under the Dover Amendment, G.L.c. 40A, section 3, second par. The Dover Amendment exempted from certain local zoning laws or structures that were to be used by nonprofit educational institutions for "educational purposes." Because the court could not conclude that plaintiff "has no reasonable expectation" of demonstrating that Regis East would primarily operate in furtherance of educational purposes, the court vacated and remanded.

The issue before the Supreme Court was whether section 38-5-105 C.R.S. (2011) granted condemnation authority to a company for the construction of a petroleum pipeline. Upon review, the Court concluded that the General Assembly did not grant expressly or implication, the power of eminent domain to companies for the construction of pipelines conveying petroleum. Therefore, section 38-5-105 did not grant that authority to Respondent Sinclair Transportation Company for its proposed pipeline project. The Court reversed the court of appeals' opinion that upheld the trial court's order granting Sinclair immediate possession of the property belonging to Petitioners Ivar and Donna Larson and Lauren and Kay Sandberg.

Respondents-Appellants Darlene Hankison, Michael Flick, Steven Flick, David Flick, landowners in Wells County, and Weckerly F.L.P., a landowner in Sheridan County, appealed a Wells County district court judgment and a Sheridan County district court order that denied their motions to dismiss and granted Minnkota Power Cooperative, Inc.'s petitions to enter their property to conduct testing and surveys. The Wells County district court held that for purposes of a petition to enter land for surveying and testing, Minnkota only needed to show it was in charge of a public use or it was in the category of persons entitled to seek eminent domain. The court determined Minnkota was in charge of a public use and also was entitled to seek eminent domain. The Sheridan County court held, under N.D.C.C. § 10-15-52, a foreign cooperative is entitled to all rights, exemptions, and privileges of a cooperative organized for the same purposes under the laws of this state when it is issued a certificate of authority from the secretary of state. Minnkota was issued a certificate of authority from the secretary of state, and it is organized to provide power to its members. Because North Dakota electric cooperatives have authority to use eminent domain, the court determined Minnkota also has the power to use eminent domain. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the district courts did not err in concluding that Minnkota was entitled to seek the power of eminent domain under North Dakota law.