Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

Safeco issued plaintiffs a homeowner’s policy that went into effect when they closed on the property and covered all accidental direct physical loss to property, unless limited or excluded, “occurring during the policy period.” Before receiving the policy and first seeing its terms, but after beginning renovations, plaintiffs discovered severe inner wall water leaks and significant water infiltration on three exterior walls. A mold specialist found that the home had numerous construction deficiencies that existed long before they purchased the home, resulting in chronic water intrusion that damaged interior finished walls, insulation, external plywood sheathing, and other aspects of the structure. Safeco denied coverage, stating that the prepurchase inspection confirmed multiple areas of water damage that were in need of attention and that the loss qualified as a preexisting condition that occurred outside of the policy period. The district court held that Safeco was precluded from raising the exclusions because it did not notify plaintiffs the exclusions until after they discovered the damage, awarded $485,100.64, and held that Safeco lacked a reasonable basis for denial and demonstrated reckless disregard, entitling plaintiffs to damages resulting from bad faith. The Seventh Circuit affirmed.

Plaintiff, who dealt with Chicago Title sued both Chicago Title and Ticor, on behalf of herself and similarly situated individuals, alleging that they qualified for a reduced refinance rate, but paid more, and that the practice of overcharging on title insurance for refinanced properties violates the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. 42-110b(a). She also claimed unjust enrichment, breach of implied contract, and money had and received. The complaint alleged that the companies are “juridically linked,” coordinated drafting their premium rate schedules, and operate in the same manner with respect to overcharging. The district court dismissed the Ticor defendants, holding that plaintiff lacked standing. The Second Circuit affirmed, rejecting plaintiff’s argument concerning standing.

Defendant Michael A. Langlois appealed a Superior Court's declaratory judgment entered in favor of Plaintiff Townhouses at Bonnet Shores Condominium Association. The judgment decreed that a lease agreement that Defendant had entered into violated the "Declaration of Condominium of Townhouses at Bonnet Shores Condominiums." Defendant asserted on appeal that the declaration was ambiguous and that, therefore, the trial justice incorrectly interpreted it to exclude the lease agreement. Upon review of the lease agreement in question, the Supreme Court concluded the trial justice did not incorrectly interpret the language, and affirmed that court's decision.

Applicants Wagonhound Land and Livestock Company, LLC, VenJohn Oil, Inc., and Steven M. VenJohn filed a petition with the Wyoming State Board of Control seeking to change the place of use, point of diversion and means of conveyance for water appropriations attached to 174.8 acres. VenJohn owned the appropriations from the North Platte River and requested that the point of diversion and place of use of the rights be moved upstream to Wagonhound’s land. Vic and Jane Garber and several others who were intervening water right holders, objected to the petition, and the Board held a contested case hearing. The Board granted the Applicants’ petition but reduced the transferred rights to 152.5 acres. The Objectors unsuccessfully petitioned the district court for review of the Board decision. On appeal to the Supreme Court, they challenged: the sufficiency of the evidence presented in the Board's record; and whether the final decision was in violation of Wyo. Stats. 41-3-104 and 41-3-114. Although the Objectors claimed the defects in the original petition required reversal of the Board’s decision, the Supreme Court found that they did not sufficiently explain why the amendment process was inappropriate or how it violated statute or board rules. The Objectors also did not demonstrate how the other landowners were injured by the petition or the process employed by the Board. Without further explanation, the Court could not accept their argument, and affirmed the Board's decision.

Purchasers of a lot in a newly formed airpark subdivision prepared and properly executed an easement agreement granting them access to the subdivision's aviation facilities. The purchasers later claimed the easement agreement gave them a priority right to use the subdivision's common areas, distinct from use rights granted to other lot owners. The subdivision's homeowner's association disputed that claim. The superior court ruled that the easement agreement did not grant the purchasers the right to exclude other lot owners from common areas. The court also issued a variety of orders on related issues, declaring the subdivision a common interest community and quieting title to its common use areas as superior to the easement agreement. The court awarded attorney's fees against the purchasers. One of the purchasers appealed but subsequent events rendered all issues except the attorney's fees decision moot. Because the Supreme Court agreed with the superior court that the easement agreement did not grant priority rights to the purchasers, the Court affirmed the superior court's award of attorney's fees against the purchasers.

A judge preliminarily enjoined Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) from proceeding to evict plaintiff, Eaton, from her home, following a foreclosure sale by Green Tree Servicing, as mortgagee. The judge ruled that Eaton likely would succeed on her claim that for a valid foreclosure sale to occur, both the mortgage and the underlying note must be held by the foreclosing party; Green Tree stipulated that it held only Eaton's mortgage. The supreme court vacated the injunction, announcing a new statutory interpretation to apply to foreclosures under the power of sale where statutory notice is provided after the date of this decision. A foreclosure sale conducted pursuant to a power of sale in a mortgage must comply with all applicable statutory provisions, particularly G.L. c. 183, 21, and G.L. c. 244, 14, which authorize a "mortgagee" to foreclose by sale pursuant to a power of sale in the mortgage, and require the "mortgagee" to provide notice and take other steps. The term "mortgagee" is not free from ambiguity, according to the court, but refers to the person or entity then holding the mortgage and also either holding the mortgage note or acting on behalf of the note holder.

The circuit court granted Appellants' motion for summary judgment in a partition action for the sale of jointly owned real estate, having found that the statute of frauds prevented enforcement of an alleged oral "buy/sell" agreement between the parties. The court of appeals reversed, holding that Appellants, as the party attempting to force the sale, were impermissibly using the statute of frauds as a "sword" and not a "shield" and because "no action" was brought by Appellees that might trigger the application of the statute. The court therefore remanded the matter for a determination as to whether the oral buy/sell agreement existed and its effect on the disposition of the property at issue. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals, holding that because there was no signed writing in this case, and because there was no evidence that the agreement was not reduced to writing because of fraud at the time of omission or evidence that the application of the statute of fraud would result in Appellants being unjustly enriched, summary judgment was proper.

This case required the Supreme Court to determine whether Appellee, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) had "good cause" for failing to timely release a satisfied real estate lien it held on Gary and Sharon Hall's property. The circuit court concluded that the Halls were not entitled to statutory damages because, although MERS filed a release referencing the wrong mortgage, the Halls provided insufficient notice to MERS of the release's actual deficiency. Thus, the court found MERS had "good cause" not to file a new release once it checked and found it had already filed one. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that MERS satisfied the "good cause" requirement under these particular circumstances.

At issue in this appeal was Conn. Gen. Stat. 21-80a, which protects residents of mobile manufactured home parks by limiting the availability of summary process actions. Under the statute, if a resident proves that he or she engaged in one or more of the protected activities enumerated in the statute within the six months preceding the park owner's eviction proceeding, the owner may not maintain a summary process action against that resident unless the owner can show that one of the exceptions specified in the statute applies. Defendants, residents of a mobile manufactured home park owned by Plaintiff, appealed from the judgment of the appellate court affirming the trial court's judgment of possession in favor of Plaintiff, claiming that judgment of possession should be granted in their favor because Plaintiff's summary process action was barred under section 21-80a. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) defendants were in material noncompliance with the lease and were using the dwelling unit or the premises for a purpose which was in violation of the rental agreement; and (2) thus, the appellate court's ultimate conclusion that Defendants' violation was encompassed by 21-80a was proper.

At issue in this case was a 1966 property division that created Lot 733, an undeveloped parcel owned by Plaintiffs. When Plaintiffs requested a zoning certificate from the zoning enforcement officer for the town, the officer refused based on his belief that Lot 733 resulted from an illegal subdivision in contravention of the town zoning and subdivision regulations in force in 1966. The zoning board dismissed Plaintiffs' appeal. Plaintiffs then filed suit requesting that the zoning board's decision be overturned and that the court declare that Lot 733 was a lawful lot. The trial justice determined that the 1966 property division that created the disputed lot was proper. Defendants, owners of property adjoining Lot 733, appealed, arguing that the property division constituted an illegal subdivision because it lacked adequate street access. The Supreme Court affirmed the superior court but on different grounds, holding that the creation of Lot 733 was not a subdivision.