Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

In these appeals the Supreme Court considered whether the Virginia Constitution provides for a cause of action by a landowner for inverse condemnation when the allegation of the complaint is that the landowner's property has been damaged by a diminution in value resulting from a public utility's construction and operation of an electrical transmission line for public use on nearby property. The trial court sustained the public utility's demurrers with prejudice, finding that because the complaints did not allege that the entire property had been rendered useless, and because the property had not lost all economic value, a damaging under the Constitution had not occurred. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court applied the wrong standard in reviewing the pleadings; but (2) under the proper standard, the complainants could not state a cause of action for declaratory relief for inverse condemnation when the sole damage alleged was a diminution in value arising from the public use of proximately located property, and therefore, the circuit court's judgment sustaining the demurrers was correct under the proper standard. View "Byler v. Va. Elec. & Power Co." on Justia Law

Carson Sweeney petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to direct the Circuit Court to vacate its order of May 26, 2011, insofar as the order granted Timmy Joe Holland's motion to strike Sweeney's demand for a trial by jury in Holland's trespass action against him. In 2010, Holland sued Sweeney, alleging that Sweeney had entered Holland's property and damaged it by, among other things, "remov[ing] trees, timber and other foliage, [and] soil"; "redirect[ing] water flow"; and "install[ing] drainage apparatuses." The complaint stated the following causes of action: "trespass - trespass to chattels," negligence, negligent supervision, and conversion. The circuit court ultimately entered an order that, among other things, granted in part and denied in part Holland's motion to strike Sweeney's answer and counter-complaint. In its order, the circuit court found that Sweeney's failure to file his answer and counter-complaint in a timely manner "was unreasonable and inherently prejudicial" to Holland and that "[g]ood cause has not been shown for said failure." Nonetheless, the circuit court denied Holland's motion insofar as it sought to strike Sweeney's answer and counter-complaint because, the circuit court said, "the interest of preserving a litigant's right of trial on the merits is paramount." However, the circuit court granted Holland's motion insofar as it sought to strike Sweeney's demand for a jury trial, concluding that Sweeney had "waived his right to demand a trial by jury." Sweeney filed a "motion for reconsideration, modification, new hearing, or in the alternative, motion to alter, amend or vacate" the order striking his jury-trial demand, which the circuit court denied. Sweeney then filed this petition for the writ of mandamus, seeking relief from the circuit court's order. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded Sweeney demonstrated a clear legal right to the relief sought in his petition for the writ of mandamus. Accordingly, the Court granted the petition and issued the writ. View "Holland v. Sweeney" on Justia Law

This was an appeal of a judgment which held that a mechanic’s lien had priority over a mortgage. The judgment was predicated upon the district court's refusal to permit the mortgagee to withdraw an admission made in open court by its counsel that the mechanic's lien was valid. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court reversed the district court and held that the mechanic's lien was invalid because the lien did not show that it was verified before a person entitled to administer oaths. View "First Federal Savings Bank of Twin Falls v. Riedesel Engineering, Inc." on Justia Law

This was an appeal of a district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the State of Idaho, former Governor James E. Risch, and former Fish and Game Department Director Steven Huffaker (collectively "Defendants"). Appellants, Rex and Lynda Rammell, owners of a domestic elk ranch, brought suit against Defendants to recover for the loss and destruction of elk that escaped from their ranch in 2006. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Rammell v. Idaho" on Justia Law

This was an appeal in which the appellants challenged a judgment ejecting them from real property purchased by the respondent at a mortgage foreclosure sale. The appellants' primary complaint was that the district court denied their claim for unjust enrichment under which they sought to recover damages for improvements they had made to the real property prior to the foreclosure sale. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Indian Springs v. Andersen" on Justia Law

A homeowner sought a declaratory judgment that foreclosure fees were not properly included in the reinstatement amount necessary to halt foreclosure proceedings under Alaska law. The superior court concluded that the foreclosure fees were properly included in the reinstatement amount. Upon review, the Supreme Court agreed with the superior court and therefore affirmed. View "Kuretich v. Alaska Trustee, LLC" on Justia Law

Appellants appealed the order of the circuit court dismissing their claims and quieting title to mineral interests, including oil and gas rights, in appellee Upland Industrial Development Company, Inc. The Supreme Court affirmed on appeal, holding that the circuit court did not err in (1) interpreting the Strohacker doctrine and applying the doctrine to the facts of this case; (2) placing the burden of proof on Appellants; and (3) finding that this was an actino to quiet title and, thus, finding no constitutional right to a jury trial was present. In addition, the Court concluded that Appellant's had no standing to raise on appeal the argument that the circuit court erred in granting Appellee SEECO, Inc.'s motion for attorneys' fees because Appellants were not aggrieved by the court's order. View "Nicholson v. Upland Indus. Dev. Co." on Justia Law

Robers pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. 371, based on his role in a mortgage fraud scheme; Robers signed mortgage documents seeking loans based on inflated income and assets and on his claim that he would reside in the houses and pay the mortgages. The loans went into default. The district court sentenced Robers to three years’ probation and ordered him to pay $218,952 in restitution to a lender and a mortgage insurance company. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the restitution order. The Mandatory Victims Restitution Act, 18 U.S.C. 3663A, requires restitution in the case of a crime resulting in damage to or loss or destruction of property. The court rejected Robers’s argument that the MVRA requires the court to determine the offset value based on the fair market value the collateral had on the date the lenders obtained title to the houses following foreclosure as the “date the property is returned.” Money was the property stolen and foreclosure is not a return of that property; only when the real estate is resold do the victims receive money. Victims are also entitled to expenses, other than attorney’s fees and unspecified fees, related to foreclosure and sale. View "United States v. Robers" on Justia Law

The South Carolina Supreme Court certified the following question from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina: "In the case of a partial failure of title which is covered by an owner's title insurance policy, where the title defect cannot be removed, should the actual loss suffered by the insured as a result of that partial failure of title be measured by the diminution in value of the insured property as a result of the title defect as of the date of the purchase of the insured property, or as of the date of the discovery of the title defect?" The Court answered the question: consult the contract. "[W]here the insurance contract unambiguously identifies a date for measuring the diminution in value of the insured property or otherwise unambiguously provides for the method of valuation as a result of the title defect, such date or method is controlling. Where, as here, the insurance contract does not unambiguously identify a date for measuring the diminution in value of the insured property or otherwise unambiguously provide for the method of valuation as a result of the title defect, such ambiguity requires a construction allowing for the measure of damages most favorable to the insured. . . .In sum, although [the Court acknowledged] the apparent inequity in [its] answer to the certified question, the resolution of this question [was] not a matter of equity. Rather, [the] Court [was] faced with the task of construing an insurance policy, and in the presence of an ambiguity [it was] constrained to interpret it most favorably to the insured." View "Whitlock v. Stewart Title" on Justia Law

LAC Minerals and plaintiff were bound by an agreement relating to 944 acres of property once targeted for mining development. Plaintiff filed suit, arguing that the agreement required LAC to assign to plaintiff certain portions of the property no longer needed for mining operations. LAC counterclaimed, seeking to quiet title. The court held that the district court did not err in holding that plaintiff retained an ongoing reversionary interest in the property. View "Fowler v. LAC Minerals (USA), LLC" on Justia Law