Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

At issue in this case was the definition of the width of an easement for an irrigation pipeline. Dalton Gardens Irrigation District (the District) owned pipeline and intended to replace an existing four-inch pipe with a ten-inch pipe. A portion of the pipeline crosses Diane Ruddy-Lamarca's property. The parties agreed that an easement of some kind existed in favor of the District. However, they disagreed regarding the nature and width of that easement. The district court held that the District had an express easement and an easement by prescription that were identical in location and sixteen feet wide. The District appealed, claiming that the district court erred by restricting the easement to sixteen feet in width and requiring it to make every effort to preserve trees and a drain field on Ruddy-Lamarca's property. Upon review of the district court order, and finding no error in its decision, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Ruddy-Lamarca v. Dalton Gardens" on Justia Law

Kootenai County (the County) and Panhandle Health District No. 1 (the District) filed an action against Peggy Harriman-Sayler and Terry Sayler, seeking injunctive relief to prevent the Saylers from operating a recreational vehicle (RV) park without a conditional use permit, from occupying or using a building without a certificate of occupancy, and from operating a subsurface sewage system without a permit. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the County and the District. The Saylers appealed, asking the Supreme Court to vacate the district court's judgment. Their argument on appeal was that the RV park did not require a permit because it was allowed as a nonconforming use and that the sewage system and other building were properly permitted. Finding no error in the district court's decision, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Kootenai County v. Harriman-Sayler" on Justia Law

Ida-Therm, LLC appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of Bedrock Geothermal, LLC, which held that a reservation of "all the oil, gas, and minerals, in, on, or under the surface of [deeded] lands," in a 1946 warranty deed included the geothermal resources underlying the property. The district court determined that the Deed's mineral reservation severed the mineral estate from the surface estate, and that geothermal resources were included in the scope of the mineral estate. Because the Supreme Court found that the term "mineral" was ambiguous with respect to the deed in question, and because ambiguous grants in deeds are construed against the grantor, the Court construed the grant in favor of Ida-Therm and reversed the district court. View "Ida-Therm v. Bedrock Geothermal" on Justia Law

Dr. Stephen L. Wallace appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of Belleview Properties Corporation, IPF/Belleview Limited Partnership ("IPF"), HR/Belleview, L.P., and Infinity Property Management Corporation ("the defendants"). In August 1991, Wallace leased office space in the Belleview Shopping Center to use for his dental practice. Around 1996, the defendants purchased the shopping center and renewed Wallace's lease. The lease was renewed a second time in 2003 for a term of five years. In 2005, Wallace sued the defendants,1 alleging fraud and suppression; negligence; wantonness; breach of contract; unjust enrichment; and negligent training, supervision, and retention. Wallace alleged that, during the term of the lease, he reported various maintenance problems to the defendants. He also alleged that, although the defendants assured him that the problems would be taken care of, but that they were not. Wallace asserted that, as a result of reported water leaks that were left unrepaired, the office was infested with toxic mold. Therefore, he had to close his practice to avoid exposing his employees and his patients to the toxic mold. The defendants successfully filed a motion for a summary judgment as to Wallace's claims against them. In 2010, Wallace filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court concluded that Wallace did not timely file his notice of appeal. Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. View "Wallace v. Belleview Properties Corp." on Justia Law

In case no. 1110439, the Town of Gurley ("the Town") appealed the trial court's judgment in favor of M & N Materials, Inc. ("M & N"), on M & N's inverse-condemnation claim against the Town. In case no. 1110507, M & N cross-appealed the trial court's judgment in favor of the Town and Stan Simpson on other claims. Based on the Supreme Court's review of the matter, the Court found that the applicable statute upon which M&N maintained did not support its claim of a regulatory taking. Therefore, the Court reversed the trial court's judgment in favor of M & N on its inverse-condemnation claim and rendered a judgment in favor of the Town. The Court's conclusion pretermitted the other issues raised by the Town in case no. 1110439. In case no. 1110507, the Court found no error in the trial court's judgment and affirmed its decision. View "Town of Gurley v. M & N Materials, Inc. " on Justia Law

Appellants Raoel and Janet Clark and Jerry and Betty Peterson appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Buku Properties, LLC. Buku filed suit against the Clarks and the Petersons to recover earnest money deposits after two codependent land sale contracts failed to close. At the time the parties entered into the land sale contracts, the properties were zoned "R-1," which allowed for a minimum density of one acre lots. However, after the contracts were executed, but prior to closing, the Jefferson County Planning and Zoning Commission began discussions to change the R-1 designation of the properties to R-5, which mandated a five acre minimum density. While conducting its due diligence, Buku discovered the County’s plan to change the zoning designation of the properties. Aware of the potential re-zoning, Buku sent Appellants proposed addenda to the land sale contracts seeking to extend the review period and closing date due to concerns about zoning and financing. The bank financing Buku’s purchase of the properties sent Buku a letter stating that Buku’s loan was only “conditionally approved,” and that, if the property were re-zoned R-5, the property value would be decreased. The bank stated that in order to fund the loan it “must receive verification from Jefferson County that this property will remain zoned R-1 Residential.” Buku sent Appellants’ counsel a letter demanding that all of the earnest money, except for a non-refundable amount from the Peterson contract, be returned. When none of the earnest money was returned, Buku brought suit alleging: (1) return of earnest money under contract; (2) conversion; and, (3) unjust enrichment. Additionally, Buku requested prejudgment interest on the earnest money and attorney fees. Appellants filed a counterclaim with their answer, asserting seven claims: (1) specific performance; (2) breach of contract; (3) unjust enrichment; (4) estoppel; (5) promissory estoppel/unjust enrichment; (6) Consumer Protection Act violations; and, (7) attorney fees. Upon review, the Supreme Court found no error in the district court's judgment, and affirmed its decision to grant summary judgment in favor of Buku. View "Buku Properties v. Clark" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed from the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendant. The primary issue one appeal was whether an act performed on adjacent property that caused damage to plaintiff's property could constitute "vandalism" under plaintiff's property insurance. The subsidiary question was whether "malicious damage" could be found to result from an act not directed specifically at the insured property. The court held that certification of the malice issue to the New York Court of Appeals was warranted and certified the question. View "Georgitsi Realty, LLC v. Penn-Star Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs are 250 purchasers of timeshare interests in a resort in San José del Cabo, Mexico. They bought the interests between 2004 and 2006 from a Mexican company, DTR, which no longer exists. Each contract stated that “in case of controversy … the parties hereby agree to submit themselves to the applicable laws and competent courts of the City of Mexico, Federal District, expressly waiving any other forum that may correspond to them by reason of their present or future domiciles.” Plaintiffs allege that Raintree and Starwood defrauded them by “pretend[ing] to have a Mexican subsidiary (DTR) take in money for [villas] that would never be built.” The district court dismissed for improper venue. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, noting that, even if the contracts of sale are fraudulent, it doesn’t follow that the clause is. The clause is not "unclear, in illegible print, in Sanskrit or hieroglyphics, or otherwise suggestive of fraudulent intent." There is no evidence that the defendants tried to mislead the plaintiffs concerning the meaning of the clause, or selected a foreign forum to make it difficult for the plaintiffs to enforce their rights under the contracts. Mexico was where the contracts were to be performed. View "Adams v. Raintree Vacation Exch., LLC" on Justia Law

The IRS assigned a taxpayer identification number to Crystal Cascades, LLC. The company changed its name to Crystal Cascades Civil, LLC (CCC), but did not notify the IRS and continued using the original number. A Nevada bank made loans to CCC and recorded trust deeds. CCC failed to pay employment taxes in 2003 and 2004. The IRS filed tax lien notices in 2004-2005, under the identification number and directed to “Crystal Cascades, LLC.” In 2005 RHB made loans to CCC. The Nevada bank initiated foreclosure. CCC filed under Chapter 11. RHB argued seniority over the tax liens. During foreclosure, RHB purchased the property. Under I.R.C. 7452(d), the IRS may redeem properties against which it has a valid tax lien. The parties negotiated for RHB to pay $100,000; the IRS released its right of redemption. The bankruptcy court concluded that the lien notices did not impart constructive notice to third parties and awarded RHB surplus sale proceeds. The Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirmed. RHB sought return of the $100,000, asserting that the agreement was void for lack of consideration because the right of redemption was illusory. The Court of Federal Claims held that RHB failed to prove that the IRS acted in bad faith. The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Rd. & Hwy. Bldrs., LLC v. United States" on Justia Law

Wells Fargo foreclosed on Frank’s home by advertisement. Frank is deceased and Mitan is the estate representative. The Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation purchased the home at a sheriff’s sale in February 2010, and the redemption period expired six months later. Two weeks prior to expiration, Mitan sued, claiming that the foreclosure was contrary to Michigan law. The district court dismissed. The Sixth Circuit reversed, holding that the district court did not establish an adequate record to determine whether Wells Fargo complied with the law. If the foreclosure was void, Mitan’s rights were not terminated at the end of the redemption period. When a lender wishes to foreclose by advertisement on a principal residence, it must provide the borrower with notice designating a person whom the borrower may contact to negotiate a loan modification. Mich. Comp. Laws 600.3205a(1). If the borrower requests negotiation, the lender’s designated person may request certain documents. If negotiations fail, the designated person is required to apply statutory calculations to determine whether the borrower qualifies for a loan modification. If the borrower qualifies, the lender may not foreclose by advertisement unless the designated person offers a modification agreement that the borrower fails to timely return. View "Mitan v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp." on Justia Law