Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

In 2003 the Jacksons obtained a $282,500 home mortgage refinancing loan with a 30-year fixed interest rate of 5.875% from AWL. They used a mortgage broker, MFMS, to apply for the loan. The Jacksons allege that other defendants have been “involved with the mortgage process in various capacities.” The Jacksons went into default in March 2010. Although there was no foreclosure action, the Jacksons initiated an action to quiet title on the property in December 2011. They claimed that defendants negligently evaluated the Jacksons’ ability to repay the loan and that the loan contract was substantively and procedurally unconscionable. The district court dismissed all counts. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. View "Jackson v. Bank of Am. Corp." on Justia Law

Plaintiff (HOA) was a condominium owners' association that brought suit on its own behalf and on behalf of its members against various individuals and corporations seeking damages arising from the alleged defective development, negligent construction, and misleading marketing of a condominium complex. The complex consisted of dozens of units owned by members of the HOA. The circuit court granted Respondents' motion to join all unit owners, denied the HOA's motion for a protective order, and certified six questions to the Supreme Court. The Court answered only one of the questions, finding it unnecessary to address the remaining questions, holding (1) a unit owners' association is an adequate representative when a lawsuit is instituted by a unit owners' association on behalf of two or more unit owners pursuant to the Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act and the damages sought include unit specific damages affecting only individual units; and (2) this case should proceed in accordance with W. Va. Trial Court R. 26. View "Univ. Commons Riverside Home Owners Ass'n v. Univ. Commons Morgantown, LLC" on Justia Law

Complainants were disabled residents of a condominium. Complainants filed a complaint against the condominium's board of directors (the Condo) and their property management company, alleging that the Condo had discriminated against them by refusing to grant a reasonable accommodation for their disabilities. Specifically, Complainants alleged that the Condo refused to provide keys to the side and back doors to their building. The Office of Administrative Hearings ruled that Complainants had not proven that giving them the keys to the side and back doors was necessary and reasonable. The Appeal Board of the Commission on Human Relations (Board) disagreed and determined that the Condo (1) was required to prove that giving Complainants keys was an unreasonable financial burden, and (2) failed to establish that giving Complainants keys presented an undue burden. The circuit court reversed. The court of special appeals vacated the circuit court's decision. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the Condo was required to prove that providing keys to Complainants was unreasonable in light of the costs attendant in doing so; and (2) the Board properly performed the requisite balancing test when it concluded the Condo unreasonably denied Complainants' requests to be given the disputed keys. View " Cameron Grove Condo. Bd. of Dirs. v. Comm'n on Human Relations" on Justia Law

EB Acquisitions I (EB) entered into a written contract to purchase real property from DK Arena. The parties orally agreed to modify their contract for the sale of the property by extending the due diligence deadline. After the original due diligence period expired, EB attempted to terminate the contract of sale and sought a return of its deposit. DK Arena filed suit alleging breach of contract. EB asserted several counterclaims, including breach of contract. The trial court held in favor of EB on all claims, concluding that the oral agreement was valid and enforceable, notwithstanding the Statute of Frauds, under the doctrine of promissory estoppel. The court ruled that EB retained an unqualified right to terminate the contract and obtain the return of its deposit. The Supreme Court quashed the decision of the district court to the extent it was inconsistent with this opinion, holding that the district court applied an improper estoppel exception to the Statute of Frauds in express and direct conflict with the Court's decision in Tanenbaum v. Biscayne Osteopathic Hospital, Inc. Remanded. View "DK Arena, Inc. v. EB Acquisitions I, LLC" on Justia Law

This appeal was a companion to another case handed down on this same date, Chase Bank USA, N.A. v. Regions Bank. The appeal involved challenges only to postjudgment matters in the case. Subsequent to Chase Bank filing its notice of appeal of the circuit court's order granting summary judgment against it and posting a supersedeas bond, several parties in the case moved for attorneys' fees against Chase. The circuit court denied the motions. Additionally, one of the parties filed several additional posttrial motions, which Chase opposed. Appellants appealed, making several arguments. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that because the Court reversed the order granting summary judgment and judgment on the pleadings against Chase in Chase Bank USA, N.A. the arguments raised in the instant appeal were moot. View "Regions Bank v. Chase Bank USA, N.A." on Justia Law

Wanda Stephens purchased property in Little Rock consisting of Tract A and Tract B. In 2001, Wanda executed a quitclaim deed to the Stephens Family Limited Partnership (SFLP) and mortgaged the property to Regions Mortgage. In 2002, Wanda executed a warranty deed conveying Tract A to herself for life with a remainder to Greg Stephens and his heirs. In 2005, Wanda mortgaged Tract B of the land to Chase Bank. Regions Bank (Region) subsequently made a loan to Wanda, taking as collateral a mortgage on Tract A and Tract B. Wanda defaulted on the first mortgage, and Regions Mortgage foreclosed on both tracts. $308,828 remained from the sale. Chase and Regions asserted claims to the monies, and SFLP and the Stephens heirs intervened. All parties claimed to be first in priority. The circuit court granted partial summary judgment against Chase, finding that the interests of Regions, SFLP, and the Stephens heirs were superior to Chase's. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that because the question of whether Chase had actual notice of the Stephens heirs' claim on the property was a question of fact, summary judgment was inappropriate. View "Chase Bank USA, N.A. v. Regions Bank" on Justia Law

Appellants owned property in North Myrtle Beach bounded by water on the west and north. In early 2007, they applied to the Department of Health and Environmental Control ("DHEC") for a critical area permit to construct a replacement bulkhead. DHEC issued a Critical Area Permit to Appellants. The permit included a special condition: "Provided the proposed bulkhead is placed in the same location as the existing bulkhead." In response to a complaint, a DHEC Enforcement and Compliance Project manager inspected Appellants' property and observed the replacement bulkhead was partially constructed in a different location along the northern property line and that fill dirt had been placed in the area between the house and new bulkhead. DHEC issued Appellants various written warnings, including a Cease and Desist Directive and a Notice of Violation and Admission Letter. However, follow-up inspections revealed Appellants continued to alter the critical area and construct the replacement bulkhead in a different, unauthorized location. Accordingly, DHEC sent Appellants a Notice of Intent to Revoke the permit. Thereafter, (in 2010) DHEC issued a separate administrative enforcement order assessing against Appellants a civil penalty of $54,0002 and requiring Appellants to restore the impacted portion of the critical area to its previous condition. However, rather than requesting a contested case before the ALC, Appellants filed an action in circuit court seeking judicial review of the Enforcement Order de novo and requesting a final order "overturning [DHEC's] [Enforcement Order] and decision dated [. . .] 2010, with prejudice[.]" The circuit court granted DHEC's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court found section 48-39-180 did not confer jurisdiction on the circuit court to review administrative enforcement orders issued by DHEC. Rather, the circuit court held such orders were administrative in nature and governed by the APA. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court agreed with the appellate court and affirmed dismissal of the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. View "Berry v. SCDHEC" on Justia Law

M&T Real Estate Trust foreclosed on commercial mortgages executed by Defendant. After a public auction, the referee sold M&T the property. M&T's attorney twice declined to accept or retain physical possession of the referee's deed dated May 11, 2010. As a result, the referee took back the deed and other closing documents and ultimately executed a deed on August 9, 2010 when M&T's attorney accepted it on behalf of MAT Properties, Inc. The deed was recorded on August 17, 2010. M&T subsequently filed a motion seeking to confirm the referee's report of sale and enter a deficiency judgment. Defendants argued that M&T's request for a deficiency judgment was untimely. The county court granted M&T's motion, determining that it was timely under the relevant ninety-day period because the consummation of the sale occurred on August 9, 2010 and was recorded on August 17, 2010. The appellate division reversed, concluding that the ninety-day period commenced in May 2010 upon the delivery of the referee's deed. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that M&T's motion was timely because it was brought within ninety days after the date of the consummation of the sale by the delivery of the deed to the purchaser on August 9, 2010. View "M&T Real Estate Trust v. Doyle" on Justia Law

In 1908, the United States granted the railroad right-of-way to Pacific Railroad Company for railroad purposes. In 1976, the government conveyed 83.32 acres of land partially burdened by the right-of-way to Brandt’s parents, in fee simple, subject to the right-of-way. In 1987, WYCO acquired the railroad right-of-way and operated the rail line. In 1996, WYCO filed a Notice of Intent to Abandon Rail Service with the Surface Transportation Board. The STB approved abandonment in 2003, and, in 2004, WYCO notified the STB that it had completed abandonment. In 2006, the government sought declaratory judgment that title to the abandoned right-of-way had vested in the government under the National Trails System Improvements Act of 1988, 16 U.S.C. 1248(c). Brandt sought quiet title and argued that, to the extent the government acquired some interest in land formerly occupied by the easement, that interest would constitute a taking for which just compensation is owed. The Claims Court dismissed the takings claim for lack of jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1500. The Federal Circuit reversed, holding that Brandt did not have claims “pending” for purposes of section 1500 when he filed his takings complaint. View "Brandt v. United States" on Justia Law

Debtors filed a Chapter 13 petition and the Trustee objected to debtors proposed bankruptcy plan on the ground that it was not proposed in good faith because of the "miniscule" payments to unsecured claims while debtors were living in a $400,000 home, making payments on various luxury and unnecessary items, and failing to commit one hundred percent of their disposable income to the plan. The bankruptcy court overruled the objection and the bankruptcy appellate panel (BAP) affirmed. The court concluded that Congress's adoption of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act, 11 U.S.C. 1325(a), foreclosed a court's consideration of a debtor's Social Security income or a debtor's payments to secured creditors as part of the inquiry into good faith under section 1325(a). Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the BAP. View "In re: David Welsh, et al" on Justia Law