Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs Peter and Nicole Dernier appealed the dismissal of their action for: (1) a declaratory judgment that defendant U.S. Bank National Association could not enforce the mortgage and promissory note for the debt associated with plaintiffs' purchase of their house based on irregularities and fraud in the transfer of both instruments; (2) a declaration that U.S. Bank has violated Vermont's Consumer Fraud Act (CFA) by asserting its right to enforce the mortgage and note; and (3) attorney's fees and costs under the CFA. They also appealed the trial court's failure to enter a default judgment against defendant Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS). Plaintiffs fell behind on their mortgage, and brought suit against two parties: Mortgage Network, Inc. (MNI), which is in the chain of title for both the note and the mortgage, and MERS, which is in the chain of title for the mortgage as a "nominee" for MNI. Plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment that the mortgage was void, asserting that: (1) MERS, as a nominee, never had any beneficial interest in the mortgage; (2) MNI had assigned its interest in both instruments to others without notifying plaintiffs; and (3) no party with the right to foreclose the mortgage had recorded its interest. MNI responded that plaintiffs had named MNI as a party in error, because MNI did "not own the right to the mortgage in question." MERS did not respond. Around this time, plaintiffs received a letter in which U.S. Bank represented that it possessed the original promissory note and mortgage and that it had the right to institute foreclosure proceedings on the property. The trial court denied plaintiffs' motion to amend and dismissed plaintiffs' case for failure to state a claim. Plaintiffs appealed. After careful consideration of the trial court record, the Supreme Court concluded the trial court erred in dismissing Counts 1 and 2 of plaintiffs' amended complaint for lack of standing, to the extent that these counts alleged irregularities in the transfer of the note and mortgage unconnected to the pooling and servicing agreement. The Court affirmed as to dismissal of Counts 3 and 4 of plaintiffs' proposed amended complaint. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Dernier v. Mortgage Network, Inc." on Justia Law

Applicant Charles Ferrera and property owners Ronald and Susan Fenn appealed a Superior Court, Environmental Division order that affirmed the Town of Middlebury's denial of their application to operate a gravel pit. Applicants contended: (1) several key findings and conclusions were unsupported by the evidence; and (2) provisions of the Town's zoning regulations are unconstitutionally vague. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "In re Ferrera & Fenn Gravel Pit" on Justia Law

In 2007 Hobart, Wisconsin passed an ordinance assessing stormwater management fees on all parcels in the village, including land owned by the Oneida Nation of Wisconsin, an Indian tribe, to finance construction and operation of a stormwater management system. Title to 148 parcels in Hobart, about 1400 acres or 6.6 percent of the village’s total land, is held by the United States in trust for the Oneida tribe (25 U.S.C. 465). Tribal land is interspersed with non-tribal land in a “checkerboard” pattern. The tribe sought a declaratory judgment that the assessment could not lawfully be imposed on it. Hobart argued that if that were true, the federal government must pay the fees; it filed a third‐party complaint against the United States. The district court entered summary judgment for the tribe and dismissed the third‐party claim. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that the federal Clean Water Act did not submit the land to state taxing jurisdiction and that the government’s status as trustee rather than merely donor of tribal lands is designed to preserve tribal sovereignty, not to make the federal government pay tribal debts. View "Oneida Tribe of Indians of WI v. Village of Hobart, WI" on Justia Law

Petitioner was a lifelong resident of a housing complex operated under the Limited-Profit Housing Companies Act and the Private Housing Finance Law. After Petitioner's parents vacated the apartment, Petitioner filed a successive application to succeed to the tenancy. The housing complex rejected the application. The Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) denied Petitioner's appeal, basing its denial on the fact that Petitioner's mother had failed to file an annual income affidavit listing Petitioner as a co-occupant for one of the two years prior to her vacatur. Supreme Court annulled DHCR's denial of Petitioner's appeal and granted his succession petition. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that because the evidence of Petitioner's primary residency was overwhelming, and because the was no relationship between the mother's failure to file the income affidavit and Petitioner's income or occupancy, DHCR's determination was arbitrary and capricious. View "Murphy v. N.Y. State Div. of Hous. & Cmty. Renewal" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, the owner of an apartment building, complained when Armory Plaza, the owner of the lot next to Plaintiff's building, began excavating the lot to make way for a new building. The excavation purportedly caused cracks in the walls and foundations of Plaintiff's building. After Plaintiff's insurer (Defendant) rejected Plaintiff's claims under its policy, Plaintiff brought suit. The U.S. district court granted summary judgment for Defendant, holding that the alleged conduct of Armory and its contractors was not "vandalism" within the meaning of the policy. On appeal, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals certified two questions of law to the New York Court of Appeals, which answered by holding (1) for purposes of construing a property insurance policy covering acts of vandalism, malicious damage may be found to result from an act not directed specifically at the covered property; and (2) the state of mind required to find malicious damage is a conscious and deliberate disregard of the interests of others that the conduct in question may be called willful or wanton. View "Georgitsi Realty, LLC v. Penn-Star Ins. Co." on Justia Law

The chancery court found that certain property once owned by Gocher and Reba Morrow vested in their estates at the time of their deaths and passed by intestate succession in equal shares to their three sons, Phillip, Ronald, and Joel. Phillip appealed, arguing that he held a remainder interest and the property vested in him at his parents’ death. The Court of Appeals affirmed. After its review, the Supreme Court found that the chancery court erred by not quieting and confirming title to the property in Phillip, and reversed the Court of Appeals and the chancery court. View "Morrow v. Morrow" on Justia Law

Developer sought to build ninety-six condominiums, but as a condition of obtaining a permit to do so, City required Developer to set aside ten condominium units as below market rate housing and make a substantial payment to a city fund. Developer challenged these requirements but did so while proceeding with construction. At issue before the Supreme Court was whether Cal. Gov't Code 66020, which permits a developer to proceed with a project while also protesting the imposition of "fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions," applied in this case. The lower courts held that section 66020 did not apply, and thus, the action was untimely. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that even if the requirements at issue in this case were not "fees" under section 66020, they were "other exactions," and accordingly, Developer was permitted to challenge the requirements while the project proceeded. View "Sterling Park, LP v. City of Palo Alto" on Justia Law

Gary Hopkins and Randal Burnett formed a LLC and financed the project with a small business administration (SBA) loan. Bank 1 loaned the remainder of the total project costs. Hopkins secured the SBA portion of the loan with third mortgages on his rental properties. Bank 2 subsequently acquired Bank 1. After Burnett bought Hopkins' membership in the LLC, Bank 2 released Hopkins from his loan. However, an agreement entered into by the parties did not mention the third mortgages on the property held by SBA. Burnett subsequently defaulted on his loan obligations, and Bank foreclosed on the mortgage covering the business property. Because Hopkins' third mortgages on his rental properties were not released by SBA, Hopkins was forced to continue to make the payments on the SBA loan. Hopkins and his wife (Plaintiffs) sued Bank 2, Burnett, and the LLC, arguing that, pursuant to the agreement, Bank 2 was supposed to remove Hopkins' liability and the mortgages held on his property. The district court granted summary judgment for Bank 2. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the terms of the contract between the parties were unambiguous, extrinsic evidence was not required to discern the parties' intent, and Bank 2 had abided by the terms of the contract. View "Hopkins v. Bank of the West" on Justia Law

East Bank Condominiums II, LLC began construction of a condominium complex in 2006. By the time the county auditor assessed the value of the condominium units in 2008, twenty-one units remained unsold and unfinished. The auditor determined the aggregate true value of the twenty-one units was $8,139,300. East Bank challenged the valuation. The county board of revision established the 2008 valuation in accordance with the property owner's evidence and concluded that the total fair market value of the twenty-one units was $3,100,000. The board of tax appeals (BTA) reversed the board of revision's adjustments and reinstated the auditor's valuation of the twenty-one units. The Supreme Court reversed and adopted the valuation of $3,100,000, holding that the BTA did not properly utilize the auditor's valuation of the twenty-one units when the only evidence in the record negated the auditor's determination. View "Dublin City Schs. Bd. of Educ. v. Franklin County Bd. of Revision" on Justia Law

Dean and Nancy Ziehl contended that they owned a prescriptive easement over a portion of dock located on the Swan River that extended onto Gayle Pederson's property. The Ziehls argued that the easement allowed them to maintain and use the entire dock. The district court concluded that the Ziehls did not hold a prescriptive easement and ordered that the intruding portion of dock be removed and costs be awarded to Pederson. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err by determining that the Ziehls failed to use the dock adversely for the required statutory period in order to obtain the prescriptive easement. View "Pedersen v. Ziehl" on Justia Law