Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

New England Forestry Foundation, Inc. (NEFF) was a nonprofit corporation organized under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 180 and the record owner of a parcel of forest land in the town of Hawley. The Board of Assessors for Hawley denied NEFF’s application for a charitable tax exemption on the parcel. The Appellate Tax Board (Board) also denied the application on the grounds that NEFF did not show that it occupied the land for a charitable purpose within the meaning of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 59, 5, Third (Clause Third). The Supreme Judicial Court reversed the Board’s opinion, holding that the Board erred in concluding that NEFF did not meet its burden to show that it occupied the property within the meaning of Clause Third. View "New England Forestry Found., Inc. v. Bd. of Assessors of Hawley" on Justia Law

In 2008 the Kathreins challenged Evanston’s Affordable Housing Demolition Tax under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Tax required a property owner seeking to demolish any residential building to pay the greater of $10,000 per building, or $3,000 per unit. The measure is to “provide a source of funding for the creation, maintenance, and improvement of safe and decent affordable housing; proceeds go to the city’s Affordable Housing Fund. The Kathreins alleged that a developer, learning of the Tax, lowered his bid on their property. The sale fell through. The Kathreins also alleged the unconstitutionality of the Tax Injunction Act (TIA), 28 U.S.C. 1341, which forbids federal courts to enjoin assessment or collection “of any tax under State law,” so long as there is a remedy in state court. The district court dismissed. A Seventh Circuit panel reversed in part, holding that the Demolition Tax was a regulatory device, not a tax under the TIA, because it provided a deterrent against demolition of residential buildings and raised little revenue. Before the district court could resolve remaining claims on remand, the Seventh Circuit, en banc, rejected the approach to identifying a tax taken in the Kathrein case, holding that an “exaction[] designed to generate revenue” was a tax, contrasted to fines “designed … to punish,” and fees that “compensate for a service,” but did not directly overrule the Kathrein decision. The district court applied the new holding and again dismissed. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, stating that the decision of the en banc court did effect an intervening change in the law. View "Kathrein v. City of Evanston, IL" on Justia Law

Roy and Mitzi Conn sued their neighbor Joel Misita, who had placed a structure on his land. The Conns sought to enforce a warranty deed restriction placed by their predecessors in title that prohibited Misita from erecting any “structures” on three acres of his land. The chancery court ruled in favor of the Conns and ordered the removal of the structure. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Conns’ authority to enforce the restrictive covenant but reversed the chancery court’s determination that it was a structure. After review of the facts of this case, the Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court found the structure was indeed a structure. View "Misita v. Conn" on Justia Law

Tom and Consandra Christmas own property neighboring an alligator-infested, waste disposal site owned by Exxon. They sued Exxon, claiming the alligator infestation was a nuisance. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Exxon, based on the statute of limitations and the prior-trespass doctrine. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded based on a factual dispute as to when the Christmases had learned of the alligator infestation. The Supreme Court found Exxon was entitled to summary judgment because it cannot be held liable for the presence of wild alligators on its property. Accordingly, the Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ judgment and reinstated and affirmed the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Exxon. View "Christmas v. Exxon Mobil Corporation" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit seeking a declaratory judgment quieting title to an interest in the Bakken formation that Phillip Armstrong purchased from Berco. Armstrong also filed suit against Encore for breaching a Letter Offer and for trespassing on, and converting the oil and gas attributable to, Armstrong's interest. Berco counterclaimed. The court affirmed the dismissal of Armstrong's quiet-title claim, based on the district court's conclusion that the Purchase Agreement and Assignment, taken together, conveyed to Armstrong a wellbore-only assignment; Armstrong's trespass claim was properly dismissed because Armstrong did not assert that Encore interfered with his use of the two wellbores; Armstrong's conversion claim was properly dismissed because Armstrong has an interest in only the Thompson and Yttredahl wellbores, the equipment associated with those wellbores, and the production through those two wellbores; the breach of contract claim was properly dismissed because Armstrong had no leasehold interest to transfer and thus could not comply with the Letter Offer; and the district court correctly ruled that Armstrong's unilateral alteration of Exhibit A before recording it rendered the recorded Assignment null and void. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Armstrong, et al. v. Berco Resources, LLC, et al." on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals rejected petitioners' contention that Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife's (ODFW) approval of "channel-spanning fishways" associated with two small, privately maintained dams downstream from their property violated state law, including ODFW's own rules, pertaining to fish passage for native migratory fish. Petitioners argued that the approvals were inconsistent with administrative rules and statutes that, in their view, required that fish passage be provided whenever water is flowing past the dams, whether over the tops of the dams or through outlet pipes required by the state Water Resources Department (WRD). The Court of Appeals held that ODFW had plausibly construed its own rules as requiring passage only when water is flowing over the dams, and that the rules, as interpreted, were not inconsistent with the controlling statutes. Petitioners sought review and the Supreme Court granted their petition. The Supreme Court concluded that ODFW's interpretation of the rules was implausible. The case was remanded to the agency for further action under a correct interpretation. View "Noble v. Dept. of Fish & Wildlife" on Justia Law

The Jackson Hole Hereford Ranch was divided by a series of conveyances between entities controlled by a brother (“Brother”) and sister (“Sister”), who disagreed on the validity of language purporting to reserve or convey an easement from Sister’s property across Brother’s property. Brother filed a complaint to quiet title and for injunctive relief, asserting that the requirements for finding an express or implied easement had not been met. Sister counterclaimed, asserting that a valid easement existed. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Brother, concluding (1) the parties failed sufficiently to describe the easement, and therefore, the express easement was void; and (2) because the parties specifically contemplated an easement but failed to effectuate their intent, implying an easement would be inappropriate. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that that an express easement existed across Brother’s property. View "Leeks Canyon Ranch, LLC v. Callahan River Ranch, LLC" on Justia Law

James Navratil Development Company (JNDC) filed a valuation complaint. The Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) remanded the cause and ordered the Medina County Board of Revision to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction because JNDC did not properly identify itself as the owner of the property on the face of the complaint. JNDC appealed. While the parties were filing briefs in the appeal, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Groveport Madison Local Schs. Bd. of Educ. v. Franklin County Bd. of Revision, in which the Court held that it is not a jurisdictional requirement to correctly name the owner of the subject property in a valuation complaint. On the authority of Groveport Madison, the Supreme Court reversed the BTA’s decision, holding that the defect in the complaint was not jurisdictional, and the BTA erred in holding that it was. Remanded. View "James Navratil Dev. Co. v. Medina County Bd. of Revision" on Justia Law

Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a series of agreements pursuant to which (1) Defendant agreed to transfer the management and, at the option of Plaintiff, the ownership of two automobile repair shops to Plaintiff; and (2) Plaintiff had the option to purchase the realty on which the shops were located on the condition that Plaintiff was in compliance with the terms of the agreements. When Plaintiff sought to exercise the options, Defendant refused to convey the properties, asserting that Plaintiff had not strictly complied with the agreements’ terms. The trial court determined that Plaintiff was entitled to specific performance of the options because it had substantially complied with the terms of the agreements. The Appellate Court reversed, concluding (1) the agreements were subject to a strict compliance standard, rather than a substantial compliance standard; and (2) Plaintiff had not strictly complied with the agreements' terms. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court (1) properly applied a standard of substantial rather than strict compliance with the terms of the parties’ agreements in resolving Plaintiffs’ claim; and (2) properly determined that Plaintiff was entitled to specific performance of the options because it had substantially complied with the terms of the parties’ agreements. View "Pack 2000, Inc. v. Cushman" on Justia Law

The issue in this case involved two landowners’ facial challenge to the constitutionality of 18-59 of the Brighton Code of Ordinances (BCO), which created a rebuttable presumption that an unsafe structure could be demolished as a public nuisance if it was determined that the cost to repair the structure would exceed 100 percent of the structure’s true cash value as reflected in assessment tax rolls before the structure became unsafe. Specifically, the issue before the Supreme Court in this case was whether this unreasonable-to-repair presumption violated substantive and procedural due process protections by permitting demolition without affording the owner of the structure an option to repair as a matter of right. As a preliminary matter, the Court clarified that the landowners’ substantive due process and procedural due process claims implicated two separate constitutional rights, and that each claim must be analyzed under separate constitutional tests. The Court of Appeals erred by improperly conflating these analyses and subsequently determining that BCO 18-59 facially violated plaintiffs’ general due process rights. When each due process protection was separately examined pursuant to the proper test, the Supreme Court found that the ordinance did not violate either protection on its face. View "Leon v. City of Brighton" on Justia Law