Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

Appellants Homesales, Inc., JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., and Jason L. Howell, appealed the district court's order certifying this case as a class action at the request of Appellee Marshall County. This case centered on the Documentary Stamp Tax Act, and its applicability to a sheriff's deed granted to Homesales in a mortgage foreclosure action prosecuted by JPMorgan. Homesales claimed that the transaction was exempt from documentary tax. The County disagreed and sued to collect the tax it claimed was due. The County also moved to certify the case as a class action in which all Oklahoma counties would join as plaintiffs. The district court granted the County's motion and certified the case pursuant to Title 12 O.S. Supp. 2013 sec. 2023 (B)(3) and the defendants appealed. Because the County was precluded by the Oklahoma Supreme Court's holding in "Murray Cnty. v. Homesales, Inc.," (330 P.3d 519) from suing to collect unpaid taxes allegedly due pursuant to the DSTA, the district court's class certification order was reversed and this case was remanded for further proceedings.View "Marshall County v. Homesales, Inc." on Justia Law

This case involved the tax-year-2009 value of a parcel of property and presented the question of whether an auction sale price can ever be regarded as evidence of a property’s value and, if so, under what circumstances. The Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) found that the auction sale in this case was a voluntary, arm’s-length transaction, and therefore, that the sale price was the best evidence of the true value of the property. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Ohio Rev. Code 5713.04, read in conjunction with former Ohio Rev. Code 5713.03, requires the taxing authorities to presume that an auction sale price is not a voluntary, arm’s-length transaction, but that presumption may be rebutted by evidence that a particular sale was in fact voluntary and did occur at arm’s length; and (2) the record supported the BTA’s finding that this particular auction sale was voluntary and occurred at arm’s length.View "Olentangy Local Sch. Bd. of Educ. v. Delaware County Bd. of Revision" on Justia Law

The district court entered a temporary injunction preventing Linda St. Peter, acting in her capacity as the trustee of the Osorio Irrevocable Trust, from selling a property held by the trust. Linda filed a motion for relief from the temporary injunction. After a hearing, the district court dissolved the temporary injunction. The property was then sold to a third party. Karlene Khor, Linda’s sister, appealed, arguing that the district court manifestly abused its discretion when it dissolved the temporary injunction. The Supreme Court did not address the merits of the issue because the property had been sold and the issue was therefore moot.View "Matter of Osorio Irrevocable Trust" on Justia Law

Desert Partners IV, L.P., and Family Tree Corporation ("Desert Partners") sued to quiet title to certain mineral interests in McKenzie County to Desert Partners. Numerous parties were included in the action. Self-represented litigants John Benson and Brian Benson answered, counterclaiming ownership of the disputed mineral interests. Desert Partners and Benson both moved for summary judgment. No other parties responded to the motions for summary judgment. Desert Partners did not request a hearing on its motion. Benson requested a hearing on the summary judgment motions and then filed a notice of hearing. Benson's notice of hearing stated oral arguments would be heard "on October 30, 2013 at 10:00 am, or as soon as counsel may be heard." On December 3, 2013, the district court ordered summary judgment in favor of Desert Partners, noting there was no dispute as to material facts and no one had appeared for the hearing on November 1, 2013. The judgment was entered December 5, 2013. Benson emailed an unsigned notice of appeal and faxed a signed notice of appeal on February 3, 2014. The next day, the clerk of district court sent Benson an email stating the clerks' offices are unable to file documents submitted by email or fax. Further, the email stated the original documents could be mailed to the office. Benson mailed the notice of appeal on February 4, 2014. According to documentation submitted by Benson, the clerk of district court received the mailed noticed of appeal on February 7, 2014, and recorded the notice of appeal as filed on February 12, 2014. Upon receiving the notice of appeal from the district court, the Chief Deputy Clerk of the Supreme Court emailed Benson informing him the timeliness of his appeal was in question, as the deadline for filing was February 6, 2014. Further, the Chief Deputy Clerk advised Benson he may seek an extension of time from the district court to file the notice of appeal under N.D.R.App.P. 4(a)(4), if he could show excusable neglect or good cause. Benson did not move for an extension to file the notice of appeal. Desert Partners petitioned the Supreme Court to dismiss the appeal as untimely and Benson responded. In response, Benson argued his appeal should be treated as timely, and that summary judgment was improperly granted because he requested a hearing on the motions for summary judgment, but did not receive one. Desert Partners did not file a brief in response. The Supreme Court denied Desert Partners' motion to dismiss. Further, the Court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment against Benson and remanded for a hearing on the motions, concluding the district court did not properly notice the hearing it held.View "Desert Partners IV, L.P. v. Benson" on Justia Law

RNT appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment on its claim for breach of insurance contract against RNT, arguing that the trial court erroneously determined that the claim failed in light of the terms of RNT's policy. The court concluded that summary judgment on RNT's claim for breach of insurance contract was properly granted on the basis of the undisputed facts; condition 10(b) of the policy, which terminates an insurer's liability when the loan is paid off or the related mortgage is released; and exclusion 3(a) of the policy, which precludes coverage for defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters created, suffered, assumed, or agreed to by RNT. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.View "RNT Holdings v. United Gen. Title Ins." on Justia Law

America's Home Place, Inc. ("AHP") appealed a Circuit Court order denying AHP's motion to compel arbitration of the claims brought by the plaintiff below, Gregory Rampey. In August 2012, Rampey and AHP entered into a contract, the terms of which provided that AHP would construct a house for Rampey in Chambers County. AHP constructed the house; however, after he took possession of the house, Rampey began to notice "settlement and sinking of the foundation," which, according to Rampey, resulted in significant structural and other damage to the house. AHP attempted to stabilize the foundation and to repair the damage to the house that had occurred as a result of the unstable foundation; those efforts were unsuccessful. Upon review of the parties' arguments on appeal, the Supreme Court concluded the trial court erred in denying AHP's motion to compel arbitration. Therefore, the Court reversed the trial court's order and remanded the case with instructions to vacate the order denying the motion to compel arbitration and to enter an order granting AHP's motion to compel arbitration.View "America's Home Place, Inc. v. Rampey" on Justia Law

At a March 1, 2011 foreclosure sale, Thomas Curtain, Sr. purchased a parcel of real property in Mountain Brook, for $295,000. The foreclosed mortgagors were Charles and Concetta Givianpour, Cameron Givianpour's parents. During their ownership of the property, the Givianpours leased the property to Amy Newell. After Curtain foreclosed on the property, he filed a complaint against Newell in the Jefferson Circuit Court in which he demanded possession of the property, as well as "damages for wrongful retention of said real property." Newell filed a petition for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Curtain filed a motion with the bankruptcy court seeking relief from the automatic stay; the bankruptcy court granted the motion and lifted the stay. The Circuit Court entered a summary judgment in favor of Curtain, awarding him possession of the property and damages. The bankruptcy court discharged Newell's debt, including any rent owed for continued possession of the property. Cameron Givianpour presented Curtain with a demand for lawful charges for the purpose of redeeming the property. Curtain presented Givianpour a statement which included the purchase price, interest, insurance, and ad valorem taxes on the property. The statement also included a charge for payment of rent on the property for tenant Newelll. Givianpour did not tender the redemption funds to Curtain. Instead, Givianpour filed a complaint against Curtain seeking to redeem the property. In his complaint, Givianpour alleged that the rent charge constituted an illegal or exaggerated charge for which no legal basis existed. Givianpour stated that because of the allegedly unlawful charge he was "unable to ascertain the true amount of the lawful charges owed" and that he "need[ed] the Court's assistance to determine the amount of lawful charges properly owed." Givianpour did not pay any of the redemption funds to the circuit court. Curtain moved to dismiss, alleging that, among other things, that the circuit court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because Givianpour had failed either to tender the amount for redemption or to pay the amount for redemption to court with the filing of his complaint. The circuit court entered an order denying Curtain's motion for a judgment on the pleadings but granting his motion to dismiss Givianpour's complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Givianpour filed a motion to alter, amend, or vacate the circuit court's judgment, emphasizing that the parties disagreed as to whether the rent charge was a "lawful charge." The Supreme Court concluded that the rent charge on Curtain's statement for redemption constituted an unlawful charge, that such an unlawful charge, over which there was a bona fide disagreement, constituted a valid excuse for failure to tender the redemption amount or to pay it into court, and that payment of the amount not in dispute is not required to invoke the jurisdiction of the circuit court to settle the disputed amount. Accordingly, the judgment of the circuit court was reversed and the case was remanded for further proceedings.View "Givianpour v. Curtain, Sr." on Justia Law

This appeal stemmed from the sale of dairy cattle that were subject to Appellant Farmers National Bank’s (FNB) perfected security interest and Respondent J&M Cattle Company’s (J&M) agister’s lien. The net sale proceeds received from the sale of the dairy cattle were insufficient to satisfy both FNB’s perfected security interest and J&M’s agister’s lien. J&M filed an action for declaratory relief to resolve FNB’s and J&M’s competing interests. Although FNB’s perfected security interest had a priority date that predates J&M’s lien, the district court determined that J&M’s lien had priority over FNB’s perfected security interest. The district court entered a final judgment in favor of J&M, and FNB appealed. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision.View "J&M Cattle Co v. Farmers National Bank" on Justia Law

In 1992, Robert Farmer and his wife, Kathy, bought Wolverine Lodge in Glennallen from Peggy Jo Watson. The purchase price of $365,000 was secured by a deed of trust on the property. Farmer defaulted on the mortgage for the first time in 1996, but he cured before the foreclosure sale occurred. In 2012 Farmer defaulted again. Farmer was almost five months late on the payments, had not paid the real estate taxes or room taxes, and had no insurance on the property. Watson paid all of these expenses herself in order to keep the property up-to-date and insured. She testified that "Farmer promised many times that he would bring the loan current and obtain insurance,” but “[h]e never did." In March 2012 Watson commenced nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings. Watson’s attorney recorded a notice of default and a notice of sale, and distributed them to Farmer by mail and personal service. Notice of the nonjudicial foreclosure sale was published in the Alaska Journal of Commerce and posted at various locations in Anchorage. The nonjudicial foreclosure sale was postponed six times. It was initially set for July 25, but Watson postponed it until August 29. On August 28 Farmer filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy, and Watson again postponed the sale, this time at Farmer’s request, until September 26. Because of the ensuing automatic bankruptcy stay, the sale was postponed until October 31, then until November 28, then again until December 19, and finally until December 27, when the sale actually took place. Watson’s attorney was the only attendee at each of the scheduled sales. Each of these postponements was announced publicly on the sale date, and the trustee signed the notice of postponement every time. Farmer was not otherwise notified of any of the postponements, and, at the time of the actual sale, he alleged that neither "[he], [his] wife, nor [his] bankruptcy attorney knew . . . that a deed of trust foreclosure sale was scheduled for December 27, 2012." Farmer argued that equity required re-notice after each postponement and that the lack of re-notice violated his due process rights. The superior court granted summary judgment to Watson. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed: equity does not require re-notice after postponement of a nonjudicial foreclosure sale and notice of a postponement by public announcement satisfies due process.View "Farmer v. Alaska USA Title Agency, Inc." on Justia Law

The Bank filed a judicial foreclosure action to collect a loan secured by two parcels of real estate which had been made to a husband and wife. After the husband died, the loan went into default. The Bank and wife agreed to a private sale of one of the parcels that was her separate property and Bank filed the foreclosure action on the remaining parcel to obtain a deficiency judgment. The trial court granted the Bank's motion for summary adjudication of its judicial foreclosure cause of action and determined that the Bank was entitled to obtain a deficiency judgment against the representatives of the husband's estate (appellants). The court concluded that, because the Bank failed to show the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure 726 for creditors seeking deficiency judgments by disposing of the property at issue outside of judicial foreclosure and without appellants' consent or waiver, the Bank has waived any right to a deficiency against them. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of the trial court.View "First CA Bank v. McDonald" on Justia Law