Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

This case involved a dispute between the trustee of a Trust and Fannie Mae concerning which party’s mortgage lien on certain apartments had priority status. N.C. Gen. Stat. 45-37(b) establishes a conclusive presumption that the conditions of prior liens are satisfied after fifteen years from either the date on which the instrument requires performance or the date of maturity of the last installment of debt. The statute further authorizes a senior lienholder to extend the “life of the lien” by filing an affidavit with the register of deeds. Here, the trial court granted summary judgment for Fannie Mae, ruling that, pursuant to section 45-37(b), the Trust’s lien had expired, and the Trust’s failure to file an affidavit extending the life of its lien enabled Fannie Mae to foreclose on the property unencumbered. The Court of Appeals reversed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) section 45-37(b) allows creditors or purchasers for value from a grantor to benefit from the conclusive presumption that prior liens expire after fifteen years irrespective of when those creditors obtain their interest; and (2) in this case, section 45-37(b) acted to terminate the Trust’s lien and permitted Fannie Mae to foreclose on the property unencumbered by a senior lien. View "Falk v. Fannie Mae" on Justia Law

Redus filed a foreclosure complaint against the Zagames and the parties entered into a settlement agreement that resulted in a joint stipulation for Entry of Final Judgment of Foreclosure. At issue on appeal was what a Marshal collects when he auctions a public judicial sale pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1921(c)(1). The district court calculated the Marshal's commission based only on the amount of the judgment lien because the judgment creditor failed to establish the property's appraisal value. The court vacated the district court's judgment and remanded for proceedings because the court found that the plain meaning of "collected" in section 1921(c)(1) refers to the amount of the accepted winning bid. The court noted that this decision does not abolish the Marshal's commission. View "Redus Florida Commercial v. College Station Retail Center" on Justia Law

The respondents, Shared Towers VA, LLC and NH Note Investment, LLC, appealed, and petitioner Joseph Turner, individually and as trustee of the Routes 3 and 25 Nominee Trust, cross-appealed, Superior Court orders after a bench trial on petitioner’s petition for a preliminary injunction enjoining a foreclosure sale and for damages and reasonable attorney’s fees. The parties’ dispute stemmed from a commercial construction loan agreement and promissory note secured by a mortgage, pursuant to which petitioner was loaned $450,000 at 13% interest per annum to build a home. Respondents argued the trial court erred when it: (1) determined that they would be unjustly enriched if the court required the petitioner to pay the amounts he owed under the note from November 2009 until April 2011; (2) applied the petitioner’s $450,000 lump sum payment to principal; (3) excluded evidence of the petitioner’s experience with similar loans; (4) ruled that, because the promissory note failed to contain a "clear statement in writing" of the charges owed, as required by RSA 399-B:2 (2006), respondents could not collect a $22,500 delinquency charge on the petitioner’s lump sum payment of principal; and (5) denied the respondents’ request for attorney’s fees and costs. Petitioner argued that the trial court erroneously concluded that respondents’ actions did not violate the Consumer Protection Act (CPA). After review, the Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded: contrary to the trial court’s decision, petitioner’s obligation to make the payments was not tolled. Because the loan agreement and note remained viable, it was error for the trial court to have afforded the petitioner a remedy under an unjust enrichment theory. The trial court made its decision with regard to the payment of $450,000 in connection with its conclusion that the petitioner was entitled to a remedy under an unjust enrichment theory. Because the Supreme Court could not determine how the trial court would have ruled upon this issue had it not considered relief under that equitable theory, and because, given the nature of the parties’ arguments, resolving this issue requires fact finding that must be done by the trial court in the first instance, it vacated that part of its order and remanded for further proceedings. In light of the trial court’s errors with regard to the attorney’s fees and costs claimed by respondents, the Supreme Court vacated the order denying them, and remanded for consideration of respondents’ request for fees and costs. The Supreme Court found no error in the trial court’s rejection of petitioner’s CPA claim. View "Turner v. Shared Towers VA, LLC" on Justia Law

Gail and Scott Helm filed a personal injury action against Gallo Realty, Inc., one of its real estate agents, and 206 Massachusetts Ave, LLC (owner of the property). The Helms rented a beach house at 206 Massachusetts Avenue in Lewes for a week in 2010. As Gail descended the stairs, she fell and sustained injuries. Gail sought to recover damages based on claims of negligence and breach of contract; Scott claimed loss of consortium. The Superior Court granted defendants' motions for summary judgment, dismissing the Helms' claims. The Helms appealed, arguing: (1) the Superior Court erred in granting defendants' motion for summary judgment on the issue of primary risk assumption and comparative negligence as a matter of law; (2) the Superior Court erred in holding that an indemnification clause provision in the lease protected defendants from liability; and (3) the Superior Court erred in granting summary judgment on the contract claims. After review, the Supreme Court concluded the Superior Court applied both the doctrine of primary assumption of risk and the doctrine of comparative negligence incorrectly. The record reflected that the Superior Court never specifically based its decision on the indemnification clause. The Superior Court's initial ruling in favor of defendants was only on the negligence claims. Furthermore, the Supreme Court found that the record reflected that the Superior Court's dismissive rulings on the Helms' contract claim was "cursory and inextricably intertwined" with its erroneous rulings on the negligence claims. As such, the Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court and remanded this case for further proceedings. View "Helm v. 206 Massachusetts Avenue,LLC" on Justia Law

SmartLease USA, LLC was a limited liability company with three principals, Kent Guthrie, Tony Marshall, and Steve Furst, which described itself in a business proposal as an entity seeking "to capitalize on the demand for quality housing [in the Williston Basin] by providing a high quality, exceptionally clean and professionally managed RV/mobile park" in partnership with a landowner. The Abelmanns owned farmland in the Williston Basin. They executed a written agreement to lease approximately 110 acres of their farmland to SmartLease for the stated purpose of "use as a short/long term RV (recreational vehicle), mobile home, cabin units, and truck parking." According to the Abelmanns, SmartLease agreed to develop the leased land into a high quality, clean, and professionally managed full service RV and mobile home park for housing and accommodations for the labor force in northwestern North Dakota. They claimed SmartLease started to develop the land, but thereafter neglected its obligations under the written lease. They claimed SmartLease failed to pay them rent or the security deposits required by the lease and failed to provide proper management for the land. According to them, a property manager hired by SmartLease, Aaron Smith, failed to provide proper on-sight management for the property and eventually quit, which resulted in no on-site management for the property. The Ablemanns claimed they provided SmartLease with written notice of termination of the lease in February 2013, and claimed SmartLease refused to vacate the premises and attempted to transfer the lease to a third party. In May 2013, the Abelmanns served SmartLease with a notice of intention to evict. The Abelmanns appealed the dismissal of their eviction action against SmartLease. The Abelmanns argued the district court erred as a matter of law in construing their written lease with SmartLease and in determining any breaches of the lease by SmartLease were immaterial and of nonessential terms. The Supreme Court agreed, reversed and remanded. The Court concluded the district court erred in interpreting the purpose of the parties' lease and failed to make adequate findings to understand the basis for its decision. View "Abelmann v. SmartLease USA, L.L.C." on Justia Law

Pro se appellant Cody Schmitt appealed a district court's eviction order, arguing service of an amended notice of eviction was insufficient. Schmitt and Lisa Stahlberg resided in a mobile home located on property owned by Rodney and Pamela Schmitt. Stahlberg resided on the property since April 25, 2013, and Schmitt resided on the property prior to that. There was no written lease between the parties. On March 19, 2014, Rodney and Pamela Schmitt sent Cody Schmitt and Stahlberg an amended notice of eviction, directing Cody Schmitt vacate by April 15, 2014, and Stahlberg vacate within three days. Cody Schmitt and Stahlberg did not vacate the property by April 15, 2014. On April 17, 2014, the Pierce County Sheriff's Office served Cody Schmitt and Stahlberg with the notice of intention to evict them from the property. According to the notice of intention to evict, Cody Schmitt and Stahlberg had three days to vacate the property. After three days elapsed, Cody Schmitt and Stahlberg remained on the property. Accordingly, Rodney and Pamela Schmitt started this eviction action requesting the district court order Cody Schmitt and Stahlberg to vacate the property. A hearing was held on the eviction action. On May 2, 2014, the district court issued an Eviction Order requiring Cody Schmitt and Stahlberg vacate the property by May 13, 2014. Cody Schmitt appealed the district court's decision. Having no transcript to review of the district court's evidentiary hearing, the Supreme Court concluded the district court's finding that service of the notice of termination was proper was not clearly erroneous, and affirmed. View "Schmitt v. Schmitt" on Justia Law

Dennis and Charlene Deckert appealed the grant of summary judgment dismissing their action for a declaratory judgment and specific performance of an option to purchase certain Burleigh County real property and quieting title to the property in Margaret McCormick and Judy Hertz. Because the Supreme Court concluded there was no genuine issue of material fact that the Deckerts did not properly exercise the gratuitous option before it was revoked, the Court affirmed the judgment. View "Deckert v. McCormick" on Justia Law

This case arose from a longtime dispute between Dewoe Smallwood and his former girlfriend concerning ownership of certain real property. In 1997, Smallwood’s former girlfriend commenced a civil action against Smallwood, culminating in the sale of the property. After a final judgment was entered, Smallwood commenced this action seeking extraordinary relief pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3. Smallwood recounted numerous rulings that the superior court judges had made against him in the underlying action and asserted that he had filed complaints against certain judges who had made those adverse rulings, to no avail. A single justice of the Supreme Judicial Court denied relief. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the single justice did not err in dismissing Smallwood’s petition under chapter 211, section 3. View "In re Petition of Smallwood" on Justia Law

In 2011, in response to an increased number of foreclosures, the City of Springfield enacted two ordinances addressing properties left vacant during or after the foreclosure process. The mediation ordinance established a program requiring mandatory mediation between mortgagors and mortgagees. The foreclosure ordinance required owners of buildings that are vacant or undergoing foreclosure to register with the City. Six banks holding mortgage notes on properties in the City (Plaintiffs) filed suit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief from the enforcement of the ordinances. The federal district court allowed the City’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs appealed, and the First Circuit certified two questions to the Supreme Judicial Court. The Court answered (1) the foreclosure statute preempts the mediation ordinance in whole but does not preempt the foreclosure ordinance; (2) the foreclosure ordinance is preempted by the Massachusetts Oil and Hazardous Material Release Prevention Act and the state sanitary code; and (3) the foreclosure ordinance does not impose an unlawful tax in violation of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. View "Easthampton Savings Bank v. City of Springfield" on Justia Law

The Mortgage Electronic Registration System (MERS) is a national electronic registry that does not originate, assign, or service mortgages, but charges a fee when members record or transfer a mortgage on the registry. Initially, mortgages are recorded with the county recorder and MERS becomes the mortgagee of record. With subsequent transfers, MERS remains the mortgagee of record in county property records, but tracks the transfers for priority purposes on its registry. Transfers of mortgages are not recorded in the county where the property is located. Counties brought a class action, alleging that Lenders violated Minnesota law by allowing mortgagees to circumvent recordation in the counties. The district court dismissed, finding no duty to record a mortgage assignment under Minnesota law. The Eighth Circuit affirmed that the recording statute is not mandatory and declined to certify the question to the Minnesota Supreme Court. View "Ramsey Cnty. v. MERSCORP Holdings, Inc." on Justia Law