Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

In case no. 1110439, the Town of Gurley ("the Town") appealed the trial court's judgment in favor of M & N Materials, Inc. ("M & N"), on M & N's inverse-condemnation claim against the Town. In case no. 1110507, M & N cross-appealed the trial court's judgment in favor of the Town and Stan Simpson on other claims. Based on the Supreme Court's review of the matter, the Court found that the applicable statute upon which M&N maintained did not support its claim of a regulatory taking. Therefore, the Court reversed the trial court's judgment in favor of M & N on its inverse-condemnation claim and rendered a judgment in favor of the Town. The Court's conclusion pretermitted the other issues raised by the Town in case no. 1110439. In case no. 1110507, the Court found no error in the trial court's judgment and affirmed its decision. View "Town of Gurley v. M & N Materials, Inc. " on Justia Law

The Housing Authority of the Birmingham District ("HABD") appealed the judgment entered by the Jefferson Circuit Court which awarded Logan Properties, Inc., $350,000 on its inverse condemnation claim against HABD, as well as an additional $100,000 for litigation expenses, and awarding the intervening plaintiff Alamerica Bank $10,000 for litigation expenses. Logan Properties is a real-estate and property-management company that purchases, renovates, rents, and maintains single-family and multi-family residences. In January 2002, Logan Properties purchased "Patio Court," a 30-unit apartment complex for approximately $101,000. Logan Properties began renovating the vacant units in the complex with the plan of transferring current tenants into the newly renovated units until the entire complex was eventually renovated and leased. Logan Properties financed the purchase and rehabilitation of Patio Court by obtaining a construction loan from Alamerica Bank. In February 2003, Logan Properties obtained an adjacent parcel of property including a triplex unit with the same goal of renovating and leasing the units. Sometime in 2004, Logan Properties learned that HABD had obtained a federal grant to redevelop "Tuxedo Court," a multi- block public-housing complex located across the street from Patio Court. That project entailed the demolition of the existing Tuxedo Court housing complex and the construction of new housing in its place. After the plans for the Tuxedo Court project were made public, tenants started leaving Patio Court, telling Logan Properties that HABD was going to condemn Patio Court as part of the project. As residents in Tuxedo Court left as well, the general area deteriorated, and the vacant Patio Court apartments became the subject of theft and vandalism. Though Logan Properties had completely renovated 18 of the units, it eventually stopped renovation work, and, at trial conceded that the entire property had become unlivable. The parties tried to negotiate salvaging the area, but Patio continued to deteriorate. HABD subsequently initiated condemnation proceedings, and simultaneously filed a lis pendens notice on the properties. The probate court granted HABD's application for condemnation and appointed three disinterested commissioners to determine the compensation due Logan Properties for the condemnation of its property. The probate court failed to enter an order adopting the commissioners' report within a seven-day period required by statute and Logan Properties moved for a dismissal of the condemnation action. The probate court granted that motion and dismissed the action. Logan Properties then initiated an inverse-condemnation action against HABD, alleging that HABD had taken or injured property owned by Logan Properties. Upon review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court concluded that because no evidence was presented at trial indicating that HABD was responsible for a direct physical injury upon Logan Properties' property, that judgment was reversed and the cause remanded for the trial court to enter a judgment as a matter of law in favor of HABD. View "Housing Authority of the Birmingham District v. Logan Properties, Inc." on Justia Law

Town & Country Property, L.L.C., and Town & Country Ford, ("T&C"), appealed a summary judgment in favor of Amerisure Insurance Company and Amerisure Mutual Insurance Company which held that Amerisure was not obligated to pay a $650,100 judgment entered on a jury verdict in favor of T&C and against Amerisure's insured, Jones-Williams Construction Company, because, the trial court reasoned, the faulty construction of the T&C facility upon which the judgment was based was not an "occurrence" covered under the commercial general-liability ("CGL") insurance policy Amerisure had issued Jones-Williams. In October 2011, the Supreme Court affirmed in part the judgment entered by the trial court, agreeing that faulty construction did not in and of itself constitute an occurrence for CGL-policy purposes and that, accordingly, "Amerisure was not required to indemnify Jones-Williams for the judgment entered against it insofar as the damages represented the costs of repairing or replacing the faulty work." However, the Court further recognized that if damages had been awarded T&C to compensate it for damage the faulty construction later caused to personal property or some otherwise nondefective portion of the T&C property, then "[t]hose damages would constitute 'property damage' resulting from an 'occurrence,' and they would be covered under the terms of the Amerisure policy ...." Upon a review of the record, the Supreme Court concluded that on remand, a $392,600 judgment entered by the trial court was not supported by the evidence. The order ultimately entered by the trial court failed to specifically identify any personal property or nondefective portions of the T&C facility that were damaged as a result of the faulty construction. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment entered by the trial court on remand, and remanded the case once again to the trial court so that it could enter a final judgment in favor of T&C for $600. View "Town & Country Property, L.L.C. v. Amerisure Insurance Company" on Justia Law

The Boys & Girls Clubs of South Alabama, Inc. ("the Club"), a nonprofit corporation, appealed a judgment entered in favor of the Fairhope-Point Clear Rotary Youth Programs, Inc. ("Rotary Inc."), and the Ruff Wilson Youth Organization, Inc. ("Wilson Inc."), in their action against the Club seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. In 1996, B.R. Wilson, Jr., one of the incorporators of the Club and a principal benefactor, executed a "gift deed," transferring to the Club approximately 17 acres of real estate ("the property"). In March 2000, the Club sold the property and deposited the proceeds into three separate accounts, two of which were separately earmarked for the Daphne Club and for the Fairhope Club. However, in 2009, the Club discontinued its operations in Daphne and Fairhope, citing "operating deficits" as a contributing factor. It transferred the remainder of the proceeds from the sale of the property to an account in the Community Foundation of South Alabama ("the bank"). Later that year, the facilities in Daphne and Fairhope were reopened by volunteers and former Club personnel, who began operating the youth centers under their own independent management structures. Subsequently, some of these individuals incorporated Rotary Inc. and Wilson Inc., under which they continued to operate the facilities in Fairhope and Daphne, respectively. Rotary Inc. and Wilson Inc. sued the Club, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging that the Club "ha[d] used," or, perhaps, was "anticipat[ing] using," the proceeds for its own operations, rather than for the use of the facilities then being operated by Rotary Inc. and Wilson Inc. They sought a judgment: (1) declaring that the "desire and understanding" of B.R. Wilson expressed in the letter controlled the disposition of the funds, and (2) enjoining the use of the proceeds for anything but the benefit of the youth facilities as operated by Rotary Inc. in Fairhope and by Wilson Inc. in Daphne. The court ordered the termination of the "trust" and the disbursal of the remainder of the proceeds to Rotary Inc. and Wilson Inc., respectively. The Club appealed, challenging, among other things, the standing of Rotary Inc. and Wilson Inc. to sue over distribution of the proceeds of the sale of the property. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that Rotary Inc. and Wilson Inc. failed to show that they had standing to challenge the Club's disposition of the proceeds of the sale of the property donated to the Club by B.R. Wilson, Jr. Therefore, the trial court's judgment was void for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court vacated the judgment and dismissed the case and the appeal. View "Boys & Girls Clubs of South Alabama, Inc. v. Fairhope-Point Clear Rotary Youth Programs, Inc." on Justia Law

Howard M. Schramm, Jr., appealed a March 6, 2012, judgment of the Baldwin Circuit Court approving pier construction permits issued to Schramm's neighbors, George G. Spottswood and Amy H. Spottswood, by the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources ("DCNR") and Baldwin County even though the proposed pier would violate the 10-foot setback rule in the applicable DCNR and Baldwin County rules and regulations. The Spottswoods crossappealed the order of the Baldwin Circuit Court denying their January 9, 2012, motion to alter, amend, or vacate its February 27, 2007, judgment setting the boundaries of their riparian-use area. Upon careful consideration of the trial court record, the Supreme Court found no error and affirmed. View "Schramm, Jr. v. Spottswood " on Justia Law

Carson Sweeney petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to direct the Circuit Court to vacate its order of May 26, 2011, insofar as the order granted Timmy Joe Holland's motion to strike Sweeney's demand for a trial by jury in Holland's trespass action against him. In 2010, Holland sued Sweeney, alleging that Sweeney had entered Holland's property and damaged it by, among other things, "remov[ing] trees, timber and other foliage, [and] soil"; "redirect[ing] water flow"; and "install[ing] drainage apparatuses." The complaint stated the following causes of action: "trespass - trespass to chattels," negligence, negligent supervision, and conversion. The circuit court ultimately entered an order that, among other things, granted in part and denied in part Holland's motion to strike Sweeney's answer and counter-complaint. In its order, the circuit court found that Sweeney's failure to file his answer and counter-complaint in a timely manner "was unreasonable and inherently prejudicial" to Holland and that "[g]ood cause has not been shown for said failure." Nonetheless, the circuit court denied Holland's motion insofar as it sought to strike Sweeney's answer and counter-complaint because, the circuit court said, "the interest of preserving a litigant's right of trial on the merits is paramount." However, the circuit court granted Holland's motion insofar as it sought to strike Sweeney's demand for a jury trial, concluding that Sweeney had "waived his right to demand a trial by jury." Sweeney filed a "motion for reconsideration, modification, new hearing, or in the alternative, motion to alter, amend or vacate" the order striking his jury-trial demand, which the circuit court denied. Sweeney then filed this petition for the writ of mandamus, seeking relief from the circuit court's order. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded Sweeney demonstrated a clear legal right to the relief sought in his petition for the writ of mandamus. Accordingly, the Court granted the petition and issued the writ. View "Holland v. Sweeney" on Justia Law

Highlands of Lay, LLC ("Highlands") appealed a default judgment entered in favor of Edward O. Murphree. Murphree sued Highlands and John J. Miller, who Murphree alleged was a member of Highlands and its authorized agent. Murphree alleged fraudulent concealment, fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, promissory estoppel, and breach of contract, arising out of a real-estate transaction. After he amended his complaint, Murphree was not able to obtain service upon Highlands or Miller, and the trial court granted a motion to serve them by publication. Highlands and Miller answered, and Highlands filed a counterclaim alleging negligence. Murphree then served discovery requests on Highlands. Murphree later sent additional discovery requests to Highlands and Miller; Highlands and Miller did not respond. When Highlands and Miller continued to be unresponsive to the suit, Murphree moved for a default judgment. Upon review of the case, the Supreme Court found that some of the issues presented in the then-still pending claim against Miller were the same issues presented in this appeal by Highlands. Highlands argued that the trial court erred in not setting aside the default judgment against it because it had a meritorious defense to Murphree's claims based on Miller's statements or e-mail from Miller and the timing of statements or e-mail to Murphree. "Appellate review in piecemeal fashion is not favored." The Court concluded that the trial court exceeded its discretion in certifying the judgment entered against Highlands as final pursuant to Rule 54(b). Highlands' appeal was therefore dismissed. View "Highlands of Lay, LLC v. Murphree " on Justia Law

David Bennett and Bennett & Bennett Construction, Inc. ("Bennett") appealed the trial court's denial of their motion to compel arbitration of the claims alleging fraud in the inducement and the tort of outrage brought against them by Barbara and Leotes Skinner. The Skinners entered into a construction-services contract with Bennett, pursuant to which Bennett was to renovate and remodel their residence located in Oxford. After disagreements developed between the parties, the Skinners sued Bennett, alleging claims of breach of contract; breach of warranty; fraud in the inducement; assault and battery; the tort of outrage; and negligence, wantonness and recklessness. Bennett moved to compel arbitration of all claims, arguing that, because each of the claims alleged by the Skinners arose from the construction-services contract or were related to the construction-services contract, the claims were subject to arbitration. Furthermore, Bennett argued that the tort-of-outrage claim arose out of a disagreement concerning the construction-services contract and that the Skinners should not be allowed to avoid arbitration because they cast their claim as a tort. The Skinners responded, arguing that their agreement to the arbitration clause in the contract was obtained fraudulently. The trial court denied Bennett's motion. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the Skinners' tort-of-outrage claim arose out of a disagreement concerning the construction-services contract and thus was a proper claim for arbitration. The Court reversed the trial court's ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings.

The Fort Morgan Civic Association, Inc. and Charles Browdy, a resident of the unincorporated Fort Morgan area of Baldwin County and a member of the Association (collectively "the FMCA"), sued the City of Gulf Shores and its mayor and city council seeking a court order declaring the City's annexation of a 19.3-mile segment of the land on which Fort Morgan Road is located and the adjacent land to be invalid.1 Following a nonjury trial, the trial court held that the FMCA had failed to establish that the Fort Morgan annexation was invalid; it accordingly entered a judgment in favor of the City. The FMCA appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded: "because the FMCA submitted evidence at that trial indicating that two parcels of property included in the Fort Morgan annexation were owned by private individuals and because the City failed to submit any evidence indicating that those same parcels were owned by the State, the trial court exceeded its discretion in upholding the annexation."

Riverstone Development Co., Inc. and Southern Heritage, LLC appealed a judgment dismissing an action in which they had intervened as defendants. The dispute involved a number of individuals and entities who claimed some right or title in one or more parcels of land in Jackson County. Roy Nelson filed a "complaint for specific performance" against Fieldstone Land Company, LLC, averring that Nelson had been the high bidder for "Tract 10" at a public auction and sought a judgment to order Fieldstone to "execute a deed to [Nelson] conveying the real propert[y]." Riverstone and Heritage moved to intervene in the action "to join [Fieldstone] in their defense against [Nelson's] claim." Riverstone and Heritage alleged that they were the current and former owner of the subdivision in which Tract 10 was located. The trial court granted that motion, and Riverstone and Heritage filed an answer to the complaint. Ultimately the trial court entered its judgment denying Riverstone and Heritage's further participation in the case by dismissing it entirely. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that because the trial court erred in treating the motion to dismiss as a nondiscretionary dismissal, the Court reversed that judgment and remanded the case for the trial court to "exercise the discretion as is proper for consideration of a motion to dismiss under Rule 41(a)(2)."