Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

The case involves Little Scholars of Arkansas, AP Consolidated Theatres II L.P., CSRC Charter LISA, LLC, and KLS Leasing LLC (collectively, appellants) who appealed against Pulaski County, Arkansas, and its officials (collectively, appellees). The appellants operate charter schools and lease properties for their schools. The appellees assessed real-property taxes against the schools, which the appellants contested, arguing that the properties used for school purposes are exempt from taxes under the Arkansas Constitution. The appellants also sought a declaration that Ark. Code Ann. § 6-21-118, which they claimed the appellees relied on for the tax assessment, is void under the constitution.The case was initially brought before the Pulaski County Circuit Court. The appellees moved to dismiss the case, arguing that the county courts have exclusive jurisdiction over county tax matters. The circuit court agreed with the appellees, dismissing the case on the grounds that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the appellants' claims.The case was then brought before the Supreme Court of Arkansas. The appellants argued that the circuit court did have subject-matter jurisdiction over their illegal-exaction claims. They also argued that their request for a declaration that Ark. Code Ann. § 6-21-118 is void does not fall within the county court’s jurisdiction. The Supreme Court disagreed with the appellants, affirming the circuit court's decision. The Supreme Court held that the appellants' claim was not an illegal-exaction claim but an assessment dispute, which falls within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the county court. The Supreme Court also held that the circuit court did not have subject-matter jurisdiction over the appellants' request for declaratory judgment. View "LITTLE SCHOLARS OF ARKANSAS FOUNDATION v. PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS" on Justia Law

Fred and Sandra Monaco took legal action against the Faulkner County Assessor and the Faulkner County Tax Collector concerning the 2021 assessment of their property. Sandra Monaco had purchased a parcel of timberland in 2005 and later built a home on it. The property was assessed as agricultural without a building until 2020 when the Assessor's office discovered the improvement and reassessed the property's value. In July 2021, Sandra deeded the property to herself and her husband, Fred, and subsequently filed a form asserting a homestead right on the property and her right to an assessment freeze under amendment 79 of the Arkansas Constitution. Following the Board's upholding of the Assessor's valuation and assessment, Fred filed a petition for writ of mandamus in circuit court, which was denied.The Supreme Court of Arkansas upheld the circuit court's decision on several grounds. Firstly, Fred's attempt to represent Sandra's interests was deemed unauthorized practice of law, rendering the petition null with respect to Sandra's claims. Secondly, Fred could not claim a writ of mandamus as there were other remedies available to him such as appealing the Board's decision. The court found that a writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy only issued to enforce an established right or the performance of a duty, and it requires the petitioner to show a clear and certain right to the relief sought and the absence of any other remedy. In this case, Fred failed to meet these requirements. View "MONACO v. LEWIS" on Justia Law

In September 2021, Aaron Welch died intestate, leaving behind a widow, Kristin Welch, and two minor children from his previous marriage. Kristin Welch, appointed as the administratrix of Aaron Welch's estate, filed an application for reservation of homestead & dower with the Pope County Circuit Court, claiming a homestead interest in the mortgaged home she had lived in with her late husband. Katelyn Gipson, the natural guardian of the minor children, argued that Kristin Welch did not have such an interest based on Arkansas Code Ann. § 28-39-201. This statute requires a surviving spouse to have been continuously married to the deceased for more than a year to have a homestead interest. Kristin Welch challenged the constitutionality of this statute, but the circuit court found it constitutional and ruled that she did not have a homestead interest in the property.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed the lower court's decision. The Supreme Court noted that the Arkansas Constitution's provision on homestead rights was gender-based and had been previously declared unconstitutional for violating the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Consequently, the statutory provision, Ark. Code Ann. § 28-39-201(d), which is gender-neutral and requires the continuous marriage condition, stands as the controlling law. The court found no error in the circuit court's application of this statute and concluded that Kristin Welch, having been married to the decedent for less than a year, did not have a statutory homestead interest in the property. View "WELCH ex rel. ESTATE OF AARON WELCH v. GIPSON" on Justia Law

This case concerns a dispute arising from a real estate transaction between appellants Donnell and Marilyn Bauer and appellees Jesse Lee and Mary A. Beamon. The Bauers sold Lot 24A to the Beamons, failing to disclose certain defects and issues related to the property. After the sale, the Beamons discovered a mold issue in the residence and soil instability on an adjacent lot, Lot 18, which the Bauers had also owned. The Beamons attempted to remediate these issues, incurring significant costs. They ultimately sought to rescind the contract, alleging fraud and deceit by the Bauers.The Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed the lower court's denial of the Beamons’ rescission claim, finding that the Beamons had waived their right to rescission by taking possession of the property, engaging in mold eradication, and attempting to remediate the soil conditions on the hillside. These actions were found to be inconsistent with an intent to rescind.However, the court reversed the lower court's award of damages to the Beamons for breach of contract. The court found that the Beamons had not alleged breach of contract in their complaint, and thus could not recover damages on that basis. Furthermore, the court found that the Bauers' constitutional right to a jury trial had been violated, as the Beamons’ claim for rescission, an equitable remedy, had been tried without a jury, and the Bauers were not given a jury trial on the legal claim for damages. View "BAUER V. BEAMON" on Justia Law

In this case presenting four questions of law concerning the constitutionality of Act 1108 of 2021, which amended section 18-50-116 of the Arkansas Statutory Foreclosure Act, the Supreme Court held that Act 1108 cannot apply retroactively to a mortgagor whose claim has vested and declined to answer the remaining certified questions.At issue before the Supreme Court was whether Act 1108 was unconstitutional (1) because it applies retroactively; (2) because the term “substantially comply” in section 2(d)(2)(D) is void for vagueness; (3) because it deletes Section 2(d)(2)(C)(ii); or (4) for any other reason the Court may find. The Supreme Court held that Act 1108 cannot apply retroactively to mortgagors with pending claims and declined answer the remainder of the certified question because the answer would not be dispositive of any issue between the parties. View "Alpe v. Federal Nat'l Mortgage Ass'n" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court dismissing Appellant's illegal exaction complaint with prejudice under Ark. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to allege facts upon which relief can be granted, holding that the circuit court erred.Appellant, a taxpayer, filed a complaint against Preferred Family Healthcare, Inc. (PFH), a provider of healthcare services, alleging that a significant portion of the funds PFH received from the State between 2010 and 2017 were acquired using unlawful means. The circuit court dismissed the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) on the grounds that Appellant did not allege any wrongdoing on the State's part. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that a plaintiff is not required to allege wrongful state action in every case in order to state a claim for a "public funds" illegal exaction. View "Parsons v. Preferred Family Healthcare, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and dismissed as moot in part the order of the circuit court that disposed of Appellant's motion for the return of seized property, holding that the circuit court correctly held that Appellant's available remedy was a separate action in the civil division of the circuit court or some other remedy.The county sheriff seized thirty-one dogs belonging to Appellant. Appellant was subsequently found guilty of thirty-one misdemeanor counts of animal cruelty. After the circuit court dismissed the charges on speedy-trial grounds Appellant filed a motion to have the dogs returned to her. The circuit court did not order the return of the seized dogs or that Appellant be compensated for the property. The Supreme Court held (1) the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to provide the requested relief; and (2) Appellant's constitutional arguments were moot. View "Siegel v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court decree quieting and confirming title in 173.5 acres of Lee County property in favor of Appellees in this case, holding that the circuit court's findings were clearly erroneous.Appellants filed a partition petition in the circuit court. Appellees filed a counterclaim to quiet title, asserting that they owned the property through adverse possession. The circuit court entered a decree quieting and confirming title in favor of Appellees and declaring all other claims null and void. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the cotenants of the property were entitled to actual notice of Appellees' adverse claim to the property and that Appellees did not meet the actual notice requirement. View "Trice v. Trice" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order the circuit court certifying a class action against Defendants, holding that the circuit court did not err or abuse its discretion.Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint against Defendants, alleging, on their own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, that their water systems were contaminated with sewage due to Defendants' negligence. Plaintiffs moved for class certification. The circuit court certified the class as to their negligence and breach of contract claims. On appeal, Defendants argued that the circuit court erred in finding that class was ascertainable and that common issues predominated and erred in certifying the breach of contract claim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in certifying the class. View "C.J. Mahan Construction Co. v. Betzner" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed and remanded in part, and dismissed as moot in part the circuit court's order granting summary judgment in favor of the the City of North Little Rock, the City's mayor, certain City Council members, and other City officials and dismissing Plaintiff's action challenging the City's decision to condemn certain property, holding that some of Plaintiff's arguments on appeal were moot.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) Plaintiff's argument that the City Council proceeding did not contain any factual findings to support the condemnation and demolition of Plaintiff's property was moot; (2) there was no longer a justiciable controversy regarding Plaintiff's failure-to-exhaust argument, and therefore, the issue was moot; (3) summary judgment was properly granted to the City as to argument that the City's condemnation ordinance violated due process; (4) the circuit court did not err in granting summary judgment on the claim that the City's ordinance was unconstitutionally vague; and (5) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in declining to grant Plaintiff's renewed motion to strike the City's amended answer and affirmative defenses. View "Convent Corp. v. City of North Little Rock" on Justia Law