Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

Earl and Harold Van Sickle appealed, and Hallmark & Associates, Inc., Frank Celeste, William R. Austin, Phoenix Energy, Bobby Lankford, and Earskine Williams, and Missouri Breaks, LLC, cross-appealed an amended judgment that held Missouri Breaks liable to the Van Sickles for unpaid pre-bankruptcy confirmation royalties and awarding the Van Sickles interest and attorney's fees. Upon careful consideration of the trial court record, the Supreme Court concluded the court did not err in holding Missouri Breaks liable under state law for pre-bankruptcy confirmation royalties owed to the Van Sickles. Furthermore, the Court concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding the Van Sickles attorney's fees and did not err in awarding them simple interest under the statute. View "Van Sickle v. Hallmark & Assoc., Inc." on Justia Law

Debtors owed delinquent real estate taxes to Summit County, Ohio, which sells outstanding tax obligations to investors as tax lien certificates. An investor purchasing such a certificate obtains a lien against the property and the right to pursue the taxpayer for the unpaid taxes, O.R.C. 5721.30-43. Plymouth filed a certificate showing its purchase of the Debtors’ tax obligation for $4,083.73 with a negotiated interest rate of 0.25%, “offered, sold, and delivered on November 3, 2010.” On October 3, 2011, Plymouth filed a second certificate, with a price of $2,045.44 and a negotiated interest rate of 18.00%. On April 17, 2012, Summit County filed a tax lien foreclosure complaint against the Debtors pursuant to pursuant to Plymouth's request for foreclosure. In May, 2012, the Debtors filed a chapter 13 plan and petition, proposing to pay interest on the tax certificates at the interest rates listed on the certificates. Plymouth filed a proof of claim based on both certificates in the amount of $10,521.46, including $2,120.00 in fees and the principal balance of $7,781.19 plus 18% interest from June 1, 2012 on both certificates. The Bankruptcy Court held that under Ohio law the appropriate interest rate for Plymouth’s tax claim was 0.25%. The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirmed. View "In re: Bowers" on Justia Law

Brookfield owns a shopping center that is subject to a first mortgage of $8,900,000, held by a trust, and a second mortgage for $2,539,375 that has been transferred to ValStone, which also serves as attorney in fact for the trust. Outside of bankruptcy, state law would allow ValStone to foreclose upon default on the second mortgage; ValStone could bid on the property at auction or receive proceeds from its sale. The second mortgage is a nonrecourse loan; if the proceeds of sale were not enough to repay the first mortgage or repay the second mortgage in full, ValStone could not pursue a deficiency claim for the outstanding debt. ValStone did not initiate foreclosure. Brookfield filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition. Under its reorganization plan, Brookfield elected to retain ownership of the property, requiring the bankruptcy court to establish a judicial value by means of independent appraisals. The value is expected to be less than the amount of the first mortgage, which will leave the second mortgage unsecured by any equity. ValStone argued that 11 U.S.C. 1111(b)(1)(A) treats the claim as if it had recourse, so that its unsecured deficiency claim should be allowed. Brookfield argued that the claim should be disallowed because neither state law nor 11 U.S.C. 1111(b) give ValStone a deficiency claim against Brookfield. The bankruptcy court and the district court held that the claim was valid. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. View "B.R. Brookfield Commons No. 1 v. Valstone Asset Mgmt,, LLC" on Justia Law

Debtor filed a Chapter 13 petition in the bankruptcy court identifying his interest in his primary residence located in Maryland. On appeal, debtor and his spouse argued that the bankruptcy court erred in refusing to strip off a lien on the ground that the spouse's property interest was not part of the bankruptcy estate. The lien was against the property that debtor owned with his non-debtor spouse as tenants by the entireties. The court concluded that the statutory provisions authorizing a strip off, and applicable Maryland property law, did not permit a bankruptcy court to alter a non-debtor's interest in property held in a tenancy by the entirety. The court held that the bankruptcy court correctly determined that it lacked authority to strip off debtor's valueless lien because only debtor's interest in the estate, rather than the complete entireties estate, was before the bankruptcy court. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Alvarez v. HSBC Bank" on Justia Law

For nearly twenty years, Plaintiff, Condominium Associations, and several IDC development entities disputed the ownership and use of certain property in Rhode Island. IDC Properties constructed and Defendant, IDC Clambakes, operated the Newport Regatta Club on the contested property after Plaintiff asserted that the rights of the IDC entities to own or develop the property had lapsed. The Rhode Island Supreme Court found in favor of Plaintiff. Defendant later declared bankruptcy. This case came to the First Circuit Court of Appeals from a bankruptcy court decision and concerned the question whether Defendant trespassed on Plaintiff's property or whether, through its actions during the pendency of the litigation, Plaintiff impliedly consented to operation of the Club by Defendant while title to the property was in dispute. The First Circuit affirmed the bankruptcy court's decision that Plaintiff impliedly consented to Defendant's operation of the Club, holding that the bankruptcy court's decision was fully reasoned and supported by the evidence. Remanded for a determination whether compensation was owed for Defendant's authorized use and occupancy. View "Goat Island S. Condo., Inc. v. IDC Clambakes, Inc." on Justia Law

These consolidated appeals concerned a home previously owned by debtor. On appeal, the Trustee challenged the bankruptcy court's order holding that he recover nothing from defendants on his action to avoid a transfer which occurred when defendants perfected their liens on estate property postpetition. GMAC challenged the part of the order holding that the automatic stay was not violated and that GMAC lacked standing in the matter. The bankruptcy appellate panel (BAP) concluded that GMAC did not have standing to appeal any violation of the stay because, if GMAC was aggrieved, it was either by a wrongful foreclosure by U.S. Bank or by its own failure to protect its interests, not by the registration of the judgments or the order. Therefore, the court dismissed GMAC's appeal. In regards to the Trustee's claim, the BAP affirmed the bankruptcy court's awarding of nothing to the Trustee where the estate's interest had no value in and of itself, and the loss of a right to use some sort of "leverage" to get money to which the estate was not entitled was not the basis for a cause of action. View "Seaver v. New Buffalo Auto Sales, LLC, et al." on Justia Law

In 1999, I-4 leased Florida land to Lazy Days, with an option to purchase, prohibiting assignment without written consent. In 2008, Lazy Days notified I-4 of its intention to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and assign the lease to LDRV. The parties negotiated a settlement agreement in 2009. I-4 consented to assignment. Lazy Days agreed not to “argue against the Bankruptcy Court abstaining from consideration of Lease interpretation issues ... except to the extent necessary in connection with the assumption and assignment of the Lease.” The agreement provided that “there is no intent to, nor is the Lease modified in any respect,” but did not state whether the purchase option survived. The Bankruptcy Court confirmed a reorganization plan incorporating the agreement and closed the case in 2010. In 2011, LDRV attempted to exercise the option. The parties each filed state court lawsuits and LDRV moved to reopen in Bankruptcy Court, which held that the anti-assignment provision was unenforceable and that refusal to honor the option violated the agreement. The district court vacated. The Third Circuit reversed, holding that the Bankruptcy Court properly exercised jurisdiction; the agreement’s exception applied because the proceeding was “in connection with ... assignment of the Lease.” The court rejected arguments that the parties agreed to waive application of 11 U.S.C. 365(f)(3) and that the Bankruptcy Court committed an unconstitutional taking and denied I-4 due process. View "In Re: Lazy Days' RV Ctr., Inc." on Justia Law

ROK Builders LLC (ROK) constructed a hotel for Moultonborough and had a mechanic's lien on the property. 2010-1 SFG Venture LLC (SFG) was the assignee of the construction lender and had a mortgage on the hotel. After Moultonborough filed for bankruptcy, SFG initiated an adversary proceeding against ROK in bankruptcy court, seeking a declaration that its mortgage was senior to ROK's lien to the extent the construction lender had disbursed loan funds to ROK. ROK, in turn, asserted that its lien was senior to SFG's mortgage. The New Hampshire bankruptcy court and district court entered judgment in favor of SFG. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the bankruptcy court did not err in concluding that N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. 447:12-a established the seniority of SFG's mortgage over ROK's mechanic's lien to the extent of the amount of money the construction lender disbursed to ROK. View "ROK Builders, LLC v. 2010-1 SFG Venture, LLC" on Justia Law

The Palomars filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 7. The trustee reported that the estate contained nothing that could be sold to obtain money for unsecured creditors. A discharge of dischargeable debts was entered and the bankruptcy case was closed. The day before the trustee issued his report, the Palomars had filed an adversary action against the bank that held a second mortgage on their home. The balance on their first mortgage, but the house was valued at $165,000. The Palomars argued that the second mortgage should be dissolved under 11 U.S.C. 506(a). Deciding that the adversary action was meritless, the judge refused to reopen the bankruptcy proceeding. The district court and Seventh Circuit affirmed, noting that the only debts normally extinguished are those for which a claim was rejected. The bank made no claim; this was a no-asset bankruptcy. Failing to extinguish the lien only deprives the debtors of the chance to make money should the value of their home ever exceed the balance on the first mortgage. View "Palomar v. First Am. Bank" on Justia Law

A bankruptcy court ordered that the Laurel Avenue house be vacated and authorized U.S. Marshals to physically remove plaintiff, the debtor's son, from the home. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the dismissal of his suit, which alleged, inter alia, that his constitutional rights were violated when the house, its contents, and his person were searched and seized. The court found no error in the dismissal of plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. 1983 claim against the federal defendants where he did not allege a Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics action in the amended complaint, nor did he seek to amend to add the claim; plaintiff's section 1983 claim failed against the city and the city's officers where plaintiff failed to set forth sufficient facts to show a direct causal link between the city's policy or custom and the alleged violation of his constitutional rights; the district court did not err in dismissing his tort claims against the trustees under the doctrine established in Barton v. Barbour, which established that an equity receiver could not be sued without leave of the court that appointed him; and because the dismissal of plaintiff's federal claims was proper, the court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's decision to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Alexander v. Hedback, et al." on Justia Law