Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

In this appeal, the court considered whether San Rafael's mobilehome rent regulation violated the park owners' substantive due process rights, constituted a regulatory taking under Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, or ran afoul of the public use requirement of the Fifth Amendment under the standards articulated in Kelo v. City of New London. The court concluded that the district court properly rejected the City's arguments that MHC's claims were barred by the statute of limitations and precluded by res judicata, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing MHC to amend its complaint. The court also concluded that the regulation did not constitute either a Penn Central or a private taking. Because the court reached the merits of the takings issue, the court need not resolve the question of ripeness. The court further concluded that the district court did not err in granting judgment on MHC's substantive due process claims; the district court did not err in submitting the breach of settlement contract claims to the jury, denying the motion for a directed verdict on that question, denying the motion for a new trial, or awarding attorneys' fees; and in its original lawsuit, MHC waived its claim for damages in order to have a bench trial on the constitutional claims. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's holding as to the Penn Central and private takings, but affirmed the judgment in all other respects. View "MHC Limited Financing v. City of San Rafael" on Justia Law

This action arose out of Plaintiffs' alleged breach of a conservation restriction appurtenant to their Hudson, Massachusetts home. Plaintiffs and members of the Hudson Conservation Commission clashed over Plaintiffs' compliance efforts. In the meantime, a Hudson Police captain filed charges against Plaintiff for criminal harassment and threat to commit a crime based on Plaintiff's alleged misconduct to his neighbors. All charges were later dropped against Plaintiff. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 suit against the Town of Hudson, the Commission, and several state and local officials, alleging that Commission members, an administrator, and a building inspector violated the equal protection clause by selectively enforcing local laws against them and that the conduct of town officials and other defendants were so outrageous as to constitute substantive due process violations. The district court dismissed the suit. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Plaintiffs' complaint did not plead facts sufficient to support any of their federal claims. View "Freeman v. Town of Hudson" on Justia Law

Appellants in this case were rental property owners in the City of La Vista. Appellant sought a declaration that the City's ordinance establishing a rental housing licensing and inspection program was unconstitutional. Appellants claimed that the ordinance's application to rental property residences only, and not to owner-occupied residences, was an arbitrary and unreasonable classification that violated Nebraska's constitutional prohibition against special legislation. The district court entered summary judgment for the City. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the City's ordinance did not violate the prohibition against special legislation, as (1) the distinction between rental property residences and owner-occupied residences presented a real difference in circumstances; and (2) the City's regulation of rental properties was reasonably related to its legitimate goal of maintaining safe rental housing and livable neighborhoods. View "D-CO, Inc. v. City of La Vista" on Justia Law

This case involved an inverse-condemnation dispute over ten acres. At issue was who had title to the parcel: the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT), the City of Edinburg (City), or API Pipe Supply and Paisano Service Company (collectively, API). In 2003, the trial court awarded the City a "fee title" to the property subject to a drainage easement granted to TxDOT. In 2004, the trial court entered a judgment purporting to render the 2003 judgment null and void. API claimed the judgment gave API fee-simple ownership, subject to a drainage easement granted to the City, and, via subsequent conveyance, to TxDOT. In 2005, TxDOT began its drainage project. API, relying on the 2004 judgment, brought a takings claim for the value of the removed soil. The trial court held in favor of API, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed and dismissed the suit, holding (1) the 2004 judgment was void and therefore could not supersede the valid 2003 judgment; (2) API was statutorily ineligible for "innocent purchaser" status, and equitable estoppel was inapplicable against the government in this case; and (3) because API held no interest in the land, API's takings claim failed. View "Dep't of Transp. v. A.P.I. Pipe & Supply, LLC" on Justia Law

Appellant rented second-floor office space and owned one of the upper-floor residential units in the Baxter Hotel. In 2008, the Baxter Homeowners Association (BHA) restricted access to the hotel's elevator by only permitting unit owners and their tenants to access the elevator via swipe key cards. After Appellant filed a complaint with the Montana Human Rights Bureau (Bureau), the BHA board installed a time clock system that would keep the elevator unlocked during business hours and locked at night. Appellant subsequently moved his law office out of the building. Ultimately, a hearing officer with the Bureau concluded that BHA violated Mont. Code Ann. 49-2-304(1)(a) when it failed to provide a reasonable alteration to the elevator to permit disabled persons to have unfettered access to the second floor business offices in the hotel during business hours, awarded $6,000 in damages to Appellant, and denied both parties' requests for attorneys' fees. The Human Rights Commission affirmed. The district court reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant did not possess proper standing to file a complaint of discrimination on behalf of his unidentified and potential clients. View "Baxter Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. Angel" on Justia Law

Complainants were disabled residents of a condominium. Complainants filed a complaint against the condominium's board of directors (the Condo) and their property management company, alleging that the Condo had discriminated against them by refusing to grant a reasonable accommodation for their disabilities. Specifically, Complainants alleged that the Condo refused to provide keys to the side and back doors to their building. The Office of Administrative Hearings ruled that Complainants had not proven that giving them the keys to the side and back doors was necessary and reasonable. The Appeal Board of the Commission on Human Relations (Board) disagreed and determined that the Condo (1) was required to prove that giving Complainants keys was an unreasonable financial burden, and (2) failed to establish that giving Complainants keys presented an undue burden. The circuit court reversed. The court of special appeals vacated the circuit court's decision. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the Condo was required to prove that providing keys to Complainants was unreasonable in light of the costs attendant in doing so; and (2) the Board properly performed the requisite balancing test when it concluded the Condo unreasonably denied Complainants' requests to be given the disputed keys. View " Cameron Grove Condo. Bd. of Dirs. v. Comm'n on Human Relations" on Justia Law

Landowner purchased property for the purpose of developing the land, obtained permits, and filled a portion of the property to the 100-year flood level. The municipality subsequently constructed a facility partly on the property that would detain storm water on the property in a significant flood, thus causing the property again to be below the 100-year flood level and undevelopable without additional fill. Landowner sought damages under statutory and inverse condemnation theories. The trial court ruled in favor of Landowner and awarded damages of $694,600. The court of appeals reversed as to the inverse condemnation claim, holding the claim was premature because the property had not yet flooded. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the claim was not premature because Landowner's claim was for the present inability to develop the property as previously approved unless the property was filled. Remanded. View "Kopplow Dev., Inc. v. City of San Antonio" on Justia Law

Defendant purchased a vacation home in Ptarmigan Village in Montana. Defendant lived primarily in Arizona. Ptarmigan Owner's Association (Ptarmigan), which managed the units that comprised the Ptarmigan homeowner's association, filed a lien on Defendant's house when Defendant stopped paying fees and dues to Ptarmigan. After Ptarmigan filed a complaint to foreclose on its lien, it mailed the summons and complaint to an Arizona Postal Plus mailbox that Defendant had on file with Ptarmigan. The Arizona constable failed to locate Defendant through the mailbox and informed Ptarmigan that Defendant had not been served. Ptarmigan published the complain and summons, and after Defendant failed to appear in response to the summons, the district court granted default judgment in favor of Ptarmigan. Defendant filed a motion to set aside the default judgment, claiming that Ptarmigan never properly served him. The district court failed to set aside the default judgment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circumstances here authorized service by publication; and (2) Ptarmigan did not act in bad faith or deliberately conceal the lawsuit from Defendant. View "Ptarmigan Owner's Ass'n v. Alton" on Justia Law

Greencore Pipeline Company filed an action seeking to condemn easements across property owned by Barlow Ranch for a pipeline to transport carbon dioxide. The parties reached an agreement on the terms of possession and scope of the easements but disputed the amount that would justly compensate Barlow for the partial taking of its property. During trial, Barlow presented evidence of prices paid for other comparable pipeline easements to show the air market value of Greencore's easement. The district court awarded compensation based upon the average of the amounts Greencore had paid other landowners for easements for its carbon dioxide pipeline. Both parties appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part, holding that the district court (1) properly ruled that it could consider evidence of comparable easements in determining just compensation; (2) erred in concluding Barlow's proffered easements were not the result of arms' length transactions or sufficiently comparable, while the other Greencore easements were; (3) erred by concluding annual payments were not allowed under Wyoming law; and (4) correctly ruled that the issue of whether Greencore may abandon the pipeline in place was not properly before the Court. View "Barlow Ranch, LP v. Greencore Pipeline Co., LLC" on Justia Law

In 2006, the Central Utah Water Conservancy District (District) filed an action to condemn six waterfront lots owned by Petitioner. When negotiations reached an impasse on the value of the lots, the District instituted the underlying condemnation proceeding. The jury returned a verdict for Petitioner in the amount of $56,000. Petitioner filed a motion for a new trial, which the district court denied. Petitioner filed an appeal less than thirty days after the entry of the district court's ruling and order. The court of appeals dismissed Petitioner's appeal without prejudice based upon lack of jurisdiction, holding that under Utah R. Civ. P. 7(f)(2) and the Supreme Court's decision in Giusti v. Sterling Wentworth Corp., Petitioner's appeal was not ripe because it was not taken from a final, appealable order. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that under Rule 7(f)(2), Petitioner's appeal was premature and that the court of appeals therefore correctly dismissed it without prejudice. View "Central Utah Water Conservancy Dist. v. King" on Justia Law