Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the appellate court reversing the judgment of the trial court granting Plaintiffs' request for a permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants, Madison Beach Hotel, LLC and Madison Beach Hotel of Florida, LLC, from hosting a summer concert series at a public park adjacent to the Madison Beach Hotel, holding that there was no error.On appeal, the appellate court concluded that the trial court had abused its discretion in granting Plaintiffs' request for an injunction because the concerts did not violate the Madison zoning regulations. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Plaintiffs' interpretation of the zoning regulations was untenable and that Plaintiffs were not entitled to relief on their allegations of error. View "Pfister v. Madison Beach Hotel, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the appellate court affirming the trial court's judgment of strict foreclosure, holding that the appellate court erred in holding that noncompliance with federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regulations is a special defense that Defendant must plead and prove and that the case must be remanded for a trial.Defendant executed a mortgage in a mortgage deed that were guaranteed and/or insured by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) and ultimately assigned to Plaintiff. Under the terms of the mortgage deed and note, Plaintiff was not authorized to accelerate payment of the debt or to initiate foreclosure proceedings unless permitted by HUD regulations. After Defendants defaulted on the note and mortgage the trial court entered a judgment of strict foreclosure. The appellate court affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) compliance with applicable HUD regulations is a condition precedent to enforcement of the note and foreclosure of the mortgage and must be pleaded and ultimately proved by the mortgagee; and (2) the trial court erred by failing to require Plaintiff to establish compliance with HUD regulations at trial. View "Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Lorson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the appellate court remanding this case to the trial court with direction to render judgment in favor of Defendant on Plaintiff's negligence claim that had previously been the subject of mandatory arbitration in a prior civil action, holding that the appellate court's decision was not in error.Plaintiff brought a personal injury action against Defendant in 2015. Before trial, the parties attended arbitration, and the arbitration found in favor of Defendant. The trial court entered judgment in accordance with the arbitrator's decision. Plaintiff then brought the instant action repeating the allegations of negligence in the first action. The trial court granted Defendant's motion to dismiss on the basis of res judicata. The appellate court affirmed on different grounds, concluding that action was not viable because the action had been tried on its merits by the arbitrator and had resulted in a judgment in favor of Defendant. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that appellate court did not err. View "Larmel v. Metro North Commuter Railroad Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court ordering a foreclosure by sale as to two parcels of land owned by Defendants and secured by a blanket mortgage given to Plaintiff, holding that there was no error in the trial court's order of foreclosure by sale.The mortgage agreement between the parties contained a remedies provision providing that Plaintiff could seek a foreclosure by sale as to two parcels of land in the events Defendants defaulted on the mortgage. The trial court determined that the remedies provision was not binding on the court but, in its balancing of equities, considered the remedies provision as one factor. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by ordering a foreclosure by sale. View "Toro Credit Co. v. Zeytoonjian" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court dismissing Appellants' appeal from the decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Shelton approving an application for a planned development district submitted by Shelter Ridge Associates, LLC, holding that the trial court did not err or abuse its discretion.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) contrary to Appellants' argument on appeal, the zoning authority conferred by Conn. Gen. Stat. 8-2 supports the creation of planned development districts; (2) the planned development district proposed by Shelter Ridge did not violate the uniformity requirement contained in section 8-2; and (3) the Commission’s decision did not result in an unlawful subdivision. View "Tillman v. Planning & Zoning Commission of the City of Shelton" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed in part the judgment of the appellate court reversing in part the judgment of the trial court in favor of Plaintiffs, the town of South Windsor and its zoning enforcement officer and remanding the case for a new trial on count two of the complaint, holding that the appellate court improperly remanded the case.The trial court assessed a fine and imposed injunctive relief for certain zoning violations pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. 8-12. The appellate court remanded the case for a new trial, concluding that the trial court had improperly assessed a fine on Defendant for zoning violations for a period of time that she was under lawful orders not to disturb her property because of an ongoing fire investigation. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that no dispute remained as to Defendant's liability for the zoning violations alleged in count two of Plaintiffs' complaint. View "Town of South Windsor v. Lanata" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the appellate court affirming the trial court's dismissal of the statutory theft claim Plaintiff brought against Defendant for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the ground of absolute immunity, holding that there was no error.Defendant, an attorney, represented Benchmark Municipal Tax Services, Ltd., in the foreclosure proceeding underlying this appeal. The appellate court determined that Defendant was entitled to absolute immunity from Plaintiff's claim of statutory theft by concluding that public policy considerations were served by granting Defendant this immunity and that the entirety of Defendant's alleged misconduct occurred within the scope of the foreclosure proceeding. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Plaintiff's arguments on appeal failed. View "Scholz v. Epstein" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court determining that property used for a residential mental health treatment program was tax exempt under Conn. Gen. Stat. 12-81(7), holding that the court did not err.The trial court granted the exemption on the residential mental health treatment program on the grounds that it did not provide housing subsidized by the government and that any housing provided was temporary. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant failed to establish that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction; (2) the trial court properly found that the program's housing was temporary and therefore qualified for the exemption on that basis; and (3) therefore, the trial court correctly rendered summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs. View "Rainbow Housing Corp. v. Cromwell" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed in part the judgment of the appellate court reversing in part the trial court's judgment granting injunctive relief against Defendant and enforcing several restrictions against the property at issue in this case, holding that the appellate court incorrectly concluded that Plaintiffs lacked standing to enforce the residential use restriction.The trial court granted injunctive relief against Defendant that (1) enforced one restrictive covenant limiting the use of the subject property to residential use, which was contained in a deed that had been executed by the original grantors of the parties' real properties; and (2) enforced two other use restrictions that appeared in a separate declaration that applied to the properties. The appellate court reversed in part the lower court's judgment, concluding that Plaintiffs lacked standing to enforce the restrictive covenant in the deed that limited the use of Defendant's property to residential purposes. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Plaintiffs had standing to enforce the restrictive covenant limiting the use of the properties to residential purposes only. View "Abel v. Johnson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court determining that Defendant, a municipal corporation that provided water to towns and boroughs in southeastern Connecticut, was not liable for the losses of Plaintiff, a hotel owner, when an explosion at Defendant's pumping station caused an interruption in the hotel's water service, holding that there was no error.On appeal, Plaintiff argued that the trial court erred in determining that Defendant could not be held liable for Plaintiff's losses because public policy did not support the imposition of a duty on Defendant under the circumstances of this case. The Supreme Court disagreed and affirmed, holding that the trial court properly determined that public policy did not support the imposition of a duty on Defendant under the facts and circumstances of this case. View "Raspberry Junction Holding, LLC v. Southeastern Connecticut Water Authority" on Justia Law