Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

A public port authority sought to acquire approximately twenty-nine acres of private, unimproved land owned by an individual in Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana. The expropriation was initiated as part of a larger project to develop a liquified natural gas (LNG) and container port complex. The authority intended to lease the acquired property to a private LNG company, Venture Global, for its exclusive development and use, including construction of LNG facilities and docks. The port authority asserted that the expropriation would serve public interests such as economic growth, job creation, energy security, and environmental stewardship, and advanced its mission of expanding port operations.After the port authority deposited the alleged just compensation in court, the landowner filed a motion to dismiss the expropriation, arguing that the taking lacked a public purpose under Louisiana law because its sole intent was to lease the land for private use. The Twenty-Fifth Judicial District Court for the Parish of Plaquemines held a contradictory hearing and granted the motion, finding the expropriation unconstitutional since the property would be used exclusively by Venture Global and not by the public port. The Louisiana Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, reviewed the decision and affirmed, concluding the port authority did not meet the public purpose requirement set by the Louisiana Constitution.The Supreme Court of Louisiana granted certiorari to address whether a public port authority may lawfully expropriate property for leasing to a private entity. The court held that such a taking, when the property is to be used predominantly by a private company, does not constitute a public purpose as defined in the Louisiana Constitution. The court affirmed the lower courts’ rulings, finding the expropriation prohibited and the motion to dismiss properly granted. View "PLAQUEMINES PORT HARBOR & TERMINAL DISTRICT VS. NGUYEN" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs purchased undeveloped property in Westerly, Rhode Island, in 1999. In 2007, they applied to the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (DEM) for permission to install an onsite wastewater treatment system (OWTS), a prerequisite for building a residence on their land. DEM denied their application because the groundwater table on the property was only five inches below the surface, while regulations required a minimum of twelve inches. The plaintiffs did not pursue an administrative appeal at that time.In 2020, more than a decade after the denial, the plaintiffs filed suit in Washington County Superior Court, seeking declaratory relief and compensation for an alleged regulatory taking under state and federal law. They also asserted that the regulation violated their rights to equal protection and due process. The state moved to dismiss the action, contending it was time-barred, the plaintiffs failed to exhaust administrative remedies, and they lacked standing. The Superior Court agreed, holding that the claims were barred by the statute of limitations, that administrative remedies had not been exhausted, and that the plaintiffs lacked standing. The court dismissed the case with prejudice.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Rhode Island reviewed whether the lower court’s dismissal was proper. The Court held that the three-year statute of limitations applied to all claims, and the continuing violation doctrine did not toll the limitations period because DEM’s denial of the permit was a discrete act, not a continuing violation. The Court further found the plaintiffs lacked standing for prospective relief because they did not allege an actual or imminent injury, as any future application might not necessarily be denied. The Supreme Court of Rhode Island affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court. View "Majeika v. State of Rhode Island" on Justia Law

A company sought to erect a digital billboard in a small Ohio municipality but was prevented from doing so by the local billboard ordinance, which included restrictions on size, location, and type of billboards permitted. The ordinance specifically banned “variable message” (digital) signs and implemented a “cap and replace” rule, allowing new billboards only if older ones were removed. The ordinance also contained several exemptions, including one for “public service” signs, which were allowed to display information like time or weather if not used for advertising.Previously, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio granted summary judgment to the municipality, upholding the ordinance against the company’s First Amendment challenges. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit determined that the exemption for public service signs was an unconstitutional, content-based restriction under the First Amendment, but remanded the case for the district court to determine whether the invalid exemption was severable from the rest of the ordinance.On remand, the district court found that the unconstitutional provision could be severed and that the remainder of the ordinance survived intermediate scrutiny, granting judgment again in favor of the municipality. The company appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The appellate court held that the public-service exemption was severable under Ohio law, applying the three-part test from Geiger v. Geiger. The court further held that the remaining provisions of the ordinance were content-neutral and survived intermediate scrutiny because they were narrowly tailored to significant governmental interests such as traffic safety and aesthetics. The court also held that the company was not entitled to damages or attorney fees, as it was not a prevailing party under 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b). View "Norton Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. Village of St. Bernard" on Justia Law

A group of residents and an association challenged actions taken by the Harris Ranch Community Infrastructure District No. 1 (CID) in Boise, Idaho. The dispute arose after the CID’s board adopted resolutions in 2021 authorizing payments to a developer for infrastructure projects—such as roadways, sidewalks, and stormwater facilities—and issued a general obligation bond to finance those payments. The residents objected to the projects, arguing they primarily benefited the developer, imposed higher property taxes on homeowners, and allegedly violated the Idaho Community Infrastructure District Act (CID Act) as well as state and federal constitutional provisions. Previously, the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District reviewed the matter after the residents filed a petition challenging the board’s decisions. The district court ruled in favor of the CID and the developer, concluding most of the residents’ claims were either time-barred under the CID Act’s statute of limitations or had been waived because they were not preserved before the CID board. The court also found that the remaining claims failed on their merits, holding that the challenged projects qualified as “community infrastructure,” the stormwater facilities satisfied ownership requirements, and the CID was not the alter ego of the City of Boise. On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho affirmed the district court’s decision. The Supreme Court clarified that, given the lack of formal administrative proceedings under the CID Act, the preservation doctrine did not apply to bar the residents’ arguments. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court held that any challenge to the CID’s original formation and the 2010 bond election was time-barred. The court further held that the roadways and stormwater facilities qualified as community infrastructure, the CID’s actions did not violate constitutional requirements regarding taxation or lending of credit, and the CID was not the alter ego of the city. The Supreme Court awarded costs on appeal to the CID and the developer but denied attorney fees to all parties. View "Doyle v. The Harris Ranch Community Infrastructure District No. 1" on Justia Law

A real estate developer purchased a vacant parcel of land in Worthington, Ohio, previously owned by a youth home. The property was primarily zoned for public or institutional uses such as parks, hospitals, and churches. The developer sought to build a mixed-use project and applied for rezoning and development plan approval. After public meetings where concerns about greenspace, traffic, and density were raised, the municipal planning commission tabled the initial application. The developer later reduced the number of proposed residential units, but the commission still declined to recommend approval, and the city council denied the rezoning application. Subsequently, the city amended its comprehensive plan to emphasize greenspace. The developer, having purchased the property after waiving a rezoning contingency, filed suit, alleging constitutional violations due to the city’s refusal to rezone and amend the comprehensive plan.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio dismissed most of the developer’s claims at the motion-to-dismiss stage, including due process counts, and granted summary judgment to the city on the remaining regulatory takings and declaratory judgment claims. The developer appealed, challenging the dismissal and grant of summary judgment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the grant of summary judgment and dismissal de novo. The court held that the city’s actions did not constitute a regulatory taking under the Penn Central factors, as the developer lacked a reasonable investment-backed expectation of rezoning approval and the city’s actions had legitimate public purposes. The court also found that the zoning ordinance was not unconstitutional beyond fair debate and that the developer failed to allege a cognizable property interest or arbitrary government action for its due process claims. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment in all respects. View "Lifestyle Communities, Ltd. v. City of Worthington" on Justia Law

A non-governmental organization challenged a county planning department’s decision to approve a land division in the Bitterroot Valley. The organization alleged that the planning department authorized a property owner to divide an 80-acre tract into eight parcels using a family transfer exemption, but failed to provide public notice before approving the application. The organization discovered the land division after it had occurred and argued that the lack of public notice violated the county’s subdivision regulations, the Montana Subdivision and Platting Act, the Montana Public Participation Act, and constitutional rights to know and participate.The case was first heard in the Montana Twenty-First Judicial District Court, which granted the county’s motion to dismiss all claims. The district court concluded that the applicable county regulations did not require the planning department to provide published notice before reviewing or approving subdivision exemption applications. The court held that the organization had not stated a plausible claim because the regulations required only that the department accept public comments, not that it give notice.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case and reversed the district court’s dismissal of the claims related to declaratory relief. The Supreme Court held that the county subdivision regulations, while silent on the specific mechanics of notice, require the planning department to provide public notice of pending exemption applications in order to give meaningful effect to the public’s right to comment, as mandated by the regulations. The court emphasized that public comment is meaningless without notice, and remanded the case for further proceedings, directing the district court to require the planning department to provide notice and an adequate opportunity for public comment before reevaluating the exemption application. View "Sapphire v. Ravalli County" on Justia Law

Twenty-three landowners brought suit against Gold Bess Shooting Club, LLC and Caulder Construction, LLC, alleging nuisance due to noise, environmental, and safety concerns from a shooting range established on Caulder’s property in Woodstock, New Hampshire. Gold Bess registered as an LLC and leased land from Caulder, constructing the range and opening it to the public in October 2020. Prior to its opening, the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services notified the defendants of alleged violations of state wetlands and terrain alteration statutes. The plaintiffs amended their complaint to add noise-related nuisance claims after Woodstock enacted a noise ordinance in April 2021.The Grafton County Superior Court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the plaintiffs’ noise-related nuisance claims, finding the shooting range immune under RSA 159-B:1 and RSA 159-B:2, which provide protection from civil liability related to noise for shooting ranges compliant with noise ordinances in effect when the range was established, constructed, or began operations. The court denied plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment and rejected their argument that alleged environmental law violations precluded immunity under RSA chapter 159-B. The court also granted summary judgment for the defendants on constitutional equal protection claims, and subsequently allowed the plaintiffs to voluntarily discontinue their remaining claims.The Supreme Court of New Hampshire reviewed the statutory interpretation of RSA 159-B:1 and RSA 159-B:2 de novo. It held that these statutes require compliance only with noise ordinances, not with other laws such as wetlands or terrain alteration statutes. The court further determined that the shooting range “began operations” prior to the enactment of Woodstock’s noise ordinance, thereby qualifying for immunity from noise-related legal claims under the statutes. The Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants. View "Martell v. Gold Bess Shooting Club, LLC" on Justia Law

Diamond Sands Apartments, LLC owns and operates a 360-unit apartment complex in Las Vegas, Nevada, where units are leased for long-term stays under agreements prohibiting unauthorized subletting. Clark County received numerous complaints regarding short-term rentals in certain units, which included disturbances such as loud parties. The County investigated and verified that some units were being rented for short-term stays through Airbnb. After notifying Diamond Sands of the violations and conducting follow-up inspections, the County issued two administrative citations assessing $2,000 fines for each violation, as permitted under its ordinance, which prohibits unauthorized short-term rentals and allows for fines between $1,000 and $10,000 per violation.Diamond Sands filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, raising facial and as-applied challenges to the County’s ordinance under the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause. The company sought declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing that the ordinance unconstitutionally penalized property owners for short-term rental activity conducted by tenants. The district court denied Diamond Sands’ motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that the fines were not grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the violations and that Diamond Sands had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the denial of the preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion and underlying legal issues de novo. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion, finding that Diamond Sands bore some culpability due to its knowledge and failure to prevent ongoing violations. The fines imposed were at the low end of the authorized range, and the ordinance aimed to deter harm to residents. The court also determined that Diamond Sands had not shown the ordinance was unconstitutional in every application. Therefore, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of the preliminary injunction. View "DIAMOND SANDS APARTMENTS, LLC V. CLARK COUNTY NEVADA" on Justia Law

Petitioners are owners and residents of units in SoHo and NoHo buildings designated under New York City’s Joint Living-Work Quarters for Artists (JLWQA) program, which, since 1971, has limited legal occupancy to certified artists or those who obtained amnesty through later amendments. In 2021, the City rezoned the area, allowing JLWQA units to be voluntarily converted to unrestricted residential use upon payment of a one-time fee calculated by square footage. The fee supports an arts fund. Petitioners challenged this fee, claiming it was an unconstitutional condition and a taking under the Fifth Amendment.The case was first heard in New York Supreme Court, which dismissed the petition, finding that the fee was a monetary obligation not subject to the Takings Clause. The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed, holding that the fee was a permit condition subject to heightened scrutiny under the Nollan and Dolan unconstitutional conditions doctrine. The court found that the City failed to show the fee had an essential nexus to a legitimate governmental interest or was roughly proportional to any harm caused by conversion, declared the fee unconstitutional, and enjoined its enforcement.The New York Court of Appeals reviewed the case and reversed the Appellate Division’s order. The Court of Appeals held that petitioners did not have a compensable property interest within the meaning of the Takings Clause regarding the opportunity to convert their JLWQA units. The fee did not constitute a taking because it did not diminish or extinguish existing property rights, nor was it imposed in lieu of a direct appropriation of property. The Court further clarified that a standalone monetary fee for conversion does not implicate the Takings Clause and that heightened scrutiny under Nollan/Dolan only applies to direct exactions or in-lieu-of-property conditions. Judgment was granted for the City. View "Matter of Coalition for Fairness in Soho & Noho, Inc. v City of New York" on Justia Law

Several trusts and entities purchased properties in Nevada that were subject to deeds of trust held by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. After unsuccessful attempts in state court to extinguish the deeds of trust and quiet title, each property remained encumbered. Between 2022 and 2024, foreclosure proceedings were initiated on these properties, with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac acting through their conservator, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA). In response, the plaintiffs brought suit against the FHFA and its Director, seeking to prevent foreclosure and challenging the constitutionality of the FHFA’s funding mechanism under the Appropriations Clause and the nondelegation doctrine.The United States District Court for the District of Nevada reviewed the case. The district court denied the plaintiffs’ motions for preliminary relief, then dismissed their amended complaint with prejudice, finding that the FHFA’s funding structure was constitutional. The court determined that the Recovery Act, which created the FHFA and provides for its funding via regulatory assessments rather than Congressional appropriations, met constitutional standards by specifying both a source and purpose for the funds. The court also found that the Recovery Act’s limitation to “reasonable costs” provided an intelligible principle, satisfying the nondelegation doctrine. Leave to amend was denied as futile.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The appellate court held that the plaintiffs had Article III standing, but rejected their arguments on the merits. It concluded that the FHFA’s funding mechanism, as established by the Recovery Act, does not violate the Appropriations Clause because it identifies a source and purpose for expenditures, consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America, Limited. It further held the mechanism does not violate the nondelegation doctrine, as the statute provides an intelligible principle. The judgment of dismissal was affirmed. View "DAISEY TRUST v. FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY" on Justia Law