Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

A city filed a criminal complaint against a property owner, alleging that his property was in violation of certain provisions of the International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC), which the city had adopted by ordinance. The complaint stated that the property’s residence lacked water service, had holes in the roof, and that a break wall was collapsing into a river. It also alleged the presence of various items described as “debris,” such as barrels, lawn mowers, boats, trailers, propane tanks, and overgrown vegetation. The city claimed these conditions violated IPMC sections requiring properties to be maintained in a “clean,” “safe,” and “sanitary” condition.The property owner moved to dismiss the charges in the Huron Municipal Court, arguing that the IPMC provisions were unconstitutionally vague because the terms “clean,” “safe,” and “sanitary” were undefined. The trial court agreed, relying on a prior decision from the Seventh District Court of Appeals, State v. ACV Realty, which had found similar IPMC language void for vagueness. As a result, the trial court dismissed the relevant counts. The city appealed, and the Sixth District Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the terms in question should be given their ordinary meanings and were sufficiently clear to inform property owners of the prohibited conduct.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case to resolve a conflict between appellate districts. The court held that a defendant cannot successfully challenge a law as void for vagueness if his conduct clearly falls within the activities the law prohibits. Because the alleged conditions of the property—such as lack of water, structural decay, and accumulation of debris—clearly violated the IPMC provisions, the property owner’s vagueness challenge failed. The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the appellate court’s judgment and remanded the case to the municipal court for further proceedings. View "Huron v. Kisil" on Justia Law

Members of the Crow Tribe who own trust allotments on the Crow Reservation challenged the loss of their historic water rights following the ratification of the Crow Tribe-Montana Compact and the Crow Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act. The Settlement Act, passed by Congress in 2010, codified a negotiated agreement among the Crow Tribe, the state of Montana, and the United States, which defined tribal water rights and provided substantial federal funding for water infrastructure. In exchange, the Tribe and allottees agreed to waive all other water rights claims. The Act required the Secretary of the Interior to publish a Statement of Findings certifying that certain conditions were met, which would trigger the waiver of prior water rights.After the Secretary published the Statement of Findings in June 2016—following a deadline extension agreed to by the Tribal Chairman and the Secretary—several allottees filed suit nearly six years later. They argued that the extension was invalid because, under the Crow Constitution, only the Tribal General Council or Legislature could authorize such an agreement. They also alleged that the Secretary’s action exceeded statutory authority, breached trust obligations, and violated their Fifth Amendment rights. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo. The court held that the Secretary’s publication of the Statement of Findings constituted final agency action reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act, but found the Secretary reasonably relied on the Tribal Chairman’s authority to extend the deadline. The court further held that the Settlement Act created specific trust duties, but the plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege any breach. The court also concluded that the plaintiffs’ Fifth Amendment claims for takings, due process, and equal protection failed as a matter of law. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Hill v. DOI" on Justia Law

Several landowners in Colorado owned property subject to a railroad easement held by Great Western Railway of Colorado, LLC. The railroad line, originally used for transporting sugar beets, had fallen into disuse except for railcar storage. In 2008, Great Western sought permission from the Surface Transportation Board (STB) to abandon the line. The STB granted this request and issued a Notice of Interim Trail Use (NITU) to allow negotiations for possible interim recreational trail use. Negotiations failed, and the NITU expired. Instead of abandoning the line, Great Western repeatedly extended its abandonment authority and ultimately decided not to abandon the line, continuing to use it for storage and making some improvements.The landowners sued the United States in the United States Court of Federal Claims, alleging that the issuance of the NITU constituted a temporary taking under the Fifth Amendment. Both parties moved for summary judgment. The Claims Court granted summary judgment to the government, finding that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the NITU caused a taking. Specifically, the court determined that Great Western would not have abandoned the line at the time of the NITU, so the NITU did not delay the vesting of the landowners’ reversionary interests.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the Claims Court’s decision de novo. The Federal Circuit affirmed, holding that to establish a compensable taking in a rails-to-trails case, plaintiffs must show that the issuance of the NITU caused a delay in abandonment that would have otherwise occurred, thereby postponing the vesting of their property interests. The court found that the evidence showed Great Western would not have abandoned the line regardless of the NITU, so causation was not established. The court also rejected arguments that state law abandonment or mere issuance of a NITU alone could establish a taking. The judgment for the government was affirmed. View "SAUER WEST LLC v. US " on Justia Law

A mobilehome park owner challenged the constitutionality of Civil Code section 798.30.5, which limits annual rent increases for certain mobilehome parks located within the jurisdictions of two or more incorporated cities in California. The statute, effective from January 1, 2022, to January 1, 2030, restricts rent increases to the lower of 3 percent plus the percentage change in the cost of living, or 5 percent, and limits the number of rent increases within a 12-month period. The owner alleged that the statute is facially unconstitutional because it lacks a procedural mechanism for property owners to seek rent adjustments to ensure a fair return, arguing this omission violates due process and results in an uncompensated taking.The Superior Court of Orange County granted the owner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, finding that the absence of a process to seek exceptions to the rent ceiling violated due process and rendered the statute unconstitutional. The court rejected the owner’s takings argument but concluded that the statute’s plain language was undisputed and denied the State’s request for leave to amend its answer, determining that any amendment would be futile.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. The appellate court held that the owner failed to demonstrate that the statute is facially unconstitutional, clarifying that a fair return adjustment mechanism is not required for all rent control laws to be constitutional, but may be necessary only if the law is confiscatory in its application. The court also found that the State’s general denial in its answer placed the owner’s standing to sue at issue, precluding judgment on the pleadings. Accordingly, the appellate court reversed the judgment in favor of the owner. View "Anaheim Mobile Estates v. State" on Justia Law

A mobilehome park owner challenged the constitutionality of a California statute that limits annual rent increases for certain mobilehome parks located within the jurisdictions of two or more incorporated cities. The owner argued that the statute is facially unconstitutional because it lacks a procedural mechanism allowing property owners to seek rent increases above the statutory cap to ensure a fair return, which the owner claimed is required by the California and U.S. Constitutions. The owner asserted that the absence of such a mechanism results in a violation of due process, equal protection, and the prohibition against uncompensated takings.The Superior Court of Orange County granted the owner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, finding that the statute’s failure to provide a process for seeking exceptions to the rent cap violated due process and rendered the statute unconstitutional. The court rejected the owner’s takings argument but concluded that the legal issue was dispositive and denied the State’s request for leave to amend its answer. Judgment was entered in favor of the owner, and the State appealed.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. The appellate court held that the owner failed to establish that the statute is facially unconstitutional, as the relevant legal precedents do not require a fair return adjustment mechanism in every rent control law. The court also found that the State’s general denial in its answer placed the owner’s standing at issue, precluding judgment on the pleadings. The court reversed the judgment of the trial court, holding that the absence of a fair return adjustment mechanism does not, by itself, render the statute facially unconstitutional, and that the State’s answer raised material issues that should have prevented judgment on the pleadings. View "Anaheim Mobile Estates v. State" on Justia Law

After Hurricane Harvey caused significant flooding at the Arbor Court apartment complex in Houston in 2017, the property’s owner, DM Arbor Court, Limited (DMAC), sought permits from the City of Houston to repair the damage. The City denied these permits, invoking a provision of its flood control ordinance that had not previously been used for such denials. The City determined that a majority of the complex’s buildings had sustained “substantial damage,” requiring costly elevation before repairs could proceed. As a result, DMAC was unable to repair or redevelop the property, which led to the loss of tenants and the property sitting idle.DMAC filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, alleging that the City’s denial of repair permits constituted an unconstitutional taking under the Fifth Amendment. The district court dismissed the case as unripe, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed, finding the case ripe once the City’s Director of Public Works formally denied the permit application. On remand, after a bench trial, the district court rejected DMAC’s takings claim, concluding that the property retained some economic value and that DMAC was not deprived of all economically beneficial use. The court also found that the City’s actions were justified under the Penn Central framework, emphasizing the public interest in flood management.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the City’s denial of the repair permit deprived DMAC of all economically viable use of Arbor Court, constituting a categorical taking under Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992). The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that the City’s regulatory action amounted to a per se taking requiring just compensation. View "DM Arbor Court v. City of Houston" on Justia Law

A property owner challenged the tax assessment of its facility in Salisbury, Vermont, for the 2023-2024 tax year. After a grievance hearing attended by both the property owner and its attorney, the town listers denied the grievance and mailed the decision by certified mail to the property owner’s address of record. The property owner received the notice twelve days before the deadline to appeal but did not forward it to its attorney until after the appeal period had expired. The attorney then filed an appeal to the Board of Civil Authority (BCA), which was rejected as untimely.The property owner appealed to the Vermont Superior Court, Addison Unit, Civil Division, arguing that the town violated its procedural due process rights by failing to send notice of the listers’ decision to both the property owner and its attorney. The Superior Court allowed the property owner to amend its complaint and ultimately granted summary judgment in its favor, relying on Perry v. Department of Employment & Training, which required notice to both a claimant and their attorney in the context of unemployment benefits. The court ordered the BCA to hear the untimely appeal.The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that, in the context of property tax grievances, procedural due process does not require notice to be mailed to both the taxpayer and the taxpayer’s counsel. The Court distinguished Perry as limited to unemployment-benefit proceedings and found that the statutory scheme for property tax appeals only requires notice to the taxpayer. Because the property owner received actual notice and had sufficient time to appeal, the Court concluded that due process was satisfied. The Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court’s decision and instructed that summary judgment be entered for the Town of Salisbury. View "Salisbury AD 1, LLC v. Town of Salisbury" on Justia Law

A Michigan landlord who owns several rental properties in Oak Park challenged the city’s housing code, specifically its requirement that landlords consent to property inspections as a condition for obtaining a rental license. The city’s code mandates that landlords apply for a license and certificate of compliance, which involves an initial inspection and periodic re-inspections. The landlord refused to sign the consent form for inspections, resulting in the city withholding his license and issuing fines for renting without one. Despite these penalties, he continued to rent out his properties.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granted summary judgment in favor of the city. The district court found that the landlord lacked standing to bring a Fourth Amendment claim because there had been no warrantless, nonconsensual inspection. It also ruled that the city’s licensing and inspection regime did not violate the Fourth Amendment or impose unconstitutional conditions, and that the landlord’s Equal Protection claim was without merit.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that the landlord did have standing to challenge the licensing scheme under the unconstitutional-conditions doctrine, as the denial of a license for refusing to consent to inspections constituted a cognizable injury. However, the court concluded that the city’s requirement of consent to an initial inspection as a condition of licensing was reasonable and did not violate the Fourth Amendment, drawing on Supreme Court precedent distinguishing between reasonable conditions for public benefits and coercive mandates. The court also found that the city’s inspection requirements for one- and two-family rentals did not violate the Equal Protection Clause, as the classification was rationally related to legitimate public health and safety goals. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "Herschfus v. City of Oak Park" on Justia Law

Fletcher Properties, Inc. and other appellants own multi-tenant residential properties in Minneapolis. The City of Minneapolis enacted an ordinance prohibiting property owners from refusing to rent to individuals based on requirements of public assistance programs, including Section 8 housing vouchers. Fletcher challenged the ordinance, claiming it violated the Minnesota Constitution’s Takings Clause and was preempted by the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA).The district court initially ruled in favor of Fletcher, finding the ordinance violated due process and equal protection clauses. The court of appeals reversed this decision, and the Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed, remanding the case to address the remaining claims. On remand, the district court granted summary judgment for the City, rejecting Fletcher’s takings and preemption claims. The court of appeals affirmed this decision, leading to the current appeal.The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the ordinance does not constitute a physical or regulatory taking under the Minnesota Constitution. The court applied the Penn Central factors, concluding that the economic impact of the ordinance, interference with investment-backed expectations, and the character of the government action did not support a finding of a regulatory taking. The court also determined that the ordinance does not effect a physical taking as landlords voluntarily rent their properties and are not compelled to continue doing so.Additionally, the court held that the ordinance is not preempted by the MHRA. The court found no conflict between the ordinance and the MHRA, as the MHRA does not grant landlords an affirmative right to reject voucher holders. The court also concluded that the MHRA does not occupy the field of housing discrimination based on public assistance, allowing for local regulation.The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals, upholding the ordinance. View "Fletcher Properties, Inc. vs. City of Minneapolis" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, who owned real property in Southfield, Michigan, became delinquent on their property taxes between 2012 and 2014. Oakland County foreclosed on their properties under the General Property Tax Act (GPTA). The plaintiffs had the opportunity to redeem their properties by paying the delinquent taxes, but they failed to do so. Consequently, the properties were foreclosed, and the city of Southfield exercised its right of first refusal to purchase the properties for the minimum bid, which included the unpaid taxes and associated fees. The properties were then conveyed to the Southfield Neighborhood Revitalization Initiative (SNRI).The plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit in the Oakland Circuit Court, alleging violations of their constitutional rights, including the Takings Clauses of the Michigan and United States Constitutions. The trial court granted summary disposition in favor of the defendants, citing lack of jurisdiction, lack of standing, and res judicata. The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision. However, the Michigan Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals' decision and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of its decision in Rafaeli, LLC v Oakland Co, which held that retaining surplus proceeds from tax-foreclosure sales violated the Takings Clause of the Michigan Constitution.On remand, the trial court again granted summary disposition to the defendants, but the Court of Appeals reversed in part, holding that Rafaeli applied retroactively and that the plaintiffs had valid takings claims. The Michigan Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that a taking occurs when a governmental unit retains property without offering it for public sale and the value of the property exceeds the amount owed in taxes and fees. The Court also held that MCL 211.78m, as amended, applies prospectively, while MCL 211.78t applies retroactively but does not govern this case. The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. View "Jackson v. Southfield Neighborhood Revitalization Initiative" on Justia Law