Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

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

Brian and Susan Fernaays own a house on lot 31 in Brewers Creek Subdivision, Isle of Wight County, Virginia. A 20-foot drainage easement, shared with lot 32, contains an underground stormwater drainage pipe that has deteriorated over time, causing significant erosion. The Fernaayses estimate the repair cost at $150,000 and sued Isle of Wight County, claiming the County owns the easement and is responsible for maintaining the pipe. They argued that the County's failure to maintain the pipe resulted in an unconstitutional taking of their property under both the Virginia and U.S. Constitutions.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia reviewed the subdivision plat and the Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions. The court found that the easement was not dedicated to the County, meaning the County had no duty to maintain the drainage pipe. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the County.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court concluded that the Brewers Creek Partnership did not unequivocally dedicate the drainage easement to the County. The court noted that the plat and the Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions did not manifest an intent to dedicate the easement or the pipe to the County. The language in the documents suggested that the easements were for the benefit of the lot owners and that the County was only permitted to use them, not obligated to maintain them. Therefore, the County was not responsible for the damage, and the Fernaayses, as property owners, would have to bear the maintenance costs. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Fernaays v. Isle of Wight County" on Justia Law

Owners of timeshare estates in a resort sued the County of Riverside, challenging the legality of an annual fee charged for separate property tax assessments. The owners argued that the fee exceeded the reasonable cost of providing the assessment, constituting a tax that required voter approval, which had not been obtained. The trial court rejected the owners' argument and ruled in favor of the County.The Superior Court of Riverside County entered judgment for the County, finding that the fee did not exceed the reasonable cost of providing the separate assessment. The court considered various costs, including those related to a new computer system and assessment appeals, even though these costs were not included in the original budget used to set the fee.The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, State of California, reversed the trial court's decision. The appellate court held that the County did not meet its burden to prove that the $23 fee was not a tax requiring voter approval under Article XIII C of the California Constitution. The court found that the County's methodology for setting the fee was flawed, as it included costs unrelated to the specific service of providing separate timeshare assessments and did not accurately reflect the actual cost of the service. The court also ruled that the trial court erred in considering costs incurred after the fiscal year used to set the fee.The appellate court remanded the case for further proceedings to determine the appropriate refund amount and to decide on the declaratory, injunctive, and/or writ relief sought by the owners. The County must prove the reasonable and necessary costs of providing the separate assessment service, excluding costs for valuing the timeshare project as a whole. View "Scott v. County of Riverside" on Justia Law

This case involves a property on Maui in which Wade Brady owned a 50% interest. Beverly and James Spence obtained a default judgment against Wade and Katherine Brady in 2010, which they recorded as a lien against Wade Brady’s interest in the property. After the Bradys failed to satisfy their debt, the Spences obtained a writ of execution to sell the property. The sale was advertised by publication, and Wade Brady’s interest was sold to the Spences. At the time of the sale, Peter J. Winn and Westminster Realty, Inc. (the Winn parties) also had a recorded junior judgment lien on the property but did not receive personal notice of the sale.The Circuit Court of the Second Circuit confirmed the sale, stating it was free of all junior liens. The Winn parties later sought to execute their judgment on the property, but the circuit court denied their motion, stating they were not entitled to personal notice. The Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) vacated the circuit court’s order, holding that the Winn parties had a constitutionally protected property interest and were entitled to personal notice of the sale.The Supreme Court of the State of Hawai‘i reviewed the case. The court held that a recorded judgment lien under HRS § 636-3 creates a constitutionally protected property interest. The court further held that due process requires personal notice to junior judgment lienholders when the executing party knows or should know of their interest. However, the court decided that this ruling would apply prospectively only, due to the potential impact on prior and pending execution sales and the substantial prejudice to the intervenors. The court reversed the ICA’s decision to reinstate the Winn parties’ lien on the property. View "Winn v. Brady" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, property owners in New Hampshire, challenged the administration of the Statewide Education Property Tax (SWEPT), arguing that it violated the state constitution by allowing property-wealthy towns to retain excess funds and by setting negative local education tax rates in certain unincorporated places. They sought a permanent injunction to discontinue this funding scheme, claiming it resulted in disproportionate tax rates.The Superior Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment, finding that allowing communities to retain excess SWEPT funds and setting negative local education tax rates violated Part II, Article 5 of the New Hampshire Constitution. The court enjoined the state from permitting these practices and treated its order as a final decision.The Supreme Court of New Hampshire reviewed the case. It concluded that the legislature's decision to allow communities to retain excess SWEPT funds was an exercise of its spending power and did not violate the constitution. Therefore, the court reversed the trial court's ruling on this issue. However, the Supreme Court agreed with the trial court that setting negative local education tax rates in certain unincorporated places violated Part II, Article 5, and affirmed this part of the trial court's decision.The Supreme Court vacated the trial court's injunction remedy, stating that resolving the constitutional issue of setting negative local tax rates is the responsibility of the other branches of government. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's decision. View "Rand v. State" on Justia Law

In October 2016, BAS, LLC purchased commercial property in Paragould, Arkansas, listing its mailing address as 3735 Winford Drive, Tarzana, California. BAS failed to pay property taxes for 2017 and 2018, leading the Greene County Clerk to certify the property to the Commissioner of State Lands for nonpayment. The Commissioner sent a notice of the upcoming tax sale to the Tarzana address via certified mail in August 2021, but did not receive a physical return receipt. USPS tracking data indicated the notice was delivered. In June 2022, the Commissioner sent another notice to the Paragould property, which was returned undelivered. The property was sold in August 2022, and BAS filed a lawsuit contesting the sale, alleging due process violations and unlawful taking.The Greene County Circuit Court denied the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the Commissioner violated BAS’s due process rights, thus preventing a determination on sovereign immunity. The Commissioner appealed the decision.The Supreme Court of Arkansas reviewed the case and concluded that the Commissioner’s efforts to notify BAS were constitutionally sufficient. The court found no genuine dispute of material fact and determined that the Commissioner’s actions met due process requirements. The court held that BAS failed to allege an illegal or unconstitutional act to overcome sovereign immunity. Consequently, the Supreme Court of Arkansas reversed the circuit court’s decision and granted summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner. View "Land v. BAS, LLC" on Justia Law

A group of landlords and property owners in New York's Hudson Valley region challenged the constitutionality of the 2023 amendments to New York's rent stabilization law. These amendments, known as the Vacancy Provisions, allow municipalities to impose civil penalties on landlords who do not cooperate with vacancy surveys and to presume zero vacancies for nonresponsive landlords. The landlords argued that these provisions authorize warrantless searches of their records without an opportunity to challenge the searches' scope, violating the Fourth Amendment, and that they prevent landlords from contesting vacancy calculations, violating procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.The United States District Court for the Northern District of New York denied the landlords' motion for a preliminary injunction and dismissed their complaint for failure to state a claim. The landlords appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. The court held that the Vacancy Provisions are facially valid under the Fourth Amendment because landlords have adequate pre-compliance review available under Article 78 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules. The court also found that the searches authorized by the Vacancy Provisions are not unreasonable in every situation, given the ample notice and minimal penalties involved. Additionally, the court held that the Vacancy Provisions do not violate procedural due process because landlords can contest vacancy calculations at public hearings before rent stabilization is adopted and through Article 78 after adoption. View "Hudson Shore v. State of New York" on Justia Law