Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs in this case were more than 400 residents and homeowners in the upper White Oak Bayou watershed in Harris County. From 1998 to 2002, most of Plaintiffs’ homes were inundated in three successive floods. Plaintiffs filed an inverse condemnation suit against several government entities, arguing that Defendants knew that harm was substantially certain to result to Plaintiffs’ homes when Defendants approved private development in the White Oak Bayou watershed without mitigating its consequences. Defendants responded with a combined plea to the jurisdiction and motion for summary judgment, contending that no genuine issue of material fact had been raised on the elements of the takings claim. The trial court denied the motion. The court of appeals affirmed the denial of the plea to the jurisdiction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a fact question existed as to each element of Plaintiffs’ takings claim, and therefore, the government entities’ plea to the jurisdiction was properly denied. View "Harris County Flood Control Dist. v. Kerr" on Justia Law

Defendant’s predecessor in title ("Wayne") owned two tracts of land (“Wayne Tracts”). Park Creek, LLC held adjacent land. Under a pre-approved plan, Wayne and the LLC began constructing a development plan for a residential subdivision using land owned by both Wayne and the LLC. When Wayne conveyed his property to Defendant, his revocable trust of which he was the trustee, future phases of the subdivision remained undeveloped. The Town of Midland later filed two condemnation actions against Defendant condemning three acres of Defendant’s property necessary for an easement. The trial court determined that no unity of ownership existed as to the contiguous tracts of land owned by Defendant and Park Creek, LLC. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s conclusion that no unity of ownership existed between the Wayne Tracts and the LLC Tract for the purpose of determining compensation. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that, where Defendant and the LLC had a vested right to complete the subdivision pursuant to the pre-approved plan, unity of ownership existed between the adjacent properties. View "Town of Midland v. Wayne" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the trial court's application of the 90-day statute of limitations in Government Code section 66499.37 to his inverse condemnation action and conclusion that the action was untimely. While the court agreed with plaintiff that a land owner may elect to pursue a damage claim for an unconstitutional taking after a mandamus proceeding results in a final judgment, the initial mandamus action must result in “a final judgment establishing that there has been a compensable taking of the plaintiff’s land.” In this case, plaintiff’s mandamus action did not seek or establish that an unconstitutional taking occurred when the county denied his subdivision application. Therefore, plaintiff does not qualify for the two-step procedure identified in Hensler v. City of Glendale. As a result, the unconstitutional taking claim in plaintiff's inverse condemnation action is time barred under section 66499.37. In regards to the cross-appeal involving the denial of sanctions against plaintiff, the court concluded that the trial court correctly determined that plaintiff's complaint was not frivolous. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Honchariw v. Co. of Stanislaus" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, parents of minor child A.R., filed suit against a real estate agency and its agent for disability discrimination under the Fair Housing Act (FHA), 42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants made housing unavailable on the basis of disability; provided different terms, conditions, and privileges of rental housing on the basis of disability; expressed a preference on the basis of disability; and misrepresented the availability of rental housing on the basis of disability. The district court granted summary judgment to defendants. The court held, however, that the district court erred because there was sufficient evidence presented that A.R. qualifies as disabled under the FHA; the FHA’s prohibition against statements that “indicate[ ] any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on . . . handicap,” pursuant to section 3604(c), may be violated even if the subject of those statements does not qualify as disabled under the FHA; and the “ordinary listener” standard is not applicable to claims under section 3604(d) for misrepresenting the availability of housing. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded. View "Rodriguez v. Village Green Realty, Inc." on Justia Law

World Outreach, a religious organization, purchased a YMCA building in a poor area of Chicago, planning to rent rooms to needy persons. The YMCA had a license for that use, even after the area was rezoned as a community shopping district. The city refused to grant World Outreach a license, ostensibly because it did not have a Special Use Permit (SUP). After the area was reclassified as a Limited Manufacturing/Business Park District, the city sued in state court, contending that the use was illegal. The city later abandoned the suit. World Outreach sued under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. 2000cc. The city relented and granted the licenses. According to World Outreach the city continued harassing it. On remand, the district court entered summary judgment in favor of the city on all but one claim. The Seventh Circuit affirmed partial summary judgment in favor of World Outreach, regarding the attorneys’ fees for having to defend itself against a frivolous suit, reversed partial summary judgment to the city, and remanded. The frivolous suit cannot be thought to have imposed a merely insubstantial burden on the organization, but the organization presented weak evidence concerning damages for the two years during which it was denied a license. View "World Outreach Conference Ctr. v. City of Chicago" on Justia Law

Lost Tree entered into an option to purchase 2,750 acres on the mid-Atlantic coast of Florida, including a barrier island, a peninsula bordering the Indian River, and islands in the Indian River. From 1969 to 1974, Lost Tree purchased most of the land, including Plat 57, 4.99 acres on the Island of John’s Island and Gem Island, consisting of submerged lands and wetlands. Lost Tree developed 1,300 acres into a gated community, but had no plans of developing Plat 57 until 2002, when it learned that a developer applied for a wetlands fill permit for land south of Plat 57 and proposed improvements to a mosquito control impoundment on McCuller’s Point. Because Lost Tree owned land on McCuller’s Point, approval required its consent. Lost Tree sought permitting credits in exchange for the proposed improvements. To take advantage of those credits, Lost Tree obtained zoning and other local and state permits to develop Plat 57. The Army Corps of Engineers denied an application under the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1344 for a section 404 fill permit, finding that Lost Tree could have pursued less environmentally damaging alternatives and had adequately realized its development purpose. On remand, the trial court found that the denial diminished Plat 57’s value by 99.4% and constituted a per se taking and awarded Lost Tree $4,217,887.93. The Federal Circuit affirmed, finding that a “Lucas” taking occurred because the denial eliminated all value stemming from Plat 57’s possible economic uses. View "Lost Tree Vill. Corp. v. United States" on Justia Law

The question presented on appeal to the Oklahoma Supreme Court in this case was whether an owner of real property received constitutionally sufficient notice of the sale of his property for delinquent taxes when notice was provided only by publication and certified mail that was returned undelivered. Appellant-landowner neglected to pay taxes on certain real property in McIntosh County. The property was sold at a tax sale and a tax deed was issued to the buyer. The landowner filed suit seeking to invalidate the tax deed and quiet title in himself, asserting that the sale and resultant deed were void because he was not given constitutionally sufficient notice of the sale and was denied his right to redeem the property. Both the landowner and the county defendants moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted the county defendants' motion and denied the landowners. The landowner appealed, and the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed. After review, the Supreme Court held: (1) that the landowner did not receive constitutionally sufficient notice; and (2) the sale and resultant tax deed were therefore void. View "Crownover v. Keel" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of a $10 Rental Housing Support Program surcharge collected by the recorder of deeds for the recordation of any real estate-related document in a county, 55 ILCS 5/3-5018. Originally $1 was retained by the county in which it was collected. During the litigation, the section was amended to impose a $9 surcharge to fund the Rental Housing Support Program and a separate $1 recordation fee to be paid to the county. The trial court held both versions of the statute to be unconstitutional. The Illinois Supreme Court reversed. The General Assembly has no evidentiary burden and is not required to produce facts to justify the statute. Plaintiffs failed to establish that the section violated the uniformity clause. The court found a rational basis for the fee: By helping provide affordable housing to low-income families throughout the state, the statute provides needed housing security and financial stability to vulnerable residents and a more stable income stream to landlords. It decreases the number of vacant and abandoned buildings and increases the opportunities for building owners to maintain their property. View "Marks v. Vanderventer" on Justia Law

Respondent owned the mineral rights to a certain parcel of land. When the Division of Highways (DOH) began construction of a highway through the land owned by the surface owner, the DOH excavated approximately 237,187 tons of limestone from the property. Respondent filed a mandamus action against DOH seeking to force DOH to institute a condemnation proceeding for the limestone removed from her mineral reservation in the land. The DOH filed this condemnation action, and the condemnation commission returned a verdict favorable to DOH. Respondent subsequently demanded a jury trial. Based on the jury’s findings, the trial court awarded Respondent $941,304. DOH appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in its judgment. View "W. Va. Dep’t of Transp. v. Newton" on Justia Law

Defendant and his counsel, D&B, (collectively, "petitioners") appealed the district court's grant of the government's motion to dismiss their petition asserting an interest found in property found subject to forfeiture under 18 U.S.C. 982(a)(2) after defendant's co-defendant was convicted. The district court determined that both parties had standing but that petitioners failed to state any claims for relief. The court concluded that because the government’s forfeiture claim qualifies it as a creditor under New York law, the government has standing to challenge D&B's assignment as a fraudulent conveyance; because the record fails to establish whether the transferor of the contested funds was insolvent at the time of the transfer so as to render D&B’s assignment a fraudulent conveyance, the petitioners have, at this stage in the proceedings, alleged a plausible interest in the property sufficient to create standing to seek an ancillary hearing; because the contested funds are subject to forfeiture as “proceeds” of the co-defendant's criminal activity and therefore only came into existence following the commission of his criminal act, petitioners cannot claim that D&B had a superior interest in those funds at the time of the offense as required by 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)(6)(A); and because the criminal forfeiture statute limits a third party’s right to challenge a post‐indictment forfeiture order to the two grounds identified in 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)(6), petitioners may not challenge the inclusion of the contested funds in the forfeiture order under § 982(a)(2). The court concluded, however, that because D&B accepted the assignment of the contested funds shortly after a Monsanto hearing in which the district court determined that the government failed to establish probable cause to restrain the contested property, and because the petition alleges no additional facts suggesting that D&B had reason to know that the property was forfeitable as a matter of law, petitioners have plausibly alleged that D&B was a bona fide purchaser reasonably without cause to believe that the property was subject to forfeiture. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part and reversed in part. View "United States v. Watts" on Justia Law