Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

This action involved a dispute between certain members of two Delaware real estate holding companies, Defendant Companies and the Companies' manager, Rubin Schron. Plaintiffs, MICH and SEEVA Entites, originally brought an action against Schron and Schron-affiliated entities in New York (the MICH/SEEVA action) alleging breaches of fiduciary duty and of the Companies' operating agreements. In response, Schron filed an opposing action in New York against the MICH and SEEVA entities' majority owners and controllers, alleging breaches of fiduciary duty and legal malpractice. The New York court dismissed the MICH/SEEVA action, holding that the operating agreements required all claims against the Companies to be brought in Delaware. Plaintiffs then filed this action, which Schron moved to stay or dismiss. The Chancery Court granted Defendants' motion to stay this action in favor of Schron's first-filed New York action. Plaintiffs then filed combined motions for reconsideration and certification of an interlocutory appeal. The Chancery Court held that, with the exception of Plaintiffs' claim regarding Defendants' withholding of certain distributions allegedly owed to Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs' motion should be denied because Plaintiffs did not demonstrate that relief was warranted. View "MICH II Holdings LLC v. Schron" on Justia Law

WenDover, is a Delaware corporation that operates a Wendy franchise in Rehoboth Beach. Defendant RMLP owns the Rehoboth Mall Shopping Center, where the restaurant is located. Heartland leased land from the RMLP and then subleased the land to WenDover. In 2006, the parties disagreed whether Heartland had properly exercised the lease’s second renewal term. To resolve that dispute, Heartland agreed to pay the third renewal term’s rental rate during the second renewal term, and RMLP forgave any noncompliance with the renewal provisions of the lease. RMLP contends that Heartland did not provide notice and exercise the option for the third term, informed Heartland that Heartland was occupying the leasehold under an at-will tenancy and demanded that Heartland vacate. Heartland sought to enjoin RMLP from seeking eviction from the Justice of the Peace Court. The chancellor determined that the court lacked jurisdiction over what “is essentially a real estate possession action,” over which the legislature has vested exclusive jurisdiction over such matters with the Justice of the Peace Courts.View "Heartland DE Inc. v. Rehoboth Mall Ltd P'ship" on Justia Law

When the original developer of Plantations created the subdivision in 1986, it retained a 4.3-acre Recreation Area, including a pool, tennis courts, and a gym. Plantations residents and the general public use the facilities for a fee. The developer failed to reserve an express easement to the public road. Owners of the Recreation Area and customers of the health facility must use land owned by the Associations, which own and maintain Plantations’ common areas, for access. A new owner of the recreation facility was unable to reach agreement with the Associations concerning access and parking and sought to establish that an easement exists in its favor over the roads of the Associations and for use of a parking lot adjacent to the Recreation Area and that it is under no obligation to contribute to the upkeep of the property over which it claims an easement, relying on a Declaration of Covenants. The Declaration is poorly drafted and unclear. The Chancellor held that the owner has established an easement to use the private roadways of Plantations in connection with its business, but failed to demonstrate an easement for parking. The question of maintenance obligations awaits further factual development. View "Sandie, LLC v. The Plantations Owners Ass'n, Inc.,." on Justia Law

After agreeing to purchase a new townhouse, the Smiths leased it back to the builder, Ryan Homes, to use for six months as a model home. Ryan Homes converted the garage into a sales office. When the Smiths took possession, they used the converted garage as additional living space. The developer sought a mandatory injunction forcing the Smiths and Ryan Homes to convert the space back to a functional garage. The chancellor ruled in favor of defendants. The recorded subdivision plan and declaration of restrictions do not prohibit conversion of a garage to living space. The partition wall of the garage conversion is not sufficiently visible to the public to trigger an architectural review requirement and fears about parking problems are overly speculative. View "Reybold Venture Grp. XI-A, LLC. v. Smith" on Justia Law

A 2007 conveyance of commercial property in Milton was characterized by mistakes, starting with an error-filled purchase offer, so that the deed ultimately conveyed a residential parcel that was not owned by the seller at the time of conveyance and that the seller did not intend to convey. In an opinion characterized as “unpleasant to write,” the chancellor declared the purported conveyance a nullity and noted that the “matter has been litigated far beyond what a rational evaluation of its costs and potential benefits would dictate.” The chancellor found that the deed, purporting to transfer the residential parcel, was altered by the buyer’s attorney, to the detriment of the seller and without the effective consent of the seller and was ineffective to convey any property. The actual deed signed by the parties contained a reference to the residential parcel by tax number, but omitted that property from the metes and bounds description.

Plaintiffs challenged the Town's actions in regards to a Mutual Agreement and Release (MAR) for the redevelopment of Ruddertowne, primarily upon the bases that they constituted impermissible contract zoning and that the MAR, the Building Permit, and the Record Plat Plan (together, the Challenged Documents) violated numerous aspects of the Town's zoning, building, and land use regulations. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and that plaintiffs lacked standing to bring suit. The court concluded that the Complaint was filed after the period provided for in the applicable statute of repose, 10 Del. C. 8126. As for the Building Inspector's approval and issuance of the Building Permit, the court concluded that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction because an adequate remedy at law was available to plaintiffs. Therefore, the court granted defendants' motions to dismiss. The Town's motion to strike, which was rendered moot, was denied.

This derivative action challenged a series of related-party transactions. Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings, contending that laches barred the bulk of the claims. Defendants were partly right, laches barred the challenges to certain stock options granted in 2004 and 2005. Laches also barred a portion of the challenge to compensation received under certain employment agreements and rent-free sublease. With respect to these claims, the doctrine applied to the extent the compensation was paid and rent-free space provided before March 18, 2008. The doctrine did not apply to the extent that compensation was paid and rent-free space provided on or after March 18, 2008. On a final set of claims, the court granted plaintiffs leave to replead because although the complaint alleged facts sufficient to invoke the doctrine of equitable tolling, the pleading failed to identify when plaintiffs subsequently found out about the self-dealing transactions.

Plaintiff sued the State to challenge a demand for payment made by the State under Delaware's escheat law, 12 Del. C. 1101, et seq. The State countersued, seeking a declaration that the sums demanded from plaintiff were proper and authorized under the Statute. Both parties moved for partial judgment on the pleadings. The court found that the rebates at issue fit comfortably within two of the "specifically enumerated" items of property listed in section 1198(11) and therefore granted the State's motion for partial judgment on the pleadings and denied plaintiff's cross-motion. Although the pleadings did not paint a clear picture of the form in which the rebates were issued by plaintiff to its customers, plaintiff's counsel conceded at oral argument that the rebates were issued as either negotiable "checks" or "credits." As such, the rebates consisted of specifically enumerated items of property under section 1198(11), and the State's claims could not be barred by any statute of limitations.

This action was before the court on a motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) to enjoin the consummation of a proposed restructuring of a mortgage loan secured by certain resorts properties in Mexico and the Bahamas. Holders of more senior participations claim that the proposed transaction unfairly benefited the junior holder at the expense of the more senior holders in direct contravention of the terms of the agreements controlling the debt. The senior holders further claimed that if the proposed transaction was allowed to close, they would suffer irreparable harm through the loss of certain rights and guaranties under the new terms of the loan. The court concluded that the senior holders have stated colorable claims and made a sufficient showing that they would suffer imminent harm if the proposed transaction were allowed to close. Further, the court found that this potential irreparable harm outweighed the harm that would result to the junior holders by delaying the closing for a few weeks until a preliminary injunction could be heard. Accordingly, the court granted the TRO.

This matter involved the adoption of a land use comprehensive plan by the Kent County Levy Court. Petitioners, landowners, argued that the ordinance adopting the plan worked a zoning change on their properties because, pursuant to the land use map incorporated in the plan, the density of the permissible development of the properties was significantly reduced. Petitioners alleged numerous violations of constitutional and statutory law arising of the alleged downzoning of the properties. The county moved to dismiss, arguing that the matter was not ripe for adjudication because the plan and land use map were planning documents only and did not change Petitioners' property rights. The Chancery Court denied the motion to dismiss, holding (1) because land use maps have the force of law, and the county may not permit development of the properties except in conformity with the new land use map, Petitioners had suffered a diminution in their ability to develop the properties, assuming the factual allegation of their petition were true; and (2) therefore, Petitioners' allegations were ripe for consideration.