Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

In 2014, a woman and her two children from a previous relationship moved in with a man. They had a child together in 2018 and married in 2019. The man ran a trucking business, and the woman assisted with bookkeeping. She also worked briefly at a mental health facility and later as a secretary at a hospital. The couple separated in March 2022, and the woman filed for divorce shortly thereafter.The District Court of Weston County entered a stipulated decree of divorce in January 2023, settling child custody, visitation, and child support. However, the division of marital property was disputed. A bench trial was held in April, and the court issued its final order in November, dividing the marital property. The court considered the equitable value of the marital home, rental property, livestock, personal vehicles, personal property, and debts. The man was assigned the marital home, while the woman received her retirement funds and an equalization payment from the man.The man appealed to the Supreme Court of Wyoming, arguing that the district court abused its discretion in dividing the marital property. He contended that the court failed to allocate a portion of an IRS debt to the woman and improperly valued his trucking business. The Supreme Court reviewed the district court’s findings for an abuse of discretion and found no clear error. The court noted that the district court had appropriately considered the statutory factors under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-114(a) and had made a just and equitable division of the property.The Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed the district court’s decision, concluding that the property division was not so unfair and inequitable that reasonable people could not abide by it. The court also found that the district court had reasonably considered each of the statutory factors and that its ruling did not shock the conscience. View "Regan v. Regan" on Justia Law

Bijan Boutiques, LLC (Bijan) appealed a summary judgment in favor of Rosamari Isong. Bijan sought to void the property distribution in the marital dissolution judgment between Isong and her former husband, Richard Milam Akubiro, under the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (UVTA). Bijan argued that the judgment was fraudulent as it awarded Isong the couple’s only U.S. property, making it difficult to enforce a judgment Bijan had against Akubiro without incurring significant expenses to pursue foreign assets.The Superior Court of San Bernardino County ruled that Bijan’s complaint was barred by Family Code section 916, subdivision (a)(2), which protects property received in a marital dissolution from being liable for a spouse’s debt unless the debt was assigned to the receiving spouse. The court found that the marital dissolution judgment was not a product of a negotiated settlement but was adjudicated by the court, thus not subject to the UVTA.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, affirmed the lower court’s decision. The appellate court held that Family Code section 916 precludes Bijan from enforcing its judgment against the property awarded to Isong. The court distinguished this case from Mejia v. Reed, which allowed UVTA claims against marital settlement agreements, noting that the dissolution judgment here was court-adjudicated, not a private agreement. The court also rejected Bijan’s arguments that the judgment was obtained by fraud and that the Chino property should not have been subject to division, affirming that the property was presumed to be community property under Family Code section 2581.The appellate court concluded that Bijan could not satisfy its judgment against Akubiro by executing on the property awarded to Isong and affirmed the summary judgment in favor of Isong. View "Bijan Boutiques v. Isong" on Justia Law

This case involves a divorce dispute between Randall Thomas Bailey and Sara Elizabeth Bailey, now known as Ms. Larson. The couple married in 2005 and have three minor children. Ms. Larson filed for divorce in December 2022. The main issues in the case revolve around the district court's decisions on child custody, child support, and property division.The district court granted joint legal custody of the children, with the children's primary residence set with Ms. Larson. The court also calculated child support, imputing income to Mr. Bailey, and divided the couple's property, which was valued at approximately $2.2 million. The division required an equalization payment of $475,000 from Mr. Bailey to Ms. Larson.Mr. Bailey appealed the district court's decisions, arguing that the court abused its discretion in determining custody, calculating child support, and dividing the parties' property. He also contested the valuation of his gun collection, the valuation of accounts at the date of separation, and whether two properties in South Carolina should have been included in the marital estate.The Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed the district court's decisions. The court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in deciding the issues of custody, child support, and property division. The court also found that the evidence presented supported the district court's findings and conclusions, and that the property division was not so unfair or unreasonable as to shock the conscience. View "Bailey v. Bailey" on Justia Law

This case concerns the dissolution of a marriage between Diana and Andreas Lietz. The primary point of contention was the valuation of the family home. Diana presented an appraisal report valuing the home at $1.1 million, while Andreas's appraisal report valued it at $1,020,000. Both appraisal reports stated the home was on a 9,000 square feet lot. However, Diana attempted to argue that the lot size was more than 9,000 square feet. The trial court found Andreas's appraiser more credible and accepted his valuation. On appeal, Diana argued that the court erred by preventing her from presenting evidence and testimony suggesting that the lot size was larger than 9,000 square feet. The Court of Appeal of the State of California Fourth Appellate District Division Three affirmed the trial court's decision. The appellate court concluded that the trial court followed the correct procedure when it sustained objections to Diana's attempts to present evidence about the larger lot size due to the lack of competent evidence supporting her claim. The court emphasized that an expert witness could not assert case-specific facts in hearsay statements unless they were independently proven by competent evidence or covered by a hearsay exception. View "In re Marriage of Lietz" on Justia Law

In this case, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed a dispute between Heather Keep and Christopher Indorf regarding the division of real estate they owned jointly. Keep and Indorf were unmarried domestic partners who had one child together. They purchased a house in Saco together, with Indorf contributing the down payment and both parties being liable for the mortgage. When their relationship ended, Keep moved out and Indorf assumed sole responsibility for the house. Keep filed a complaint for equitable partition in 2019. During the litigation process, the parties reached a partial settlement agreement, which was placed on the record during a judicial settlement conference. The agreement stated that for the valuation and division of any expenses associated with the home, they would use the date of May 1st, when Indorf had fully assumed all responsibility for the residence.The District Court (Biddeford, Tice, J.) eventually entered a partition judgment, setting aside the partial settlement agreement and dividing the real estate. Indorf appealed, arguing that the court abused its discretion by setting aside the settlement agreement.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court agreed with Indorf. It found that the parties had entered into an enforceable agreement, which the lower court could not simply disregard because it appeared unfair in light of subsequent events. The supreme court held that the agreement was ambiguous and remanded the case back to the District Court to determine the meaning of the agreement and to divide the property accordingly. The supreme court also dismissed Keep's cross-appeal as untimely. View "Keep v. Indorf" on Justia Law

In February 2022, Gracia Bovis, an elder woman, signed documents transferring the title of her house to her daughter, Marina Casey. According to Bovis, Casey had misled her into signing the documents to protect her from rising property taxes. However, the documents transferred the property into Casey's name. Casey argued that the transfer was meant to protect the property from tax reassessment under Proposition 19. Bovis sought an Elder Abuse Restraining Order (EARO) against Casey, alleging financial abuse. The trial court granted the EARO and subsequently declared the deed transferring the property void ab initio (invalid from the outset). Casey appealed these decisions.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, affirmed the issuance of the restraining orders, finding sufficient evidence of financial abuse, but reversed the order declaring the deed void. The appellate court concluded that the trial court exceeded its statutory authority under Welfare and Institutions Code section 15657.03 in declaring the deed void. The statute allows for the issuance of restraining orders to protect elders from further abuse, but does not provide the court with the authority to declare a deed void. The court noted that other permanent remedies, such as the return of property, can be pursued through a civil action under other provisions of the Elder Abuse Act. View "Newman v. Casey" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the denial of her motion to enforce a provision in the parties’ final divorce order that gave her the option to purchase jointly owned real property from defendant. The property at issue was a five-acre parcel of land with buildings on the Connecticut River where the parties lived and operated a marina business during their marriage. In the final divorce order, the court gave each party the option to buy out the other’s share of the property. If plaintiff chose not to exercise the purchase option and defendant wished to do so instead, he had to notify plaintiff and send her a check. If neither party wished to purchase the property and business, it was to be sold through a realtor and the proceeds would be split between the parties. In January 2022, plaintiff moved to enforce her option to purchase the marina property. Plaintiff asserted that an April 2020 court order had given her thirty days to notify defendant of her intent to purchase. She argued that the order was stayed by her motion to alter or amend the judgment and subsequent notice of further proceedings, and did not become final until the trial court issued a November 2021 decision. According to plaintiff, she had thirty days from that date to exercise the option and did so by sending a letter with a $25,000 check to defendant on November 30, 2021. Defendant opposed plaintiff’s motion and filed his own motion to enforce the sale of the property to him. Defendant asserted that after plaintiff indicated in her motion to alter or amend that she did not want to purchase the property, he had notified her of his intent to purchase it on June 1, 2020, and mailed her a $25,000 check. At that time, plaintiff responded by offering to sell the property for a much higher price but did not express any interest in purchasing it herself. After the court issued its decision on remand, defendant sent plaintiff a check for the remaining $217,500 along with a quitclaim deed for her to complete. Defendant argued that plaintiff’s first appeal did not stay or alter the deadlines for exercising the purchase option, which expired in June 2020. The family division of the superior court concluded that plaintiff’s purchase option had expired and that defendant effectively exercised his option to purchase the property instead. Finding no reversible error in that judgment, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed. View "Thurber v. Thurber" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals denying a writ of prohibition preventing Judge Peter J. Corrigan from proceeding in a declaratory judgment and preliminary injunction action, holding that Judge Corrigan did not lack jurisdiction to proceed in the case.United Twenty-Fifth Building, LLC sued Jessica Maron, a party to a pending divorce case, alleging that Jessica was interfering with an easement involving a multistory building in Cleveland. Specifically, United argued that Jessica was preventing access to the building's elevator, lobby, and stairwell and delaying the construction of a restaurant in the building. Jessica filed a prohibition petition seeking to prevent Judge Corrigan from exercising jurisdiction in United's case because, under the jurisdictional-priority rule, Judge Corrigan patently and unambiguously lacked jurisdiction to proceed because the case involved property that may be subject to equitable division in her divorce case. The court of appeals denied the writ. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Jessica failed to show that the jurisdictional-priority rule applied under the circumstances of this case. View "State ex rel. Maron v. Corrigan" on Justia Law

Jay Wright appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to his ex-wife, Kristie Parish. Wright and Parish were married in 2002 and divorced in 2019. Before they were married, Wright and Parish, as single persons, purchased two adjacent parcels of real property in Island Park, and their ownership of the property did not change following their marriage. A magistrate court presided over their divorce proceedings and the distribution of their community property. The magistrate court classified as community property certain loan payments and improvements that had been made for the benefit of the Island Park Properties but specifically declined to divide the properties because the court concluded the properties were separate property and that it “lack[ed] authority to divide the property.” The magistrate court concluded that Wright and Parish “apparently” owned the properties as tenants-in-common, each with a fifty percent interest, though it never made a definitive ruling on each party’s interest, concluding only that they were “joint owners[.]” Roughly one year after the magistrate court entered its final judgment for the divorce, Wright filed suit seeking a partition of the Island Park Properties and for Parish to deed them to him, arguing in part that his ownership interest in the properties exceeded the fifty percent determination that the magistrate court had ostensibly made. In response, Parish moved for summary judgment, arguing that Wright’s claim that he was entitled to a greater ownership interest was precluded by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel. The district court granted Parish’s motion for summary judgment after determining that the issues in Wright’s complaint had already been litigated in the prior divorce proceedings. As a result, the district court concluded that the proceeds from the sale of the properties should be equally divided between Wright and Parish. Wright appealed. The Idaho Supreme Court determined the district court erred in granting summary judgment to Parish, and remanded the case for the trial court to consider whether Wright could produce evidence to overcome the rebuttable presumption of equal ownership in the properties. View "Wright v. Parish" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment of divorce entered by the district court as to the disposition of certain property and the dissolution of Cole G. Bridges Wild Blueberry LLC, holding that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to order the dissolution of the LLC and erred in setting aside certain property to Cole Bridges.In 2020, Candy Littell filed for divorce from Bridges. The district court granted the divorce. On appeal, Bridges argued that the district court erred in evaluating and classifying a Cessna airplane and lacked jurisdiction to dissolve the LLC. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment in part and remanded the case, holding (1) the court did not have jurisdiction over the LLC and thus could not order its dissolution; and (2) the court erred in its classification and valuation of the Cessna airplane. View "Littell v. Bridges" on Justia Law