Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

This case concerns a plan to replace public housing units destroyed by Hurricane Ike in part by redeveloping on two of the sites destroyed by Ike. At issue are questions concerning the scope of standing to sue under the Fair Housing Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq.; whether Congress intended by that Act to abrogate States' sovereign immunity; and whether defendants can avail themselves of a safe harbor provision in the United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended by the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998, 42 U.S.C. 1437 et seq. The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the dismissal of the Individual Plaintiffs and GOGP because they did not appeal; plaintiff has Article III standing to bring her claim that the planned redevelopment will deprive her of the social and economic benefits that result from living in an integrated community; Congress did not make clear an intent to abrogate States’ Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity from suits brought under the Fair Housing Act, a conclusion reached by other courts considering the issue; and the district court properly granted summary judgment to the remaining defendants on plaintiff’s Fair Housing Act claim, concluding that plaintiff's claim was precluded by a safe harbor provision found at 42 U.S.C. 1437p(d). Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "McCardell v. HUD" on Justia Law

The City of Laconia owned and maintained Opechee Park. In May 2012, plaintiff Margaret Dolbeare was enjoying the playground equipment at the park with her granddaughter. As plaintiff approached the park swings, her foot caught under the edge of a mat. She fell and suffered injuries. This case was an interlocutory appeal by the City when the Superior Court denied its motion to dismiss negligence and nuisance claims. The trial court transferred two questions for the Supreme Court's review: (1) did the trial court err in finding that the City owed Plaintiff a duty, despite RSA 212:34, II; and (2) did the trial court err in holding that the City was not immune from suit under RSA 508:14, I, because “using playground equipment is not . . . recreation within the meaning of RSA 508:14”? After review, the Court answered both questions in the affirmative as they related to plaintiff’s negligence claim. Plaintiff argued that, notwithstanding either RSA 212:34, II or RSA 508:14, I, the City was liable for its alleged negligence under RSA 507-B:2 (2010). Because the trial court did not address this argument, the Supreme Court declined to do so in the first instance. Accordingly, the Court vacated the trial court’s order denying the City’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s negligence claim. View "Dolbeare v. City of Laconia" on Justia Law

Petitioners appealed to the Secretary of HUD after an ALJ found them liable for violations of governing programs administered by HUD. The Secretary upheld the ALJ's liability determinations but imposed higher penalty amounts. Determining that the court had jurisdiction, the court denied petitioners' petition for review, upholding the Secretary's finding of Section 8 violations where Mantua Gardens increased Section 8 tenants' rents without giving the tenants and HUD one year's notice of the proposed termination of a Housing Assistance Payment contract; the Secretary’s reversal of the ALJ’s $450,000 penalty, imposing instead the original amount sought by HUD of $1,260,000; the Secretary's determination that no request was made for Secretarial approval of a prepayment, and therefore no cancellation of the agreement occurred; and the Secretary's determination that HUD conducted an appropriate penalty analysis. Because the Secretary's conclusions are not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion, the court denied the petition for review. View "Grier v. HUD" on Justia Law

The issue central to consolidated appeals and cross-appeals was the question of whether property owners were violating a zoning ordinance by operating their property as an event venue. In 2010, East Beach residents began raising complaints to the community homeowners' association and local law enforcement regarding noise, traffic, and parking issues arising from events held at "Villa de Suenos." From that time, Glynn County police investigated more than 20 noise complaints related to the property, many resulting in the issuance of citations or warnings. The property was situated within a single-family residential zoning district classified as “R-6” under the Glynn County Zoning Ordinance. the trial court issued an order on December 20, 2013, adopting the County’s interpretation of its zoning ordinance and directing the owners, Thomas and Lee Burton, to comply with the ordinance, so interpreted, in their future use of the property. The court also denied the Burtons’ equal protection claim, finding that they had presented no evidence of other residential properties in Glynn County that were operated in the same manner as the Burtons’ property but were treated differently by the County. The Burtons appealed, challenging the trial court’s interpretation of the zoning ordinance and its rejection of their equal protection claim; the County cross-appealed, seeking to clarify the nature of the relief the trial court had granted. Subsequently, with the appeal and cross-appeal pending, the County filed a motion for contempt in the trial court, alleging that the Burtons were continuing to promote Villa de Suenos as an event venue and accept bookings for this purpose, in violation of the trial court’s order. Upon review of the arguments made on appeal, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court properly found that the owners were violating the ordinance, and that the court properly issued a declaratory judgment to that effect. View "Burton v. Glynn County" on Justia Law

n consolidated appeals, the issue central to all that was presented for the Supreme Court's review was whether petitioners, who sold their principal residences in arm’s-length transactions, were entitled to refunds of the real estate transfer tax under the real estate transfer tax exemption set forth in MCL 207.526(u) when the state equalized value of the properties at the time of sale was less than it was at the time of their original purchases. The Court held that petitioners were entitled to refunds under the real estate transfer tax exemption in these circumstances. The Court of Appeals was reversed and the cases remanded to the Tax Tribunal for further proceedings, including reinstatement of its judgments in favor of petitioners. View "Gardner v. Dept. of Treasury" on Justia Law

Landowners filed a complaint with the Auglaize County Board of Revision (BOR) challenging the auditor’s valuation of their property. The BOR notified Landowners that a hearing would be held. Neither Landowners nor anyone on their behalf appeared at the hearing. The BOR dismissed the valuation complaint for failure to prosecute based on Landowners’ failure to attend the scheduled hearing. The Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) reversed, concluding that the BOR had exceeded its discretionary authority in dismissing the complaint because the evidence presented raised the presumption that the sale furnished the criterion of value. The Supreme Court vacated the BTA’s decision, holding (1) BORs do not have the discretionary authority to dismiss a complaint based on the complainant’s failure to attend the scheduled meeting of the board; and (2) a BOR must make a determination of value whenever a complaint properly invokes its jurisdiction. Remanded. View "Ginter v. Auglaize County Bd. of Revision" on Justia Law

The City of Madison enacted an ordinance requiring landlords to obtain a license for each unit of rental property. The Rental Inspection and Property Licensing Act (RIPLA) conditioned the grant of a license on the landlord’s advance consent to property inspections. Kenneth Crook was convicted in municipal court of two counts of violating RIPLA by maintaining a rental unit without a rental license and sentenced to pay a fine of $300 on each count. After a bench trial, the County Court of Madison County affirmed. Crook then appealed to the Circuit Court of Madison County, which also affirmed. Crook then appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court assigned his appeal to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed. At each level of review, Crook argued that RIPLA’s inspection provisions violated the ban on unreasonable searches imposed by the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The Court of Appeals held that RIPLA was not unconstitutional because it required the City to obtain a judicial warrant if the landlord or tenant withheld consent to an inspection. The Supreme Court granted Crook’s petition for certiorari and reversed: RIPLA’s inspection provisions were constitutionally defective because, although RIPLA had a warrant provision, that provision allowed a warrant to be obtained “by the terms of the Rental License, lease, or rental agreement,” which was a standard less than probable cause. The Court reversed the lower courts' judgments affirming Crook's convictions, and rendered a judgment of acquittal. View "Crook v. City of Madison" on Justia Law

The Pueblo of Jemez brought suit against the United States under the federal common law and the Quiet Title Act (QTA), seeking to quiet its allegedly unextinguished and continuing aboriginal title to the lands of what was known as Valles Caldera National Preserve. The government filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The district court held it lacked subject matter jurisdiction as a matter of law and dismissed the action pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1). It reasoned that sovereign immunity barred the action based on its conclusion that the Jemez Pueblo’s title claim against the United States accrued in 1860 when the United States granted the lands in question to the heirs of Luis Maria Cabeza de Baca (the Baca heirs). The claim thus fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Indian Claims Commission Act (ICCA), which waived sovereign immunity and provided a cause of action to all Indian claims against the government that accrued before 1946 so long as they were filed within a five year statute of limitations period. Because the claim was not so filed, it became barred by sovereign immunity. The Pueblo appealed, arguing that its aboriginal title was not extinguished by the 1860 grant to the Baca heirs and that its claim for interference with its Indian title did not accrue until 2000, after the United States acquired an interest in the Valles Caldera and began interfering with the Jemez Pueblo’s access to the land. Upon careful consideration of the arguments made on appeal, the Tenth Circuit reversed and remanded for further proceedings: "This appeal is not about whether the Jemez Pueblo holds aboriginal title. On remand, the Jemez Pueblo will have to prove that it had, and still has, aboriginal title to the land at issue in the case. This appeal concerns whether the 1860 Baca grant extinguished the Jemez Pueblo’s alleged aboriginal title to the lands which are the subject of this action. We hold it did not and the district court erred in concluding, as a matter of law, the 1860 Baca grant itself provided a pre-1946 claim against the United States the Jemez Pueblo could have brought under the ICCA." View "Pueblo of Jemez v. United States" on Justia Law

The Upper Black Squirrel Creek Ground Water Management District appealed a water court order that interpreted an earlier stipulated decree to which it and Cherokee Metropolitan District were parties, concerning Cherokee's rights to deliver wastewater returns back to the Upper Black Squirrel Basin for recharge of the aquafier. Upper Black Squirrel District sought a declaration that the stipulation bar Cherokee and Meridian (another metropolitan district with which Cherokee had entered into an intergovernmental agreement) from claiming credit for the wastewater returns as replacement water, for purposes of acquiring the right to additional pumping from Cherokee's wells in the basin. The water court ruled instead that nothing in the stipulation implied abandonment or forfeiture of any right Cherokee might otherwise have to claim future credits with the Ground Water Commission. The Colorado Supreme Court concluded the water court properly interpreted the stipulation, it affirmed the order. View "Up. Black Squirrel Creek Grnd Water Mgmt Dist v. Cherokee Metro. Dist." on Justia Law

Appellant sought to develop a subdivision consisting of forty-four single-family homes on property zoned R-1 residential. Appellant applied to Granger Township Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) for variances for each of the forty-four proposed lots. The BZA denied the variance application. The county court of common pleas affirmed. Appellant filed a complaint for a declaratory judgment seeking a declaration that Granger’s zoning resolution establishing the R-1 zoning classification was unconstitutional and beyond Granger’s authority because Granger enacted the zoning resolution without enacting a separate comprehensive plan. The trial court denied Appellant’s claims, declaring that Granger had complied with Ohio Rev. Code 519.02’s requirement that a zoning resolution be adopted in accordance with a comprehensive plan. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a comprehensive plan pursuant to section 519.02 may be included within a township’s zoning resolution and need not be a separate and distinct document. View "Apple Group, Ltd. v. Granger Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals" on Justia Law