Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

The City of Berkeley approved a permit application to build a 6,478-square-foot house with an attached 3,394-square-foot garage. In approving the permit, the City relied on two class exemptions making the project exempt from the restrictions set forth in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Court of Appeal invalidated the permit approval, concluding that the proposed project may have a significant environmental impact, and therefore, the exemptions the City invoked did not apply under the Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA section 15300.2(c). Section 15300.2(c) provides: “A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.” The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) a proposed project’s potential significant effect on the environment is not alone sufficient to trigger the unusual circumstances exception; and (2) remand for application of the standards the Court announced today was necessary. View "Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley" on Justia Law

The Board of Tax Appeals' (the BTA) denied appellant Jayo Development, Inc.'s application for a business inventory property tax exemption. In 2012, Jayo Development applied for a property tax exemption pursuant to Idaho Code section 63-602W(4), claiming that the property qualified as site improvements held by a land developer. The Ada County Board of Equalization (the BOE) denied the application. Subsequently, the BTA and the district court both affirmed the denial. On appeal, Jayo Development argued: (1) that the plain language of the statute entitled it to the exemption;, (2) that the district court erred in relying on IDAPA 35.01.03.620 in denying Jayo Development the tax exemption; and (3) that the 2013 amendment of Idaho Code section 63-602W(4) clarified the legislature's intent and supports its interpretation of the statute. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Jayo Development, Inc. v. Ada County Bd. of Equalization" on Justia Law

Thomas and Rebecca Arnold appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of the City of Stanley. In 2012, the City provided notice to the Arnolds (and other interested parties) of the date and time for three public hearings and a regular city council meeting, all scheduled to take place on August 9, 2012. The first of the three public hearings was noticed to begin at 5:00 p.m. and was for the purpose of receiving public comment on proposed Ordinance 189, the ordinance that the Arnolds alleged affected their property rights. The second and third hearings were noticed to begin at 5:15 p.m. and 5:30 p.m., respectively (and were for the purpose of public comment on matters not at issue here). The regular city council meeting was noticed to begin at 6:00 p.m. The first two meetings were held at their scheduled times. The third meeting began five minutes early, at 5:25 p.m., and concluded at 5:29 p.m. The regular city council meeting, scheduled to begin at 6:00 p.m., commenced at 5:31 p.m. and adjourned at 6:55 p.m. Prior to the start of the 6:00 p.m. meeting, the City did not amend the notices it had provided or otherwise notify the public that the meetings would begin earlier than scheduled. The early start time of the 6:00 p.m. meeting and the City's failure to provide amended notice of the earlier start time were the issues presented in this appeal to the Supreme Court: it was at the 6:00 p.m. meeting that the mayor and city council deliberated toward a decision on Ordinance 189, eventually voting to adopt the ordinance. Although the Arnolds were fully aware of the agenda items to be discussed at the various meetings, at no time from the outset of the first meeting at 5:03 p.m. until the final meeting adjourned at 6:55 p.m. did they attend the meeting; the Arnolds conceded at oral argument that they had no intention of attending the meeting. Following adoption of Ordinance 189, the Arnolds filed an action against the City under Idaho Code section 67-2347(6), seeking to have the ordinance declared null and void because the City held the 6:00 p.m. meeting in violation of Idaho's open meeting law by starting the meeting early and failing to provide notice of the earlier start time. The district court held the Arnolds lacked standing to bring an enforcement action because the plain language of Section 67-2347(6) allows standing for such an action only to one who is actually affected by a violation of the open meeting law, instead of being affected only by a substantive action taken at the meeting. The court granted the City's motion for summary judgment on this basis. The Arnolds appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court: because a plain reading of the statute contradicted the Arnolds' argument, and because they did not even claim to have been actually harmed by the 6:00 p.m. meeting's early start time, the Court found that their appeal was brought without a reasonable basis in fact or law. View "Arnold v. City of Stanley" on Justia Law

A county code compliance investigator issued Appellant a notice of violation regarding her property. The county zoning administrator then determined that Appellant had committed a violation. The Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) upheld that violation determination. Plaintiff subsequently filed a petition for writ of certiorari to seek judicial review of the BZA’s final decision. Appellant, however, did not name the Board of Supervisors or any other party. The circuit court granted the zoning administrator’s motion to dismiss on the grounds that Appellant failed to add the Board of Supervisors as a party to the proceeding within the thirty-day statutory period. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that compliance with the styling requirement in Va. Code 15.2-2314 is required to trigger the circuit court’s active jurisdiction, and no waiver to the thirty-day filing requirement occurred in this case. View "Frace v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Amtrak appealed from the district court's grant of summary judgment dismissing its federal Supremacy Clause claims filed against the Commissioner, claiming that the Supremacy Clause deprived the NYSDOT of authority to condemn Amtrak's property by eminent domain. The district court held that Amtrak's claims were barred under the Eleventh Amendment and, in the alternative, the claims were time-barred. The court concluded that, because one of the parcels of land is not subject to sovereign immunity, the statute of limitations issue must be resolved. Amtrak argued that it suffered two separate injuries: first, when it learned that NYSDOT planned to take its land, and second, when the Commissioner actually executed the takings. Under the circumstances of this case, the court concluded that Amtrak brought its federal claims more than six years afters its claims accrued. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court based on its alternative conclusion that the claims were time-barred. View "National R.R. Passenger Corp. v. McDonald" on Justia Law

The parties did not dispute the facts of the various transactions in this case, only the legal conclusions to be drawn from them. At the center, this case concerned the County of Orange’s property tax reassessment of a retail shopping center located in the City of Westminster. The Assessment Appeals Board and the trial court both concluded reassessment was proper because there was a change of ownership of the subject property when it was purchased by the long-term lessee and a third party investor. After review, the Court of Appeal concluded there was no change of ownership for property tax purposes and reversed the trial court’s judgment. View "Dyanlyn Two v. County of Orange" on Justia Law

Ted Boroujerdi’s home and yard were flooded with sewage that backed onto his property in February 2009. Boroujerdi sued the City of Starkville, alleging that he had suffered property damage and personal injuries as a result of the City’s negligent maintenance of its sewage system. The trial court granted summary judgment for the City, finding that the maintenance of the sewage system is a discretionary function and that the City was immune from suit pursuant to statute and Supreme Court precedent, "Fortenberry v. City of Jackson," (71 So. 3d 1196 (Miss. 2011)). Boroujerdi appealed, arguing that the maintenance of the sewage system was ministerial and the City is not immune from suit, that summary judgment was therefore inappropriate, and that this Court should overrule its plurality opinion in Fortenberry. After review, the Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the City. Recently, in "Brantley v. City of Horn Lake," (152 So. 3d 1106 (Miss. 2014)), the Supreme Court overhauled its analysis of discretionary function immunity. Accordingly, the Court revisited the issue of sewage-system maintenance as a discretionary function. The Court held that, while the overall function of maintaining a sewage system may be discretionary, certain narrower functions and duties involved with sewage maintenance may be rendered ministerial through applicable statutes, regulations, and/or ordinances. Accordingly, the Court remanded this case back to the trial court for plaintiff to address whether his premises flooded as a result of the City’s fulfilling or its failing to fulfill a ministerial function or duty. View "Boroujerdi v. City of Starkville" on Justia Law

Appellant Linda Vista Village San Diego Homeowners Association, Inc. appealed the dismissal of their request for a declaratory judgment and other relief. Appellant's complaint was filed in 2012 against defendants-respondents the City of San Diego and the predecessors of Tecolote Investors, LLC. Members of the HOA are sublessees of mobile home park lots subject to a 1979 master lease between the City and Tecolote Investors. Appellant argued that the park site was located on and should have been properly characterized as "Pueblo Lands" within the meaning of the San Diego City Charter (section 219). Section 219 and its predecessors since 1909 have been applied to certain Pueblo lands north of the San Diego River to require approval by City Council ordinance and City voters for any sale or lease of them for more than 15 years. Since no voter approval was sought or obtained for this transaction, Appellant alleged the City was without power to enter into the existing 55-year master lease of the park site with the Landlord Defendants (or their predecessors). As a consequence, Appellant sought decrees to invalidate the master lease and consequently its subleases, specifically attacking the 1983 City-approved provisions allowing periodic rent increases. Appellant also claims entitlement to various other types of relief, such as damages. In light of the applicable authorities, the recorded title documents for the parcels demonstrate as a matter of law that on this record, the restrictions of section 219 did not apply, the face of the pleading failed to state its causes of action, and the Landlord Defendants' demurrer was correctly sustained without leave to amend. Based on de novo analysis (akin to judgment on the pleadings),the Court of Appeal concluded the record fully supported the dismissal of all causes of action as to the City too. View "Linda Vista Village San Diego HOA v. Tecolote Investors" on Justia Law

This case arose from a longstanding issue between Public Utility District No. 1 of Okanogan County (PUD) and the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) over the installation of an electrical transmission line through school lands managed by DNR in the Methow Valley. At issue was whether PUD was statutorily authorized to condemn a right of way through school trust lands for the construction of a transmission corridor and, if so, whether the particular school lands were nonetheless exempt from condemnation as a result of their trust status as school lands or their then-present use for cattle grazing. The trial court and Court of Appeals concluded that PUD is statutorily authorized to condemn school lands and that the particular school lands at issue are subject to condemnation. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1 of Okanogan County v. Washington" on Justia Law

Petitioners owned properties located along Farm Road and a ten-foot right-of-way (collectively, the Farm Road), which provided the only means of access to Petitioners’ properties. Petitioners filed suit in the circuit court against the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission (the Commission) and several other defendants, alleging several claims based on the Commission’s refusal to recognize Farm Road and to issue addresses to Petitioners. The circuit court dismissed the action. The Court of Special Appeals upheld the dismissal. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part, holding that the Court of Special Appeals (1) properly upheld the circuit court’s dismissal of Petitioners’ state constitutional claims for Petitioners’ failure to comply with the notice requirements of the Local Government Tort Claims Act; (2) properly upheld the trial court’s dismissal of Petitioners’ easement claims for failure to join necessary parties, i.e., adjacent property owners; but (3) erred in determining that Petitioners failed to file their slander of title claim within the statute of limitations. View "Rounds v. Maryland-Nat’l Capital Park & Planning Comm’n" on Justia Law