Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the district court determining that the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) erred in granting Montana Artesian Water Company's application for a beneficial use permit and denying Objectors' motion for attorney fees, holding that the district court erred in denying Objectors' motion for attorney fees.The district court vacated the DNRC's order granting Artesian's application for the permit and remanded the case on the grounds that the DNRC improperly relied on an internal agency memorandum in analyzing availability. Artesian appealed, and the Objectors in this case - Flathead Lakers Inc. and Water for Flathead's Future - cross appealed from the deemed denial of their motion for attorney fees. The Supreme Court held that the district court (1) erred by determining that DNRC erroneously granted Artesian's application for a beneficial use permit; and (2) abused its discretion by denying Objectors' fee motion by operation of law. View "Flathead Lakers Inc. v. Mont. Dep't of Natural Resources & Conservation" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the district court granting summary judgment to Water for Flathead's Future (WFF) and vacating the Montana Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (MPDES) permit issued by the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to Artesian Water Company, holding that the district court erred.In granting summary judgment, the district court determined that the DEQ had erred by (1) submitting inadequate responses to the comments from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the United States Fish and Wildlife Services (WSFWS), and (2) DEQ's analysis of the permit's environmental impact was inadequate. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) this matter has not been mooted; (2) the district court improperly substituted its own judgment for the agency's in concluding that DEQ, in issuing the permit, had failed to give a "hard look" at relevant concerns; (3) the district court erred by holding that DEQ improperly considered only the volume of water that would be discharged under MPDES permit rather than the full volume of water authorized for use under the DNRC's water use permit; and (4) the district court erred by vacating the permit. View "State v. Noli" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the district court granting summary judgment to Water for Flathead's Future (WFF) and vacating the Montana Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (MPDES) permit issued by the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to Artesian Water Company, holding that the district court erred.In granting summary judgment, the district court determined that the DEQ had erred by (1) submitting responses to the comments from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the United States Fish and Wildlife Services (WSFWS) that were inadequate, and (2) DEQ's analysis of the permit's environmental impact was inadequate. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) this matter has not been mooted; (2) the district court improperly substituted its own judgment for the agency's in concluding that DEQ, in issuing the permit, had failed to give a "hard look" at relevant concerns; (3) the district court erred by holding that DEQ improperly considered only the volume of water that would be discharged under MPDES permit rather than the full volume of water authorized for use under the DNRC's water use permit; and (4) the district court erred by vacating the permit. View "Water for Flathead's Future, Inc. v. Mont. Dep't of Environmental Quality" on Justia Law

The Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT) contracted with Jones to repair State Route 141. The project involved 68,615 tons of “graded solid rock” for the new road's bottom layer. To obtain graded solid rock, Jones leased land near the roadway, paying the property owner $75,282. Jones prepared the Site and began pattern blasting the limestone to produce appropriately sized rock pieces, using a “shaker” bucket to allow debris to fall away. Appropriately-sized rocks were hauled to the road site. The Site also served as a waste pit for material from the road repair. After several months, a Federal Mine Safety & Health Administration Inspector inspected the Site, determined that Jones had violated several Administration standards, and issued citations and orders.An ALJ ruled that the Site was a mine subject to the Mine Act, not a “borrow pit,” which is not subject to the Administration’s jurisdiction. On remand, the case was assigned to another ALJ, who indicated that she had read the vacated decision. Jone moved for recusal, citing the Sixth Circuit’s command that Jones receive fresh proceedings. The ALJ denied the motion and held that the Site was a mine, not a borrow pit, based on findings that Jones did not only use the Site on a one-time basis or only intermittently; engaged in milling, sizing, and crushing; and did not use the rock more for bulk fill than for its intrinsic qualities. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the decision as supported by substantial evidence. View "Jones Brothers, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor, Mine Safety & Health Administration" on Justia Law

By 2011, due to weathering and aging, the condition of the concrete stairs leading to the entrance of the Oil City Library (the “library”) had significantly declined. Oil City contracted with Appellants Harold Best and Struxures, LLC, to develop plans for the reconstruction of the stairs and to oversee the implementation of those design plans. The actual reconstruction work was performed by Appellant Fred Burns, Inc., pursuant to a contract with Oil City (appellants collectively referred to as “Contractors”). Contractors finished performing installation work on the stairs by the end of 2011. In early 2012, Oil City began to receive reports about imperfections in the concrete surface, which also began to degrade. In September 2013, Oil City informed Burns of what it considered to be its defective workmanship in creating the dangerous condition of the stairs. Between February 28, 2012 and November 23, 2015, the condition of the stairs continued to worsen; however, neither Oil City nor Contractors made any efforts to repair the stairs, or to warn the public about their dangerous condition. In 2015, Appellee David Brown (“Brown”) and his wife Kathryn exited the library and began to walk down the concrete stairs. While doing so, Kathryn tripped on one of the deteriorated sections, which caused her to fall and strike her head, suffering a traumatic head injury. Tragically, this injury claimed her life six days later. Brown, in his individual capacity and as the executor of his wife’s estate, commenced a wrongful death suit, asserting negligence claims against Oil City, as owner of the library, as well as Contractors who performed the work on the stairs pursuant to their contract with Oil City. The issue this case presented for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court was whether Section 385 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts imposed liability on a contractor to a third party whenever the contractor, during the course of his work for a possessor of land, creates a dangerous condition on the land that injures the third party, even though, at the time of the injury, the contractor was no longer in possession of the land, and the possessor was aware of the dangerous condition. To this, the Court concluded, as did the Commonwealth Court below, that a contractor may be subjected to liability under Section 385 in such circumstances. View "Brown v. Oil City, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant-landowner Sisters & Brothers Investment Group, LLP (SBIG) appealed an environmental-division enforcement order: enjoining it from using real property in the City of Burlington; ordering it to address site-improvement deficiencies as required by an agreement executed by a prior owner and the City; and imposing $66,759.22 in fines. SBIG purchased the subject property in 2004, which was then in use as a gas and service station, a preexisting, nonconforming use permitted under the City’s zoning ordinance. The property had eighteen parking spaces that were required to be used in connection with the service-station business. Following an unappealed 2002 notice of violation (NOV), the prior owner and the City signed an agreement on June 16, 2004—one day before SBIG purchased the property—which set out specific requirements to cure those violations. The agreement required the prior owner to take certain steps if it wished to sell the property and provided that the agreement was “specifically enforceable and . . .binding upon the successors and assigns of” the previous owner. The City did not enforce compliance with the agreement before this action. At some point after 2004, SBIG began renting out a small number of parking spaces to private individuals. This was not a permitted use under the zoning ordinance. In July 2017, the gas and service station closed, and SBIG thereafter increased the number of parking spaces it rented out to private individuals. Following complaints about the private-parking use and graffiti, the City contacted SBIG in 2018 about bringing the property into compliance with the zoning ordinance. SBIG took no remedial action, and the City issued an NOV. In June 2019, the Development Review Board (DRB) affirmed the NOV with respect to the change-of-use violation, finding the nonconforming use as a gas and service station had been discontinued for more than one year, which constituted abandonment of that use. In March 2020, the City filed a complaint in the environmental division to enforce the decision and sought fines. The Vermont Supreme Court determined the trial court erroneously found that SBIG knew or should have known about the 2004 agreement, therefore, it reversed the judgment order, directed the trial court to strike the condition requiring SBIG to address the site-improvement deficiencies in the agreement, and remanded for the court to recalculate fines without considering whether SBIG violated the agreement’s terms. View "City of Burlington v. Sisters & Brothers Investment Group, LLP" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court concluding that "repowering" a wind plant, or replacing a substantial proportion of its parts, does not change the analysis for valuing wind plants for property tax purposes under Iowa Code 427B.26, holding that the district court did not err.Story County Wind, LLC (SCW) owned a wind energy conversion property. In 2019, a repowering project began for the wind plants. Because the Story County Assessor continued to value and assess the wind plants as before, in 2021, SCW filed a protest seeking to modify the assessment. The Board declined to modify the assessment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, under section 427B.26, repowering a wind plant by replacing component parts does not charge the plants' valuation for property tax purposes. View "Story County Wind, LLC v. Story County Bd. of Review" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court entering summary judgment favor of Eastern Shore Community Services Board (ESCSB) and holding that Oreze Healthcare LLC's conveyance of real property to a third party prohibited Oreze from pursuing its breach of contract claim against ESCSB, holding that ESCSB was not entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.ESCSB and Oreze entered into a commercial lease agreement under which ESCSB agreed to lease the four buildings comprising an assisted living facility whose license had been suspended and to provide interim care to its residents until a permanent solution was reached. When water damaged the buildings and no remedy was reached before ESCSB terminated the lease Oreze brought this complaint for breach of contract. While the lawsuit was pending, Oreze conveyed the property to a third party by general warranty deed. The circuit court granted summary judgment for ESCSB, ruling that Oreze failed to reserve its claims in the deed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the deed did not extinguish or transfer Oreze's right to sue ESCSB for property damage arising from an alleged breach of the lease. View "Oreze Healthcare v. Eastern Shore Community Services Bd." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court disagreed with the lower courts' dismissal of Appellants' complaint against Maricopa County for appeal of an administrative action and the final judgment on the County's counterclaim, holding that the plain meaning of Ariz. Rev. Stat. 12-904(A) did not bar jurisdiction.Maricopa County's Planning and Development Department fined Appellants for violations of the county zoning ordinance, and the decision was affirmed. Appellants filed a complaint against the County requesting declaratory relief and alleging due process violations. The County filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because the complaint was deficient. The trial court denied the motion and allowed Appellants to file an amended complaint. Thereafter, Appellants brought an amended complaint seeking judicial review of the administrative decision. The County asserted a counterclaim seeking to enforce the fine. The trial court ruled the complaint failed to comply with Ariz. Rev. Stat. 12-904(A), and therefore, Appellants failed timely to file a "notice of appeal." The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals and reversed the trial court, holding that Appellants' complaint complied with section 12-904(A)'s three jurisdictional requirements that the timely filing's substance provide notice of the appeal, identify the decision being appealed, and state the issues argued on appeal. View "Shea v. Maricopa County" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court granting summary judgment to the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) and ruling that Kageco Orchards, LLC's requests for declaratory judgment relief and mandamus were correctly denied, holding that the district court did not err.Kageco filed suit against MDT alleging that the placement of certain mailboxes within MDT's right of way created a potential hazard and interfered with Kageco's lawful use of an approach from a highway to its property. Kageco sought a declaratory judgment and, alternatively, a writ of mandamus seeking to have the mailboxes removed and relocated. The district court granted judgment to MDT. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not err in determining that Kageco did not have standing to pursue its claim for declaratory relief because there was no justiciable case or controversy; and (2) did not err in denying Kageco's request for a writ of mandamus because MDT's acts were discretionary as opposed to ministerial. View "Kageco v. Mont. Dep't of Transportation" on Justia Law