Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court vacated the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) rejecting the method of valuation espoused by an appraiser for the property owner, HCP EMOH, LLC, to derive an opinion of value for an assisted-living facility and instead adopting the valuation reached by an appraiser for the Washington County Board of Revision (BOR) and Washington County Auditor (collectively, the county), holding that the BTA erred in adopting the county’s appraisal.The property at issue consisted of two parcels constituting almost seven acres of land and was improved with a one-story assisted-living facility. At issue was how an appraiser should separate the family’s business value from the value of the realty. HCP’s appraiser relied on apartment comparable to reach a value for the property. The county, however, relied on data from the assisted-living-facility market. The Supreme Court vacated the BTA’s decision, holding (1) case law permits but does not require consideration of apartment comparable; but (2) the county’s appraiser was not scrupulous in selecting data that led him to value the business rather than the realty. View "HCP EMOH, LLC v. Washington County Board of Revision" on Justia Law

In this property dispute, the Supreme Court retained Indiana’s common-law rule prohibiting the unilateral relocation of fixed easements and affirmed the trial court’s entry of judgment for Joseph DeSpirito on his petition for judicial review and against Richland Convenience Store Partners, LLC (Richland) and the Town of Ellettsville, Indiana Plan Commission (Commission).Despite the opposition of DeSpirito, who owned an adjacent lot, the Commission approved Richland’s request to relocate a utility easement on its lot. On judicial review, the trial court granted summary judgment against Richland and the Commission, finding that DeSpirito had a fixed utility easement through Richland’s lot and that the easement’s fixed location meant it could not be changed by either party without consent of the other. At issue on appeal was whether the Court should adhere to Indiana’s longstanding common-law rule requiring all affected estate-holders to consent to the relocation of a fixed easement or to adopt the position of the Third Restatement of Property (Servitudes), which permits the unilateral relocation of easements if a court finds the proposed relocation is reasonable, consistent with the normal use and development of the servant estate, and does not adversely affect the dominant estate. The Supreme Court rejected the minority approach reflected in the Third Restatement and affirmed. View "Town of Ellettsville, Indiana Plan Commission v. DeSpirito" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court affirming the decision of the Wyoming State Board of Equalization (state) reversing the decision of the Washakie County Board of Equalization (county board) reversing the valuations of the Washakie County Assessor classifying Taxpayers’ four properties as either residential or vacant residential for tax purposes, holding that Taxpayers’ property did not qualify for classification as agricultural lands.Taxpayers separately owned four parcels of land in Washakie County, Wyoming. In March 2014, the Assessor issued notices of assessment for Taxpayers’ properties classifying the parcels as either residential or residential vacant. The county board reversed the valuations, concluding that Taxpayers had demonstrated that their properties met the four requirements under Wyo. Stat. Ann. 39-13-103(b)(x)(B) to be taxed as agricultural land. The state board reversed. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Taxpayers failed to meet their burden to overcome the presumption in favor of the Assessor’s assessments. View "Helmut v. Mueller Limited Partnership v. Treanor" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) dismissing Appellants’ appeal from a decision of the Cuyahoga County Board of Revision (BOR) because it found that Appellants failed to timely file a notice of appeal with the BOR in accordance with Ohio Rev. Code 5717.01, holding that the BTA properly dismissed the appeal.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) to perfect an appeal of a county board of revision’s decision to the BTA, a notice of appeal must be timely filed with both the BTA and the BOR; (2) Appellants did not timely file a notice of appeal with the BOR as required by section 5717.01; and (3) the BTA was not required to convene an evidentiary hearing, and therefore, Appellants’ claim of a constitutional due-process violation was unfounded. View "Ross v. Cuyahoga County Board of Revision" on Justia Law

Petitioner Lakes Region Water Company, Inc. (Lakes Region), appealed a New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission (Commission) order requiring Lakes Region to refund a second base charge it had imposed on its customer, Robert Mykytiuk, and prohibiting it from “imposing such charges unless and until they are included in the company’s tariff.” Lakes Region learned that Mykytiuk had constructed an additional structure on his property. To supply the new structure with water, Mykytiuk tapped into his primary residence’s service connection. Shortly after learning of the new construction, Lakes Region sent Mykytiuk an application for new service for the additional structure and requested to inspect the water service connection. Despite concluding that the new structure required a separate service connection, Lakes Region chose not to install one at that time. Rather, Lakes Region began billing Mykytiuk for an additional “base charge,” which referred to the “[m]inimum charge per customer per quarter” scheduled in Lakes Region’s tariff. Mykytiuk complained to the Commission, asserting that he was not required to have a second service connection. The Commission treated the matter as a formal complaint and held a hearing on the merits. At the hearing, Mykytiuk argued that Lakes Region could not charge him a separate base charge or require him to install a separate meter for the additional structure because neither was provided for in Lakes Region’s tariff. Finding no reversible error in the Commission’s order, the New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed. View "Appeal of Lakes Region Water Company, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied the writ of mandamus sought by Mars Urban Solutions, LLC and Michael Majeski seeking to compel the Cuyahoga County fiscal officer and Cuyahoga County Board of Revision (BOR) to comply with a judgment of the Ohio Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) that reduced the 2010 value of a property that Majeski owned and later conveyed to Mars Urban, holding that a writ was not warranted in this case.The Court reached its conclusion after noting that 2012 was the first year of a new sexennium, and any dispute that Mars Urban and Majeski had pertaining to the property value for any year beyond 2011 should have been filed as a new and separate claim for each year. The Court also held that the fiscal officer and the BOR submitted sufficient evidence to establish that both entities complied with the BTA’s judgment for tax years 2010 and 2011. Therefore, the Court denied the writ. View "State ex rel. Mars Urban Solutions, LLC v. Cuyahoga County Fiscal Officer" on Justia Law

In 2009, Seneca Sustainable Energy LLC (Seneca) began construction of a biomass cogeneration facility on property that it owned outside of Eugene, Oregon. In this direct appeal of the Regular Division of the Tax Court, the Department of Revenue argued the Tax Court erred in concluding that it had jurisdiction to consider a challenge brought by Seneca to the department’s determination of the real market value of Seneca’s electric cogeneration facility and the notation of the real market value on the assessment roll for two tax years, 2012-13 and 2013-14. The department also argued that the Tax Court erred in concluding that the department’s determinations of the property’s real market values for the 2012-13 and 2013-14 tax years were incorrect and in setting the values at significantly lower amounts. Finding no reversible error, the Oregon Supreme Court affirmed the Tax Court’s rulings. View "Seneca Sustainable Energy, LLC v. Dept. of Rev." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) affirming the tax commissioner’s denial of Willoughby Hills Development and Distribution, Inc.’s (WHDD) request for a commercial-activity-tax (CAT) refund, holding that WHDD fell short of the requirements necessary for the gross-receipts exclusion to apply.Subject to exclusions, the CAT is levied on each entity with taxable gross receipts above a certain threshold for the privilege of doing business in Ohio. At issue was whether WHDD could meet the requirements of the gross-receipts exclusion that applies when a person or entity acts as an agent for another. The tax commissioner concluded that no agency relationship existed and denied the refund claim. The BTA affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that WHDD did not meet the CAT statute’s definition of “agent.” View "Willoughby Hills Development & Distribution, Inc. v. Testa" on Justia Law

In this real-property-valuation case, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) affirming the decision of the Clark County Board of Revision (BOR) retaining Clark County auditor’s determination of the current agricultural use valuation (CAUV) for the subject property for tax year 2013, holding that there was no merit to Appellant’s arguments on appeal.Appellant, the property owner, challenged the CAUV. The BOR rejected Appellant’s claims. The BTA affirmed. On appeal, Appellant argued, among other things, that the BTA misapplied the burden of proof and improperly applied a presumption of validity to the BOR’s decision. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the BTA, holding that Appellant’s arguments were without merit. View "Johnson v. Clark County Board of Revision" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Board of Land and Natural Resources (BLNR) authorizing issuance of a Conservation District Use permit (CDUP) for a Thirty Meter Telescope (TMT) near the summit of Mauna Kea, holding that the BLNR property applied the law in analyzing whether the permit should be issued for the TMT.Appellants, Native Hawaiian cultural practitioners, argued that Mauna Kea, as a sacred manifestation of their ancestors, was desecrated by development of astronomy facilities near its summit. The BLNR authorized issuance of the CDUP of the TMT after Third Circuit judge Riki May Amano conducted a contested case hearing over forty-four days. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the BLNR did not err by refusing to disqualify Amano as the hearing officer, and certain Deputy Attorneys General; (2) the TMT project does not violate religious exercise rights of Native Hawaiians protected by federal statutes; (3) the TMT project does not violate public trust principles, and the conditions of Hawai’i Administrative Rules 13-5-30(c) for issuance of a CDUP were satisfied; and (4) the proceeding was legitimate. View "In re Contested Case Hearing re Conservation District Use Application" on Justia Law