Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

A real estate developer, HK Baugh Ranch, LLC, petitioned the Texas Public Utility Commission (PUC) to release its undeveloped land, River Bend Ranch, from the certificate of convenience and necessity (CCN) issued to Crystal Clear Special Utility District (Crystal Clear). Crystal Clear, a federally indebted utility district, sued the PUC’s Chair and Commissioners in federal court, alleging that Texas Water Code § 13.2541, which allows for decertification, was preempted by 7 U.S.C. § 1926(b). This federal statute protects certain federally indebted utilities from curtailment of their service areas while their loans are outstanding.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas issued a preliminary injunction preventing the PUC from decertifying River Bend Ranch. The district court applied the “physical ability” test from Green Valley Special Utility District v. City of Schertz, determining that Crystal Clear likely made its service available to HK Baugh and was thus entitled to the protections of § 1926(b). The court concluded that § 1926(b) likely expressly preempts Texas Water Code § 13.2541, resolving the remaining preliminary injunction factors in favor of Crystal Clear.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court did not err in concluding that Crystal Clear would likely satisfy the “physical ability” test. However, the appellate court found that the district court erred in holding that § 1926(b) expressly preempts Texas Water Code § 13.2541. The appellate court remanded the case to the district court to determine whether § 1926(b) otherwise preempts Texas Water Code § 13.2541 and to address all preliminary injunction factors as necessary. The preliminary injunction remains in place pending further proceedings. View "Crystal Clear v. HK Baugh Ranch" on Justia Law

Upper Missouri Waterkeeper and seven Broadwater County residents challenged the approval of a subdivision by 71 Ranch, LP, arguing it did not meet the "exempt well" exception for a water rights permit. They sought attorney fees under the Montana Water Use Act, the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act (UDJA), and the Private Attorney General Doctrine. The District Court denied their request for fees under all three claims.The First Judicial District Court found that the subdivision's environmental assessment was inadequate and that the County abused its discretion in approving the subdivision. The court ruled in favor of Upper Missouri on most claims but denied their request for attorney fees. The plaintiffs appealed the denial of fees.The Montana Supreme Court reviewed the case and agreed with the District Court that the Water Use Act did not authorize fees. However, the Supreme Court reversed the denial of fees under the UDJA, finding that the District Court abused its discretion. The Supreme Court held that the equities supported an award of attorney fees and that the declaratory relief sought by Upper Missouri was necessary to change the status quo. The case was remanded to the District Court to determine a reasonable amount of fees and their apportionment. The Supreme Court did not address the private attorney general claim. View "Upper Missouri v. Department of Natural Resources and Conservation" on Justia Law

Petitioners sought to validate a portion of West Fork Pine Creek Road in Shoshone County, Idaho, which runs across private property and into public land managed by the Bureau of Land Management. The road is used by recreationalists to access an area known as "the Roller Coaster." Following disputes between local landowners and recreationalists, a petition was filed with the Shoshone County Board of Commissioners to validate the road. The Board denied the petition, citing concerns about environmental impacts, safety, and costs to taxpayers.The petitioners then sought judicial review in the District Court of the First Judicial District of Idaho, arguing that the Board erred in its decision. The district court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the Board's findings were supported by substantial and competent evidence. The petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court of Idaho, arguing that the district court erred in affirming the Board's conclusions.The Supreme Court of Idaho reviewed the case and determined that the Board erred in concluding that the 1909 meeting minutes did not establish the road as a public highway. However, the Court found no error in the Board's determination that validating the road was not in the public interest. The Court noted that the Board had considered various factors, including the availability of alternative access routes, the costs of surveying and maintaining the road, and the concerns of private property owners.Ultimately, the Supreme Court of Idaho affirmed the district court's decision, holding that while the road was established as a public highway in 1909, the Board did not abuse its discretion in determining that validation was not in the public interest. Neither party was awarded attorney fees on appeal. View "Jutila v. County of Shoshone" on Justia Law

Kris Hawkins filed a Realty Transfer Certificate in March 2018, indicating that a property in Florence, Ravalli County, had been transferred to the Olson Trust. The Department of Revenue (DOR) requested documentation identifying the trustee of the Trust in April 2018 and January 2019, but it was never provided. In July 2023, Hawkins, claiming to be the trustee, requested an informal review of the DOR’s appraised value of the property, which was not adjusted. Hawkins appealed to the Ravalli County Tax Appeals Board, but there was doubt about her status as trustee. Despite several requests, Hawkins did not provide the necessary documentation.The Ravalli County Tax Appeals Board denied Hawkins’s request for a reduction in value, and she appealed to the Montana Tax Appeal Board (MTAB). MTAB requested confirmation of Hawkins’s role as trustee multiple times. Hawkins filed a declaration for disqualification of MTAB members, alleging bias, but it was unsupported. She also filed a petition for interlocutory adjudication with the District Court, which was struck because the Trust was not represented by an attorney. Hawkins then requested to substitute herself for the Trust and reinstate the petition. MTAB dismissed the appeal due to lack of documentation, and the District Court dismissed the petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court’s decision. The court held that the District Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear an interlocutory adjudication because the underlying matter had already been dismissed by MTAB. The court found that Hawkins’s affidavit alleging bias was insufficient and that MTAB did not lose jurisdiction after the unfounded declaration. The District Court’s dismissal of the petition was proper. View "Hawkins v. State" on Justia Law

In 2019, the New York Legislature enacted the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act (HSTPA), expanding rent stabilization to all municipalities in the state. The City of Kingston declared a housing emergency on August 1, 2022, opting into the Emergency Tenant Protection Act (ETPA). Petitioners, a group of landlords, sought to invalidate Kingston's opt-in and two guidelines set by the Kingston New York Rent Guidelines Board (KRGB).The Supreme Court upheld Kingston's emergency declaration, finding the city's survey methodology reasonable. However, it vacated the KRGB guidelines, ruling that the fair market rent guideline required a case-by-case determination and that the rent adjustment guideline lacked statutory authority.The Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order, reinstating the KRGB guidelines. It held that the emergency declaration was based on a good faith study and that the fair market rent guideline did not require a case-by-case assessment. The rent adjustment guideline was also upheld, as the ETPA allows for rent adjustments without specifying that they must be upward.The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision. It found that the City's 2022 survey was reasonably reliable and relevant, supporting the emergency declaration. The court also upheld the fair market rent guideline, noting that it did not have an impermissibly retroactive effect, as no refunds were issued for periods before August 1, 2020. The challenge to the rent adjustment guideline was deemed unpreserved and not properly before the court. View "Matter of Hudson Val. Prop. Owners Assn. Inc. v City of Kingston" on Justia Law

A charter city in California entered into an agreement with a private developer to revitalize a nearly vacant mall into a multipurpose development. The city contributed approximately $51.36 million in local funds for public improvements, while the developer invested $143 million of its own funds and obtained additional loans. The developer selected the contractors and paid workers less than the prevailing wage, relying on a city ordinance exempting the project from the Prevailing Wage Law (PWL).The Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) determined that the project was subject to the PWL, as it involved public funds. The developer challenged this determination, but the Superior Court of Riverside County affirmed the DIR's decision, concluding that the project was not a municipal affair exempt from the PWL.The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's judgment. The court held that the project was not a municipal affair under the home rule provision of the California Constitution. The court distinguished this case from others where charter cities directly managed and funded public works projects. Here, the developer controlled the construction, selected contractors, and bore the majority of the financial burden. The court concluded that the primary purpose of the project was to benefit the developer, not the city, and thus, the PWL applied. The judgment was affirmed, and the DIR was awarded costs on appeal. View "Palm Springs Promenade, LLC v. Dept. of Industrial Relations" on Justia Law

The case involves several taxicab companies in Hillsborough County, Florida, which held certificates and permits issued by the Hillsborough County Public Transportation Commission (PTC). The PTC was a special district created by the Legislature to regulate taxicabs. In 2012, a law declared these certificates and permits to be the private property of their holders, allowing them to be transferred or devised. However, in 2017, the Legislature repealed the 2012 law, dissolved the PTC, and returned regulatory authority to Hillsborough County, which chose not to recognize the PTC-issued certificates and permits.The taxicab companies filed a lawsuit claiming that the repeal of the 2012 law and the dissolution of the PTC constituted a taking of their property without compensation, violating the Florida Constitution’s Takings Clause. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Hillsborough County, concluding that the certificates and permits had effectively vanished when the PTC was dissolved. However, the court denied the State's motion to dismiss, allowing the possibility of claims for damages against the State.The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of Hillsborough County and reversed the denial of the State's motion to dismiss, holding that the taxicab companies did not have a property interest in the PTC-issued certificates and permits for purposes of the Takings Clause. The taxicab companies then sought review by the Supreme Court of Florida.The Supreme Court of Florida held that the 2017 repeal did not implicate the Florida Constitution’s Takings Clause. The Court concluded that the Legislature retained the discretion to revoke any property rights conveyed in the 2012 law, as the certificates and permits were revocable privileges rather than irrevocable property rights. Consequently, the repeal of the 2012 law did not constitute a taking requiring compensation. The Court approved the decision of the Second District Court of Appeal. View "Bojorquez v. State" on Justia Law

In October 2016, BAS, LLC purchased commercial property in Paragould, Arkansas, listing its mailing address as 3735 Winford Drive, Tarzana, California. BAS failed to pay property taxes for 2017 and 2018, leading the Greene County Clerk to certify the property to the Commissioner of State Lands for nonpayment. The Commissioner sent a notice of the upcoming tax sale to the Tarzana address via certified mail in August 2021, but did not receive a physical return receipt. USPS tracking data indicated the notice was delivered. In June 2022, the Commissioner sent another notice to the Paragould property, which was returned undelivered. The property was sold in August 2022, and BAS filed a lawsuit contesting the sale, alleging due process violations and unlawful taking.The Greene County Circuit Court denied the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the Commissioner violated BAS’s due process rights, thus preventing a determination on sovereign immunity. The Commissioner appealed the decision.The Supreme Court of Arkansas reviewed the case and concluded that the Commissioner’s efforts to notify BAS were constitutionally sufficient. The court found no genuine dispute of material fact and determined that the Commissioner’s actions met due process requirements. The court held that BAS failed to allege an illegal or unconstitutional act to overcome sovereign immunity. Consequently, the Supreme Court of Arkansas reversed the circuit court’s decision and granted summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner. View "Land v. BAS, LLC" on Justia Law

Old Golden Oaks LLC applied for an encroachment permit and a grading permit from Amador County for a housing development project. The county deemed the applications incomplete and requested additional information. Old Golden Oaks filed a petition for writ of mandate, arguing that the county violated the Permit Streamlining Act by requesting information not specified in the submittal checklists for the permits.The Superior Court of Amador County sustained the county’s demurrer without leave to amend, finding that the encroachment permit checklist allowed the county to request additional information and that the county had statutory authority to seek information necessary for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Third Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court agreed with Old Golden Oaks that the catch-all provision in the county’s encroachment permit submittal checklist violated the Permit Streamlining Act because it did not specify in detail the required information. However, the court found that the county could condition the completeness of the grading permit application on additional environmental information because the grading permit checklist informed Old Golden Oaks that the project must comply with CEQA. The court reversed the trial court’s judgment regarding the encroachment permit but affirmed the judgment regarding the grading permit. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs on appeal. View "Old Golden Oaks v. County of Amador" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between a railroad company and La Plata County over land use changes made by the railroad at its Rockwood Station. The railroad made several modifications to accommodate increased passenger traffic, including enlarging a parking lot and adding portable toilets and tents. The County claimed these changes violated its land use code and demanded compliance or corrective action.The railroad initially sought a declaratory judgment and an injunction in La Plata County District Court, arguing that the County lacked jurisdiction over its operations. While this case was pending, the County petitioned the Colorado Public Utilities Commission (PUC) for a declaratory ruling that the changes required compliance with the County's land use code. The PUC accepted the petition, and an administrative law judge (ALJ) concluded that the changes constituted "extensions, betterments, or additions" under the relevant statute, thus requiring compliance with the County's code. The PUC upheld the ALJ's decision, and the district court affirmed the PUC's ruling.The Colorado Supreme Court reviewed the case and addressed several issues raised by the railroad. The court concluded that the PUC had jurisdiction to interpret the relevant land use statute, the County had standing to petition the PUC, and the PUC did not violate the railroad's due process rights. The court also found that the PUC's determination that the changes constituted "extensions, betterments, or additions" was just and reasonable and supported by the evidence. Consequently, the Colorado Supreme Court affirmed the district court's judgment upholding the PUC's decision. View "Am. Heritage Ry.s v. Colo. Pub. Utils. Comm'n" on Justia Law