Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff-Appellant Creed-21 appealed the dismissal of its petition for writ of mandate and complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief under the California Environmental Quality Act (Petition). The trial court imposed an issue sanction on standing, which terminated the action, for the misuse of the discovery process in response to a motion for sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030 filed by real party in interest and respondent Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust (Wal-Mart). The project being challenged was a 185,682 square foot Walmart retail complex (the Project) located in the City of Wildomar. On March 11, 2015, the City’s council approved the Project. Creed-21 alleged that the Project violated CEQA and other laws. Creed-21 alleged against the Wal-Mart and the City (collectively, the Wildomar Defendants) that they failed to prepare an adequate environmental impact report and they violated the planning and zoning law within the meaning of Government Code section 65860. Creed-21 sought to stop the Wildomar Defendants from taking any action on the Project until they complied with CEQA and the planning and zoning laws. The Court of Appeal concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the terminating sanction. View "Creed-21 v. City of Wildomar" on Justia Law

The United States charged Hall with unlawful gambling and money laundering and obtained a preliminary criminal forfeiture order for 18 parcels in Knox County. The County determined that Hall owed substantial delinquent real property taxes, giving it a first lien under Tennessee law. Under 21 U.S.C. 853(n)(2), a party asserting an interest in property that is subject to criminal forfeiture may seek a hearing on his alleged interest within 30 days. Knox County filed an untimely claim. The court amended the preliminary forfeiture order to cover three more Knox County properties. Knox County filed a timely second claim and requested an interlocutory sale and delay of forfeiture. The United States stated that accrued taxes and interest would be paid, regardless of whether the taxing authority filed a claim, but argued that Knox County would have no legal interest in accruing taxes once title passes, citing the Supremacy Clause, and objected to delaying a final forfeiture order. The Sixth Circuit vacated the forfeiture order. Knox County has a legal interest in the property (tax lien), so the district court erred in dismissing its claim for lack of standing but it is not necessarily entitled to a hearing. The court may ascertain the scope of Knox County’s interest on summary judgment but must account for that interest before entering a final forfeiture order. The court did not abuse its discretion in denying Knox County’s motion for an interlocutory sale. View "United States v. Hall" on Justia Law

The New York State Department of Health (DOH) complied with its responsibilities under the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) in assessing Jewish Home Lifecare’s (JHL) application to construct a new residential facility in New York City.Petitioners, parents of students attending a public elementary school next door to the proposed construction site and tenants living in apartment buildings surrounding the site, brought these two article 78 proceedings seeking to annul, vacate and set aside DOH’s determination, arguing that DOH relied on flawed assessment methodologies and failed adequately to mitigate the environmental dangers associated with the construction. Supreme Court vacated and annulled DOH’s approval of JHL’s application, concluding that DOH followed proper SEQRA procedures but failed adequately to consider all relevant mitigation measures. The appellate division reversed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that DOH complied with its SEQRA responsibilities by identifying and assessing relevant environmental hazards and imposed mitigation measures to protect public health and safety. View "Friends of P.S. 163, Inc. v. Jewish Home Lifecare, Manhattan" on Justia Law

Petitioner Marin Metropolitan District (the “District”) was a special district created as a vehicle to finance the infrastructure of a proposed residential community. In late 2007, the organizers of the District held an election and approved the creation of the District. At the same time, pursuant to Colorado’s Taxpayer Bill of Rights (“TABOR”), the organizers voted to approve the issuance of bonds and to impose property taxes to pay the bonds on landowners within the District. A group of condominium owners subsequently learned that their properties had been included in the District under what they believed to be suspicious circumstances and that they had been assessed property taxes to pay the bonds. Acting through their homeowners’ association, respondent Landmark Towers Association, Inc., (“Landmark”) the owners brought two lawsuits: one to invalidate the creation of the District and the other (this case) to invalidate the approval of the bonds and taxes and to recover taxes that they had paid to the District, among other things. The district court ultimately ordered a partial refund of the taxes paid by the condominium owners and enjoined the District from assessing future taxes on the owners in order to pay its obligations under the bonds. Both sides appealed, and the court of appeals concluded, in pertinent part, that Landmark’s challenge to the bond and tax election was timely and that the election violated TABOR and applicable statutes. At issue before the Colorado Supreme Court was whether Landmark’s challenge to the bond and tax election was timely and the election was validly conducted. The Supreme Court reversed, finding Section 1-11-213(4), C.R.S. (2017), required a party seeking to contest an election like that present here to file a written statement of intent to contest the election within ten days after the official survey of returns has been filed with the designated election official. Without that statement, no could had jurisdiction over the contest. Landmark’s challenge to the bond and tax election at issue was time barred, and thus, the Court reversed the judgment below and remanded for further proceedings. View "UMB Bank, N.A. v. Landmark Towers Association, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) dismissing the appeal of a group of Landowners challenging the tax commissioner’s journal entries that set forth current agricultural-use values (CAUVs) that county auditors use to value farmland for tax purposes. In this, the Landowners’ second appeal, the Landowners argued that the CAUV journal entries are rules subject to the rulemaking requirements of Ohio Rev. Code 119. The BTA dismissed the appeal, determining that it did not have jurisdiction over the appeal. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the BTA incorrectly stated that it did not have jurisdiction over the Landowners’ rule-review appeal because Ohio Rev. Code 5703.14 plainly authorizes an injured party to challenge a rule issued by the tax commissioner on the basis that it is unreasonable; but (2) because the Landowners did not make any showing that the rules were unreasonable, it was proper for the BTA to dismiss their appeal. View "Adams v. Testa" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) affirming the Board of Revision’s (BOR) valuation of the subject property in this case, concluding that the Board of Education (BOE) had not overcome the presumption that a July 2010 sale of the property was not an arm’s-length transaction.In a related case, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the BTA ruling that the sale of the subject property and related assets for $43 million in July 2010 did not establish the true value of the property for tax year 2010. The court held that the BTA reasonably and lawfully valued the real property at $13,800,000 - the 2010 appraised value submitted by the property owner. This case involved the same parties, the same property, the same sale, and the same appraisal report but related to tax year 2012. In this appeal, the BOE argued that the July 2010 sale was a recent arm’s-length transaction determining the value of the real property. The Supreme Court held (1) the school board’s reliance on the sale price in this case was barred under the doctrine of collateral estoppel; and (2) the BTA reasonably and lawfully adopted the appraiser’s 2012 valuation. View "Warrensville Heights City School District Board of Education v. Cuyahoga County Board of Revision" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reinstated the appeal of a group of landowners challenging the tax commissioner’s journal entry that set forth a table assigning per-acre values to different types of agricultural land, holding that the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) had jurisdiction to review the journal entry and therefore erred in dismissing the appeal.In dismissing the appeal, the BTA concluded that it id not have jurisdiction under Ohio Rev. Code 5717.02 to consider an appeal of the journal entry because the journal entry was not a “final determination.” The BTA also concluded that the journal entry was not a “rule.” The Supreme Court reversed the BTA’s dismissal of the appeal and remanded the cause for further proceedings, holding (1) the journal entry is not a rule and thus is not subject to challenge under statutory provisions dealing with rulemaking; but (2) the journal entry is a “final determination,” which the BTA has jurisdiction to review. View "Adams v. Testa" on Justia Law

In this real-property valuation case, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) that San Diego Real Estate Investments, LLC’s (SD REI) complaint seeking to reduce the county auditor’s tax-year-2010 valuation of the subject property was jurisdictionally valid.SD REI’s complaint alleged that the value of the subject property should be reduced from $90,400 to $26,000. The Board of Revision (BOR) reduced the property’s value to $26,000 for tax year 2010. The Board of Education (BOE) appealed to the BTA. Thereafter, the BOE requested that the BTA remand the matter to the BOR with instructions to dismiss the complaint and reinstate the auditor’s valuation, asserting that SD REI’s complaint failed to invoke the BOR’s jurisdiction because the complaint was filed by an individual lacking the requisite authority. The BTA denied the request and ruled that the property’s value should be $26,000 for tax years 2010 through 2013. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the cause to the BTA with instructions to dismiss the complaint, holding that the complaint was jurisdictionally defective. View "Columbus City Schools Board of Education v. Franklin County Board of Revision" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) reversing the decision of the Board of Revision (BOR) and reinstating the auditor’s tax-year-2011 valuation of the subject property at $1,550,000. Appellant filed a valuation complaint, and the BOR reduced the value of the property to $300,000. The BTA found that the record did not support the BOR’s decision to reduce the subject property’s value and reinstated the auditor’s valuation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the BTA did not violate the rule stated in Bedford Board of Education v. Cuyahoga County Board of Revision, 875 N.E.2d 913, by reinstating the auditor’s valuation. View "Olentangy Local Schools Board of Education v. Delaware County Board of Revision" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) denying Appellant’s request to reduce the value of residential property he owned during the 2013 tax year. The subject property consisted of a .13-acre parcel improved with a single-family home. For tax year 2013, Appellant requested that the Board of Revision (BOR) reduce the fiscal officer’s valuation from $88,600 to $6,000. The BOR retained the fiscal officer’s valuation. The BTA also retained the fiscal officer’s valuation, concluding that Appellant failed to met his burden to adduce competent and probative evidence of value and that there was inadequate evidence to independently determine a value. The Supreme Court remanded for consideration of the evidence, holding that the BTA erred by failing to account for potentially material evidence of the property’s sale in 2009. View "Mann v. Cuyahoga County Board of Revision" on Justia Law