Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

Applicants applied for a petition for a special exception in the Baltimore County Zoning Regulations to operate a fuel service station with a convenience store. At a hearing conducted by the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), several petitioners (collectively, Protestants) attended in opposition of the grant of the special exception. The OAH granted the petition with conditions. After a de novo evidentiary hearing, the Board of Appeals for Baltimore County approved the conditions for the special exception. The circuit court affirmed the Board’s decision. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the Board’s description of the neighborhood impacted by the special exception was precise enough to enable a party or appellate court to comprehend the area that the Board considered; and (2) the Board correctly determined that the Protestants failed sufficiently to rebut the presumption of validity of a special exception. View "Attar v. DMS Tollgate, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, Kettle Brook Realty, LLC, owned real property in the Town of East Windsor that that was assessed for purposes of the October 1, 2012 grand list. The Board of Assessment Appeals denied Plaintiff’s request for a reduction in the property’s assessed value. Plaintiff subsequently filed a complaint in the superior court alleging that its property had been overvalued. The Town filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction because Plaintiff did not serve the appeal papers within the two-month period allotted by Conn. Gen. Stat. 12-117a. The superior court granted the Town’s motion. The Appellate Court affirmed. Plaintiff appealed, arguing that, under the plain language of section 12-117a, its appeal was timely commenced upon the filing of its appeal documents in the superior court even though the appeal was not served on the Town until a date beyond the expiration of the two-month appeal period. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Plaintiff failed to serve its appeal on the Town within the two-month limitation period, the trial court properly dismissed the appeal as untimely. View "Kettle Brook Realty, LLC v. Town of East Windsor" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, Chestnut Point Realty, LLC, owned real property in the Town of East Windsor that that was assessed for purposes of the October 1, 2012 grand list. The Board of Assessment Appeals denied Plaintiff’s request for a reduction in the property’s assessed value. Plaintiff subsequently filed a complaint in the superior court alleging that the property had been overvalued. The Town filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction because Plaintiff did not serve the appeal papers within the two-month period allotted by Conn. Gen. Stat. 12-117a. The superior court granted the Town's motion. The Appellate Court affirmed. Plaintiff appealed, arguing that, under the plain language of section 12-117a, its appeal was timely commenced upon the filing of its appeal documents in the superior court even though the appeal was not served on the Town until a date beyond the expiration of the two-month appeal period. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Plaintiff failed to serve its appeal on the Town within the two-month limitation period, the trial court properly dismissed the appeal as untimely. View "Chestnut Point Realty, LLC v. Town of East Windsor" on Justia Law

After DEA agents seized $99,500 in cash from plaintiff's carry-on bag at San Francisco International Airport, the DEA sent plaintiff a notice on May 1, 2013, informing plaintiff that the money was subject to forfeiture under 21 U.S.C. 881 as a result of a violation of the Controlled Substances Act. The notice stated that June 5, 2013 was the deadline to file a contest of the forfeiture. On June 4th, 2013, plaintiff's attorney tendered plaintiff's claim to FedEx for overnight delivery to the DEA, but the DEA did not receive the claim until June 6th. Plaintiff eventually filed a motion for return of property under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g), arguing that the DEA had wrongfully deemed his claim untimely and that the district court should exercise its equitable jurisdiction to toll the filing deadline. The district court held that it had equitable jurisdiction to consider plaintiff's motion, but denied plaintiff's motion on the merits. The court treated section 983(e) of the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act (CAFRA), 18 U.S.C. 983(e), as a claim-processing rule. In this case, the district court correctly determined that it had jurisdiction to hear plaintiff's motion for equitable relief because there is no clear jurisdictional limitation to CAFRA. The court concluded that plaintiff failed to meet his burden of establishing that he pursued his rights diligently and that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of the motion. View "Okafor v. United States" on Justia Law

After a public hearing, the Town of Stockton Spring’s Board of Selectman determined that a structure owned by Hollie Beal was a dangerous building or nuisance pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 17, 2851. The superior court affirmed the decision of the Board. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) Beal’s contention that the Board violated her due process rights when it allegedly denied her the opportunity to be heard, to cross-examine witnesses, and to have an impartial fact-finder was unavailing; and (2) there was substantial evidence in the record to support the Board’s findings. View "Beal v. Town of Stockton Springs" on Justia Law

From 1980 through 2012, the City of Escondido (City) supplied water through a single water meter to a residential condominium homeowners association, and starting in 2006 billed for sewer services per gallon of water that flowed through that meter. The association used some of that water for its swimming pool and related bathroom facilities, which were connected to the City's sewer system. However, according to the association, upwards of 97 percent of the water was used for irrigating landscape common areas. In 2012 the City determined those landscape areas were not connected to the City's sewer system and at the association's request installed a separate, second water meter to supply water exclusively to that part of the property. The primary issue in this appeal was whether, from 2006 to before the second water meter was installed, the homeowners association was entitled to a refund under Government Code section 53082 of sewer service fees paid for the water used for irrigating the common area landscaping, for which no sewer services were provided. The Court of Appeal concluded section 53082 did not apply because liability for wrongfully collecting sewer service fees under this statute did not depend on a property owner's subjective or particular use of City-supplied water through a single water meter, but rather on whether the premises serviced by that meter are or are not connected to the sewer system. Here, during the period the property was supplied by a single water meter, the premises was, in fact, connected to the City's sewer system. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the trial court's order denying the association's petition for a writ of mandate. View "Cape Concord Homeowners Assn. v. City of Escondido" on Justia Law

21 Seabran, LLC applied for two permits necessary to renovate a garage on a lakefront parcel. The Town of Naples Code Enforcement Officer denied the permits, concluding that the parcel would have insufficient shore frontage to comply with state and local law. The Town of Naples Board of Appeals denied 21 Seabran’s appeal, concluding that the proposed renovation would add to the parcel a second “residential dwelling unit” for purposes of the Town of Naples Shoreland Zoning Ordinance, which would render the parcel noncompliant. The superior court affirmed. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment, holding (1) the Board’s determination that the proposed structure was a residential dwelling unit was erroneous; and (2) the Board’s conclusion that the parcel failed to comply with the minimum lot size law and rules was erroneous. View "21 Seabran, LLC v. Town of Naples" on Justia Law

Four consolidated property tax appeals returned to the Oregon Supreme Court following remand to the Oregon Tax Court. In "Village I," the Supreme Court addressed whether the Tax Court had erred by denying defendant-intervenor Clackamas County Assessor's (assessor) motion for leave to file amended answers on the ground that the answers contained impermissible counterclaims challenging the value of taxpayers' land. The Supreme Court determined that the assessor should have been allowed to challenge the land valuations, and it reversed and remanded the cases to the Tax Court. Before the assessor filed amended answers, taxpayers served notices of voluntary dismissal of their cases pursuant to Tax Court Rule (TCR) 54 A(1). The Tax Court then entered a judgment of dismissal, over the assessor's objection. The court denied the subsequent motions for relief from the judgment by defendant Department of Revenue (department) and the assessor. On appeal, the Supreme Court addressed whether, as defendants argued, the Tax Court erred by giving effect to taxpayers' notices of voluntary dismissal rather than to the decision in "Village I" concerning the assessor's counterclaims pending in the motions for leave to file amended answers. The Court concluded that the Tax Court erred in dismissing the appeals given the decision and remand in Village I. Accordingly, it vacated the Tax Court's order denying defendants relief from the judgment, reversed the general judgment of dismissal, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Village at Main Street Phase II, LLC II v. Dept. of Rev." on Justia Law

Property owners challenged the Lorain County auditor’s valuation of their single-family residence for tax year 2012, alleging that their 2011 purchase of the property was a recent arm’s-length sale that established a lower true value. The Lorain County Board of Revision (BOR) retained the auditor’s valuation, concluding that there was insufficient evidence to support the property owners’ complaint. The Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) reversed and valued the property according to the sale price, concluding that the transaction was recent, arm’s-length, and constituted the best indication of the property’s value. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the BTA and reinstated the BOR’s valuation, holding that the BTA’s decision was unreasonable and unlawful because it mischaracterized and disregarded evidence showing that the sale was a forced sale. View "Utt v. Lorain County Board of Revision" on Justia Law

At issue in this real property valuation case was the proper valuation for tax year 2012 of an unused office warehouse property. The county auditor assigned a value of $1,388,700 to the property. The property owner (Appellant) sought a sale price valuation of $50,000 and an appraisal valuation of either $450,000 or $588,000. The board of revision (BOR) rejected the sale price on the grounds had not been consummated. The transfer allegedly occurred after the hearing held by the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA). The BTA rejected the sale price because the evidence of transfer was presented after the close of its hearing. The BTA then valued the property at $588,000. The Supreme Court vacated the BTA’s decision, holding that the BTA erred by (1) declining to consider Appellant’s post hearing evidence of the consummation of the sale for a price of $50,000; and (2) concluding that the BTA’s initial decision was based on a clerical error that could be corrected without weighing the conflicting evidence of the value of the property. Remanded for further proceedings. View "Emerson Network Power Energy Systems, North America, Inc. v. Lorain County Board of Revision" on Justia Law