Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

Appellants, a group of heirs who were entitled to receive the net proceeds of a judicial sale of four tracts of land, sued Appellees, a former master commissioner of the circuit court, a circuit court judge, and the administrative office of the courts, pursuant to the Kentucky Board of Claims Act, after the former master commissioner failed to disburse the proceeds of the sale. The Board of Claims (Board) entered a final order dismissing Appellants' claims for lack of jurisdiction. The circuit court and court of appeals affirmed. At issue on appeal was whether a claim involving judicial officers or court employes may proceed at the Board. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the judge's continued use of the master commissioner, without reappointment, to perform significant functions in actions in the circuit court without a bond and without surety approved by the judge as statutorily mandated, was grounds for a claim in the Board of Claims based upon alleged negligence in the performance of a ministerial duty by an officer of the state. Remanded to the Board for a determination of whether Appellants suffered damages as a proximate cause of the alleged negligence.

Two brothers had a dispute over an alleged oral agreement relating to the care of their mother by which one brother agreed to give up part of his inheritance if the other brother would care for their mother. The trial court found that a valid agreement between the brothers had been reached. The court of appeals reversed on an issue that had not been raised at the trial court but which the court reached as part of its overall examination of the validity of the agreement. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the court of appeals cannot reverse the judgment of the trial court on an issue that was not specifically raised at the trial court, but (2) the court of appeals nevertheless reached the correct result because the parties' agreement was unenforceable under the statute of frauds, and thus, no action on it could be maintained.

In the underlying cases, the respective property owners failed to satisfy their debt obligations to professional lending institutions, which precipitated foreclosure proceedings. The Commonwealth intervened, seeking to block the foreclosures pending resolution of the tax liens. In both cases, the lenders brought suit to assert that their respective mortgages were superior to the general tax liens filed pursuant to the state recording statutes. Kentucky is a "race-notice" state in that a mortgage, deed or deed of trust takes effect at the time it is recorded. In both cases, the tax liens superseded the lenders' liens; but the lenders argued that state law provided super priority for ad valorem taxes, not general tax liens, therefore their purchase money mortgages superseded the Commonwealth's liens. Disagreeing with the lenders' characterization of the tax liens, the Supreme Court held that the tax liens took priority over the lenders' liens, and should be afforded no special priority.

Paul and Pat Nash own twenty-eight acres in Campbell County. Clifford and Toby Torline own thirty-five acres. Both Nash and Torline wished to divide their parcels into tracts of five or more acres each for agricultural uses. Nash and Torline see the five-acre plots as mini-farms, but the County views the plots as residential subdivisions with large lots. The County Clerk petitions the court for guidance as to whether or not he should accept the deeds of the five-acre divisions for recording. The County maintains that two of its ordinances prohibit any division until the property owners prove to the Planning Commission that the divisions were for agricultural purposes. Nash and Torline take exception to having the burden placed on them, and argue that the County must prove the divisions were not exempt from subdivision regulations. The trial court agreed with Nash and Torline, and held that the County's ordinances violated the agricultural supremacy clause and were therefore unconstitutional. The appellate court reversed the lower court and ordered summary judgment on behalf of the County. The Supreme Court accepted discretionary review, affirmed in part the lower court's decision, reversed in part, and remanded the case to the trial court to enter summary judgment in favor of the County. The Court found that the five-acre plots were subdivisions that required planning commission approval before recording.