Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

This was the second appeal of a matter involving six subdivision lot owners and their attempt to form a road association. In the first appeal, the Supreme Court held that the lot owners were authorized by statute to begin the process of forming the road association. On remand, the superior court issued an order requiring the parties to submit a proposed judgment. The resulting proposal asked the court to clarify what the word "majority" as used in 23 Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. 3101(5) meant. The court answered that the word "majority" as used in section 3101(5) required only a majority vote of those owners physically present at the meeting and those present by proxy and did not require a majority of all lot owners whether present or not. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the superior court did not err in declaring that "a majority vote" as used in section 3101(5) meant a majority vote of lot owners actually present or represented by proxy at a properly called road association meeting. View "Goudreau v. Pine Springs Rd. & Water, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an owner of a condominium unit, filed a complaint, individually and derivatively on behalf of the condominium association (Association), against the Association and four members of its board of directors (Board), claiming that Defendants had refused effectively to enforce the condominium's smoking ban. The business and consumer docket dismissed the counts of the complaint related to the smoking ban for failure to state a claim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court did not err in (1) finding that Plaintiff did not have a right to bring a shareholder derivative action under either the Maine Condominium Act or the Maine Nonprofit Corporation Act; (2) dismissing Plaintiff's individual claims related to the smoking ban; and (3) denying Plaintiff's motion to file a second amended complaint following the partial dismissal of his amended complaint. View "America v. Sunspray Condo. Ass'n" on Justia Law

Bank brought an action against Defendant for foreclosure on a residential mortgage. In this case, Bank was a holder entitled to enforce the mortgage note and currently had possession of the note, which was endorsed in blank, and therefore had the power to enforce the note. After mediation, Bank moved for summary judgment. Before acting on the motion, the superior court reported a question to the Supreme Court, which the Court accepted. The question was: "What is the proof that is required for a party to prove 'ownership' of the mortgage note and mortgage for purposes of foreclosure?" The Supreme Court held that a plaintiff in a foreclosure action must identify the owner or economic beneficiary of the note and provide certain other evidence as described in 14 Me. Rev. Stat. 6321. View "Bank of Am., N.A. v. Cloutier" on Justia Law

In 2010, Hebron Academy requested a tax abatement from the Town for the 2009 tax year. Because the Academy did not file the abatement request before the statutory deadline, the Town denied the request. The Board of Assessment Review denied the request on the same ground. The Academy subsequently filed a complaint seeking a declaratory judgment that its properties were exempt from taxation and that the Town must reimburse it for real estate taxes it paid on its exempt properties for the prior three years. The superior court declared that the Academy was entitled to the exemption for most of its property but that res judicata precluded the court from relieving it of its obligation to pay the 2009 taxes at issue. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Hebron Academy, as a literary and scientific institution, was entitled to a tax exemption for its real estate "owned and occupied or used solely for [its] own purpose"; and (2) the trial court correctly concluded that res judicata precluded the declaratory judgment from applying to the 2009 tax year because an administrative adjudication had been rendered on the merits of the case. View "Hebron Academy, Inc. v. Town of Hebron" on Justia Law

Plaintiff purchased title insurance for a condominium unit she had recently purchased. Plaintiff's neighbor subsequently initiated a lawsuit against Plaintiff alleging that Plaintiff's property was subject to a view easement. Plaintiff tendered the complaint to her title insurance company (Insurer) requesting a defense pursuant to her title insurance policy. Commonwealth denied Plaintiff's request based on certain exclusions in the policy. Plaintiff sued Insurer alleging a breach of contract and requesting a declaratory judgment that Insurer had a duty to defend Plaintiff against her neighbor's complaint. The superior court granted Insurer's motion for summary judgment, finding that the policy specifically excluded the view easement from coverage. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment, holding that due to the broad nature of the duty to defend and the law's requirement that insurance-policy interpretation be focused on the insured, Insurer had a duty to defend Plaintiff in the underlying litigation. View "Cox v. Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co." on Justia Law

First Franklin Financial Corporation and Jason Gardner attended foreclosure mediation. The parties disputed the outcome of the mediation. Gardner argued that the parties reached a binding agreement requiring First Franklin to offer a trial loan modification plan to Gardner and subsequently filed a motion for sanctions. The district court granted the motion and ordered First Franklin to pay monetary sanctions and to enter into a loan modification with Gardner on the terms agreed upon by the parties at foreclosure mediation. First Franklin filed an interlocutory appeal. The Supreme Court granted the appeal and held that the motion court did not err (1) in finding that Gardner and First Franklin entered into a binding agreement requiring First Franklin to offer the loan modification to Gardner; and (2) in finding that First Franklin did not mediate in good faith and in granting Gardner's motion for sanctions. View "First Franklin Fin. Corp. v. Gardner" on Justia Law

This was the second appeal from a judgment of the superior court finding that Annabelle Robbins had breached implied covenants in her deed when she sold land to David and Vickie Lloyd. On appeal, Robbins' estate argued that the trial court erred in (1) finding that the six-year statute of limitations had not expired, (2) finding that the neighboring landowners never possessed or occupied the disputed land and that it misquoted the neighbor's testimony in its decision, and (3) awarding damages in the amount agreed to by the parties in a stipulated judgment because the court vacated that judgment in 2010. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court properly found the statute of limitations had not expired at the time when the Lloyds filed their complaint alleging Robbins's breach; (2) the court's misstatement in its decision was harmless; and (3) the court did not abuse its discretion in awarding damages because the Estate failed to present any evidence that the stipulated damages were manifestly unjust and should be set aside. View "Lloyd v. Robbins" on Justia Law

Jeffrey Stephan was a GMAC Mortgage employee who signed summary judgment affidavits on behalf of GMAC in foreclosure proceedings instituted in Maine. The notarization on the summary judgment documents falsely stated that Stephan personally appeared and swore before the notary, when he did not. The U.S. District Court for the District of Maine certified the following question of state law to the Maine Supreme Court: "Is Maine's common law judicial proceedings privilege an available defense to both legal and equitable claims brought under the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act based upon statements made in court filings of affidavits and certifications in state judicial foreclosure proceedings?" The Supreme Court declined to answer the certified question, where (1) if the Court answered the question in the affirmative, then the claim would be immediately and summarily dismissed even though the facts may have established that the privilege was not available to the defendant under any circumstances; and (2) if the Court answered the question in the negative, it would render a broad pronouncement of law that would have no application to this case if a threshold issue produced the same result - namely, that the judicial proceedings privilege was simply unavailable on these particular facts. View "Bradbury v. GMAC Mortgage, LLC" on Justia Law

Home Loan Investment Bank appealed from a judgment entered in the superior court following a bench trial that confirmed the validity of the mechanic's liens to Jim's Plumbing and Heating, Inc. and Westbrook Tools, Inc. against Bedford Falls Associates for work performed at a commercial property. The Bank argued that the court erred as a matter of law and fact by concluding that the liens had priority over two mortgages granted to Bedford Falls for the acquisition and renovation of the property because it did not consent to the work performed by Jim's Plumbing or Westbrook Tools. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the evidence supported a finding that the Bank had sufficiently specific knowledge of Jim's Plumbing and Westbrook Tools's labor and materials to infer that the Bank consented to the labor and materials secured by the liens. View "Jim's Plumbing & Heating, Inc. v. Home Loan Inv. Bank" on Justia Law

J. Cole and P. Daphne Harris filed a complaint against The Woodlands Club and The Woodlands Homeowners Association (collectively, the Woodlands), alleging that the Woodlands tortiously discharged surface water onto their property causing flooding and an increase in wetland. The superior court granted a partial summary judgment in favor of the Woodlands on the Harrises' statutory trespass and negligence claims and concluded that disputes of material facts precluded a summary judgment on the common law trespass claim. Both parties appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in (1) concluding that the Woodlands was not liable for trespass; (2) entering judgment in favor of the Woodlands on the Harrises' negligence claim; and (3) entering a pretrial order excluding certain testimony. View "Harris v. Woodlands Club" on Justia Law