Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

In 1997, the Bellevale Respondents sold an agricultural preservation easement on their dairy farm, Bellevale Farms, to a state agency (MALPF). Twelve years later, Bellevale asked MALPF to permit it to construct a creamery operation on the farm under the terms of the easement. MALPF approved the proposal, despite challenges from owners of real property adjacent to Bellevale Farms and a community association (collectively Petitioners). Petitioners filed this action against Bellevale Farms, MALPF, and others (collectively Respondents), seeking a declaration that the creamery violated the easement and an order prohibiting the construction of the creamery. The circuit court dismissed the action, concluding that Petitioners lacked standing to enforce the easement. Petitioners appealed, arguing that the easement constituted a charitable trust, and therefore, they possessed standing as "interested persons" under Md. Code Ann. Est. & Trusts 14-302(a). The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the instrument creating the easement and the statutory scheme of the MALPF program through which the easement was purchased did not indicate that Respondents intended to or created a charitable trust with a charitable purpose; and (2) therefore, Petitioners did not have standing under 14-302(a) to maintain a cause of action to enforce the easement. View "Long Green Valley Ass'n v. Bellevale Farms, Inc." on Justia Law

This dispute arose out of a contract to sell a shopping center. The contract was amended on several occasions. In one provision, the buyer agreed to indemnify the seller for a real estate commission, which they both disclaimed in the contract itself, that might ultimately be owed to a particular real estate broker. Another provision provided for forfeiture of the buyer's deposit if the transaction did not close on the timetable in the contract. The transaction ultimately closed after the appointed date, and the real estate broker successfully sued the seller for a commission. The buyer went bankrupt, and the seller and the assignee investors were left to sort of the consequences of the course of events. The Court of Appeals held (1) the seller here was not entitled to indemnification from the assignee investors for its liability for the broker's commission, even though the buyer (their assignor) was obligated to indemnify the seller; (2) the seller was not entitled to forfeit the deposit funded by the investors; and (3) the seller was entitled to have the investors' claim for refund of the deposit offset by the amount of indemnification that the buyer owed the seller. View "Pines Plaza Ltd. P'ship v. Berkley Trace, LLC" on Justia Law

Landowners believed they had the right to use a ten-foot wide strip of land that was used as a driveway to property owned by a Trust. The community homeowners association (Association) and six residents of the subdivision (collectively, Plaintiffs) filed suit against the Trust and the Trust's settlor (collectively, Petitioners) seeking a declaratory judgment that the Association held fee simple title to the strip and that the Landowners' property enjoyed an easement over the strip. Petitioners responded with a counterclaim seeking a declaratory judgment that the Trust held fee simple title to the strip and no easement existed in favor of any plaintiff. The circuit court concluded that the Trust held all title and interest in the strip and that the Trust's interest was subject to an easement appurtenant to the Landowners' property for the purposes of ingress and egress. The court of special appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the Landowners had an easement over a five-foot wide portion of the strip. View "Lindsay v. Annapolis Roads Prop. Owners Ass'n" on Justia Law

The City of Baltimore initiated a condemnation action to acquire an old theater once used as a vaudeville venue. The theater's owner (Owner) contested the action, arguing that the City had no right to condemn the property. Six weeks before trial, Owner filed an emergency motion demanding a postponement and an order requiring the City to pay to move all the junk out of the theater prior to trial so the jury would not view the property in its existing condition. The trial court denied the motion and the jury viewed the theater as is. The court of special appeals ruled that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Owner's motion. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Owner was not entitled to a payment in advance of trial, and Owner suffered no prejudice from the denial beyond what it brought upon itself. View "A&E North, LLC v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore" on Justia Law

Complainants were disabled residents of a condominium. Complainants filed a complaint against the condominium's board of directors (the Condo) and their property management company, alleging that the Condo had discriminated against them by refusing to grant a reasonable accommodation for their disabilities. Specifically, Complainants alleged that the Condo refused to provide keys to the side and back doors to their building. The Office of Administrative Hearings ruled that Complainants had not proven that giving them the keys to the side and back doors was necessary and reasonable. The Appeal Board of the Commission on Human Relations (Board) disagreed and determined that the Condo (1) was required to prove that giving Complainants keys was an unreasonable financial burden, and (2) failed to establish that giving Complainants keys presented an undue burden. The circuit court reversed. The court of special appeals vacated the circuit court's decision. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the Condo was required to prove that providing keys to Complainants was unreasonable in light of the costs attendant in doing so; and (2) the Board properly performed the requisite balancing test when it concluded the Condo unreasonably denied Complainants' requests to be given the disputed keys. View " Cameron Grove Condo. Bd. of Dirs. v. Comm'n on Human Relations" on Justia Law

This dispute arose out of the alleged exposure of Plaintiff to lead paint at the homes in which she spent her childhood. Petitioner, by her mother, sued the owners of two of the homes, for negligence and unfair trade practices under the Consumer Protection Act. Only the claims against the second owner proceeded to trial. The circuit court awarded summary judgment in favor of Defendant after excluding proposed expert opinion testimony of a pediatrician to establish Defendant's building as the source of Plaintiff's lead exposure and elevated blood lead levels. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion when it excluded the proposed expert testimony; but (2) summary judgment in this case was not appropriate, as disputes of material fact existed to foreclose a grant of summary judgment. View "Ross v. Housing Auth. of Baltimore City" on Justia Law

This case arose out of a challenge by a borrower, Respondent, to the authority of various individuals and entities to effectuate a valid foreclosure on her residential property. After a foreclosure sale was scheduled by the substitute foreclosure trustees, but before the sale took place, Respondent filed a separate action seeking compensatory damages and declaratory and injunctive relief against the substitute trustees, Deutsche Bank, and BAC Home Loans Servicing for alleged defects in the foreclosure process and the authority of Defendants to foreclose on her property. Deutsche Bank and BAC (Petitioners) filed a motion for summary judgment on Respondent's action, which the circuit court granted. The court of special appeals reversed, finding that Petitioners did not prove they were persons entitled to enforce the promissory note, and thus genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that BAC was entitled to enforce the note. Remanded. View "Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Brock" on Justia Law

Petitioner entered into a consent order with the several Queen Anne's County officials regarding resolution of their disputes over Petitioner's proposed construction of a project in the county. The consent order terminated litigation in Kent Island I in the Anne Arundel County circuit court. Seeking invalidation of the consent order, Respondents filed suit in the Queen Anne's County circuit court (Kent Island II). On Petitioner's motion, the case was transferred to the Anne Arundel County circuit court, which granted summary judgment for Petitioner. The court of special appeals vacated the judgment, finding that venue was appropriate in the Queen Anne's County circuit court. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the circuit court for Queen Anne's County did not have jurisdiction to modify or revise the consent order, a final judgment, entered by the Anne Arundel County circuit court; and (2) moreover, the Anne Arundel County circuit court was not empowered to revise or modify the judgment entered in Kent Island I in a manner sought by Respondents, as none of Respondents were a party in Kent Island I, and therefore, they could not maintain an action seeking either circuit court to exercise revisory power over the judgment in Kent Island II. View "Kent Island, LLC v. DiNapoli" on Justia Law

In 1982, two elderly widows (the Millers) sold land to one party. Four years later, the Millers purported to sell the same land to Petitioner (the Partnership). The Partnership engaged two title companies (the Title Companies) to complete the title work, and the Title Companies failed to locate and report the Millers' first land sale. Chicago Title Insurance Company (Chicago Title) underwrote the insurance policies on the land. These transactions led to numerous lawsuits. At issue in this appeal was (1) whether a title company owes a duty of care when conducting a title search; and (2) whether a title insurance company may be held vicariously liable as a result of the title company's negligent title search. The Court of Appeals held (1) the Title Companies owed a duty of care to the Partnership in conducting the title search and issuing the title commitment; and (2) under the circumstances, Chicago Title may not be held vicariously liable for the Title Companies' negligence. View "100 Investment Ltd. P'ship v. Columbia Town Ctr. Title" on Justia Law

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints requested that it be exempt from paying property tax on an apartment complex it owned in Maryland to house missionaries. The county supervisor of assessments concluded that the apartment complex did not qualify for a property tax exemption under Md. Code Ann. Tax-Prop. 7-204 because the complex was not exclusively used as a "parsonage" or a "convent." The Maryland tax court upheld the decision. The circuit court reversed, determining that the complex qualified as both a parsonage and a convent. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the tax court applied the wrong standard in assessing whether the apartment complex constituted a convent. Remanded for the tax court to issue an order granting the exemption. View "Green v. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" on Justia Law