Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

The Living Word Bible Camp, a tax-exempt organization, owned property in Itasca County. Living Word sought to obtain the necessary governmental approvals to use the property as a summer bible camp and retreat center. Itasca County classified the property as tax-exempt from 2001 to 2007 then reclassified the property as taxable as of 2008. Living Word challenged the reclassification for the 2008 and 2009 assessments. The tax court affirmed the County's reclassification because Living Word had failed to make sufficient progress in obtaining the necessary governmental approvals for its proposed use of the property. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the tax court (1) erred in concluding that Living Word was not entitled to an exemption because it was not using the property in furtherance of a charitable purpose; and (2) erred in determining that Living Word's current activities on the property could not be considered in determining whether that use was sufficient to qualify as a tax-exempt use. Remanded. View "Living Word Bible Camp v. County of Itasca" on Justia Law

Eden Prairie Mall, LLC (EPM) owned a mall. Included in the mall parcel for property tax purposes were the mall's in-line tenants, five anchor tenants, and a movie theater complex. EPM sought review of the tax court's market value determinations for the mall and one of its anchor tenants for the assessment dates of 2005 and 2006. The tax court adopted the market values for the mall parcel proposed by Hennepin County in its post-trial brief, which were higher than the value opinions presented by either party's appraiser at trial. On appeal, the Supreme Court concluded the tax court's value determinations were not supported by the record and remanded with instructions for the tax court to explain its reasoning and describe the factual support in the record for its determinations. On remand, the tax court adopted market values that exceeded its earlier determinations. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the tax court failed to follow the Court's remand instructions because the tax court failed to explain its reasoning and describe the factual support in the record for its determinations. Remanded. View "Eden Prairie Mall, LLC v. County of Hennepin" on Justia Law

The subject property was located at 44 Lafayette Road in Saint Paul. Relators challenged the County's assessments for the assessment dates 2007, 2008, and 2009. After trial, the tax court adopted the market values proposed by the County in its post-trial brief, which were higher than the value opinions presented by either party's appraiser at trial. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded with instructions for the tax court to explain its reasoning for rejecting the appraisal testimony and to describe the factual support in the record for its determinations. On remand, the tax court again adopted market values that exceeded the parties' appraisal opinions. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the tax court failed to follow the Court's remand instructions in its calculation of parking income and expenses. Remanded for a further evidentiary hearing regarding the appropriate calculation of net parking income. View "444 Lafayette, LLC v. County of Ramsey" on Justia Law

1st Fidelity Loan Servicing initiated a foreclosure by advertisement to collect the debt secured by a mortgage on the home of Respondent. 1st Fidelity subsequently purchased the property at the foreclosure sale. Respondent filed a complaint seeking a declaration that the sale was null and void and the recovery of monetary damages, alleging that 1st Fidelity failed to comply with certain statutory requirements. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of 1st Fidelity on the ground that it had substantially complied with the relevant statutes. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that Minnesota's foreclosure by advertisement statute requires strict compliance and that a foreclosing party's failure to strictly comply renders the foreclosure void. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) a party must strictly comply with Minn. Stat. 580.02(3), which requires that all assignments of a mortgage be recorded before a party is entitled to make a foreclosure by advertisement; and (2) because 1st Fidelity did not strictly comply with section 580.02(3), the foreclosure was void. Remanded. View "Ruiz v. 1st Fidelity Loan Servicing, LLC " on Justia Law

Central Lakes College (CLC) formally petitioned the City of Brainerd to reconstruct a road. The City validated the petition and resolved to pay for a portion of the project with special assessments. Appellants, who owned property adjacent to the road, challenged the legality of the petition, arguing that because CLC was an instrumentality of the State, and the State cannot be bound by special assessments of its property, CLC was not an "owner" of property permitted to petition for an improvement under Minn. Stat. 429.031(1)(f). The district court granted summary judgment for the City. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) CLC was an "owner" of property under the plain language of the statute; and (2) therefore, CLC's petition was valid. View "City of Brainerd v. Brainerd Invs. P'ship" on Justia Law

Todd County assessed taxes on property owned by John and Carrie Beck based on its conclusion that the property had an estimated market value of $397,400 as of January 2, 2009. John petitioned the tax court for relief. After a trial, the tax court found the fair market value of the property on that date was $395,000. John appealed, arguing that the tax court erred by (1) adopting the appraisal of Todd County's expert despite several challenges John raised to the assumptions and values underlying the appraisal, (2) rejecting the testimonies of John and Carrie challenging the County's assessment of the property, and (3) not determining separate land and improvement values for the property. The Supreme Court reversed because the tax court completely failed to address why it rejected the extensive evidence offered by John in support of his petition for tax relief. Remanded for the tax court to explain adequately the reasoning underlying its valuation determination. View "Beck v. County of Todd" on Justia Law

Relators represented a putative class including all residential property owners in three Minneapolis neighborhoods. Relators challenged the assessed values that the City placed on Relators' properties and alleged that because their properties were overvalued, Relators were required to overpay property taxes in 2009 through 2011. The tax court dismissed Relators' complaint, holding (1) because Relators alleged that the City's assessment practices were illegal, Minn. Stat. 278 provided the Realtors' exclusive remedy, (2) Relators' 2008 and 2009 claims were untimely under chapter 278, and (3) Relators' 2010 claims failed because chapter 278 did not allow multiple taxpayers to file a single action concerning multiple properties. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part, holding (1) Relators' claims based on the 2008 and 2009 tax years were untimely pursuant to chapter 278; but (2) because the plain language of chapter 278 allows multiple taxpayers to file one tax action concerning multiple properties, the tax court erred in dismissing Relators' claims based on the 2010 tax year to the extent those claims alleged a violation of Minn. Stat. 273.11. View "Odunlade v. City of Minneapolis" on Justia Law

Policyholder obtained a title insurance policy from Insurer for a parcel of property it owned. Because an ambiguity in the legal description of the property prevented Policyholder from reselling the property, Policyholder filed an action seeking a declaration of Insurer's obligations under the policy and alleging breach of contract against Insurer. The district court held in favor of Policyholder, concluding that Insurer was liable because the title to the property was unmarketable. The court, however, limited Policyholder's recovery to the face value of the policy. The court of appeals affirmed the finding of liability but held that Policyholder was entitled to recovery in excess of the policy limit. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the district court's grant of partial summary judgment to Policyholder on the question of Insurer's liability for its failure to defend and indemnify Policyholder; but (2) reversed the court of appeals' award of damages to Policyholder in excess of the policy limit and remanded for reinstatement of the district court's award of damages. View "Mattson Ridge, LLC v. Clear Rock Tile, LLP" on Justia Law

At issue in this dispute over a mortgage was whether statutes of limitations apply to actions for declaratory judgment. The court of appeals reversed in part the district court's grant of summary judgment to Defendant based on the applicable statute of limitations, holding that to the extent Plaintiff's complaint sought declaratory relief, it was not barred by the statute of limitations. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that because the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act is a procedural device through which parties may vindicate substantive legal rights, an action for declaratory judgment is barred by an applicable statute of limitations to the same extent that the same cause of action would be barred in a nondeclaratory proceeding. Remanded. View "Weavewood, Inc. v. S & P Home Invs., LLC" on Justia Law

The county assessor determined that the fair market value of a tax parcel, which was improved by a department store operated by respondent Federated Retail Holdings, Inc., was $17,000,000 for the year 2006. The assessor included the value of a leasehold interest held by Federated in the parcel adjacent to the tax parcel in its value determination. Federated timely filed petitions challenging the assessor's market value determinations. The tax court held that Federated's ownership interest in the tax parcel included the leasehold interest in the adjacent property, but concluded that the value of the leasehold interest was not subject to the jurisdiction of the tax court and therefore did not include it. The county appealed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the tax court had subject-matter jurisdiction to consider the value of Federated's leasehold interest in adjacent property because it constituted real property of the tax parcel under Minn. Stat. 272.03, 1 and affected the fair market value of the tax parcel. View "Federated Retail Holdings, Inc. v. County of Ramsey " on Justia Law