Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court finding that E. Jane Egan lacked standing to challenge the Lancaster County Board of Commissioners' issuance of a special use permit allowing Randy Essink to construct and operate a poultry production facility on land within the county's agricultural zoning district and that the permit was appropriately issued, holding that the district court did not err.Egan and Janis Howlett challenged the Board's decision in the district court, asserting that the proposed poultry production facility would lead to adverse effects on the environment, properly values, public health, and local infrastructure. The district court affirmed the issuance of the special use permit, concluding that Egan did not have standing and that the permit was appropriately issued. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err by failing to find that Egan had standing and finding that the special use permit was properly approved. View "Egan v. County of Lancaster" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court reversing and vacating the decision of the County of Knox board of supervisors approving a conditional use permit for an expansion of H&H Cattle's feedlot to 20,000 head of cattle, holding that there was no merit to Defendants' appeal.In 2003, H&H Cattle, the predecessor in interest of Epic Land and Cattle, LLC, obtained an impact easement from the mother of Plaintiffs. Thereafter, the County's board of supervisors approved a conditional use permit for an expansion of H&H Cattle's feedlot to 7,500 head of cattle. Fourteen years later, H&H Cattle again sought expansion of its feedlot. Relying in part on the 2003 impact easement, the board of supervisors granted the conditional use permit. The district court reversed and vacated the decision approving the permit. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in finding Plaintiff was unable to execute an easement that bound the shares of her children; (2) Defendants' arguments regarding estoppel by deed and ratification were without merit; and (3) any reliance on the easement was not reasonable. View "Harts v. County of Knox" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court finding compensation totaling $4,625,967 for Elkhorn School District's taking of forty-three acres of Tribedo, LLC's property, holding that the district court did not err in its trial rulings nor in accepting the jury verdict for total compensation due to Tribedo.After the board of appraisers awarded $2,601,600 for the taking Tribedo appealed, alleging that the award did not reflect the fair market value of the property taken and did not adequately compensate for damages to the remainder of Tribedo's property. Following the jury's verdict, Elkhorn moved for a new trial. The district court denied the motion and granted Tribedo's posttrial motions for an award of interest and attorney fees. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was no error in the proceedings below; (2) the district court did not err when it accepted the jury verdict; and (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it awarded Tribedo $590,925 in attorney fees. View "Douglas County School District No. 10 v. Tribedo, LLC" on Justia Law

In this insurance dispute, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court granting summary judgment for Allstate Indemnity Company, holding that property loss from Plaintiffs' tenants' producing or using methamphetamine indoors was not a covered peril under the insurance policy.Plaintiff filed an insurance claim alleging that his tenants damaged his rental house by producing or using methamphetamine indoors. Allstate denied the claim. Plaintiff subsequently filed a complaint against Allstate alleging breach of contract and bad faith. The district court granted summary judgment for Allstate, concluding that Plaintiff's property loss was excluded from coverage under certain portions of the insurance policy and was not covered by other portions of the policy. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Plaintiff's assignments of error were without merit. View "Kaiser v. Allstate Indemnity Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court granting a money judgment for Landlord after Tenant breached its leases on two commercial properties, holding that there was no merit in Tenant's arguments on appeal.After a trial, the jury returned a special verdict in Landlord's favor, finding that Landlord met its burden of proving that Tenant breached the lease agreement, causing Landlord damages of $1,657,800 for unpaid rent and late fees and for unpaid taxes. The court entered judgment on the verdict and further awarded prejudgment interest. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Landlord had standing in this action and was not required to produce the actual assignment of the leases; (2) there was no error in the award of prejudgment interests or in the special verdicts awarding late fees; and (3) the court had inherent authority to award Landlord its actual expenses as a condition of sustaining Tenant's motion for continuance of trial. View "AVG Partners I, LLC v. Genesis Health Clubs of Midwest, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the district court determining that Landowners were entitled to receive an amount equal to the diminution in value of private property as a result of a county's action in felling trees on the property to improve visibility for a nearby road.Franklin County, without permission, cut down and uprooted trees on property owned by Thomas and Pamela Russell. The Russells filed an inverse condemnation proceeding. At issue before the district court was the extent of the damages sustained. The district court granted summary judgment for the County, concluding that the Russells were entitled to receive the fair market value of the property taken and any decrease in the fair market value of remaining property caused by the taking. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Russells were entitled to recover the diminution in value of their land as a result of the removal of the trees. View "Russell v. Franklin County" on Justia Law

In this negligence action, the Supreme Court reversed the district court's judgment for NIFCO Mechanical Systems, Inc., holding that the comparative negligence instructions constituted plain error.After a pipe in the sprinkler system of the City of Wahoo's public library burst, Wahoo brought suit against Cheever Construction Company and NIFCO alleging that Cheever negligently installed the sprinkler system and that NIFCO negligently failed to inspect and maintain it. NIFCO asserted as an affirmative defense that Wahoo's negligence was a proximate cause of any damages. The claims against Cheever were dismissed by stipulation during the course of trial, and the case was submitted to the jury with NIFCO as the sole defendant. The jury rendered a verdict in favor of NIFCO. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court's comparative negligence jury instructions were plainly erroneous. View "City of Wahoo v. NIFCO Mechanical Systems, Inc." on Justia Law

In this quiet title action, The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of Joy Arnold and quieting title in favor of the Estate of Beverly Freiden, holding that Michael Walz, a tenant of Beverly's real property, did not exercise an option to purchase the property associated with the lease, and the real property remained in the Estate.Walz leased real property from Beverly under a lease that included an option to purchase the property at any time before the end date of the lease. Beverly died during Walz' tenancy. After the term of Walz' initial option ended, Walz and Jon Freiden executed several lease modifications that purportedly extended Walz' option to buy the real property. When Walz claimed he owned the property, Arnold, the personal representative of the Estate, petitioned the district court to quiet title to the property in the Estate. The district court granted summary judgment for Arnold. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no genuine issue of material fact with respect to the fact that the real property remained in the Estate, and therefore, the district court did not err when it quieted title in the Estate. View "Arnold v. Walz" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court in this partition action, holding that partition in kind cannot be decreed using owelty - or a monetary payment to equalize values - without great prejudice to the owners.On appeal, Appellant argued, among other things, that the district court erred in determining that it did not have authority to award owelty to make partition in kind equitable. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) owelty is permitted in partition cases but should be rarely utilized and only when it is equitably necessary; and (2) the district court did not err in rejecting the owelty award and ordering partition by sale because Appellee met its burden to establish that partition in kind could not be had without great prejudice. View "FTR Farms, Inc. v. Rist Farm, Inc." on Justia Law

In these appeals for a series of condemnation proceedings initiated by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, LP, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court finding that the county court plainly erred by entering a judgment on remand regarding the issue of attorney fees without holding an evidentiary hearing, holding that the county court should have considered all relevant evidence before making its determination on the motions for attorney fees.Condemnation proceedings took place in several counties through which TransCanada planned to construct an oil pipeline, including Antelope County. TransCanada ultimately voluntarily dismissed all of its condemnation actions without prejudice. This appeal concerned the motions of the condemnees in Antelope County for an award of attorney fees. The county court originally found in favor of the condemnees, but the district court reversed the award and remanded the matter for a "rehearing on the merits." Ultimately, the county court concluded that a rehearing was unnecessary and denied the condemnees their request for attorney fees. The district court reversed and remanded the matter with instructions to conduct an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court was correct to find plain error and to remand with instructions for the county court to hold an evidentiary hearing. View "TransCanada Keystone Pipeline v. Tanderup" on Justia Law