Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

Eight Black homeowners in New York City sued a lending institution and affiliated entities, alleging that the lender violated federal, state, and city antidiscrimination laws. They claimed the lender made mortgage refinancing loans with high default interest rates to Black and Latino individuals in poor neighborhoods who had no income, no assets, and low credit scores but high equity in their homes, and then foreclosed on the loans when the individuals defaulted. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York entered a final judgment awarding four homeowners $722,044 in compensatory damages and four others nominal damages.The lender appealed, arguing that the district court erred in three ways: by finding the homeowners' claims timely under the doctrine of equitable tolling and the discovery rule of accrual, in its instructions to the jury on disparate impact and disparate treatment theories of discrimination, and in holding that a release-of-claims provision in a loan modification agreement signed by two homeowners was unenforceable as a matter of law.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in holding that the homeowners' claims were timely under the doctrine of equitable tolling. The court also found no error in the district court's instructions to the jury on disparate impact and disparate treatment theories of discrimination. Finally, the court agreed that the release-of-claims provision in the loan modification agreement was unenforceable as a matter of law. Accordingly, the Second Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Saint-Jean v. Emigrant Mortg. Co., Inc." on Justia Law

James Smith Jr. initiated a civil action against Rufus and Merle Rivers in magistrates court, claiming to be their landlord and seeking their eviction. The Rivers contended that Smith did not own the property where they resided. The magistrates court sided with Smith and ordered the Rivers' eviction. The Rivers appealed, and the circuit court upheld the eviction order. However, the court of appeals reversed the decision, citing a South Carolina Code provision that barred the magistrates court from handling the eviction due to the Rivers' challenge to Smith's property title.The magistrates court initially ruled in favor of Smith, determining that he was the lawful owner and that a landlord-tenant relationship existed. The Rivers filed motions for reconsideration, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction due to a pending circuit court case challenging Smith's ownership. The magistrates court denied these motions, and the Rivers appealed to the circuit court. The circuit court affirmed the magistrates court's decision, finding no evidence to dispute Smith's ownership and confirming the landlord-tenant relationship.The South Carolina Supreme Court reviewed the case and reversed the court of appeals' decision. The Supreme Court held that the magistrates court had the authority to conduct the eviction proceeding because it had determined that a landlord-tenant relationship existed between Smith and the Rivers. The court emphasized that the existence of such a relationship precludes the tenant from challenging the landlord's title in an eviction proceeding. Consequently, the Supreme Court reinstated the magistrates court's eviction order. View "Rivers v. Smith" on Justia Law

The Town of Apple Valley (TAV) sought to condemn a private water utility system through eminent domain. In November 2015, TAV passed two resolutions of necessity (RON) to acquire the system, which was owned by Carlyle Infrastructure Partners and operated by Apple Valley Ranchos Water (AVR). In January 2016, TAV filed an eminent domain action, and Carlyle sold the system to Liberty Utilities. After a 67-day bench trial, the trial court found that TAV did not have the right to acquire the system and entered judgment for Liberty, awarding attorney’s fees. TAV appealed.The Superior Court of San Bernardino County ruled that Liberty only needed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the public necessity elements were not met, and that the administrative record (AR) was irrelevant. The trial court allowed Liberty to present any evidence it deemed relevant, including post-RON evidence, and found in favor of Liberty.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, reversed the trial court’s decision. The appellate court held that the trial court applied the wrong standard of review by not using the gross abuse of discretion standard. The trial court also erred by not admitting the AR, failing to start its analysis with the RON’s findings, and improperly allowing Liberty to rely solely on post-RON evidence. The appellate court emphasized that the rebuttable presumption in favor of TAV’s findings should have been the starting point for the trial court’s analysis.The appellate court remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion, allowing the trial court to determine whether to permit TAV to take the water system, remand the matter to TAV for further administrative proceedings, or hold a new trial applying the correct standards. The judgment and attorney’s fees award were reversed, and TAV was allowed to recover its costs on appeal. View "Town of Apple Valley v. Apple Valley Ranchose Water" on Justia Law

Rod Dorale built his house with a setback of seven feet three inches from the neighboring property line, violating the McCook County ordinance requiring a nine-foot setback. Greg and Patricia DeCramer, who own the adjacent property, appealed the McCook County Board of Adjustment's decision to grant Dorale a variance for the reduced setback. The DeCramers argued that the Board exceeded its authority by violating the governing statute and county ordinance.The circuit court denied the DeCramers' petition for a writ of certiorari, concluding that the Board had complied with the requirements for granting a variance under SDCL 11-2-53(2). The court noted that the Board determined the variance would not be offensive to the public and that undue hardship existed because Dorale would have to move the house. The court emphasized the limited nature of its review, stating it could not question the Board's decision or examine the facts leading to the variance request.The South Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that the Board acted illegally and in excess of its authority by granting a variance that did not comply with SDCL 11-2-53(2) or the county ordinance. The Court noted that the Board did not find any special conditions or extraordinary circumstances that justified the variance. The Board's finding that there was "nothing extraordinary in this residential district" precluded it from granting the variance under the terms of the ordinance. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's decision and remanded the case for the entry of an order vacating the variance granted by the Board. View "Decramer v. Dorale" on Justia Law

The Garretts owned 5,200 acres of farmland in Sully County and faced financial difficulties, leading them to sell the property to the Stocks. The Stocks agreed to lease the land back to the Garretts for five years, with an option for the Garretts to repurchase it. The Garretts failed to make timely lease payments, prompting the Stocks to initiate an eviction action. The Stocks alleged that the Garretts had not only failed to pay rent but also committed waste on the property.The Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit in Sully County held a two-day trial, where the jury found in favor of the Stocks, granting them immediate possession of the farmland. The Garretts appealed, arguing that the circuit court erred in denying their motion to dismiss, their motion for judgment as a matter of law, and their motion for a new trial. They also contended that the court erred in denying their proposed jury instructions.The Supreme Court of South Dakota reviewed the case and affirmed the circuit court's decisions. The court held that the Stocks had complied with the three-day notice to quit requirement and that the mandatory mediation provisions did not apply as the relationship was that of lessor and lessee, not creditor and borrower. The court also found that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Garretts' proposed jury instructions, as the instructions given adequately covered the applicable law. Finally, the court concluded that the jury's verdict was supported by sufficient evidence, and the circuit court did not err in denying the Garretts' motions for judgment as a matter of law or for a new trial. The Supreme Court also awarded the Stocks $5,000 in appellate attorney fees. View "Stock v. Garrett" on Justia Law

Roger and Therese Hutchinson purchased rural property in Madison County, Montana, in 2016, which included an easement for access via a private road. They obtained a title insurance policy from Old Republic National Title Insurance Company. Disputes arose with Nugget Creek Ranch, the owner of the adjoining property, over the use and control of gates on the easement. In 2020, the Hutchinsons sued Nugget Creek, which counterclaimed for declaratory judgment, trespass, nuisance, negligence, slander, defamation, vexatious litigation, and reverse adverse possession. The reverse adverse possession claim was dismissed by the court.The Hutchinsons requested Old Republic to defend them against Nugget Creek's counterclaims, but Old Republic denied coverage, citing policy exclusions for disputes arising from the easement and for actions taken by the insured after the policy date. The Hutchinsons filed a lawsuit against Old Republic for breach of contract and unfair claim settlement practices. The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Old Republic, finding no duty to defend because the policy excluded coverage for disputes related to the easement and for actions occurring after the policy date.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court's decision. The court held that Old Republic had no duty to defend the Hutchinsons because the policy explicitly excluded coverage for disputes arising from the easement and for actions taken by the insured after the policy date. The court also noted that the policy did not cover tort claims or actions that occurred after the policy's effective date. Thus, the court concluded that Old Republic unequivocally demonstrated a lack of coverage under the policy. View "Hutchinson v. Old Republic" on Justia Law

Gerard A. Kirsch, a member of Calvary Temple Church of Evansville, Inc., was injured while building a storage barn on the church's property. Kirsch fell from a ladder and sustained a severe arm injury. He sued the church, alleging negligence for failing to provide safe equipment and proper supervision.The Vanderburgh Superior Court denied the church's motion for summary judgment, which argued that Indiana Code section 34-31-7-2 limited the church's liability. The court held that a jury must decide if the church breached any duty to Kirsch. The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed, interpreting the statute narrowly to apply only to parts of the premises used primarily for worship services, thus allowing Kirsch's claim to proceed.The Indiana Supreme Court reviewed the case and reversed the lower courts' decisions. The court held that the term "premises" in Indiana Code section 34-31-7-2 includes the entire parcel of land owned by the church, not just the areas used primarily for worship services. Since the church's entire property is used primarily for worship services, the statute applies, limiting the church's liability to warning of hidden dangers and refraining from intentional harm. Kirsch admitted the church breached neither duty, leading the court to grant summary judgment in favor of the church. View "Calvary Temple Church of Evansville, Inc. v. Kirsch" on Justia Law

Independence Water and Sanitation District (Independence) sought to amend an augmentation plan to provide water services for a proposed residential development in Elbert County, Colorado. The original 2006 decree allowed Independence to withdraw groundwater from the Denver Basin and included an augmentation plan for not-nontributary groundwater from the Upper Dawson aquifer for specific uses on the property. Independence applied to amend this plan to include additional uses both on and off the property.The Division 1 water court faced opposition from Franktown Citizens Coalition II, Inc. and West Elbert County Well Users Association (Opposers), who argued that the anti-speculation doctrine should apply, requiring Independence to show a non-speculative intent to use the water. The water court denied Opposers' motion for summary judgment, agreeing with Independence that the anti-speculation doctrine did not apply to the amendment of the augmentation plan, based on the precedent set in East Cherry Creek Valley Water & Sanitation District v. Rangeview Metropolitan District.The Supreme Court of Colorado reviewed the case and affirmed the water court's decision. The court held that the anti-speculation doctrine does not apply to applications to amend augmentation plans for not-nontributary groundwater. The court reasoned that the anti-speculation doctrine and augmentation plans serve different purposes: the former prevents water hoarding within the prior appropriation system, while the latter allows out-of-priority diversions without injuring existing water rights. The court concluded that the sole inquiry for a water court reviewing an augmentation plan is whether the plan will cause injury to existing water rights, not the applicant's intent to use the water. The court found no clear error in the water court's determination that Independence's amended augmentation plan would not result in injury to existing water rights. View "Franktown Citizens Coal. II v. Indep. Water & Sanitation Dist." on Justia Law

The case involves a real estate dispute where plaintiffs, represented by Kenneth J. Catanzarite, alleged they were defrauded into exchanging their interests in an apartment complex for interests in a limited liability company. The dispute was ordered into arbitration at the plaintiffs' request, and the arbitrator ruled in favor of the defendant, Plantations at Haywood, LLC. Plantations then petitioned the court to confirm the arbitration award.The Superior Court of Orange County confirmed the arbitration award and granted Plantations' motion for sanctions against Catanzarite under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7, imposing $37,000 in sanctions. The court found that Catanzarite's opposition to the petition was frivolous and factually unsupported. Catanzarite appealed the sanctions, arguing he was statutorily allowed to file an opposition and contest the arbitrator's award.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. The court held that Catanzarite's arguments were without merit and unsupported by existing law or any nonfrivolous extension of existing law. The court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's sanction award against Catanzarite. Additionally, the court granted Plantations' motion for sanctions on appeal, finding the appeal to be frivolous and without merit. The case was remanded to the trial court to determine the appropriate amount of sanctions to be awarded, with the option for Catanzarite to stipulate to the amount requested by Plantations. The order was affirmed, and Plantations was entitled to its costs on appeal. View "Plantations at Haywood 1, LLC v. Plantations at Haywood, LLC" on Justia Law

Kehinde Adeyemi Elebute challenged the foreclosure sale of his property in bankruptcy court but was unsuccessful. Years later, he attempted to challenge the foreclosure again in state court. To prevent duplicative litigation, the suit was removed to the bankruptcy court, which reopened and subsequently dismissed Elebute’s case for want of prosecution after he failed to appear at a hearing.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas dismissed Elebute’s challenge to the reopening and affirmed the bankruptcy court’s dismissal. Elebute then appealed both rulings.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that it lacked jurisdiction to review the bankruptcy court’s order reopening the proceedings, as it was a non-final, interlocutory order. The court agreed with the defendants, Village Capital & Investment, L.L.C., and Michael Weems, that the reopening order was only a preliminary step and did not resolve substantive issues. Therefore, the court dismissed this portion of Elebute’s appeal.Regarding the dismissal for lack of prosecution, the court found that the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction over Elebute’s claims. The court noted that the bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction extends to all civil proceedings related to bankruptcy cases. Since Elebute’s state action challenged Village Capital’s interest in the property central to the earlier bankruptcy case, the actions were related. Consequently, the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to dismiss the adversary proceeding.The Fifth Circuit dismissed Elebute’s challenge to the reopening order for lack of jurisdiction and affirmed the district court’s judgment in all other respects. The defendants’ amended motion to dismiss a portion of Elebute’s appeal was denied as moot. View "Elebute v. Village Capital" on Justia Law