Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

A property dispute arose between 790 Montclair, LLC and The Station at Crestline Heights, LLC, among others, regarding the construction of an entrance by The Station that allegedly violated a reciprocal easement agreement. The property in question, a former hospital campus, had an easement agreement from 2018 that granted non-exclusive easements for access across certain facilities, including private drives and sidewalks. The Station constructed an entrance on Dan Hudson Drive, which 790 Montclair claimed altered the sidewalk in violation of the easement agreement.The Jefferson Circuit Court denied 790 Montclair's request for a preliminary injunction to stop The Station from using the new entrance. The court found that the sidewalk where the entrance was constructed was not an "access facility" as defined in the easement agreement, and thus, the construction did not require prior approval from all property owners. The court also found that 790 Montclair had not demonstrated how the new entrance interfered with its use and enjoyment of the easement.The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that the trial court correctly interpreted the easement agreement and found that the sidewalk in question was not depicted as an access facility in the agreement's exhibit. Additionally, the court agreed that 790 Montclair had an adequate remedy at law through damages and that the hardship imposed on The Station by blocking access outweighed any benefit to 790 Montclair. The court concluded that 790 Montclair failed to demonstrate entitlement to injunctive relief. View "790 Montclair, LLC v. The Station at Crestline Heights, LLC" on Justia Law

Marjorie Johnson, the owner of farmland, was denied a permit by the Village of Polk to drill a new well for irrigating her farmland. She sought a declaratory judgment that the ordinance requiring a permit for new wells in the village’s wellhead protection area was invalid, arguing it was preempted by the Nebraska Ground Water Management and Protection Act (NGWMPA) and violated state law by interfering with her existing farming operations.The district court for Polk County denied her request for declaratory judgment and her petition in error. The court found that the ordinance was not preempted by the NGWMPA, as the Legislature intended for both local natural resources districts (NRDs) and municipalities to have control over water sources. The court also found that the ordinance did not interfere with Johnson’s existing farming operations, as the land was previously irrigated through an agreement with a neighbor, and it was the dispute with the neighbor, not the ordinance, that resulted in the land being dryland.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that the ordinance was enacted under the necessary statutory grant of power to the municipality, as the Wellhead Protection Area Act and other statutes granted villages the authority to adopt controls to protect public water supplies. The court also found no field or conflict preemption by the NGWMPA, as the Legislature did not intend to deprive municipalities of their statutory authority to require permits for wells within wellhead protection areas. Finally, the court agreed that the ordinance did not interfere with Johnson’s existing farming operations, as the existing farming at the time of the permit request was dryland farming, and it was the neighbor’s actions, not the ordinance, that prevented irrigation. View "Johnson v. Village of Polk" on Justia Law

A real estate developer, HK Baugh Ranch, LLC, petitioned the Texas Public Utility Commission (PUC) to release its undeveloped land, River Bend Ranch, from the certificate of convenience and necessity (CCN) issued to Crystal Clear Special Utility District (Crystal Clear). Crystal Clear, a federally indebted utility district, sued the PUC’s Chair and Commissioners in federal court, alleging that Texas Water Code § 13.2541, which allows for decertification, was preempted by 7 U.S.C. § 1926(b). This federal statute protects certain federally indebted utilities from curtailment of their service areas while their loans are outstanding.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas issued a preliminary injunction preventing the PUC from decertifying River Bend Ranch. The district court applied the “physical ability” test from Green Valley Special Utility District v. City of Schertz, determining that Crystal Clear likely made its service available to HK Baugh and was thus entitled to the protections of § 1926(b). The court concluded that § 1926(b) likely expressly preempts Texas Water Code § 13.2541, resolving the remaining preliminary injunction factors in favor of Crystal Clear.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court did not err in concluding that Crystal Clear would likely satisfy the “physical ability” test. However, the appellate court found that the district court erred in holding that § 1926(b) expressly preempts Texas Water Code § 13.2541. The appellate court remanded the case to the district court to determine whether § 1926(b) otherwise preempts Texas Water Code § 13.2541 and to address all preliminary injunction factors as necessary. The preliminary injunction remains in place pending further proceedings. View "Crystal Clear v. HK Baugh Ranch" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, Dino J. Guilmette, owned a property in North Providence, Rhode Island, and executed a mortgage in favor of Option One Mortgage Corporation in 2006. The mortgage was later assigned to Wells Fargo, with PHH Mortgage Services as the servicing company. Guilmette requested a modification of his mortgage in 2014, resulting in a Shared Appreciation Modification Agreement. This agreement increased the principal balance and included a provision for a shared appreciation amount if the property value increased and was sold.Guilmette sold the property in 2022 and disputed the calculation of the shared appreciation amount provided by PHH. He argued that PHH's calculation was incorrect and that they overcharged him by $40,708.33. Guilmette filed a breach of contract action, claiming that PHH did not properly calculate the shared appreciation amount according to the modification agreement.The Superior Court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, PHH and Wells Fargo, concluding that the modification agreement was clear and unambiguous. The court found that the defendants correctly calculated the shared appreciation amount based on the terms of the agreement and the attached disclosure statement, which provided specific examples of the calculation method.The Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the Superior Court's judgment. The Supreme Court held that the modification agreement was unambiguous and that the defendants' calculation of the shared appreciation amount was correct. The court emphasized that the disclosure statement, which was part of the agreement and signed by Guilmette, clearly illustrated the calculation method, and there was no ambiguity in the contract terms. View "Guilmette v. PHH Mortgage Services FKA Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC" on Justia Law

Kratzer Construction entered into a subcontract with Hardy Construction Co. to perform work on a building addition for Ekalaka Public Schools. Kratzer completed the work and submitted pay applications, including one for $92,856.45, which Hardy partially disputed due to unapproved change orders. Hardy offered to pay $81,153 upon Kratzer signing a release, but Kratzer refused, demanding the full amount plus interest. Hardy later offered the same amount without requiring a release, but Kratzer still declined, insisting on interest.The Sixteenth Judicial District Court granted summary judgment to Kratzer, ruling that Hardy owed $81,153 plus 18% interest from January 6, 2022, and attorney fees, as Kratzer was deemed the prevailing party. Hardy appealed, arguing that Kratzer failed to meet a condition precedent in the subcontract requiring submission of releases from his subcontractors before final payment.The Supreme Court of Montana reviewed the case and concluded that the subcontract's provisions were clear and unambiguous. The court determined that Kratzer's failure to submit the required releases constituted a breach of the subcontract, and Hardy was entitled to withhold payment. The court found that Hardy's offers to settle did not constitute a waiver of the condition precedent or a novation of the contract.The Supreme Court reversed the District Court's summary judgment in favor of Kratzer, including the awards for interest and attorney fees. The court remanded the case for entry of judgment in favor of Hardy, requiring Hardy to pay Kratzer $81,153 for services rendered under the subcontract, less reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred by Hardy. View "Kratzer Construction v. Hardy Construction" on Justia Law

Upper Missouri Waterkeeper and seven Broadwater County residents challenged the approval of a subdivision by 71 Ranch, LP, arguing it did not meet the "exempt well" exception for a water rights permit. They sought attorney fees under the Montana Water Use Act, the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act (UDJA), and the Private Attorney General Doctrine. The District Court denied their request for fees under all three claims.The First Judicial District Court found that the subdivision's environmental assessment was inadequate and that the County abused its discretion in approving the subdivision. The court ruled in favor of Upper Missouri on most claims but denied their request for attorney fees. The plaintiffs appealed the denial of fees.The Montana Supreme Court reviewed the case and agreed with the District Court that the Water Use Act did not authorize fees. However, the Supreme Court reversed the denial of fees under the UDJA, finding that the District Court abused its discretion. The Supreme Court held that the equities supported an award of attorney fees and that the declaratory relief sought by Upper Missouri was necessary to change the status quo. The case was remanded to the District Court to determine a reasonable amount of fees and their apportionment. The Supreme Court did not address the private attorney general claim. View "Upper Missouri v. Department of Natural Resources and Conservation" on Justia Law

In 2008, Andy Luu Tran granted Citizens Bank a mortgage on his Massachusetts home. In 2022, the Bank foreclosed on the property, and Herbert Jacobs was the high bidder at the auction. The Bank recorded an affidavit of sale but the foreclosure deed lacked the required signature page. Tran filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition and an adversary complaint to avoid the transfer of his interest in the property due to the improperly recorded deed.The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts granted summary judgment against Tran, holding that the only transfer at foreclosure was of Tran's equity of redemption, which was extinguished at the foreclosure auction. The court found that the properly recorded affidavit of sale provided constructive notice, making the transfer unavoidable. The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts affirmed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Tran's equity of redemption was extinguished at the foreclosure auction when the memorandum of sale was executed. The court also held that the properly recorded affidavit of sale provided constructive notice of the foreclosure, making the transfer of Tran's equity of redemption unavoidable under Massachusetts law. Consequently, the court affirmed the judgment of the bankruptcy court. View "Tran v. Citizens Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

Mark Radford and the State Board of Land Commissioners and the Idaho Department of Lands (collectively, "the State") were involved in a contract dispute over the State's easement on Radford's property. The State used the easement to access and manage state endowment lands leased for grazing. Historically, the State accessed the easement through the Hallo Property, which Radford purchased in 2020, subsequently revoking the State's access. Radford claimed that an email from the State indicated the easement was no longer needed, leading him to file a lawsuit alleging the State breached the termination clause of the easement agreement by not providing a statement confirming termination.The District Court of the Seventh Judicial District of Idaho granted summary judgment in favor of the State, determining that the termination clause gave the State sole and subjective power to decide whether the easement was necessary. The court found that the State had not made any determination that the easement was no longer needed, thus dismissing Radford's breach of contract claim. Radford appealed the decision.The Supreme Court of the State of Idaho reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the State had no contractual duty to assess whether the easement was necessary for its granted purposes. The agreement's termination clause did not impose an obligation on the State to periodically reassess the easement's necessity. The court also rejected Radford's argument that the State's refusal to terminate the easement violated the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, as the State had not determined the easement was no longer needed. The court awarded attorney fees and costs on appeal to the State, concluding that Radford's appeal was unreasonably pursued. View "Radford v. Van Orden" on Justia Law

The City of Oakland entered into agreements with Oakland Bulk and Oversized Terminal, LLC (OBOT) to develop a bulk cargo shipping terminal at the former Oakland Army Base, including a 66-year Ground Lease. Amid public backlash over potential coal transportation, the City moved to block coal, leading to extensive litigation. The City terminated OBOT’s Ground Lease, claiming OBOT failed to meet the Initial Milestone Date for construction. OBOT and its subtenant, Oakland Global Rail Enterprise (OGRE), sued the City for breach of the Ground Lease, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and sought declaratory relief, alleging the City’s actions made it impossible for OBOT to meet the milestone and triggered a force majeure provision.The Alameda County Superior Court, after a bifurcated bench trial, found the City liable for breaching the Ground Lease and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The court issued a detailed statement of decision, highlighting the City’s failure to cooperate, its obstructionist actions, and its bad faith efforts to terminate the lease. The court awarded OBOT attorney fees and costs.The City appealed to the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Two, arguing that the trial court misinterpreted the force majeure provision, improperly applied the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, erroneously declined to apply claim preclusion, and improperly entered judgment for OGRE. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s judgment and orders, concluding that the City’s arguments lacked merit. The court held that the City’s actions constituted force majeure events, excusing OBOT’s performance delays, and that the City breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by obstructing OBOT’s efforts to develop the terminal. The court also found that claim preclusion did not apply as the federal case involved different issues and contracts. View "Oakland Bulk and Oversized Terminal v. City of Oakland" on Justia Law

In the oilfields of West Texas, a dispute arose over the ownership of "produced water," a byproduct of oil-and-gas production. COG Operating, LLC, a hydrocarbon lessee, claimed ownership of the produced water under its oil-and-gas leases, arguing that the right to produce oil and gas includes the right to handle and dispose of the resulting liquid waste. Cactus Water Services, LLC, a surface-estate lessee, countered that once hydrocarbons are separated, the remaining produced water belongs to the surface estate unless expressly conveyed otherwise.The trial court ruled in favor of COG, declaring that COG owns the produced water and has exclusive rights to its possession, custody, control, and disposition. The court of appeals affirmed this decision, holding that produced water is oil-and-gas waste that belongs to the mineral lessee, not groundwater that belongs to the surface estate. The court emphasized that the leases did not suggest an intent to reserve rights to oil-and-gas waste for the surface owner.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case and affirmed the lower courts' decisions. The Court held that under Texas law, a conveyance of oil-and-gas rights includes the right to handle and dispose of produced water, which is considered oil-and-gas waste. The Court noted that produced water is inherently part of hydrocarbon production and must be managed by the operator. The Court rejected Cactus's argument that produced water should be treated as surface estate water, emphasizing that produced water is distinct from groundwater and is subject to specific regulatory requirements for waste disposal. The Court concluded that the leases conveyed the right to produced water to COG, and any reservation of rights to produced water by the surface owner must be expressly stated in the conveyance. View "CACTUS WATER SERVICES, LLC v. COG OPERATING, LLC" on Justia Law