Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

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

Plaintiffs, former tenants of the defendant, filed a complaint against their landlord, alleging various breaches and violations related to their tenancies. In response, the defendant filed two unlawful detainer actions against the plaintiffs for nonpayment of rent. These actions were later dismissed without prejudice. Subsequently, a jury found the defendant liable for certain claims, and the plaintiffs filed a new complaint, including a claim for malicious prosecution based on the unlawful detainer actions.The San Francisco Superior Court consolidated the cases and, after a bench trial, found in favor of the plaintiffs on their malicious prosecution claim. The court concluded that the defendant lacked probable cause to file the unlawful detainer actions and rejected the defendant's advice of counsel defense, determining that she did not rely on legal advice in good faith. The court entered judgment for the plaintiffs, and the defendant appealed.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court found that the defendant had asserted a valid advice of counsel defense. The defendant had consulted an attorney, disclosed all relevant facts, and acted on the attorney's advice in good faith. The court determined that the trial court erred in requiring the defendant to prove the attorney's competence and in shifting the burden of the attorney's legal research onto the defendant. Consequently, the appellate court vacated the judgment and remanded the case with instructions to enter a judgment of dismissal in favor of the defendant. The court declined to award costs as the respondents did not appear in the appeal. View "Ceron v. Liu" on Justia Law

Conner Applegate sued Carrington Foreclosure Services, LLC (CFS) and Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB (WSF), alleging they violated Civil Code section 2924m during a foreclosure sale of a property in Mill Valley. Applegate claimed that CFS and WSF improperly handled the foreclosure process and rejected his bid, which he submitted as a prospective owner-occupant. The property was initially auctioned on May 12, 2022, with WSF winning the bid. However, the sale was rescinded at WSF's request before it was finalized. Applegate's subsequent bids did not comply with the statutory requirements, and CFS returned his funds.The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of CFS and WSF. The court found that Applegate's claim under section 2924m failed because the statute did not create a private right of action, the sale was lawfully rescinded before it became final, and Applegate's bids did not meet the statutory requirements. Consequently, the court also dismissed Applegate's other claims, which were based on the alleged violation of section 2924m.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Two, affirmed the trial court's decision. The appellate court held that CFS acted within its authority to rescind the sale before it was finalized, as permitted under section 2924g. Additionally, Applegate's failure to comply with the affidavit requirements of section 2924m meant he could not prove he was a prospective owner-occupant eligible to submit a bid. The court also rejected Applegate's request for leave to amend his complaint, citing unexplained delay and lack of diligence. The appellate court concluded that Applegate's remaining claims were derivative of the failed section 2924m claim and thus also failed. View "Applegate v. Carrington Foreclosure Services, LLC" on Justia Law

Joseph Eshagian leased a residential unit in Van Nuys to Manuel Cepeda, who was required to pay $1,000 monthly rent. On December 20, 2022, Eshagian served Cepeda with a three-day notice to pay $8,000 in unpaid rent or quit. The notice did not specify the start date of the three-day period, nor did it clearly state that Cepeda would lose possession if he did not pay by a certain date. On December 27, 2022, Eshagian filed an unlawful detainer complaint seeking possession, unpaid rent, holdover damages, and attorney fees. Cepeda filed an answer denying the allegations and asserting affirmative defenses.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County granted Eshagian’s motion for terminating sanctions due to Cepeda’s failure to comply with discovery orders, struck Cepeda’s answer, and entered a default against him. A possession-only judgment was entered on May 3, 2023. Cepeda’s motion to vacate the judgment was denied, and he appealed to the appellate division of the superior court, which held the possession-only judgment was appealable and reversed the judgment, finding the three-day notice defective.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case to determine if a possession-only judgment in an unlawful detainer proceeding is appealable when the landlord’s damages claims are unresolved. The court concluded that such a judgment is not appealable because it does not resolve all rights of the parties. However, the court treated Cepeda’s appeal as a petition for writ of mandate due to the uncertainty of the law on appealability at the time of filing.The court found the three-day notice invalid for failing to specify when and how Cepeda had to pay the rent and that he would lose possession if he did not cure the default. Consequently, the complaint did not state a cause of action for unlawful detainer. The court dismissed the appeal, granted the petition, and directed the trial court to vacate the judgment in favor of Eshagian and enter a new judgment in favor of Cepeda. View "Eshagian v. Cepeda" on Justia Law

Elanore Vaughan purchased a ticket and signed an online liability waiver to go tubing at Eagle Island State Park, operated by Gateway Parks, LLC. The next day, Vaughan was injured when her tube went over an embankment and crashed into a flatbed trailer housing snowmaking equipment. Vaughan sued Gateway, alleging negligence and premises liability, claiming Gateway failed to maintain the tubing hill safely and created a hazard by placing the trailer at the end of the tubing run.The District Court of the Fourth Judicial District of Idaho denied Gateway's motion to dismiss Vaughan's complaint. Gateway argued that Vaughan's claims were barred by the liability waiver she signed and the Responsibilities and Liabilities of Skiers and Ski Area Operators Act. The district court found that while the Act applied, there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding the placement of the snowmaking equipment. The court also concluded that the liability waiver did not preclude Vaughan's claims. Gateway then sought and was granted permission to appeal the denial of its motion for summary judgment.The Supreme Court of the State of Idaho reviewed the case and reversed the district court's decision. The court held that the electronic liability waiver Vaughan signed precluded her claims against Gateway. The waiver explicitly acknowledged the risks of tubing, including collisions with manmade obstacles such as snowmaking equipment. The court determined that the waiver's language was broad enough to encompass Vaughan's accident and injuries. Consequently, the court directed the district court to grant summary judgment in favor of Gateway and dismiss Vaughan's complaint. The court also denied Gateway's request for attorney fees on appeal, as the gravamen of Vaughan's lawsuit was a tort, not a commercial transaction. View "Vaughan v. Gateway Park, LLC" on Justia Law