Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

A flea market operator in Durham, North Carolina, received a notice of violation (NOV) from the city's planning department following a field inspection. The NOV stated that the market had failed to comply with an approved site plan, referencing the city’s Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), and warned of possible civil penalties unless corrective action was taken within thirty days. The NOV included copies of photographs and a copy of the site plan but did not specifically identify which aspects of the property were in violation or the specific corrective measures required.The market appealed the NOV to the City’s Board of Adjustment (BOA). At the quasi-judicial hearing, city staff explained that the NOV was intentionally broad because there were several violations, and listing each one would allow the market to fix only some issues. One BOA member expressed concern that the NOV’s lack of specificity failed to inform the market of the exact violations or needed corrections. Despite this, the BOA voted to deny the market’s appeal. The market then appealed to the Superior Court, Durham County, arguing that the NOV was too vague and did not comply with ordinance requirements. The superior court affirmed the BOA’s decision and ordered the market to come into compliance within thirty-six months. The market further appealed, and the North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed, finding the NOV sufficient under the UDO.The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed the appeal and held that the NOV did not comply with the city’s ordinance because it failed to provide a description of the specific violations as required by UDO § 15.2.1.C. The court concluded that property owners must receive enough detail to understand the alleged violations and what corrective action is required. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded with instructions for the city to dismiss the NOV. View "Durham Green Flea Market v. City of Durham" on Justia Law

A developer challenged the legality of “recreation fees” imposed by a municipality on builders of new subdivisions. The developer argued that the town’s fees, charged in lieu of dedicating land for public recreation, either exceeded statutory limits or were unconstitutional because they were not proportionate to each development’s impact. The developer further alleged that the municipality did not use the fees as required, instead commingling them with general funds and failing to create or improve public recreation areas near the developments.In the Superior Court of Wake County, the developer pursued a putative class action seeking declaratory relief and a refund of all such fees paid since November 2017. The Superior Court certified a class including all payers of the recreation fees, finding several common legal questions appropriate for resolution on a class-wide basis. These included whether the fees violated statutory requirements, whether their calculation was legally proper, whether their use complied with statutory mandates, and whether they were constitutionally proportionate. The municipality appealed directly to the Supreme Court of North Carolina, arguing that individualized factual inquiries predominated over common issues and that a class action was not the superior method of adjudication.The Supreme Court of North Carolina held that the class as certified did not satisfy the predominance requirement for class actions. The Court explained that several claims—such as whether fees exceeded fair market value or were roughly proportional—would require individualized, fact-intensive determinations for each class member, resulting in mini-trials that would overwhelm the common legal issues. Consequently, the Supreme Court vacated the trial court’s class certification order and remanded for further proceedings, instructing the lower court to reconsider class certification in light of these findings. View "Empire Contractors Inc. v. Town of Apex" on Justia Law

The plaintiff owned a large tract of land in Cumberland County, North Carolina. In 1992 and 2006, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) filed official corridor maps under the Map Act, which imposed restrictions on portions of the plaintiff’s property, limiting development and affecting value. In 2002 and 2010, NCDOT initiated two direct condemnation actions to acquire parts of the plaintiff’s land—some of which overlapped with the previously restricted areas—resulting in two settlements and consent judgments. After the 2010 settlement, 28.041 acres of the plaintiff’s property remained subject to Map Act restrictions until the maps were repealed in 2016.Following the repeal and a 2016 North Carolina Supreme Court decision in Kirby v. North Carolina Department of Transportation, which held that Map Act restrictions constituted a taking, the plaintiff filed an inverse condemnation action in Cumberland County Superior Court in 2018. The plaintiff sought compensation specifically for the Map Act restrictions not addressed in prior settlements. The Superior Court dismissed some claims but allowed the action to proceed for the remaining 28.041 acres. The North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the plaintiff’s claims regarding the Map Act restrictions were not barred and could proceed as an independent interest not covered by the earlier condemnation actions.The Supreme Court of North Carolina reversed the Court of Appeals. It held that, under North Carolina’s eminent domain statutes, the plaintiff was required to raise claims related to the Map Act restrictions as part of the answer in NCDOT’s 2010 direct condemnation action, since those restrictions were pertinent to determining just compensation for the partial taking. Because the plaintiff failed to do so, he could not pursue a separate inverse condemnation claim for those restrictions under N.C.G.S. § 136-111. The Court’s disposition was to reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals. View "Sanders v. N.C. Dep't of Transp" on Justia Law

Jay and Kendall Nygard, who have had a long history of disputes with the City of Orono regarding property matters, became involved in a conflict when Jay replaced their driveway without obtaining a permit as required by city code. Throughout the permitting process and subsequent communications with the City, Kendall was copied on email exchanges but did not perform the driveway work herself. After efforts by city officials to secure compliance failed, both Jay and Kendall were referred for prosecution for violating the permit requirement. However, a state court later dismissed the charge against Kendall, finding that the ordinance required only the person actually performing the work to obtain the permit, and Jay, not Kendall, had done the work.Following this dismissal, Kendall and Jay brought federal claims against the City, including a malicious prosecution claim. The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota dismissed all claims, but on appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit allowed Kendall’s malicious prosecution claim to proceed, finding her complaint sufficiently alleged the City lacked probable cause. On remand, the district court declined to exercise pendent jurisdiction. Kendall then filed a new malicious prosecution claim based on diversity jurisdiction, but the district court again granted summary judgment to the City, concluding Kendall could not prove the City acted with malicious intent.Reviewing the case de novo, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment. The court held that Kendall failed to offer evidence that the City knowingly and willfully instituted a groundless prosecution against her, as required to establish malicious intent under Minnesota law. The court found that, even if probable cause was lacking, there was no evidence of malice, and that any deficiency in probable cause was not so blatant as to permit an inference of malicious intent. The judgment in favor of the City was therefore affirmed. View "Nygard v. City of Orono" on Justia Law

Pedro Castaneda died in a traffic accident at an intersection on State Highway 249 that was under construction. At the time, the intersection’s traffic lights were installed but not yet operational, and there was a dispute about whether they were properly covered to indicate their status. Castaneda’s family sued the contractors involved in the project, SpawGlass Civil Construction, Inc. and Third Coast Services, LLC, alleging that negligence in the construction and installation of the traffic signals contributed to the fatal accident. The construction project was governed by an agreement between the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) and Montgomery County, with the County responsible for the project’s design and construction, but with TxDOT retaining authority over the adjacent frontage roads and final approval of plans.The trial court denied the contractors’ motions for summary judgment that sought dismissal under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 97.002, which grants immunity to contractors under certain conditions. The contractors appealed. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that Section 97.002 applies only to contractors who are in direct contractual privity with TxDOT, and since neither contractor had a direct contract with TxDOT, they could not invoke the statute’s protection.The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the court of appeals. It held that Section 97.002 does not require direct contractual privity with TxDOT for a contractor to qualify for statutory immunity. The court determined that, based on the summary judgment record, SpawGlass and Third Coast performed work "for" TxDOT within the meaning of the statute, as their activities directly related to frontage roads that TxDOT would own and maintain. The court remanded the case to the court of appeals to determine whether the contractors met the remaining requirements of Section 97.002. View "THIRD COAST SERVICES, LLC v. CASTANEDA" on Justia Law

During the COVID-19 pandemic, a university in Nebraska instituted a policy requiring all students to be vaccinated against COVID-19 by a specified deadline, with the only exemptions allowed for medical reasons or until a vaccine received full FDA approval. Religious exemptions were not permitted. Students who failed to comply were unenrolled and barred from campus, and some had holds placed on their accounts, preventing access to transcripts. One student complied with the mandate but suffered adverse effects and was medically exempted from further doses. Another student withdrew voluntarily before the deadline.After the university enforced the mandate, several students sought injunctive relief in the District Court for Douglas County to prevent their unenrollment, alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The court denied relief, finding that any contract included the Emergency Use Authorization waiver agreements and that the students breached the contract by not being vaccinated after FDA approval. An initial appeal was dismissed by the Nebraska Supreme Court for lack of a final, appealable order. The students then consolidated their actions and filed an operative complaint alleging breach of implied contract, denial of due process, conversion, negligence, and violations of the Nebraska Consumer Protection Act (NCPA). The district court dismissed the complaint with prejudice and denied leave to amend.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the district court’s dismissal de novo and found that the students plausibly alleged claims for breach of an implied contract and conversion, based on the university’s unilateral modification of conditions mid-semester and the withholding of transcripts. The court affirmed the dismissal of the negligence and NCPA claims, finding them preempted by the federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, and held that the due process claim was abandoned on appeal. The case was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings on the breach of contract and conversion claims. View "Ramaekers v. Creighton University" on Justia Law

A dispute arose between two competing billboard companies after one company constructed an electronic billboard in Gulfport, Mississippi. The company that operated existing billboards nearby filed suit, claiming that the new billboard violated a city ordinance enacted as part of a settlement resolving earlier litigation involving the city and the plaintiff. The defendant, along with related entities, countered with claims for declaratory and injunctive relief and challenged the plaintiff’s standing to bring the suit. The property owner on whose land the disputed billboard was constructed also became a party to the litigation.The litigation began in the Chancery Court of Harrison County, which denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, specifically rejecting their standing argument. The defendants removed the case to federal court, which remanded it and awarded costs to the plaintiff. After the defendants’ interlocutory appeal was denied by the Supreme Court of Mississippi, the case was transferred to circuit court. There, the court again denied summary judgment, and further unsuccessful dispositive motions were filed by the defendants. Over several years, the case involved multiple motions, removal, transfer, and appeals, with no claims proceeding to trial. Eventually, after the defendants transferred their interest in the billboard to a third party who settled with the plaintiff, the plaintiff moved to dismiss the case with prejudice. The Circuit Court of Harrison County granted the motion and denied the defendants’ subsequent request for attorney’s fees and costs, finding that much of the litigation expense was due to the defendants’ own aggressive litigation strategies, and declined to impose sanctions, concluding the suit was not frivolous.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the appeal, focusing on whether the trial court erred in denying attorney’s fees and sanctions to the defendants. The court held that the decision to award attorney’s fees or impose sanctions was within the trial court’s discretion, and found no abuse of discretion in denying fees or sanctions, affirming the dismissal with prejudice. View "Busby v. The Lamar Company, LLC" on Justia Law

A Texas law, Senate Bill 17, prohibits individuals who are domiciled in certain “designated countries,” including China, from acquiring interests in Texas real estate. The law defines “domicile” as a person’s true, fixed, and permanent home to which the individual intends to return whenever absent. Peng Wang, a Chinese citizen who has lived in Texas for sixteen years on an F-1 student visa, challenged the law’s constitutionality. Wang attends school in Texas, intends to remain in the state after graduation, and does not plan to return to China.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas dismissed Wang’s suit for lack of jurisdiction, holding that he lacked standing. The district court found that Wang was not domiciled in China based on his long-term residence and stated intentions to remain in Texas. The court also concluded that Wang faced no substantial risk of future enforcement of the statute against him, citing repeated in-court statements by the Texas Attorney General disavowing any intent to enforce the law against Wang.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. It affirmed the district court’s dismissal, holding that Wang lacked standing for two independent reasons. First, Wang failed to allege he was domiciled in China, so the statute did not arguably proscribe his conduct. Second, he did not demonstrate a credible threat of enforcement of the law, given the Attorney General’s in-court assurances and lack of any enforcement action or procedures targeting Wang. The Fifth Circuit therefore affirmed the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. View "Wang v. Paxton" on Justia Law

Russ and Debi Ropken hired a construction company to build a custom home based on an oral agreement. The contractor began work and sent invoices for services and materials, which the Ropkens paid until May 2022, after which they stopped making payments. In July 2022, the Ropkens removed the contractor from the site. The contractor then sent a demand letter for three unpaid invoices totaling $276,169, but the Ropkens refused to pay. The contractor sued to recover the unpaid amount.In the District Court of Park County, the Ropkens admitted owing at least $176,870.21. At the conclusion of a jury trial, the jury found there was a valid contract, the Ropkens had breached it, and awarded the contractor $258,587.70 in damages. The district court entered judgment for that amount and permitted the contractor to request prejudgment interest. The contractor timely filed for prejudgment interest, and the Ropkens objected. The district court found for the contractor, awarding $33,473.25 in prejudgment interest at a statutory rate, and calculated interest from the date of the demand letter. The Ropkens paid the judgment but appealed the prejudgment interest award.The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed whether the district court erred in awarding prejudgment interest and whether due process was violated by granting interest without an evidentiary hearing. The court held that a district court may award prejudgment interest even when it is not the trier of fact, as prejudgment interest is a matter of law and not fact. The court found the claim was liquidated and the Ropkens had notice. The court also held that the Ropkens received adequate notice and opportunity to be heard, satisfying due process. The Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed the award of prejudgment interest. View "Ropken v. Yj Construction, Inc." on Justia Law

A woman against whom a default judgment had been entered later married and, after her marriage, her husband opened a bank account solely in his name. Some months later, both spouses executed new signature cards for the account, designating ownership as “tenancy by the entireties” and checking the relevant box. The husband’s wages were the only funds deposited into the account. When the creditor holding the judgment against the wife sought to garnish the account, she asserted that the account was exempt from garnishment as an entireties account, since the debt was her individual obligation.The Circuit Court rejected her claim of exemption, holding that because the account was originally opened by only one spouse, the common law “unities” of time and title were not present, and the account could not be a tenancy by the entireties. The petitioner did not dispute the absence of these unities but argued that the express designation on the signature card and section 655.79(1), Florida Statutes, made the account an entireties account regardless. The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s decision, holding that neither the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Beal Bank, SSB v. Almand & Associates nor section 655.79(1) eliminated the common law requirements for an entireties account. The Second District certified conflict with the Fourth District’s decision in Versace v. Uruven, LLC, which had found a similar account exempt.The Supreme Court of Florida reviewed the case to resolve the conflict. It held that while Beal Bank did not address or eliminate the common law unities for entireties accounts, the 2008 amendment to section 655.79(1) did. The Court concluded that under the statute, a joint spousal account may be held as a tenancy by the entireties even if originally opened by only one spouse. The Court quashed the Second District’s decision and approved Versace to the extent it was consistent. View "Loumpos v. Bank One" on Justia Law