Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

In this case, the Supreme Court of North Dakota considered an appeal and cross-appeal related to a dispute over three contracts for deed between LAWC Holdings, LLC, and Vincent Watford, L.L.C. The court affirmed the lower court's findings that Vincent had breached the contract for deed on one of the parcels of land, and that specific performance was an appropriate remedy. The court also affirmed the lower court's decision that LAWC was the prevailing party and was thus entitled to attorney’s fees. However, the court denied LAWC's claim for damages as LAWC was not entitled to both performance of the contract through specific performance and damages for Vincent's breach of contract. The court also concluded that LAWC was entitled to an award of attorney’s fees on appeal. The case was remanded to the lower court to determine a reasonable amount of attorney’s fees on appeal. The court did not address LAWC's cross-appeal regarding title to the other two parcels as it was determined that LAWC had waived this cross-appeal. View "LAWC Holdings, LLC v. Vincent Watford, L.L.C." on Justia Law

The dispute revolves around which of two oil and gas leases controls the royalty payments for nine wells collectively called the Bernhardt Wells. The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma affirmed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of defendant, Devon Energy Production Company, L.P. The plaintiffs, trustees of The Eunice S. Justice Amended, Revised, and Restated 1990 Revocable Trust Agreement, argued that a 1978 Lease entitles them to a 3/16 royalty, while Devon maintained that a 1973 Lease, entitling the Trust to a 1/8 royalty, controls. The court found that the dispute over which lease controls is best characterized as a quiet title claim, subject to a 15-year statute of limitations, which began when the injury occurred in 1978. Thus, the Trust's quiet title claim, filed more than 15 years later, was time-barred. The court also held that the trial court did not err in denying the Trust's motion to compel the production of various title opinions in Devon's possession. View "BASE v. DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION" on Justia Law

In this case, Beverly Stickle sued Jefferson County after sustaining an injury from a fall in a parking structure adjacent to a county building. She claimed that a poorly marked curb, which created an optical illusion and made the walkway and parking area appear as a single flat surface, was a dangerous condition that caused her injury. The county argued for dismissal on the grounds of immunity under the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act (CGIA), asserting that the parking structure was not a "building" and that the condition causing the injury was solely due to the parking lot's design. However, the Supreme Court of the State of Colorado affirmed the lower courts' decisions, holding that the parking structure qualified as a "building" under the CGIA. The court also held that the optical illusion was not solely attributable to the parking lot's design but was also, at least in part, a result of the maintenance of the facility. As such, the county was not immune from the lawsuit under the CGIA, and Stickle's claim could proceed. View "County of Jefferson v. Stickle" on Justia Law

The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed a decision by the Court of Appeals, ruling that the district court did not abuse its discretion in certifying an order as a final partial judgment under Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 54.02. The case arose from a dispute between the City of Elk River and Bolton & Menk, Inc. over a large construction contract for a wastewater treatment plant improvement project. The City sued Bolton for alleged breach of contract and professional negligence. Bolton responded by filing a third-party complaint against three other parties involved in the contract. The district court dismissed Bolton's third-party complaint and Bolton sought to have the dismissal order certified as a final judgment for immediate appeal. The district court granted this certification, but the Court of Appeals dismissed Bolton's appeal, determining that the district court had abused its discretion in certifying the order as a final judgment. The Minnesota Supreme Court disagreed, finding that the district court had offered valid reasons for its certification, including that the third-party claims presented distinct issues from the principal claims and that the case was in its early stages at the time of certification. The Supreme Court therefore reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "City of Elk River vs. Bolton & Menk, Inc." on Justia Law

This case arises from a water rights dispute in Idaho. The McConnells sought to transfer their water rights to a new point of diversion on Lee Creek. Their upstream neighbor, Whittaker, protested the application, arguing that the new diversion would infringe upon his water rights. The Idaho Department of Water Resources (IDWR) approved the transfer, finding that it would not injure Whittaker's water rights. The IDWR used the historic confluence of two creeks to make this determination, asserting that if the confluence was above the McConnells’ diversion point, then Whittaker’s upstream water right was already subject to the McConnells’ senior water rights and the transfer wouldn't injure Whittaker's rights.On review, the district court disagreed with IDWR’s use of the historic confluence, instead favoring the modern confluence which was downstream of the McConnells' diversion point. This meant that the transfer would injure Whittaker's water rights.The Supreme Court of the State of Idaho reversed the district court's decision. The Supreme Court held that the West Springs Ditch, which altered the natural flow of the creek and created the modern confluence, was an unauthorized diversion of water. Therefore, the historic confluence should be used in the injury analysis, and the approval of the McConnells’ transfer application would not injure Whittaker’s water rights. The case was remanded for further proceedings in accordance with the Supreme Court's decision. View "Whittaker v. Idaho Department of Water Resources" on Justia Law

In the case involving Katherine Blumenkron, David Blumenkron, and Springville Investors, LLC, versus Multnomah County, the Metro Regional Government, and members of the Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission, the plaintiffs challenged the designation of their land in Multnomah County, Oregon, as "rural reserves" under the Oregon Land Reserves Statute. They claimed that the statute and regulations facially violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the federal constitution, and that the defendants’ rural reserve designations violated their federal procedural due process, substantive due process, and equal protection rights. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of plaintiffs’ facial and as-applied constitutional challenges to the designation, concluding that the requirements for Burford abstention (a doctrine that allows federal courts to refrain from deciding a case in deference to state courts) were met for each of the as-applied claims. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by abstaining from exercising jurisdiction over the claims in their entirety, including plaintiffs’ claims for damages. The court concluded that plaintiffs had abandoned their facial constitutional claims on appeal and therefore affirmed the district court’s dismissal of these claims for failure to state a claim as a matter of law. View "BLUMENKRON V. MULTNOMAH COUNTY" on Justia Law

This case involves a dispute between a group of plaintiffs (Jason and Elizabeth Riddick, and Renee Sperling) and the City of Malibu, the Malibu City Council, and the Malibu Planning Department (collectively referred to as the City). The plaintiffs sought to add an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) to their residence but their permit application was denied by the City. The plaintiffs petitioned the trial court for relief and obtained an order directing the City to process the proposed ADU as exempt from coastal development permit (CDP) requirements. The City appealed this decision, arguing that the trial court misinterpreted the City ordinance governing exemptions from the state’s CDP requirement. The plaintiffs cross-appealed, arguing that they established a right to a permit under state ADU standards as a matter of law, and therefore the court should have ordered the permit to be issued immediately.The Court of Appeal of the State of California Second Appellate District Division Five held that the City's interpretation of the ordinance was not entitled to deference. The court interpreted the ordinance's language to include ADUs directly attached to existing residences in the class of improvements exempt from the CDP requirement. As such, the court affirmed the trial court's decision requiring the City to process the plaintiffs' permit application under state ADU standards. The court also affirmed the trial court's rejection of the plaintiffs' argument that they were automatically entitled to a permit. View "Riddick v City of Malibu" on Justia Law

In the case before the Supreme Court of California, the dispute revolved around a residential driveway in Sierra Madre and raised a significant question about the law of easements. The plaintiffs, Tatana Spicakova Romero and Cesar Romero, and the defendants, Li-Chuan Shih and Tun-Jen Ko, owned neighboring properties that were previously a single parcel divided and sold in 1986. An eight-foot-wide strip of land, which belonged to the Romeros but had been used as the driveway for the Shih-Kos' home, was in dispute. The trial court concluded that the parties to the 1986 sale had intended to create an implied easement over this strip of land, allowing the Shih-Kos to continue using it as a driveway. The Court of Appeal reversed, arguing that the law prohibits a court from recognizing an implied easement that precludes the property owners from making all or most practical uses of the easement area.The Supreme Court of California disagreed with the Court of Appeal's interpretation and held that the law does not impose such a limitation on the recognition of implied easements. The court emphasized that the evidentiary standard for recognizing an implied easement is a high one, and it will naturally be more difficult to meet where the nature of the easement effectively precludes the property owners from making most practical uses of the easement area. However, if there is clear evidence that the parties to the 1986 sale intended for the neighboring parcel’s preexisting use of the area to continue after separation of title, the law obligates courts to give effect to that intent. The court reversed and remanded the case back to the Court of Appeal to consider whether substantial evidence supports the trial court’s finding that an implied easement existed under the circumstances of this case. View "Romero v. Shih" on Justia Law

In this case, Epochal Enterprises, Inc., also known as Divine Orchids, entered into a commercial lease agreement with LF Encinitas Properties, LLC and Leichtag Foundation. The lease included a limitation of liability clause which stated that the defendants were not personally liable for any provisions of the lease or the premises, and the plaintiff waived all claims for consequential damages or loss of business profits. After the plaintiff sued the defendants, a jury found the defendants liable for premises liability and negligence.The jury awarded the plaintiff damages for lost profits and other past economic loss. However, the trial court granted the defendants’ motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), reasoning that the lease agreement’s limitation of liability clause prevented the plaintiff from recovering the economic damages the jury awarded.The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District Division One State of California, reversed the order granting JNOV in the defendants' favor, finding that the limitation of liability clause did not bar plaintiff’s recovery of damages. The court reasoned that the jury's award of damages necessarily implied a finding of gross negligence on the part of the defendants, which would be outside the scope of the indemnification clause. Further, the court held that the limitation of liability clause was void to the extent that it sought to shield the defendants from liability for their violations of the Health and Safety Code, as it violated public policy under Civil Code section 1668.On the defendants' cross-appeal regarding the damages award, the court affirmed the denial of the defendants' motion for partial JNOV, finding that substantial evidence supported the damages award. The court concluded that the jury could reasonably interpret the term "other past economic loss" on the verdict form as a different form of lost profits, and that the evidence presented to the jury provided a reasonable basis for calculating the amount of the plaintiff's lost profits. View "Epochal Enterprises, Inc. v. LF Encinitas Properties, LLC" on Justia Law

In this case, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed a dispute between Heather Keep and Christopher Indorf regarding the division of real estate they owned jointly. Keep and Indorf were unmarried domestic partners who had one child together. They purchased a house in Saco together, with Indorf contributing the down payment and both parties being liable for the mortgage. When their relationship ended, Keep moved out and Indorf assumed sole responsibility for the house. Keep filed a complaint for equitable partition in 2019. During the litigation process, the parties reached a partial settlement agreement, which was placed on the record during a judicial settlement conference. The agreement stated that for the valuation and division of any expenses associated with the home, they would use the date of May 1st, when Indorf had fully assumed all responsibility for the residence.The District Court (Biddeford, Tice, J.) eventually entered a partition judgment, setting aside the partial settlement agreement and dividing the real estate. Indorf appealed, arguing that the court abused its discretion by setting aside the settlement agreement.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court agreed with Indorf. It found that the parties had entered into an enforceable agreement, which the lower court could not simply disregard because it appeared unfair in light of subsequent events. The supreme court held that the agreement was ambiguous and remanded the case back to the District Court to determine the meaning of the agreement and to divide the property accordingly. The supreme court also dismissed Keep's cross-appeal as untimely. View "Keep v. Indorf" on Justia Law