Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

Susan Carpenter, as trustee for the H. Joe King, Jr. Revocable Trust, sold two properties in North Carolina in April 2020. Both properties were part of homeowners’ associations managed by William Douglas Management, Inc. Carpenter paid fees for statements of unpaid assessments required for the sales, which she claimed were excessive under North Carolina law. She filed a class action lawsuit against William Douglas and NextLevel Association Solutions, Inc., alleging violations of state laws, including the prohibition of transfer fee covenants, the Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and the Debt Collection Act, along with claims of negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and civil conspiracy.The case was initially filed in North Carolina state court but was removed to the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. The district court dismissed Carpenter’s complaint for failure to state a claim, concluding that the fees charged were not transfer fees as defined by state law and that the companies were not deceptive or unfair in charging them.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s dismissal, holding that the fees charged for the statements of unpaid assessments did not qualify as transfer fees under North Carolina law. The court also found that the fees were not unfair or deceptive under the Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Consequently, Carpenter’s additional claims of unjust enrichment, violation of the Debt Collection Act, negligent misrepresentation, and civil conspiracy were also dismissed, as they were contingent on the success of her primary claims. View "Carpenter v. William Douglas Management Inc" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, Shalome Kaushansky, retained Stonecroft Attorneys, APC, to represent her in a legal action against her landlord due to various issues during her tenancy, including water leaks, mold, electrical problems, and harassment. Stonecroft filed a complaint but failed to advance the case, conduct discovery, or respond to the landlord's discovery requests. Shortly before the trial, Stonecroft withdrew from the case, leading Kaushansky to settle for $2,500.Kaushansky then sued Stonecroft for professional negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and unfair competition. The Los Angeles County Superior Court found in favor of Kaushansky, awarding her $91,734.29 for professional negligence and $25,000 for breach of fiduciary duty, totaling $116,734.29. The court found Stonecroft failed to plead all applicable causes of action, conduct discovery, and protect Kaushansky from foreseeable prejudice upon withdrawal. However, the court ruled in favor of Stonecroft on the unfair competition claim and declined to award punitive damages.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court reversed the $91,734.29 award for professional negligence, finding no substantial evidence that Kaushansky could have collected this amount from her landlord. The court noted that Kaushansky failed to prove the landlord's solvency or the collectibility of a hypothetical judgment. However, the court affirmed the $25,000 award for breach of fiduciary duty, finding substantial evidence that Stonecroft's withdrawal constituted intentional misconduct, justifying emotional distress damages. The judgment was affirmed in part and reversed in part, with each party bearing its own costs on appeal. View "Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC" on Justia Law

A husband and wife divorced after 19 years of marriage, with six children, including four adopted minors. The wife, a nurse practitioner, challenged the superior court's division of marital assets, particularly the valuation of the husband's law practice, which the court found lacked marketable goodwill. She also disputed the treatment of a $75,000 payout as a pre-distribution rather than interim support and the offsetting of adoption subsidies against the husband's child support obligation.The superior court, Third Judicial District, Anchorage, held a four-day custody trial and a five-day property trial. The court awarded 50/50 shared physical custody and divided the marital estate 60/40 in favor of the wife. The court valued the husband's law firm based on its net assets, excluding goodwill, and found the Wasilla office building was not a marital asset. The court also calculated the husband's child support obligation but reduced it to account for the adoption subsidies received by the wife.The Supreme Court of the State of Alaska reviewed the case. It affirmed the superior court's decision, holding that only marketable goodwill may be divided on divorce, and the evidence showed the law firm lacked such goodwill. The court found no error in the superior court's other decisions, including the pre-distribution in lieu of interim spousal support and the temporary adjustment of the child support obligation. The court also upheld the superior court's valuation of the law firm, the classification of the Wasilla office building, and the finding that the law firm had no excess cash. The Supreme Court concluded that the superior court did not abuse its discretion in declining to award interim spousal support, in its treatment of post-separation earnings, or in its decision not to award long-term spousal support, above-guidelines child support, or additional attorney's fees. The property division, including the award of the marital home to the husband, was found to be equitable. View "May v. Petersen" on Justia Law

Woodsonia Hwy 281, LLC (Woodsonia) owned a retail shopping mall in Grand Island, Nebraska, and leased space to American Multi-Cinema, Inc. (AMC). Woodsonia planned to redevelop the mall and sought to terminate AMC's lease under the eminent domain provisions of the lease agreement. Woodsonia claimed that the lease was terminated after conveying AMC's leasehold interest to the Community Redevelopment Authority (CRA) under threat of condemnation. AMC disputed the termination, arguing that the conditions for termination under the lease were not met.The County Court for Hall County overruled AMC's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that the lease was terminated under the eminent domain provisions and granted Woodsonia restitution of the premises. AMC appealed to the District Court for Hall County, which affirmed the County Court's decision, reasoning that the lease provisions allowed Woodsonia to transfer AMC's leasehold interest under threat of condemnation.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and determined that the forcible entry and detainer action presented a title dispute, as the court needed to resolve whether AMC's leasehold interest was validly terminated. The court held that such a title dispute could not be determined in a forcible entry and detainer action, which is limited to determining the immediate right of possession without addressing title issues. Consequently, the County Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and should have dismissed the action.The Nebraska Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the District Court and remanded the case with directions to vacate the County Court's judgment and dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction. View "Woodsonia Hwy 281 v. American Multi-Cinema" on Justia Law

James and Amber May hired RES Construction to build their home in Sioux Falls. RES subcontracted First Rate Excavate, Inc. to install the septic system and construct the foundation. The Mays alleged that the foundation was installed several feet below grade level, causing significant drainage and septic issues that damaged their home, yard, and neighboring properties. They sued First Rate for negligence. The circuit court dismissed the claim based on the economic loss doctrine, and the Mays appealed.The Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit in Lincoln County, South Dakota, dismissed the Mays' negligence claim, citing the economic loss doctrine, which limits remedies for purely economic losses to those specified in a contract. The court reasoned that the Mays lacked privity of contract with First Rate and that their claims were barred by the six-year statute of limitations.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case. The court held that the economic loss doctrine should not be expanded beyond claims arising from transactions involving the sale of defective goods under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). The court noted that the doctrine is designed to prevent parties from circumventing contract remedies by seeking tort remedies for economic losses. Since the Mays' claim was based on negligence and not on a UCC transaction, the economic loss doctrine did not apply. Additionally, the court found that the lack of privity between the Mays and First Rate further precluded the application of the economic loss doctrine. The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "May v. First Rate Excavate" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs owned property adjacent to an unpaved road where the Town of Lodi determined that low-hanging branches and dead or dying trees posed a hazard. In 2010, the Town hired a tree service company to cut or remove fifty-five trees on plaintiffs' land, believing the trees were within the right of way. Plaintiffs disagreed and sought treble damages under RPAPL 861 (1). The parties agreed to binding arbitration, and the arbitrator awarded plaintiffs damages, including treble the "stumpage value" of the trees.The Supreme Court confirmed the arbitrator's award, and a divided Appellate Division affirmed. The Appellate Division majority held that treble damages under RPAPL 861 were not punitive but intended to capture elusive compensatory damages. The dissenting justices argued that the treble damages were punitive and could not be awarded against the Town. The Town appealed to the Court of Appeals.The New York Court of Appeals reviewed the case and held that treble damages under RPAPL 861 are punitive in nature. The Court reasoned that the statute's "good faith" provision, which reduces damages from treble to single if the defendant acted in good faith, indicates a punitive intent. The Court also noted that the legislative history and structure of the statute support the conclusion that treble damages are meant to punish and deter wrongful conduct. Consequently, the Court reversed the Appellate Division's order insofar as appealed from, with costs, and granted the petition to vacate the award in part. View "Matter of Rosbaugh v Town of Lodi" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute over the lease of a commercial property that has lasted nearly eight years. The plaintiff brought claims against the defendants for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and a violation of G. L. c. 93A. The plaintiff prevailed at trial and was awarded a monetary judgment of over $20 million. The defendants paid the full amount of the judgment but notified the plaintiff that they intended to exercise their appellate rights.The Superior Court initially handled the case, and the plaintiff prevailed. The defendants appealed, and the Appeals Court affirmed the judgment. The defendants then sought further appellate review, which the Supreme Judicial Court granted, limited to issues related to postjudgment interest.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the case and held that the exercise of appellate rights does not constitute a condition on the payment of a judgment. Therefore, the judgment was fully satisfied when it was paid in full, and the accrual of postjudgment interest halted upon payment. The court concluded that postjudgment interest is meant to compensate the prevailing party for the loss of the use of money when damages are not paid on time, not to punish or discourage appeals. The court reversed the portion of the lower court's order that allowed for the accrual of postjudgment interest after the defendants' payment in full. View "H1 Lincoln, Inc. v. South Washington Street, LLC" on Justia Law

Charlie’s Win, LLC, a property owner within the Gallatin West Ranch Subdivision, filed a declaratory judgment action asserting that the restrictive covenants governing the subdivision had expired. The original Declaration of Protective Covenants, recorded in 1992, stated that the covenants would be in effect for 25 years and could be extended by a two-thirds majority vote of the owners. In 2015, Gallatin West Ranch Homeowners’ Association attempted to adopt a Fourth Amended Declaration, which included changes such as allowing metal roofs and backyard chicken coops. Of the 24 owners, 15 voted in favor, one voted against, and eight abstained.The Eighteenth Judicial District Court, Gallatin County, granted summary judgment in favor of Charlie’s Win, concluding that the covenants had expired on October 22, 2017, as the Fourth Amended Declaration did not receive the required two-thirds majority vote of all owners. Gallatin West appealed, arguing that the 2015 vote either properly adopted the Fourth Amended Declaration, modified the covenants, or that the covenants were ambiguous and required an analysis of the parties' conduct.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the District Court’s decision. The Court held that the plain language of the covenants required a two-thirds majority vote of all owners to extend the covenants, which was not achieved in the 2015 vote. The Court rejected Gallatin West’s arguments, stating that the renewal and modification clauses had different voting standards and that the covenants were not ambiguous. Consequently, the Third Amended Declaration expired by its own terms, and Gallatin West could not enforce the Fourth Amended Declaration against Charlie’s Win. View "Charlie's Win, LLC v. Gallatin West Ranch Homeowners' Association" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, Michael R. and Christine O. McElroy, claimed an express or implied easement to access Seaweed Beach in Narragansett, Rhode Island, and to traverse certain private properties to reach the beach. The private properties in question are owned by Marilyn O. Stephens, Paul G. and Nancy L. Anthony, and Vivian H. Lacroix. The dispute arose when the Stephenses blocked access to their driveway, which the McElroys used to reach Seaweed Beach.In the Superior Court, the McElroys sought to quiet title to the easement, a declaration of their rights, and injunctive relief. The court initially granted summary judgment in favor of the McElroys, but the Rhode Island Supreme Court vacated this judgment, citing unresolved factual issues. Upon remand, a bench trial was conducted, and the trial justice found that the McElroys had an express easement upon Seaweed Beach and an implied easement over the Stephens property. However, the court ruled that the McElroys did not have easements over the Anthony or Lacroix properties.The Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the trial justice's findings. The court held that the 1986 warranty deed clearly incorporated the 1929 express easement upon Seaweed Beach. The court also upheld the trial justice's determination that the McElroys had an implied easement over the Stephens property, as it was necessary for the enjoyment of their express easement on Seaweed Beach. The court found no error in the trial justice's admission of the 1986 purchase and sales agreement as extrinsic evidence to establish the implied easement. Finally, the court concluded that the trial justice did not err in denying the motion to amend the judgment, as the alleged inconsistencies did not constitute a manifest error of law. View "McElroy v. Stephens" on Justia Law

Juanita and Stephen Clark, Linda and Cliff Trebilcock, and Dan Gurney reside on Fuller Mountain Road in the Town of Phippsburg. Gurney has operated a firewood business from his property for thirty years. In September 2020, the Clarks and the Trebilcocks complained to the Town’s Code Enforcement Officer (CEO) that Gurney’s business was a nuisance under the Town’s Land Use Ordinance (LUO). The CEO found no violation, but the Clarks and the Trebilcocks appealed to the Board of Appeals (BOA), which found the business to be a nuisance. The Board of Selectmen (BOS) later found that Gurney had abated the nuisance.The Clarks and the Trebilcocks challenged the BOS’s decision in the Superior Court (Sagadahoc County), arguing that the BOS lacked authority to conduct a de novo review and that there were due process violations. The Superior Court affirmed the BOS’s decision, leading to the Clarks’ appeal to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court concluded that the BOA’s findings were outside the scope of the current appeal but found that the BOS exceeded its authority and violated due process in its review. The Court held that the BOS did not have the authority to review the CEO’s decision and that the BOS’s role was limited to deciding whether a consent agreement could be achieved or if court action was necessary. The Court also found procedural due process violations due to the conduct of BOS Chair Julia House, who exhibited bias and engaged in ex parte communications.The Court vacated the judgment and remanded the case to the Superior Court with instructions to remand to the BOS for new proceedings without the participation of Chair Julia House. View "Clark v. Town of Phippsburg" on Justia Law