Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

David Hepfl and Jodine Meadowcroft had a complex romantic history, including two marriages and divorces. After their second divorce, they reconciled in 2016 and decided to build a cabin on Meadowcroft's property, which she had retained as nonmarital property. Hepfl paid for the construction and furnishing of the cabin, as well as additional structures like a dock and outhouse. Their relationship ended again in October 2020, and Meadowcroft obtained an Order for Protection (OFP) against Hepfl. Hepfl then filed a civil action alleging unjust enrichment to recover the cabin and its associated fixtures and furnishings or reasonable payment.The district court ruled in favor of Hepfl, concluding that Meadowcroft would be unjustly enriched if she retained the cabin and its associated items without compensating Hepfl. The court found that Hepfl had no intention of gifting the cabin to Meadowcroft and that his contributions were made with the expectation of shared use. Meadowcroft's motion for amended findings was denied, and she was ordered to pay Hepfl for the construction costs and return or compensate for the additional items.The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, agreeing that Meadowcroft's retention of the cabin would result in unjust enrichment. The court noted that Hepfl's contributions were made with the expectation of shared use and that Meadowcroft's actions induced him to make these expenditures.The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the lower courts' decisions. The court held that Hepfl did not need to show that Meadowcroft engaged in morally wrongful conduct to succeed in his unjust enrichment claim. Instead, it was sufficient that Meadowcroft's retention of the cabin and its associated items would be inequitable under the circumstances. The court emphasized that unjust enrichment claims between former partners in a cohabitating, marriage-like relationship should focus on the equities of the situation rather than the conduct of the parties. View "Hepfl v. Meadowcroft" on Justia Law

American Warrior, Inc. owned an oil and gas lease on a 177-acre tract in Finney County, Kansas. In 2020, Huber Sand, Inc. acquired surface rights to the same tract and applied for a conditional use permit to operate a sand and gravel quarry. The Finney County Board of Zoning Appeals approved the permit with conditions after public meetings and consideration of community feedback.The Finney District Court upheld the permit's issuance, ruling that the County properly delegated the authority to issue conditional use permits to the Zoning Board. American Warrior appealed, arguing that the local procedure conflicted with state law, specifically K.S.A. 12-757, which outlines procedures for amending zoning regulations. The Kansas Court of Appeals reversed the district court, holding that the County's procedure conflicted with state law, relying on precedents from Crumbaker v. Hunt Midwest Mining, Inc. and Manly v. City of Shawnee.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that Finney County's zoning regulations did not conflict with state law. The Court found that K.S.A. 12-757 applies only to amendments of zoning regulations and not to the issuance of conditional use permits. The Court also determined that the County's regulations, which allow the Zoning Board to issue conditional use permits, were valid under K.S.A. 12-755 and K.S.A. 12-759. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision and affirmed the district court's judgment, upholding the validity of the conditional use permit issued to Huber Sand, Inc. View "American Warrior, Inc. v. Board of Finney County Comm'rs" on Justia Law

Windward Bora LLC purchased a junior promissory note signed by Constance and Royston Browne, secured by a junior mortgage on real property. Windward's predecessor had already obtained a final judgment of foreclosure on the junior mortgage. Without seeking leave from the court that issued the foreclosure, Windward filed a diversity action to recover on the promissory note. Both parties moved for summary judgment.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the Brownes' motion for summary judgment and denied Windward's. The court found diversity jurisdiction by comparing the national citizenship of the Brownes with that of Windward’s sole member, a U.S. lawful permanent resident, and concluded that state domiciles were irrelevant. It also held that the suit was precluded by New York’s election-of-remedies statute because Windward did not seek leave before suing on the note after its predecessor had already sued on the mortgage. The court found no special circumstances to excuse Windward’s failure.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. It agreed with the district court that diversity jurisdiction was present but clarified that the state domiciles of the parties were relevant. The court resolved a divide among district courts, stating that there is no diversity jurisdiction in a suit between U.S. citizens and unincorporated associations with lawful permanent resident members if such jurisdiction would not exist in a suit between the same U.S. citizens and those permanent resident members as individuals. The court also affirmed the district court’s decision to grant summary judgment for the Brownes under New York’s election-of-remedies statute, finding no special circumstances to excuse Windward’s failure to seek leave. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Bora v. Browne" on Justia Law

Keiland Construction, L.L.C. entered into a construction subcontract with Weeks Marine, Inc. for a project in Louisiana. Weeks terminated the contract for convenience, leading to a dispute over compensation. Keiland submitted pay applications and demobilization costs, which Weeks partially paid. The disagreement centered on whether the contract required lump-sum payments for work completed before termination or if it converted to a cost-plus basis upon termination.The United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana held a bench trial and found the contract ambiguous. It construed the ambiguity against Keiland, the drafter, and ruled in favor of Weeks. The court awarded Keiland damages based on Weeks’s interpretation of the contract but denied Keiland’s claims for direct employee and demobilization costs. The court also awarded Weeks attorneys’ fees and costs, though less than requested, and denied Weeks’s motion for post-offer-of-judgment fees and costs.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. It affirmed the district court’s findings, agreeing that the contract was ambiguous and that the ambiguity should be construed against Keiland. The appellate court upheld the district court’s rulings on damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs, including the denial of post-offer-of-judgment fees and costs. The court also affirmed the award of prejudgment interest to Keiland, finding no abuse of discretion.In summary, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment in all respects, including the interpretation of the contract, the award of damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and prejudgment interest. View "Keiland Construction v. Weeks Marine" on Justia Law

Southbridge RE, LLC (Southbridge) executed promissory notes and secured mortgages for two properties in Massachusetts with LendingHome, which later assigned the mortgages to Christiana Trust. However, LendingHome had previously issued blank assignments of the same mortgages to Toorak Capital Partners as security for a private funding agreement. Toorak filled in its name and recorded the assignments after Southbridge defaulted on the mortgages. Christiana Trust conducted foreclosure sales on both properties, which Southbridge contested, arguing that the blank assignments to Toorak broke the chain of title, rendering the foreclosures invalid.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts found that the blank assignments to Toorak were void under Massachusetts law and granted summary judgment in favor of Christiana Trust, declaring it had the authority to conduct the foreclosure sales. The court denied Southbridge's motion for summary judgment and defendants' cross-claims for slander of title, unjust enrichment, and promissory estoppel. Southbridge appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. The appellate court held that under Massachusetts law, assignments in blank are void and convey no interest. The court found that Toorak's filling in its name on the blank assignments did not validate them, as Toorak lacked authorization from LendingHome. The court also determined that post-foreclosure affidavits confirming the invalidity of the Toorak assignments were proper and did not contravene state law. Additionally, the court ruled that the foreclosure sale notices did not need to reference the void Toorak assignments, as they were not part of the chain of title. Thus, the foreclosure sales conducted by Christiana Trust were valid. View "Southbridge RE, LLC v. Kiavi Funding, Inc." on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, Louis Paolino and Marie E. Issa, own property in Cumberland, Rhode Island, adjacent to a site operated as an automobile recycling business. The neighboring property, owned by J.F. Realty, LLC and operated by LKQ Route 16 Used Auto Parts, Inc., was found to be contaminated. The Department of Environmental Management (DEM) required remediation, leading the defendants, Commonwealth Engineers & Consulting, Inc., to design a stormwater remediation system. Plaintiffs alleged that this system discharged contaminated water onto their property and encroached on it.In prior litigation, the plaintiffs sued the Ferreira defendants in state court for trespass due to contamination. The case was removed to federal court, where federal claims were dismissed, and state claims were remanded. A jury found encroachment but awarded only nominal damages. The plaintiffs sought injunctive relief, which was partially granted. On appeal, the Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed the denial of injunctive relief for the encroachment, deeming it de minimis, but ordered a new trial on other issues. In a subsequent trial, the jury found no continuing trespass. Plaintiffs also pursued a Clean Water Act claim in federal court, which was dismissed after a bench trial.The Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed the Superior Court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Commonwealth. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the issues in the current case were precluded by collateral estoppel. The court found that the issue of contamination had been litigated and decided in prior state and federal actions, and the encroachment was previously determined to be de minimis. Thus, the plaintiffs were barred from relitigating these issues. View "Paolino v. Commonwealth Engineers & Consulting, Inc." on Justia Law

The City of Custer applied for a permit from the South Dakota Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources (DANR) to discharge treated wastewater into French Creek as part of an upgrade to its wastewater treatment facility. Preserve French Creek, Inc. (Preserve), a group of local citizens, opposed this discharge. Two years after the permit was issued, a Custer County ordinance was passed by citizen initiative, declaring the discharge of treated water into French Creek a nuisance. Preserve demanded the City cease construction based on the new ordinance, but the City did not comply. Preserve then sought mandamus relief to enforce the ordinance, which the circuit court denied.The Circuit Court of the Seventh Judicial Circuit in Custer County found that the ordinance conflicted with state law, specifically SDCL 21-10-2, which states that actions done under the express authority of a statute cannot be deemed a nuisance. The court concluded that the City’s actions, authorized by the DANR permit, could not be considered a nuisance. The court also rejected Preserve’s estoppel argument, stating that the City and County had no duty to enforce an ordinance that conflicted with state law.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case and affirmed the circuit court’s decision. The court held that the ordinance was preempted by state law because it attempted to declare a nuisance something that state law expressly authorized. The court also found that the City and County were not estopped from asserting the ordinance’s invalidity, as their actions in placing the ordinance on the ballot and canvassing the vote were statutorily required and did not constitute an inconsistent position. Therefore, the writ of mandamus was properly denied. View "Preserve French Creek V. Custer County" on Justia Law

A severe thunderstorm caused significant damage to Norwood Hospital, owned by Medical Properties Trust, Inc. (MPT) and leased to Steward Health Care System LLC (Steward). The storm led to extensive flooding in the hospital's basements and rainwater accumulation on the rooftop courtyard and parapet roofs, which then seeped into the building, causing further damage. MPT and Steward sought coverage from their insurers, Zurich American Insurance Company (Zurich) and American Guarantee and Liability Insurance Company (AGLIC), respectively. Both policies had high overall coverage limits but lower sublimits for flood damage. The insurers argued that all the damage was due to "Flood" as defined in the policies, which included "surface waters," and thus subject to the lower sublimits.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted partial summary judgment to the insurers, interpreting "surface waters" to include rainwater accumulated on the roofs. The court allowed an interlocutory appeal, recognizing the substantial ground for difference of opinion on this legal issue. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit then certified the question to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, asking whether rainwater accumulating on a building's rooftop courtyard or parapet roof constitutes "surface waters" under Massachusetts law.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts concluded that the term "surface waters" is ambiguous in this context. The court noted the lack of a clear definition in the policies and the divided case law on the issue. Given this ambiguity, the court ruled in favor of the insureds, determining that rainwater accumulating on the rooftop courtyard and parapet roofs does not unambiguously constitute "surface waters" under the policies. Therefore, the damage from such water infiltration is not subject to the flood sublimits. View "Zurich American Insurance Company v. Medical Properties Trust, Inc." on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute over a Surface Use Agreement (SUA) between Mikkelson Land, LLLP, and Continental Resources, Inc. The disagreement centers on whether the SUA authorized Continental to install water pipelines on Mikkelson's property. Mikkelson claimed that the SUA did not permit such installations and filed a lawsuit alleging breach of contract, trespass, and seeking injunctive relief. Continental argued that the SUA explicitly allowed for the installation of water pipelines and moved forward with the project, compensating Mikkelson as per the SUA terms.The United States District Court for the District of North Dakota reviewed the case and granted summary judgment in favor of Continental. The court found that the SUA was unambiguous and explicitly authorized Continental to install water pipelines. The court also noted that the SUA included provisions for compensation related to the installation of such pipelines. Additionally, the court considered an addendum to the SUA, which expanded Continental's rights and further supported the installation of the pipelines. The district court concluded that Continental's actions were within the scope of the SUA and dismissed Mikkelson's claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the appeal and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court agreed that the SUA's language was clear and unambiguous, granting Continental the right to install water pipelines. The court emphasized that the SUA specifically contemplated future installations of water pipelines and provided a payment structure for them. The court also found that the addendum to the SUA expanded Continental's rights, allowing for necessary operations, including the installation of water pipelines. Consequently, the appellate court upheld the summary judgment in favor of Continental, rejecting Mikkelson's arguments. View "Mikkelson Land, LLLP v. Continental Resources, Inc." on Justia Law

Mesquite Power, LLC owns the Mesquite Power Plant, which operates under a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) guaranteeing specific electrical capacity to buyers in exchange for fixed payments. For the 2019 tax year, the Arizona Department of Revenue (ADOR) valued the plant at $196,870,000 using a cost-based approach as mandated by A.R.S. § 42-14156. Mesquite challenged this valuation in tax court, arguing that it exceeded the market value of the property, which they claimed was $105,000,000 based on the income approach, excluding income from the PPA.The Arizona Tax Court ruled partially in favor of Mesquite, determining that the PPA was a non-taxable, intangible asset and should not be included in the property valuation. However, the court allowed for the possibility that cash flows from the PPA could be considered in the valuation. At trial, Mesquite's expert valued the property at $105,000,000 using the income approach without the PPA, while ADOR's expert valued it at $432,000,000, including the PPA income. The tax court sided with Mesquite, setting the value at $105,000,000. ADOR appealed.The Arizona Court of Appeals reversed the tax court's decision, holding that the PPA must be considered in the property valuation as it enhances the value of the plant. The court emphasized that any competent appraisal must reflect the property's current usage, which includes the PPA.The Arizona Supreme Court reviewed the case and concluded that income from the PPA may be considered under the income approach if it is relevant to the property's income derivable as a power plant. The court also clarified that A.R.S. § 42-11054(C)(1) does not mandate the consideration of the PPA under the "current usage" requirement. The Supreme Court reversed the tax court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, allowing both parties to offer new valuations consistent with this opinion. The Court of Appeals' opinion was vacated. View "MESQUITE v. ADOR" on Justia Law