Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

The case revolves around a dispute between the Estate of Ke Zhengguang and Stephany Yu, concerning the enforcement of an arbitral award issued in Hong Kong. The award was the result of a business dispute involving real estate in China. The arbitration panel ordered Yu and her two sisters to pay the Estate and Xu Hongbiao a sum of money for the losses they sustained. After Yu paid Xu his share, the Estate sought to collect the remaining half from Yu, a U.S. citizen residing in Maryland.Yu challenged the enforcement of the award in the District Court of Maryland, arguing that the court was an inconvenient forum, that necessary parties were not included in the proceedings, and that enforcing the award would violate Chinese currency control laws, thereby violating U.S. policy favoring international comity. She also argued that the judgment should be in Renminbi (RMB), as provided in the arbitral award, not in U.S. dollars. The district court rejected all of Yu's arguments and confirmed the award under the New York Convention, entering judgment in favor of the Estate against Yu in a total amount of $3.6 million.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court found none of Yu's arguments persuasive and held that the district court was correct in confirming and enforcing the arbitral award. The court also held that the district court did not err in entering the judgment in U.S. dollars, as it was within its discretion to do so. View "In re Estate of Ke Zhengguang v. Yu" on Justia Law

This case involves a dispute between Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas as Trustee Rali 2006QA5 (Deutsche Bank), the holder of the first deed of trust, and SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC (SFR), the purchaser of a property at a homeowners’ association (HOA) lien foreclosure sale. The dispute centers around whether the homeowner's partial payments to the HOA satisfied the superpriority lien, which would mean that the HOA foreclosure did not extinguish the first deed of trust.The district court initially granted summary judgment in favor of Deutsche Bank, finding that the homeowner's pre-foreclosure payments satisfied the superpriority lien. However, on appeal, the Supreme Court of Nevada vacated and remanded the case, instructing the district court to consider the analysis in the then recently decided case 9352 Cranesbill Trust v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. On remand, the district court ruled in favor of SFR, concluding that a portion of the superpriority lien remained unsatisfied, so the HOA foreclosure extinguished Deutsche Bank’s deed of trust.The Supreme Court of Nevada disagreed with the district court's conclusion. The court held that, unless expressly authorized by the homeowner, the HOA may not allocate a payment in a way that results in a forfeiture of the first deed of trust holder’s interest and deprives the homeowner of the security on the homeowner’s mortgage. Applying this principle to the case at hand, the court found that the homeowner's partial payments to the HOA satisfied the HOA’s superpriority lien, so the foreclosure did not extinguish Deutsche Bank’s first deed of trust. Therefore, SFR took possession of the property subject to the deed of trust. The court reversed the judgment of the district court and remanded for entry of judgment for Deutsche Bank consistent with this opinion. View "Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas v. SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a transaction between the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Sparks (RDA) and a developer. The RDA transferred property to the developer for the construction of an apartment project. In exchange, the developer agreed to maintain free public parking on the property for the next 50 years. The Labor Commissioner considered this transaction as the RDA providing a "financial incentive" worth more than $100,000 to the developer, thus requiring the developer to pay prevailing wages on the project. The Labor Commissioner assessed a penalty against the RDA for not requiring the developer to pay prevailing wages.The Labor Commissioner's decision was upheld by the district court, which led to the RDA's appeal. The RDA argued that the Labor Commissioner had neither the expertise nor the statutory authority to address a dispute arising under Nevada’s Community Redevelopment Law over the valuation of interests in real property. The RDA also contended that the Labor Commissioner's interpretation of the law was incorrect.The Supreme Court of Nevada reversed the lower court's decision. The court found that the Labor Commissioner's interpretation of the law was incorrect and expanded its reach. The court held that the statute does not reference "future compensation," nor does it equate its receipt with a redevelopment agency giving a developer "financial incentives [worth] more than $100,000." The court concluded that the Labor Commissioner's decision that the RDA provided a financial incentive exceeding $100,000 to the developer lacked substantial evidence and must be reversed. The case was remanded to the district court with instructions to grant the RDA’s petition for judicial review. View "The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Sparks v. Nevada Labor Commissioner" on Justia Law

This case involves a dispute over water rights between James Whittaker and Whittaker Two Dot Ranch LLC (collectively "Whittaker") and Bruce and Glenda McConnell. The McConnells own seven water rights associated with their property adjacent to Lee Creek, which they historically diverted from two points: the Upper Diversion and the Lower Diversion. However, after a 2014 enforcement action by the Idaho Department of Water Resources (IDWR), the McConnells lost their ability to divert water via the Lower Diversion because they failed to claim it in the Snake River Basin Adjudication (SRBA). The McConnells subsequently filed an application to add the Lower Diversion as an authorized point of diversion to their seven water rights. Whittaker, the McConnells’ upstream neighbor, protested the application, fearing that the additional diversion point would injure his junior water rights.The IDWR hearing officer approved the McConnells’ application, determining that the transfer would not injure Whittaker’s water rights. The officer used the historic confluence of Stroud Creek and Porcupine Creek, located upstream of the Upper Diversion, for the injury analysis. Whittaker appealed to the Director of IDWR, who affirmed the hearing officer's decision. Whittaker then sought judicial review from the district court.The district court reversed the Director's decision, holding that the modern confluence, located downstream of the Upper Diversion, should be used for the injury analysis. The court found that the West Springs Ditch, which diverts water from Stroud Creek through Whittaker’s property, was an alteration of the stream flow and not an unauthorized diversion. The court concluded that approving the McConnells’ application would injure Whittaker’s water rights and held that the application could be approved subject to a condition subordinating the use of the McConnells’ Lower Diversion to Whittaker’s water right. The McConnells appealed to the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho.The Supreme Court reversed the district court's decision. The court held that the West Springs Ditch is a diversion, not an alteration, of Stroud Creek. The court also found that the West Springs Ditch is an unauthorized diversion because it was not claimed as a point of diversion in the SRBA. Therefore, the court concluded that the Director of IDWR correctly used the historic confluence for the injury analysis. The court held that the district court erred in using the modern confluence for the injury analysis and reversed the district court’s decision. View "Whittaker v. Idaho Department of Water Resources" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a dispute over the ownership of five parcels of land in Aurora County, South Dakota. The plaintiff, Edward Mohnen, initiated a quiet title action to determine the ownership of these parcels, which were titled in his father's name after his father died intestate in 1969. The defendants included the estate of Edward's late brother, John Mohnen, and the John J. Mohnen Trust. John's Estate counterclaimed, asserting that it held a complete fee interest in all the disputed parcels through adverse possession and also asserted the affirmative defense of laches.The Circuit Court of the First Judicial Circuit in Aurora County, South Dakota, rejected both the laches defense and adverse possession theory. It determined ownership for the five tracts at issue, applying intestacy laws to evidence concerning the current state of record title.Upon review, the Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reversed the lower court's decision. The Supreme Court held that the lower court erred in its interpretation of the adverse possession claim under South Dakota Codified Laws (SDCL) 15-3-15. The Supreme Court clarified that SDCL 15-3-15 requires only proof of “(1) claim and color of title made in good faith, (2) ten successive years in possession, and (3) payment of all taxes legally assessed.” The court found that John's Estate met these requirements and thus, reversed the lower court's decision denying John’s Estate’s adverse possession claim under SDCL 15-3-15. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion. View "Mohnen v. Estate of Mohnen" on Justia Law

This case involves a dispute over a real estate and construction contract. The plaintiffs, Myles Davis and Janelle Dahl, sued their homebuilder, Blast Properties, Inc., and Tyler Bosier, alleging breach of contract, fraud, and violations of the Idaho Consumer Protection Act. The plaintiffs sought to amend their complaint to include a prayer for relief seeking punitive damages. The U.S. District Court granted the plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint, but certified a question to the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho due to inconsistencies in the interpretation of Idaho Code section 6-1604(2), which prohibits claimants from including a prayer for relief seeking punitive damages in their initial pleading.The U.S. District Court asked the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho to determine the proper means a trial court must apply when considering a motion to amend a pleading to include a prayer for relief seeking punitive damages pursuant to Idaho Code section 6-1604(2). The Supreme Court of the State of Idaho rephrased the question to clarify the obligations of a trial court under Idaho Code section 6-1604(2) when ruling upon a motion to amend a complaint or counterclaim to include a prayer for relief seeking punitive damages.The Supreme Court of the State of Idaho held that section 6-1604(2) requires the trial court to conduct a careful examination of the evidence submitted by the moving party in support of its motion to amend and the arguments made to determine whether there is a "reasonable probability" that the evidence submitted is: (1) admissible at trial; and (2) "sufficient" to support an award of punitive damages. The word "sufficient" means that the claim giving rise to the request for punitive damages must be legally cognizable and the evidence presented must be substantial. The court clarified that the clear and convincing evidentiary standard is the standard for a jury, not the trial court when it is ruling on a motion to amend a pleading to include a prayer for relief seeking punitive damages. View "Davis v. Blast" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between Blaine Simmons, a landowner, and Tom Loertscher and Josh Williams, cattle owners. Simmons owns land in Bonneville County, Idaho, which is part of a herd district established in 1919. The herd district prohibits livestock from running at large within its boundaries. Loertscher owns Hi Willow Ranch Corporation, which has a permit to graze cattle on a portion of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land adjacent to Simmons' property. The BLM land is designated as open range, where livestock may graze and roam freely. Over time, cattle allegedly owned by Williams, grazing on the Loertscher Allotment, have strayed onto Simmons' property. Simmons repeatedly complained to Loertscher and Williams about this and set conditions for them to retrieve their cattle from his land.Simmons filed a small claims action against Loertscher and Williams alleging herd district violations and nuisance. The magistrate judge ruled in favor of Loertscher and Williams, stating that herd district laws do not apply to the Loertscher Allotment, which is on BLM land and designated as open range. The judge also stated that Loertscher and Williams have a common law right to enter Simmons’s Parcel at reasonable times and in a reasonable manner to retrieve their cattle. Simmons appealed this decision to the district court, which affirmed the magistrate court's decision.The Supreme Court of the State of Idaho affirmed the district court's decision. The court concluded that the district court's interpretation of Idaho Code section 25-2402, which excludes open range from any herd district and reinstates Idaho’s “fence-out” rule with respect to cattle straying from open range, was consistent with the history of herd district law and the effect of the 1963 amendment. The court also affirmed the district court's decision regarding the conditions governing the retrieval of cattle from Simmons’s Parcel. The court found that Simmons did not preserve this issue for appeal before the district court, and the issue was waived before this Court. View "Simmons v. Loertscher" on Justia Law

The case revolves around the Casa Blanca Beach Estates Owners’ Association (Casa Blanca) and its dispute with the County of Santa Barbara (County) and the California Coastal Commission (Commission). Over 30 years ago, the County approved the development of a 12-lot oceanfront subdivision in Carpinteria, managed by Casa Blanca. One of the conditions for approval was the construction of a public beach access walkway. The County accepted the offer to dedicate the walkway in 2011. In 2017, the County and Commission alleged that Casa Blanca had missed the deadline to construct the walkway. Casa Blanca submitted construction plans but was told it needed a coastal development permit from the Commission. The Commission deemed the application incomplete, leading to a series of unsuccessful attempts to complete the application.The trial court found that Casa Blanca had failed to exhaust its administrative remedies. The court granted the County's motion for summary judgment on all causes of action and denied Casa Blanca's. The court found that the offer to dedicate had been timely accepted by the County. As for the second cause of action seeking a determination regarding the deadline for Casa Blanca to construct the walkway, the court found it had no jurisdiction because Casa Blanca had failed to exhaust administrative remedies. The Commission demurred on grounds Casa Blanca failed to exhaust administrative remedies. The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend and entered judgment in favor of the County and Commission.The Court of Appeal of the State of California Second Appellate District Division Six affirmed the trial court's decision. The court found that Casa Blanca's action was not ripe because it had failed to exhaust its administrative remedies. The court also disagreed with Casa Blanca's argument that the exhaustion doctrine does not apply to its claim for declaratory relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 1060. The court concluded that a party may not evade the exhaustion requirement by filing an action for declaratory or injunctive relief. View "Casa Blanca Beach Estates Owners’ Assn v. County of Santa Barbara" on Justia Law

The case involves Lusardi Construction Company (Lusardi), a prime contractor, and its subcontractor, Pro Works Contracting Inc. (Pro Works). Pro Works violated certain Labor Code provisions by failing to hire apprentices for a construction project. The Department of Industrial Relations and the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) cited Pro Works for these violations and ordered Lusardi to pay penalties. Lusardi's administrative appeal was unsuccessful, and it subsequently filed a petition for writ of administrative mandamus, which the superior court denied. Lusardi argued that the superior court erroneously concluded that it knew of Pro Works's violations and that the joint and several liability provision applied.The Superior Court of San Diego County affirmed the DLSE's decision, concluding that Lusardi had knowledge of Pro Works's violations and was liable for the penalties. The court also found that substantial evidence supported the findings relating to the amount of the penalty assessment. The court rejected Lusardi's claim of due process violations, stating that Lusardi was put on notice of the potential for being held jointly and severally liable for Pro Works’s apprentice hiring violations.The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District Division One State of California affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that the superior court did not err in interpreting the statute, which provides two inclusive and alternative ways for imposing liability on a prime contractor for penalties resulting from the subcontractor’s violations. The court also found that substantial evidence supported the penalty imposed. The court concluded that Lusardi was not denied due process when it refused to enforce its subpoena or ask for a continuance to secure the witness’s attendance. View "Lusardi Construction Co. v. Dept. of Industrial Rel." on Justia Law

The case revolves around Honoipu Hideaway, LLC's (Honoipu) appeal of the Land Use Commission’s (LUC) order denying its petition for a declaratory order to change the boundary location between the conservation and agricultural districts on a district boundary map. The appeal was initially filed with the Circuit Court of the Third Circuit. However, following a decision in another case, In re Kanahele, it was determined that appeals of LUC declaratory orders should have been filed with the Supreme Court of Hawai‘i in the first instance. This led to a question of whether the circuit court had the authority to transfer the appeal to the Supreme Court of Hawai‘i.The Circuit Court of the Third Circuit had initially accepted the appeal. However, following the decision in In re Kanahele, it was determined that the Supreme Court of Hawai‘i was the correct court for such appeals. This led to a dispute between Honoipu and the LUC, with Honoipu arguing for the transfer of the case to the Supreme Court, and the LUC arguing for dismissal due to lack of jurisdiction.The Supreme Court of Hawai‘i held that the Circuit Court of the Third Circuit had both inherent and statutory authority to transfer the appeal to the Supreme Court. The court reasoned that the power to "do such other acts and take such other steps as may be necessary to carry into full effect the powers which are or shall be given to them by law or for the promotion of justice" gave the circuit court the power to correct a jurisdictional mistake that was no party’s or court’s fault. The court also noted that transferring the case would further the judiciary’s policy of permitting litigants to appeal and hear the case on its merits. View "Honoipu Hideaway, LLC v. State" on Justia Law