Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

The case revolves around a dispute over a tract of land in North Carolina. The defendants, Wade and Teresa Cornett, have lived on the property since 1983 and purchased it in 1995. The deed showed a thirty-foot access easement along the western edges of the property, which the Cornetts had used for access to a road. Over the years, the Cornetts made various improvements in the easement, under the belief that they owned the property in the easement. In 2019, the plaintiffs, Joanne and William Hinman, purchased the land from the Churches, who had inherited it from Bennie Church, the Cornetts' former neighbor. The Hinmans commissioned a survey, which confirmed the existence of the easement on their land. They demanded the Cornetts remove the improvements built inside the easement and asserted that the Cornetts could not use the portion of the paved driveway falling outside the easement boundary. The Cornetts refused, and the Hinmans brought suit for trespass and to quiet title.The trial court granted summary judgment for the Hinmans on all claims. The Cornetts appealed the trial court’s judgment to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the trial court's decision and remanded for further proceedings. The Court of Appeals opined that the Cornetts’ evidence showed open, continuous, exclusive, actual, and notorious use of the disputed land for over twenty years. The dissenting judge disagreed, arguing that the Cornetts’ use was permissive and tolled the running of the twenty-year statute of limitations.The Supreme Court of North Carolina affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The court concluded that the Cornetts’ evidence was sufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact concerning the hostility of their possession of the land. The court found that the Cornetts’ mistaken belief of ownership and their permanent improvements on the property constituted evidence rebutting the presumption of permissive use. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Hinman v. Cornett" on Justia Law

In 2000, Betty J. Brown took title to a property in Charlotte, North Carolina. She obtained a loan from First Horizon Home Loan Corporation in 2004, secured by a deed of trust. In 2010, a judgment was entered against Brown in South Carolina, which was domesticated and recorded in North Carolina in 2014. In 2016, Brown refinanced the First Horizon loan with Nationstar Mortgage LLC, which paid off the remainder of the First Horizon loan. The deed of trust for the Nationstar loan was recorded after the 2010 judgment. MidFirst Bank is Nationstar’s successor in interest for the 2016 loan. In 2019, enforcement proceedings began against Brown to collect the 2010 judgment. The property was seized and sold at an execution sale, with Brown's daughter, Michelle Anderson, placing the successful bid.The trial court granted summary judgment to MidFirst Bank, asserting that the Nationstar deed of trust still encumbered the property even after the execution sale. The court also held that the doctrine of equitable subrogation applied, allowing Nationstar to assume the rights and priorities of the First Horizon deed of trust. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision, holding that the Nationstar lien was extinguished by the execution sale and that the doctrine of equitable subrogation was not available to MidFirst Bank because it was not "excusably ignorant" of the publicly recorded judgment.The Supreme Court of North Carolina reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals, holding that it erred by applying the incorrect standard regarding equitable subrogation. The court held that the doctrine of equitable subrogation applies when money is expressly advanced to extinguish a prior encumbrance and is used for this purpose. The court remanded the case to the Court of Appeals to be remanded to the trial court for reassessment under the correct legal standard. View "MidFirst Bank v. Brown" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between the Walton family and the Neskowin Regional Sanitary Authority over the installation of sewer lines on the Walton's property. The Waltons claimed that the installation constituted a "taking" under the Oregon Constitution and the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, for which they were entitled to "just compensation". The Sanitary Authority argued that the claim was time-barred under Oregon law, as it was not brought within the six-year limitations period.The trial court granted the Sanitary Authority's motion for summary judgment, ruling that the claim was indeed time-barred. The Waltons appealed, but the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision. The Waltons then petitioned for review by the Supreme Court of the State of Oregon.The Supreme Court of the State of Oregon affirmed the decisions of the lower courts. The court held that the Waltons' claim was subject to the six-year limitations period established by Oregon law. The court further held that the claim accrued when the sewer lines were installed, which was no later than 1995, and therefore, the six-year limitations period expired in 2001, sixteen years before the Waltons filed their complaint. Consequently, the court concluded that the Waltons' claim was time-barred. View "Walton v. Neskowin Regional Sanitary Authority" on Justia Law

The case involves MRose Development Co., LLC and Jason Schumacher (MRose) who sought to develop farmland located along Swan Lake in Turner County into 15 lakefront lots. The land was currently included in an agricultural zoning district, and due to residential density restrictions, MRose applied to rezone the land into a lake residential district. The Turner County Board of County Commissioners (the County) denied the application, and MRose appealed to the circuit court.The circuit court reversed the County's decision, interpreting Turner County's zoning ordinance to require approval of the rezoning application as a purely ministerial act because the land was situated along Swan Lake. The County appealed this decision.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reversed the circuit court's decision. The court found that the circuit court erred in its interpretation of the 2008 Zoning Ordinance, which it believed required the County to approve MRose's rezoning application. The Supreme Court held that no provision in the entire 2008 Zoning Ordinance stated that lakefront property must be zoned Lake Residential simply by virtue of its location. The court also held that the County's decision to deny MRose's rezoning application was not arbitrary, as MRose failed to meet its burden of proof that the County acted arbitrarily. View "Mrose Development Co. v. Turner County Bd. Of Commissioners" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a dispute between Shawnee Community Unit School District No. 84 (the School District) and Grand Tower Energy Center, LLC (Grand Tower), the owner of a power plant in Jackson County, Illinois. For the 2014 tax year, the Jackson County assessor imposed an assessed value of $33,445,837 on Grand Tower’s property. Grand Tower appealed the assessment to the Jackson County Board of Review, which reduced the assessed value of the property to $31,538,245. Grand Tower then appealed to the Property Tax Appeal Board (PTAB) under section 16-160 of the Property Tax Code, seeking a further reduction of the final assessment imposed by the board of review. The School District, which receives funding from property taxes generated in that county, was granted leave to intervene in the appeal.While the appeal was pending before the PTAB, Grand Tower’s 2014 property taxes came due. Grand Tower did not pay the taxes. In December 2015, the Jackson County collector prepared the annual list of properties with delinquent taxes, which included Grand Tower’s property. The collector then applied to the circuit court of Jackson County for a judgment and order of sale for taxes on the 2014 delinquent properties, including Grand Tower’s. The court entered a judgment and order of sale.The School District filed a motion before the PTAB seeking dismissal of Grand Tower’s appeal, arguing that Grand Tower was required to pay the 2014 property taxes under protest in order to pursue an appeal before the PTAB. The School District also argued that once the Jackson County collector made the application for judgment and order of sale, the circuit court acquired jurisdiction over the taxes and all supplemental matters, including the determination of the assessment, thereby divesting the PTAB of jurisdiction to review the 2014 assessment. The PTAB denied the School District’s motion to dismiss.The School District appealed the PTAB’s decision to the appellate court, which affirmed the decision of the PTAB. The appellate court held that payment of the contested taxes was not a condition precedent to pursuing an appeal before the PTAB and that the tax sale proceedings in the circuit court did not divest the PTAB of jurisdiction to review the 2014 and 2015 property assessments.The School District then appealed to the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the appellate court, holding that the payment of disputed property taxes is not a condition precedent to pursuing an appeal before the PTAB under section 16-160 of the Code, and that the county collector’s application for judgment and order of sale did not divest the PTAB of its jurisdiction to review Grand Tower’s properly filed appeals. The court also held that the entry of the judgment and order of sale did not estop Grand Tower from seeking review of its 2014 and 2015 assessments before the PTAB. View "Shawnee Community Unit School District No. 84 v. Illinois Property Tax Appeal Board" on Justia Law

This case involves a dispute over a lease agreement between Tera, L.L.C., and Rice Drilling D, L.L.C., and Gulfport Energy Corporation. The lease granted Rice Drilling and Gulfport Energy certain mineral rights in the geological formations known as the Marcellus Shale and the Utica Shale beneath Tera’s land. The dispute arose when Tera claimed that the defendants had intentionally drilled six wells into the Point Pleasant formation, which Tera argued was not included in the lease agreement.The trial court awarded summary judgment to Tera, concluding that the lease agreement clearly limited the rights granted to the defendants to the Marcellus and Utica formations and reserved rights to all other formations. The court also found that the defendants had trespassed in bad faith, and a jury awarded Tera over $40 million in damages.The Court of Appeals for Belmont County affirmed the trial court's decision. The court concluded that the lease language was unambiguous and that the phrase "Utica Shale" had a technical stratigraphic meaning that did not include the Point Pleasant formation.The Supreme Court of Ohio reversed the lower courts' decisions. The court found that the lease agreement was ambiguous because it did not clearly establish whether the Point Pleasant was or was not to be considered part of the Utica Shale. The court concluded that resolving the meaning of ambiguous terms in a contract is a matter of factual determination for the fact-finder. Therefore, the court remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. View "Tera, L.L.C. v. Rice Drilling D, L.L.C." on Justia Law

The case revolves around Tiffany Smith, who filed a voluntary petition for a Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceeding in May 2019. Smith owned a two-unit rental property in Newark, New Jersey, secured by a mortgage held by Freedom Mortgage Corporation. Smith filed a Chapter 13 payment plan in the Bankruptcy Court, which included a motion to partially void Freedom’s mortgage lien on the property and to reclassify Freedom’s underlying claim as partially secured and partially unsecured. Freedom objected to the plan, particularly the cramdown of its secured claim, the property's listed valuation, the property's rents being applied to reduce its secured claim, and the feasibility of the overall plan.The Bankruptcy Court held a hearing to address Freedom’s objections. During the hearing, Freedom clarified that it was not disputing the listed value of the property. The parties resolved their differences and filed a consent order, in which they agreed to the terms. The Bankruptcy Court confirmed the First Modified Plan, which reflected the terms of the Consent Order.Smith later filed a third modified plan, seeking to extend the payment term due to delinquent tenants and pandemic-related eviction moratoriums. Freedom objected to the Third Modified Plan, arguing among other things, that the plan was not feasible. The Bankruptcy Court held a hearing and concluded that the objections raised by Freedom were precluded by res judicata. The Bankruptcy Court then confirmed the Third Modified Plan in a written order. Freedom appealed the Bankruptcy Court’s order to the District Court, which affirmed it. Freedom then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s decision, holding that res judicata precluded Freedom’s objections to Smith’s use of rental income to pay its secured claim, to the valuation of the property, and to the plan’s stepped-up payment schedule. The Court also concluded that the Bankruptcy Court did not clearly err when it determined the Third Modified Plan to be feasible. View "In re: Smith" on Justia Law

This case involves a dispute over property ownership between Rosalinda Ganir Saplan and Recto Ramos Saplan (the Saplans) and U.S. Bank. After the Saplans defaulted on their mortgage, U.S. Bank foreclosed on the property and filed an ejectment action against the Saplans in 2011. However, U.S. Bank failed to schedule a required pretrial conference, leading the circuit court to dismiss the ejectment action for want of prosecution. The Saplans then filed a quiet title action in 2015, arguing that the dismissal of the 2011 action had quieted title in their favor. U.S. Bank moved for summary judgment, arguing that the Saplans had not submitted any evidence in support of their claim of title. The circuit court granted the motion.The Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) held that the 2011 dismissal was on the merits for the purposes of claim preclusion, but it did not preclude U.S. Bank’s later action because the parties across these lawsuits were different. The ICA also held that summary judgment was improperly granted because U.S. Bank had not provided evidence that its foreclosure sale was fair, reasonably diligent, and in good faith, and the price was adequate.U.S. Bank appealed to the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai‘i, arguing that the ICA erred in holding that the 2011 dismissal was on the merits for the purposes of claim preclusion and that U.S. Bank had not met its burden of showing there were no genuine issues of material fact for trial. The Supreme Court held that without a final judgment, there cannot be claim preclusion. Here, there was no final judgment, so there can be no claim preclusion against U.S. Bank. The court also held that the ICA incorrectly applied the summary judgment standard when it held that U.S. Bank had not met its burden. Because this is the Saplans’ quiet title action, the Saplans have the burden of proof on the issue of property ownership. The court vacated the ICA’s judgment and affirmed the circuit court’s judgment. View "Saplan v. U.S. Bank" on Justia Law

This case revolves around a dispute between California Specialty Insulation, Inc. (CSI) and Allied World Surplus Lines Insurance Company (Allied World) over a commercial general liability insurance policy. The policy was issued by Allied World to CSI. The dispute arose when Allied World refused to defend and indemnify CSI against a negligence claim following a construction site accident. The parties disagreed on whether one of the policy’s exclusions for bodily injury liability applied in this situation. The policy excluded coverage for bodily injury to the employees of any “contractor,” but the term “contractor” was not defined in the policy. Allied World argued that the term was unambiguous and the exclusion precluded coverage for the negligence claim, while CSI argued that the term was ambiguous and the exclusion did not apply to the negligence claim.The trial court ruled in favor of CSI, granting its motion for summary judgment and denying Allied World’s. The court found that the term “contractor” in the disputed exclusion was ambiguous and interpreted the term in favor of CSI.The Court of Appeal of the State of California Second Appellate District Division Seven affirmed the trial court's decision. The appellate court agreed with the trial court that the term “contractor” in the disputed exclusion was ambiguous. The court interpreted the term based on CSI’s objectively reasonable expectations and concluded that the exclusion did not apply to the negligence claim in question. Therefore, Allied World was obligated to defend and indemnify CSI against the negligence claim. View "California Specialty Insulation, Inc. v. Allied World Surplus Lines Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The case revolves around a dispute over a 15,000 square foot vacation home, the Chesapeake, located in Currituck County, North Carolina. The home is owned by Elizabeth LeTendre and has been the subject of litigation for over a decade regarding its compliance with county and state zoning requirements. The home's design includes a central area and two side wings, each structurally independent and less than 5,000 square feet. LeTendre's neighbors, Marie and Michael Long, contested that the Chesapeake violated a county zoning ordinance, which was upheld by the North Carolina Court of Appeals. The County then sued LeTendre to enforce the mandate and hold her in contempt if she refused to comply.LeTendre removed the case to federal court, seeking a declaratory judgment that the Chesapeake now complies with both county and state requirements. She argued that a recent amendment to North Carolina’s state zoning law abrogated the previous ruling. The district court agreed with LeTendre, holding that the County’s interpretation of a single-family detached dwelling, as applied to the Chesapeake, is “inconsistent with the State Building Code’s definition of a dwelling.”The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the Building Code Council’s determination that the Chesapeake is “a building” controls. The court rejected the appellants' arguments that the district court's ruling violated principles of res judicata and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, stating that the court was not reviewing whether the previous rulings correctly interpreted the Ordinance, but rather that the zoning amendment made the Council decision controlling. View "Currituck County v. LeTendre" on Justia Law