Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

A homebuyer entered into an agreement to purchase a property in Titusville, Pennsylvania, and, before completing the purchase, orally contracted with a home inspector to perform an inspection. The inspector delivered a report that did not disclose any structural or foundational issues. Relying on this report, the buyer purchased the property. The following winter, a burst pipe led to the discovery of significant defects, including the absence of a proper foundation and improper ductwork, which had not been disclosed in the inspection report. The buyer filed suit against the inspector more than two years after the report was delivered, alleging violations of the Pennsylvania Home Inspection Law, breach of contract, and violations of the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law.The Court of Common Pleas of Crawford County overruled most of the inspector’s preliminary objections and denied a motion for judgment on the pleadings, finding ambiguity in the statute governing the time to bring actions arising from home inspection reports. The trial court reasoned that the statute could be interpreted as either a statute of limitations or a statute of repose and declined to grant judgment for the inspector. On appeal, the Superior Court reversed, holding that the statute in question was a statute of repose, not a statute of limitations, and that all of the buyer’s claims were time-barred because they were filed more than one year after the inspection report was delivered.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed whether the relevant statutory provision, 68 Pa.C.S. § 7512, is a statute of repose or a statute of limitations. The Court held that the statute is a statute of repose, barring any action to recover damages arising from a home inspection report if not commenced within one year of the report’s delivery, regardless of when the claim accrues. The Court affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment. View "Gidor v. Mangus" on Justia Law

In February 2021, a contract for deed was executed between a property owner and a purchaser for two properties in Gladstone, North Dakota. The contract stipulated that the purchaser would receive title upon full and timely performance. The purchaser failed to make the required payments, prompting the owner to serve and publish a notice of cancellation in accordance with North Dakota law, which provided a six-month period to cure the default. The purchaser did not cure the default or file any affidavit asserting counterclaims or defenses during this period. After the cure period expired, the owner recorded a notice of cancellation and subsequently served the purchaser with a three-day notice of eviction when he remained in possession of the properties.The owner initiated separate eviction actions for each property in the District Court of Stark County, Southwest Judicial District. The court heard the matters together but did not consolidate them. After a hearing, the district court found that the owner had complied with statutory requirements for cancellation, that the purchaser had failed to cure the default, and that the purchaser was wrongfully retaining possession. The court excluded over 1,100 pages of evidence offered by the purchaser, finding it lacked foundation and was not relevant to the limited scope of an eviction action, which was solely to determine the right to possession. The court ordered the purchaser to vacate the properties.On appeal, the Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the district court’s findings for clear error and its evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court held that service of process was proper, the exclusion of evidence was within the district court’s discretion, and the eviction was appropriate because the contract for deed had been canceled by operation of law. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s judgment of eviction. View "Cache Private Capital Diversified Fund v. Braddock" on Justia Law

This dispute arose from the use of easements on subdivided property in Yellowstone County, Montana. After a series of conveyances, Patti and Steve Schubert owned Tract 7B-2, which benefited from a 30-foot-wide access easement across neighboring Tract 7B-1, owned by Jeremy and Tynagh Toepp. The Schuberts installed a large electric gate, keypad, and package box within the easement, and engaged in activities such as removing vegetation and using heavy equipment, which the Toepps claimed damaged their property and overburdened the easement. The Schuberts also challenged the Toepps’ rights to use a shared well. The parties attempted to resolve their disputes through mediation, resulting in a signed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), but disagreements persisted over the interpretation and scope of the settlement, particularly regarding the gate and the use of the easement.The Thirteenth Judicial District Court, Yellowstone County, heard cross-motions to enforce the MOU. Sitting without a jury, the District Court found the MOU to be a binding agreement that implied the Schuberts’ encroaching gate could remain in place. The court limited the Schuberts’ use of the access easement to ingress and egress only, prohibited unnecessary removal of vegetation, and awarded attorney fees to the Toepps, finding the Schuberts had unreasonably multiplied the proceedings by insisting on additional terms not included in the MOU.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Montana reversed the District Court’s conclusion that the MOU allowed the encroaching gate to remain, holding that the MOU did not contemplate a gate easement and that the gate constituted an unlawful encroachment requiring removal. The Supreme Court affirmed the District Court’s limitation of the easement to ingress and egress and its award of attorney fees to the Toepps, finding no abuse of discretion. The case was remanded for entry of judgment consistent with these holdings. View "Schubert v. Toepp" on Justia Law

A commercial landlord and tenant entered into a lease for office space, which was later amended to include a limited personal guaranty by an officer of the tenant. The guaranty, often referred to as a "good guy" guaranty, stated that the guarantor would be liable for the tenant’s monetary obligations under the lease up to the date the tenant and its affiliates had completely vacated and surrendered the premises, provided the landlord was given at least thirty days’ notice. The tenant stopped paying rent and utilities in 2020, notified the landlord of its intent to vacate, and surrendered the premises at the end of November 2020.The landlord sued both the tenant and the guarantor in the Supreme Court, New York County, seeking unpaid rent and expenses from before and after the surrender, as well as attorneys’ fees. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the landlord for pre-vacatur damages but denied summary judgment for post-vacatur damages pending further discovery. Upon reargument, the Supreme Court granted summary judgment for post-vacatur damages as well, holding both the tenant and guarantor jointly and severally liable. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed, reasoning that the guaranty required the landlord’s written acceptance of the surrender for the guarantor’s liability to end.The New York Court of Appeals reviewed the case and reversed the lower courts’ decisions. The Court of Appeals held that, under the terms of the guaranty, the guarantor’s liability ended when the tenant vacated and surrendered the premises, and that liability was not conditioned on the landlord’s acceptance of the surrender. The court found that the language of the guaranty was clear and did not require the landlord’s written acceptance, and that interpreting it otherwise would render key provisions superfluous. The court denied the landlord’s motions for summary judgment on post-vacatur damages. View "1995 CAM LLC v. West Side Advisors, LLC" on Justia Law

In 1991, the predecessor to the plaintiffs conveyed land to the United States in a land exchange but retained certain water rights that could only be accessed through the conveyed property, now managed by the U.S. Forest Service. The conveyance documents did not mention these water rights or provide any right of access. Over the years, the plaintiffs and their predecessors sought permits from the Forest Service to access and develop the water rights, but the agency repeatedly expressed concerns about environmental impacts and indicated it had the authority to deny access. In 2010, the Forest Service formally opposed the plaintiffs’ efforts to maintain the water rights in state court, asserting it would not grant the necessary land use authorization.The United States District Court for the District of Colorado dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims under the Quiet Title Act (QTA) and the Declaratory Judgment Act (DJA). The court found the QTA claim time-barred by the statute’s twelve-year limitations period, reasoning that the plaintiffs or their predecessors were on notice of the government’s adverse claim well before the suit was filed in 2022. The court also dismissed the DJA claim, holding it was essentially a quiet title claim subject to the same limitations period.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The Tenth Circuit held that the QTA claim was untimely because, by 2006 at the latest, the Forest Service had asserted exclusive control sufficient to put the plaintiffs on notice of its adverse claim, causing the limitations period to expire before the suit was filed. The court also held that it lacked jurisdiction over two of the plaintiffs’ requests for declaratory relief and that the third, alleging a taking, was not ripe because the plaintiffs had not first sought compensation under the Tucker Act. View "Purgatory Recreation I v. United States" on Justia Law

Tussahaw Reserves, LLC and Keys Ferry Crossing, LLC owned two parcels of land in Butts County, Georgia, zoned for agricultural and residential use. In 2020, they applied to rezone the property for use as a rock quarry, but the Butts County Board of Commissioners denied the applications in early 2021. Tussahaw then filed an “Appeal and Petition for Writ of Certiorari and Verified Complaint” in the Butts County Superior Court, challenging the Board’s decision. The complaint named the Board and its members as “respondents-in-certiorari” and the County as “defendant.” The claims included a writ of certiorari against the Board and its members, and alternative claims for declaratory and injunctive relief against the County.After the Board and its members filed an answer and moved to be discharged from the case, the superior court denied their motion. Following the Georgia Supreme Court’s decision in State v. SASS Group, Butts County moved to dismiss, arguing that the lawsuit violated the Georgia Constitution’s requirement that actions against a county be brought exclusively against the county and in its name. Tussahaw moved to drop the respondents-in-certiorari, but the superior court did not rule on that motion and instead dismissed the lawsuit, finding it barred by sovereign immunity. The Court of Appeals affirmed, reasoning that the substance of the complaint sought relief against the Board, not just the County.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case and held that failure to comply with the constitutional naming requirement is not a jurisdictional bar and does not preclude the trial court from considering motions to drop parties. The Court vacated the Court of Appeals’ decision and remanded the case for further proceedings, directing the superior court to vacate its dismissal order and address the pending motions. View "TUSSAHAW RESERVES, LLC v. BUTTS COUNTY" on Justia Law

The case concerns the City of San Diego’s approval of a 2022 ballot measure to remove the longstanding 30-foot building height limit in the Midway-Pacific Highway Community Planning area. This height restriction, established by a 1972 voter initiative, was intended to preserve coastal views, community character, and mitigate issues such as congestion and pollution. In 2018, the City updated the community plan and prepared a program environmental impact report (PEIR) under the assumption that the height limit remained in effect. In 2020, the City attempted to remove the height limit via a ballot measure, but the measure was invalidated for failing to adequately consider environmental impacts as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).Following the invalidation, the City prepared a supplemental environmental impact report (SEIR) and approved a second ballot measure in 2022. Save Our Access, a nonprofit, challenged this new measure, arguing that the City’s environmental review remained inadequate. The Superior Court of San Diego County denied Save Our Access’s petition for writ of mandate, finding that the City’s SEIR sufficiently addressed the environmental impacts by focusing on visual effects and neighborhood character, and by relying on the 2018 PEIR for other impact categories.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, found that the City’s SEIR was inadequate under CEQA. The court held that the City failed to meaningfully analyze the environmental impacts of allowing buildings above 30 feet, such as effects on noise, air quality, biological resources, and geological conditions. The court concluded that relying on the prior PEIR and deferring analysis to future site-specific projects did not satisfy CEQA’s requirements. The judgment was reversed and remanded, with instructions to grant Save Our Access’s petition and direct the City to comply with CEQA. View "Save Our Access v. City of San Diego" on Justia Law

The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) planned to conduct preconstruction geotechnical work, such as soil and groundwater testing, in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and Suisun Marsh as part of preparations for the Delta tunnel project, which aims to improve water conveyance and environmental protection. Various municipal, tribal, and public interest entities objected, arguing that DWR could not begin this work until it certified that the tunnel project was consistent with the Delta Plan, as required by the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Reform Act of 2009. The disputed geotechnical work included soil borings, groundwater monitoring, test trenches, and other activities intended to inform the project’s design and mitigation measures.The Superior Court of Sacramento County reviewed several related actions brought by these entities. The plaintiffs sought and obtained preliminary injunctions preventing DWR from conducting the preconstruction geotechnical work until it submitted a certification of consistency with the Delta Plan. The trial court found that the geotechnical work was an integral part of the tunnel project, which was a “covered action” under the Delta Reform Act, and concluded that DWR was required to certify consistency before initiating any part of the project, including the geotechnical work.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, reversed the trial court’s orders. The appellate court held that the Delta Reform Act does not require DWR to submit a certification of consistency before engaging in preconstruction geotechnical work, distinguishing the requirements of the Delta Reform Act from those of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The court found that the geotechnical work was not itself a “covered action” under the Delta Reform Act and that the Act does not incorporate CEQA’s prohibition against “piecemealing.” The case was remanded for the trial court to reconsider the motions for preliminary injunction in light of this holding. View "Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage Dist. v. Dept. of Water Resources" on Justia Law

The case concerns the City of San Diego’s approval of a 2022 ballot measure to remove the longstanding 30-foot building height limit in the Midway-Pacific Highway Community Planning area. This height restriction, established by a 1972 voter initiative, was intended to preserve coastal views, community character, and environmental quality. In 2018, the City updated the community plan for the area, assuming the height limit remained in place. In 2020, the City attempted to remove the height limit via a ballot measure, but the measure was invalidated for failing to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as the environmental impact report (EIR) did not analyze the effects of taller buildings.Following the invalidation of the first ballot measure, the City prepared a supplemental environmental impact report (SEIR) and approved a second ballot measure in 2022 to remove the height limit. Save Our Access, a nonprofit organization, challenged the City’s actions, arguing that the SEIR failed to adequately analyze the environmental impacts of allowing buildings taller than 30 feet, except for visual effects and neighborhood character. The Superior Court of San Diego County denied Save Our Access’s petition for writ of mandate, finding the City’s environmental review sufficient.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, reviewed whether the City complied with CEQA’s requirements to inform the public and decisionmakers of the potential environmental impacts of removing the height limit, to identify mitigation measures, and to disclose reasons for approval despite significant impacts. The appellate court held that the City’s SEIR was inadequate because it failed to analyze the full range of environmental impacts associated with taller buildings, relying improperly on the 2018 EIR. The court reversed the lower court’s judgment, ordered the petition for writ of mandate to be granted, and directed the City to comply with CEQA. View "Save Our Access v. City of San Diego" on Justia Law

Nilfisk, Inc. leased a large warehouse building in Springdale, Arkansas from Fort Worth Partners, LLC under an industrial lease that required Nilfisk to maintain property insurance covering the full replacement cost of the building, excluding certain foundation and below-grade structures. In March 2022, a tornado destroyed the building, and Nilfisk’s insurance coverage at the time was significantly less than the full replacement cost required by the lease. Fort Worth Partners sued Nilfisk and its parent company for breach of contract, seeking damages equal to the full replacement cost that would have been covered by adequate insurance.The United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas reviewed cross-motions for summary judgment. It denied Nilfisk’s motion and granted Fort Worth Partners’ motion in part, finding Nilfisk had breached its insurance obligation under the lease. The court held a bench trial to determine damages, considering expert testimony from both parties. It awarded Fort Worth Partners damages for the building’s replacement cost, excluding foundation damages per the lease, and also awarded attorney’s fees and costs, with reductions for limited success and prevailing local rates. Nilfisk appealed the denial of summary judgment and the damages award, while Fort Worth Partners cross-appealed aspects of the damages and fee awards.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of partial summary judgment for Fort Worth Partners and its denial of Nilfisk’s summary judgment motion. The appellate court held that Fort Worth Partners’ claim was timely, as each deficient insurance policy constituted a separate breach with its own limitations period. The court also affirmed the district court’s interpretation of the lease excluding all foundation damages and upheld the reduction in attorney’s fees. However, it reversed and remanded the damages award for unrebutted costs, instructing the district court to make specific factual findings supporting that portion of the award. View "Fort Worth Partners, LLC v. Nilfisk, Inc." on Justia Law