Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

In the case before the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois, the City of Rock Falls filed a petition against Aims Industrial Services, LLC. The petition sought to enforce compliance with a City ordinance requiring the replacement of a private sewage disposal system with a connection to the City’s public sewage disposal system upon the sale or transfer of any property within the City limits. The trial court determined it would be inequitable to grant the City an injunction and denied the City’s petition. The appellate court reversed this decision, holding that the trial court erred in considering the equities when deciding whether to grant the injunction, as the City sought enforcement of an ordinance that specifically authorized injunctive relief.The Supreme Court of the State of Illinois affirmed the judgment of the appellate court, stating that when a statute or ordinance expressly authorizes injunctive relief, the court has no discretion to refuse to grant the injunctive relief once a violation of the statute or ordinance has been established. The Supreme Court clarified that in such cases, balancing of the equities is not necessary since a violation of the statute or ordinance implies a harm to the public. Therefore, the trial court's refusal to grant the injunction based on its own balancing of the equities was an error. View "City of Rock Falls v. Aims Industrial Services, LLC" on Justia Law

In Houston, Texas, a nurse was struck and killed by a driver while crossing the public street next to the hospital where she worked. The nurse's family filed a suit against the hospital, arguing that the hospital had a duty to make the adjacent public road safer due to the layout of its exit and parking lot, which they claimed created a situation in which injury to others was foreseeable. The Supreme Court of Texas ruled that the hospital had a limited duty as a premises occupier based on its control over certain parts of the adjacent public right-of-way. However, the court found no evidence that any dangerous condition the hospital controlled in the right-of-way caused the nurse’s harm. The court rejected the lower courts' ruling that there was a case-specific duty for the hospital to make the road safer. The court reversed the judgment of the lower courts, rendering a take-nothing judgment in favor of the hospital. View "HNMC, INC. v. CHAN" on Justia Law

In a case concerning subsidized low-income housing, the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, Division Seven, ruled that tenants in such housing developments have standing to sue a property management company under the unfair competition law (UCL) if their tenancies are terminated prematurely due to legally deficient notices. The plaintiffs, who lived in housing managed by FPI Management, Inc., claimed that their tenancies were terminated after FPI provided just three days’ notice, instead of the legally required 30 days’ notice. The trial court granted summary judgment to FPI, deciding that the plaintiffs did not suffer an injury that would confer standing under the UCL. The appellate court, however, held that the plaintiffs were prematurely deprived of property rights and subjected to imminent legal peril due to FPI's legally deficient termination notices. This amounted to an injury sufficient to confer standing under the UCL. The appellate court also noted a distinction between the plaintiffs who lived in housing subsidized by the HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME plaintiffs) and those living in housing subsidized by section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (Section 8 plaintiffs). The Section 8 plaintiffs failed to demonstrate their legal entitlement to 30 days’ notice, leading the court to affirm the trial court's summary judgment in favor of FPI regarding the Section 8 plaintiffs' UCL claim. The court also affirmed the trial court's denial of the plaintiffs' motion for summary adjudication, but reversed the judgment and post-judgment order on costs, rendering the cost order moot. View "Campbell v. FPI Management, Inc." on Justia Law

The case pertains to an appeal by the City of Los Angeles and real parties in interest, TTLC Los Angeles – El Sereno, LLC and The True Life Companies, LLC against a petition filed by Delia Guerrero and Coyotl + Macehualli Citizens (Objectors). The Objectors alleged that the city's approval of a real estate development project violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The city and the developers had argued that the petition was untimely, but the trial court granted the Objectors’ petition, directing the city to vacate project approvals and prepare an environmental impact report (EIR) evaluating the project's environmental impacts. On appeal by the city and developers, the Court of Appeal of the State of California Second Appellate District Division Five reversed the lower court's decision. The appellate court held that the Objectors’ petition was untimely, as it was filed more than a year after the city's notice of determination, which triggered the statute of limitations for challenges under the CEQA. The court concluded that the city's initial approval of the project represented its earliest firm commitment to approving the project, and hence constituted project approval under CEQA. Therefore, the court ruled in favor of the city and the developers and ordered the trial court to dismiss the Objectors' petition. View "Guerrero v. City of Los Angeles" on Justia Law

In this case, the South Carolina Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a state statute that limits reimbursement of reestablishment expenses in condemnation proceedings to $50,000. The appellant, Applied Building Sciences, Inc., an engineering firm, was forced to move its operations when its leased building was condemned for public use by the South Carolina Department of Commerce, Division of Public Railways. The company sought reimbursement for reestablishment expenses exceeding $560,000 but was limited by state statute to $50,000. The company argued that the cap was unconstitutional under the Takings Clauses of the South Carolina and United States Constitutions. The court found that reestablishment expenses are separate from damages awardable as just compensation under both constitutions, thus upholding the constitutionality of the statutory cap. The court affirmed the lower court's granting of summary judgment in favor of the Department of Commerce, Division of Public Railways. View "Applied Building Sciences v. SC Dept of Commerce" on Justia Law

In a case before the Supreme Court of Rhode Island, plaintiffs Mark Quillen and Dawn Quillen entered into a Purchase and Sales Agreement (P & S Agreement) with defendant Clint Cox to purchase a property for a total sale price of $632,000, which included a $31,000 deposit. An issue arose when the parties' chosen escrow agent, Beycome Brokerage Realty, refused to accept the deposit, leading to an amendment in the agreement that allowed the plaintiffs to submit the deposit to a different brokerage firm, Trusthill. This amendment led to a dispute with the defendant claiming the plaintiffs failed to meet the deposit requirement, thereby breaching the contract.The trial justice in the Superior Court found that the defendant had prevented the plaintiffs from effectuating delivery of the deposit, thereby eliminating the condition precedent. The court also found that the plaintiffs were ready, willing, and able to purchase the property. Despite the defendant's claims, the court concluded that plaintiffs had met all their obligations under the contract. The court ordered specific performance, directing the defendant to transfer the property to the plaintiffs. The defendant's counterclaims for breach of contract, declaratory judgment, and damages were dismissed.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Rhode Island affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court. The court held that the trial justice correctly determined that the plaintiffs timely and properly delivered the deposit in accordance with the amended agreement. The court also agreed with the trial justice's finding that the plaintiffs were ready, willing, and able to purchase the property. The court rejected the defendant's argument that the trial justice failed to apply the clear and convincing standard in her factual findings, noting that the defendant failed to raise this issue in the lower court. The court also dismissed the defendant's contention that he was entitled to the deposit as damages, as the court found no evidence of breach on the part of the plaintiffs. View "Quillen v. Cox" on Justia Law

In the State of Wyoming, the Supreme Court examined a dispute between Tony R. Testolin, Tim Karlberg, and Thirty-One Bar Ranch Company about the use of an access easement. The defendants (Testolin and Karlberg) owned an easement that passed over a portion of Thirty-One Bar's property. Thirty-One Bar challenged the validity of the easement and its use. While the district court affirmed the validity of the easement, it restricted how the defendants could use it. The court ruled that the defendants could not use the easement to allow a commercial hunting outfitter access to their property, which the defendants appealed.The Supreme Court of Wyoming reversed the lower court's decision. It ruled that the easement's language did not restrict the defendants from using it to allow a hunting outfitter access to their property. The court also ruled that Thirty-One Bar did not meet its burden of proving that such use of the easement materially increased the burden on their property. Thus, the lower court erred in declaring this use of the easement as impermissible. The court emphasized that an easement may be used for any reasonable use of the dominant estate, provided that use does not materially increase the burden on the servient estate. View "Testolinv. Thirty-One Bar Ranch Company" on Justia Law

This case revolves around the tragic drowning of a 14-year-old boy at a dam on Buffalo Creek in Erie County. The victim's mother brought a negligence and wrongful death lawsuit against the Joint Board of Directors of Erie-Wyoming County Soil Conservation District (the Joint Board), alleging that they owned the dam and were responsible for its maintenance and safety. The dam was initially constructed as part of a federal project under the Flood Control Act of 1944, after which the Joint Board was created as the local "sponsor" of the project. Two agreements between the Joint Board and the National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) in 1959 and 1984 stipulated that the Joint Board had ongoing duties to inspect and maintain the dams. The case proceeded to a jury trial on the singular question of whether the Joint Board owned the dams at the time of the accident. Both the plaintiff and the Joint Board moved for directed verdicts. The trial court granted the plaintiff's motion, concluding that the Joint Board owned the dams. However, the Appellate Division reversed this decision and granted the Joint Board's motion for a directed verdict, ruling that the dams were fixtures that ran with the land and could not have been owned by the Joint Board since the NRCS did not own the underlying land. The Court of Appeals disagreed with both lower courts, stating that neither the plaintiff nor the Joint Board should have been granted a directed verdict as the evidence was not conclusive enough to establish ownership of the dams as a matter of law. The Court of Appeals ordered that the case be remitted to the Supreme Court for further proceedings, and affirmed the dismissal of claims against other parties, including the Districts, County, and Town. View "Suzanne P. v Joint Bd. of Directors of Erie-Wyoming County Soil Conservation Dist." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of the State of Idaho held that the Director of the Idaho Department of Water Resources (IDWR) had the authority under Idaho Code section 42-237a.g. to initiate administrative proceedings to curtail the withdrawal of water from any well during any period where water to fill a water right in said well was not available. The proceedings stemmed from a district court decision involving the adjudication of water rights in the Wood River Valley during an unprecedented drought in 2021. The Director of the IDWR initiated an administrative proceeding to determine whether water was available to fill junior groundwater rights in the aquifer beneath the Bellevue Triangle. After a six-day hearing, the Director issued a Final Order that found water was unavailable to fill the junior rights because pumping from the aquifer was affecting the use of senior surface water rights. The South Valley Ground Water District and Galena Ground Water District challenged the Director's authority to initiate proceedings under Idaho Code section 42-237a.g., arguing that the Director did not comply with the prior appropriation doctrine because the Director had not formally designated an area of common groundwater supply, or determined "material injury" had been sustained by senior surface water rights holders. The Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, ruling that the Director had the authority to initiate administrative proceedings under Idaho Code section 42-237a.g. and that the Director did not violate the prior appropriation doctrine. It held that the Director had the discretion to limit or prohibit the withdrawal of groundwater from any well during any period when water was not available to fill a water right in said well, and was not required to establish an area of common groundwater supply before he is allowed to curtail groundwater pumping. The Court also held that the Director's decision to reject the proposed mitigation plan without a hearing was not properly before the Court on appeal. View "South Valley Ground Water v. Idaho Dept of Water Resources" on Justia Law

The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled on a case involving a commercial real estate transaction in Puerto Rico that failed to close. The sellers of the property, located in Valle Arriba Heights, had entered into agreements to sell their respective parcels to KRB Universal Investments, LLC, which later assigned its rights under the agreements to CPC Carolina PR, LLC ("CPC"). The conditions of the sale included the cancellation of restrictive covenants that limited the use of the property to residential purposes. CPC intended to lease the properties to Puerto Rico CVS Pharmacy, LLC ("CVS") for commercial use. However, CVS refused to proceed with the lease due to restrictive covenants and issues with the title insurance policy. The sellers sued CPC and CVS for negligence, alleging that they had been induced into an impossible contract and that CVS's actions had contributed to vandalism on the properties. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of CPC and CVS. On appeal, the appellate court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the sellers' claims were time-barred and that they failed to establish the necessary elements of their negligence claims. View "Hamdallah v. CPC Carolina PR, LLC" on Justia Law