Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court of the State of Idaho affirmed the lower court's judgment dismissing a negligence claim filed by GSN Capital, LLC and Dave Zortman against the Shoshone City & Rural Fire District. GSN's sawmill property was destroyed by a wildfire, and they argued that the Fire District was negligent in not calling for additional aid, not deploying fire units to protect their property, and not performing a mitigation and salvage operation to save part of their property. However, the court concluded that the Fire District did not owe GSN a duty in tort for any of the challenged decisions. The court found that the Fire District did not have custody or control over GSN's property and did not owe a duty to protect individual properties within its territory. The court also held that the Fire District did not undertake any firefighting efforts for GSN until after the fire was contained, and thus did not assume a duty to GSN. View "GSN Capital, LLC v. Shoshone City & Rural Fire District" on Justia Law

This case is an appeal from a District Court order enforcing a Water Court decree related to water rights in Big Warm Creek, in Phillips County. Little Big Warm Ranch, LLC (LBWR) argued against the enforcement order and Wilfred Doll cross-appealed a ruling denying attorney fees. The parties have a complex history related to land sales and shared water rights with the same priority date. The water rights in question were co-equal in priority, meaning neither party could "call" on the other to decrease their water usage during times of low flow.The District Court allocated the parties' rights on a percent basis, which LBWR argued was erroneous. LBWR also contended that Doll should not be allowed to leave water instream at the Ester Headgate (a point of diversion). Doll, on the other hand, contended that he was entitled to attorney fees.The Supreme Court of Montana affirmed the District Court's decision. The Court found that the District Court correctly allocated the parties' rights on a percent basis and that it was correct in determining that Doll may leave water instream at the Ester Headgate. The Court also affirmed the District Court's refusal to award Doll attorney fees, reasoning that there was no prevailing party in the underlying dispute. View "Little Big Warm v. Doll" on Justia Law

In this case, the Supreme Court of Arizona affirmed a lower court's decision involving a dispute over a 135 square foot piece of land between two neighboring property owners, the Becks and the Nevilles. The Becks had landscaped their property and mistakenly installed decorative pavers outside their actual property line, encroaching on the Nevilles' land. The Nevilles claimed ownership of this disputed land based on the doctrine of "boundary by acquiescence" and "adverse possession."The Court held that Arizona law recognizes a cause of action for boundary by acquiescence. To succeed in such a claim, a claimant must prove by clear and convincing evidence that: (1) they occupied or possessed the property up to a clearly defined line, (2) the adjoining landowners mutually acquiesced to that line as the dividing line between their properties, (3) they continuously acquiesced for ten years, and (4) the actual boundary was uncertain or disputed.The Court also held that occasionally parking a car partially on an adjoining landowner’s property is insufficient to establish the open and notorious element of an adverse possession claim.In this instance, the Court found that the Nevilles failed to provide sufficient evidence to satisfy the elements of either boundary by acquiescence or adverse possession. Consequently, the Court affirmed the trial court's decision that the Becks were the rightful owners of the disputed land. View "BECK v NEVILLE" on Justia Law

The case revolves around injury suffered by a swimmer, Dr. Jennifer Pennington, who collided with the corner of a swimming-pool wall at a health and fitness center owned and operated by Memorial Hospital of South Bend, doing business as Beacon Health and Fitness. The design and construction of the swimming pool was carried out by Spear Corporation and Panzica Building Corporation. The Penningtons filed a suit against Beacon, Spear, and Panzica, alleging negligent design, failure to warn, negligent maintenance and operation, negligent construction, and deprivation of companionship due to the injury. The trial court granted summary judgment to Panzica and Spear on all counts and to Beacon on some counts, but denied summary judgment to Beacon on the count of negligent maintenance and operation and failure to provide adequate warnings and instructions. The Indiana Supreme Court held that Beacon was not entitled to summary judgment on any count, except as to the single issue of the level of the water within Count III. The court affirmed summary judgment for Spear and Panzica, stating that the Penningtons failed to provide admissible evidence regarding Spear or Panzica's breach of their professional duty of care. However, the court found that there were issues of fact regarding Beacon's role in the pool’s design and its maintenance and operation that required a trial. View "Pennington v. Memorial Hospital of South Bend, Inc." on Justia Law

In this case heard in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, an accident occurred at a construction site which resulted in bodily injuries to Gaylon Cruse and Mark Duckworth. During the installation of roof trusses, a power crane operated by Douglas Forrest was prematurely released, causing a truss to fall and collapse onto other trusses, injuring Cruse and Duckworth. Southern Truss, the owner of the truck to which the crane was attached, had two insurance policies - a commercial auto policy from Artisan and Truckers Casualty Company (Artisan) and a commercial general liability policy from The Burlington Insurance Company (Burlington). Both insurance companies denied a duty to defend in the underlying lawsuit initiated by Cruse and Duckworth.Artisan filed a suit in federal court seeking a declaration that it owed no duty to defend under its auto policy due to an operations exclusion clause and that Burlington owed a duty to defend. The district court denied both companies' motions for judgment, finding an ambiguity in Artisan's policy that should be construed in favor of the insured and that Burlington had a duty to defend some claims not covered by Artisan's policy. Both Artisan and Burlington appealed.The appeals court, applying Illinois law and conducting a de novo review, found no ambiguity in Artisan's policy. The court concluded that the operations exclusion applied because the injuries arose from the operation of the crane attached to the truck, whose primary purpose was to provide mobility to the crane. As such, Artisan had no duty to defend. Since Artisan had no duty to defend, the court determined that Burlington did have a duty to defend under its policy. Thus, the court affirmed in part and reversed in part the decision of the district court. View "Artisan and Truckers Casualty Company v. Burlington Insurance Company" on Justia Law

This case involves a dispute over an easement across a property, Lot 4, in Sausalito, California. The property was part of a larger estate that once belonged to Alan Patterson. Patterson had sold a neighboring property, Lot 3, to Steven McArthur, who took title in the name of a limited liability company, Green Tree Headlands LLC.The purchase agreement between Patterson and McArthur included an addendum (the "Rider") stating that a 15-foot driveway easement across Lot 4 for access to Lot 3 would "remain in existence." However, a subsequent document, the "Declaration of Restrictions," stated that the easement would expire after Patterson moved out of his residence on Lot 3.After Patterson's death, Tara Crawford, the trustee of a trust holding his assets, took over the management of Lot 4. Crawford relied on the Declaration of Restrictions to assert that the driveway easement had expired. McArthur disagreed, citing the Rider.Crawford filed a lawsuit against McArthur, but later voluntarily dismissed her action. McArthur then filed a malicious prosecution action against Crawford and her lawyer, Benjamin Graves. In response, Crawford and Graves filed a motion to strike the complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute.The Court of Appeal of the State of California First Appellate District Division Four held that Crawford and Graves' motion should have been granted. The court reasoned that while the underlying purchase agreement and subsequent documents were in conflict, Crawford had a reasonable basis to seek judicial resolution of that conflict. As such, McArthur could not show that Crawford's lawsuit was completely without merit, a necessary element for a malicious prosecution claim. Therefore, the court reversed the trial court's order denying the anti-SLAPP motion and directed the lower court to enter a new order granting the motion. View "Green Tree Headlands LLC v. Crawford" on Justia Law

Randall Ewing and Yasmany Gomez entered into a contract with 1645 W. Farragut LLC (Farragut) to purchase a house. The house was in need of substantial renovations, but Ewing and Gomez proceeded with the contract based on Farragut's assurance that the house would be renovated and ready by closing time. Unbeknownst to Ewing and Gomez, the house was under a stop work order, which hindered their ability to secure a mortgage. When they requested their earnest money back, Farragut refused. They subsequently sued Farragut for breach of contract, common law fraud, and fraud under the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois found Farragut liable for fraud and breach of contract and awarded Ewing and Gomez $905,000 in damages. Farragut appealed the decision and Ewing and Gomez cross-appealed, seeking to add Farragut's principal, Erik Carrier, to the case. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the District Court's decisions, finding that the record supported the damages awarded and that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a new trial and the motions to amend. View "Ewing v. 1645 W. Farragut LLC" on Justia Law

In this case, several residents of the town of Norwell, Massachusetts filed a lawsuit to compel the town's select board to transfer municipal land to the town's conservation commission. The select board had previously designated the land for the development of affordable housing. The main issue on appeal was whether the land was "held by a city or town . . . for a specific purpose" under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40, Section 15A. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts affirmed the Land Court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the select board. The Supreme Judicial Court held that town-owned land is held for a specific municipal purpose under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40, Section 15A, where the totality of the circumstances indicates a clear and unequivocal intent by the town to hold the land for such purpose. Applying this totality of the circumstances test, the court found no material dispute of fact regarding the town's intent to dedicate the municipal land at issue for the purpose of affordable housing. Therefore, the court concluded that the allowance of summary judgment for the select board was correct. View "Carroll v. Select Board of Norwell" on Justia Law

In the case of Planning and Conservation League et al., v. Department of Water Resources heard in the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, the court considered whether the Department of Water Resources’ (department) approval of amendments to long-term contracts with local government agencies that receive water through the State Water Project violated various laws. The amendments extended the contracts to 2085 and expanded the facilities listed as eligible for revenue bond financing. Several conservation groups and public agencies challenged the amendments, arguing they violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Reform Act (Delta Reform Act), and the public trust doctrine. However, the court held that the department did not violate CEQA, the Delta Reform Act, or the public trust doctrine, and therefore affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of the department. The court found that the department used the correct baseline for its environmental impact report (EIR), properly segmented the amendments from related projects, and adequately considered the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the amendments. The court also held that the department adequately described the project and considered a reasonable range of alternatives, and that recirculation of the EIR was not required. The court rejected arguments that the amendments violated the Delta Reform Act or the public trust doctrine, finding that they did not impact "water that is imbued with the public trust." The court concluded that the department acted within its authority in approving and executing the amendments. View "Planning and Conservation League v. Dept. of Water Resources" on Justia Law

In this case, Nagla Abdelhalim, an Egyptian immigrant and a Muslim woman, filed suit against her neighbors Aaron and Dinara Lewis and Andrew and Roxana McDevitt, alleging that they violated the Fair Housing Act by engaging in a year-long campaign of harassment against her in an attempt to drive her out of the neighborhood because of her race, national origin, and religion. The dispute began when Abdelhalim started a short-term rental business, renting out her basement on platforms such as Airbnb, which violated a local ordinance at the time and was disapproved by her neighbors. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted summary judgment to the defendants, concluding that Abdelhalim had not produced evidence of intentional discrimination based on a protected ground.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit considered only whether the district court erred in granting the defendants' motions for attorneys’ fees. The Fourth Circuit ruled that the district court had applied the wrong legal standard and thus abused its discretion in granting attorneys’ fees to the defendants. The court noted that while a plaintiff’s failure to prevail is a factor to consider, it alone cannot be the basis for concluding that a claim was without foundation. The court found that Abdelhalim had provided sufficient evidence to support her belief that the defendants intended to discriminate against her based on her race, religion, or national origin. Thus, her claims were not without foundation, and the award of attorneys' fees to the defendants was vacated. View "Abdelhalim v. Lewis" on Justia Law