Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court dismissing an action brought by a condominium association against the owner of two condominium units for unpaid special assessments, holding that the circuit court erred by granting the condominium owner's plea in bar.The association brought suit seeking a nonjudicial foreclosure on liens recorded against the owner's condominium units and damages for breach of a declaration. The owner filed a plea in bar asserting that the claim could not survive either of two potential statutes of limitation. The circuit court granted the plea in bar, concluding that the action was barred by the thirty-six-month statute of limitations in former Va. Code 55-79.84(D). The Supreme Court vacated the circuit court's order, holding that the circuit court erred in ruling that the association's failure to introduce the declaration into evidence at an ore tenus hearing precluded the court from deciding whether to grant or deny the plea in bar. View "California Condominium Ass'n v. Peterson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted Daniel Rothstein's motion to dismiss the appeal brought by Robert Godlove and Theresa Wolfe (together, Appellants) and vacated the judgment of the trial court in favor of Rothstein, holding that this case was moot.The trial court interpreted a deed of dedication as permitting Rothstein to extend a paved driveway within an easement running across Appellants' property to Rothstein's property. After Appellants filed a notice of appeal, Rothstein filed a motion to dismiss the appeal as moot. The Supreme Court granted the motion and vacated the judgment, holding that there was no longer any live controversy. View "Godlove v. Rothstein" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court dismissing a bill of review after determining that the underlying matter was an action at law and that a bill of review was inappropriate, holding that the circuit court erred.The City of Petersburg brought an action against the Emmanuel Worship Center and its trustees (collectively, EWC) for delinquent taxes. The circuit court found that EWC owed the City for delinquent real estate taxes and then issued a decree of sale. EWC paid to redeem its property and then filed a bill of review seeking reversal or modification of the decree of sale and an award of the amounts it had paid to the City, arguing that it was constitutionally exempt from paying real estate taxes because the property was owned and used exclusively for religious purposes. The circuit court denied the bill of review. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that the circuit court (1) erred in determining that the underlying action was an action at law, and (2) erred in holding that because more than three years had passed since the taxes were assessed they were beyond review. View "Emmanuel Worship Center v. City of Petersburg" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court holding that the owners of an easement were not indispensable parties to a boundary adjustment suit filed by their neighbors, holding that, under the facts and circumstances, the holders of the easement were necessary parties.The neighbors in this case were Thomas and Christine Garner, Ellen Edwards, and Vincent and Theresa Joseph. In 2015, a court concluded that the Garners had the riparian right to construct a pier on the easement that they held. Thereafter, the Josephs filed a complaint against Edwards seeking to establish the riparian boundaries between their respective properties. Following an apportionment proceeding, the Josephs demanded that the Garners cease using their illegal pier construction and applicable riparian waters. The Garners asserted that because they hadn't been joined as necessary parties in the apportionment proceeding, depriving them of their opportunity to defend their interests. The Josephs responded that the Garners lacked standing to challenge the riparian lines and had not, therefore, been necessary parties. The circuit court concluded that the Garners were not necessary parties and therefore lacked standing. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Garners were necessary parties to the boundary adjustment suit. View "Garner v. Joseph" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court ruling that Plaintiff had not articulated a legally viable cause of action and denied any requests made for injunctive relief, holding that there was no reversible error in the judgment.Plaintiff brought this complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief concerning Governor Ralph S. Northam's order to the Department of General Services to remove the Robert E. Lee Monument in Richmond, Virginia from Commonwealth property. The circuit court dismissed the claims, holding that Plaintiff failed to state a claim that he possessed the legal right to prohibit the Commonwealth from moving the monument. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in dismissing Plaintiff's claim with prejudice. View "Gregory v. Northam" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court concluding that Governor Ralph S. Northam's order to remove the Robert E. Lee Monument in Richmond, Virginia from property owned by the Commonwealth was not improper or unlawful, holding that Plaintiffs' claims were without merit.At issue in this case was whether language in an 1890 deed, signed by the then Governor of Virginia, and an 1889 joint resolution of the General Assembly requesting and authorizing the Governor to sign the deed, prohibited Governor Northam from ordering the removal of the state-owned Lee Monument from state-owned property. The circuit court found that the language in the deed created restrictive covenants but that those restrictive covenants were unenforceable and that the Governor's actions seeking to remove the Lee Monument did not contradict public policy or violate the Virginia Constitution. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding the the circuit court did not err. View "Taylor v. Northam" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the trial court finding in favor of Landlord against all of defendants except two on Landlord's suit against two tenants and seven other parties for fraudulent and voluntary conveyances and against a single defendant for conversion, holding that the trial court misapplied Virginia law and made factually insupportable findings.In its letter opinion, the trial court made each of the defendants which the court had found liable jointly and severally liable with in personam judgments for the unpaid rent, Landlord's attorney fees, and sanctions. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the trial court's in personal, joint and several judgments in this case must be reversed as legally erroneous and factually insupportable; and (2) the trial court erred in finding the single defendant liable for conversion. View "Grayson v. Westwood Buildings L.P." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court dismissing Appellants' challenges to certain amendments to the Fairfax County Zoning Ordinance and the imposition of a Transient Occupancy Tax, holding that the circuit court did not err.Appellants owned or possessed homes within Fairfax County. In 2018, the Board of Supervisors of Fairfax County amended the Zoning Ordinance (the STL Amendment) redefining a dwelling and adding definitions for "transient occupancy" and "short-term lodging." The Board also amended the County Code to impose a transient occupancy tax of two percent of the cost of the short-term lodging (the TOT Amendment). Appellants brought a declaratory judgment action challenging the validity of the STL Amendment and the TOT Amendment. The trial court dismissed Appellants' claims with prejudice. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in dismissing Appellants' challenges to the amendments. View "Norton v. Board of Supervisors of Fairfax County" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court determining that the Historic Alexandria Foundation lacked standing to pursue the claims asserted in this case, holding that there was no error in the circuit court's judgment.Vowell, LLC filed applications to obtain certain permits for the renovation of property located in the Old and Historic District of the City of Alexandria. The Old and Historic Alexandria District Board of Architectural Review (the BAR) approved Vowell's applications, and the City Council affirmed the BAR's decision. The Foundation appealed the City's Council decision. The circuit court dismissed the matter with prejudice, concluding that the petition did not establish that the Foundation was an aggrieved party with standing to pursue the appeal. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Foundation lacked standing because the allegations of the petition failed to establish that the Foundation suffered particularized harm that differed from that suffered by the public in general. View "Historic Alexandria Foundation v. City of Alexandria" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court dismissing Plaintiff's complaint in this fraudulent conveyance suit, holding that the circuit court erred in shifting only the burden of production, and not the burden of persuasion, to Defendants after Plaintiff established a presumption of fraudulent conveyance.Plaintiff filed this suit seeking to void a purported fraudulent conveyance of a certain residence. The circuit court found that Plaintiff's evidence was sufficient to establish a presumption that the conveyance was fraudulent but eventually dismissed Plaintiff's complaint. On appeal, Plaintiff argued that the circuit court erred in ruling that after a plaintiff in a fraudulent conveyance case proves a badge of fraud, which creates the presumption of a fraudulent conveyance, the plaintiff still retains the burden of persuasion to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, a fraudulent conveyance. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court erred when it (1) did not shift to Defendants the burden of persuasion along with the burden of production, and (2) did not apply a standard of proof that required strong and clear evidence in determining the sufficiency of Defendants' evidence offered to rebut the presumption of a fraudulent conveyance. View "White v. Llewellyn" on Justia Law