Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

In 1987, Waterfront purchased 5.3 acres in Philadelphia’s Central Riverfront District, zoned G-2 industrial. In exchange for rezoning to C-4 commercial, for a mixed-use, high-rise project, Waterfront agreed to restrictive covenants. When financing became possible in 2005, Waterfront obtained a permit for demolishing existing structures and constructing a 28-story apartment tower and entered into a financing agreement with a construction start date of February 2006. Waterfront had to postpone construction. In March 2006, the city extended to the site a zoning overlay with a height restriction of 65 feet and a width restriction of 70 feet. Waterfront alleged mistake; that the area councilman admitted that inclusion of the site was a mistake; and that Mayor Street stated that he would not have signed it had he known that the height restriction applied to the site. Waterfront unsuccessfully sought repeal, but never applied for a permit under the ordinance and did not seek a variance. Waterfront filed suit. In 2010 the city rescinded application of the height restriction. The district court held that the rescission mooted federal constitutional claims, denied Waterfront’s motion to amend to attack the width restriction, and granted the city summary judgment on all other claims. The Third Circuit affirmed. View "CMR D.N. Corp. v. City of Philadelphia" on Justia Law

Southwest sells title reports to consumer lenders, containing information available in public records. Southwest’s reports include the owner’s name and address, marital status, and amounts of outstanding mortgages, liens or judgments against the property. Reports do not include social security numbers, payment history, previous addresses, employment information, birthdate, or outstanding account balances, as would typically appear in a credit report prepared by credit reporting agencies. Unlike a credit reporting company, Southwest endeavors to include only unsatisfied liens encumbering the property. Fuges had a $35,000 line of credit from PNC, secured by her home. In 2008, she applied for payment protection insurance; PNC ordered a credit report from a credit reporting agency and a property report from Southwest, which was arguably inaccurate concerning tax delinquency and a judgment lien. PNC initially denied her application, but later granted her request. Fuges filed a putative class action against Southwest, alleging violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. 1681-1681x. The district court dismissed many claims because she had not taken actions required by FCRA, then entered summary judgment for Southwest, reasoning that no reasonable jury could find willful violation of FCRA, because Southwest reasonably interpreted the statute as inapplicable. The Third Circuit affirmed. View "Fuges v. SW Fin. Serv., Ltd." on Justia Law

The New Jersey Sports and Exposition Authority, a state agency which owned a leasehold interest in the East Hall, also known as “Historic Boardwalk Hall”, on the boardwalk in Atlantic City, was tasked with restoring it. After learning of the market for federal historic rehabilitation tax credits (HRTCs) among corporate investors, and of the additional revenue which that market could bring to the state through a syndicated partnership with one or more investors, NJSEA created Historic Boardwalk Hall, LLC (HBH) and sold a membership interest to a subsidiary of Pitney Bowes. Transactions admitting PB as a member of HBH and transferring ownership of East Hall to HBH were designed so that PB could earn the HRTCs generated from the East Hall rehabilitation. The IRS determined that HBH was simply a vehicle to impermissibly transfer HRTCs from NJSEA to PB and that all HRTCs taken by PB should be reallocated to NJSEA. The Tax Court disagreed. The Third Circuit reversed. PB, in substance, was not a bona fide partner in HBH. View "Historic Boardwalk Hall, LLC v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue" on Justia Law

Debtors took a mortgage and a second mortgage on their residence. They later filed a voluntary Chapter 7 petition. They claimed exemptions for their residence, citing 11 U.S.C. 522(d)(1) and 11 U.S.C. 522(d)(5). Amounts claimed on Schedule D and Schedule F were not referenced or listed on Schedule C. There were no objections to exemptions within the within the 30-day limit. After the selling the house, the trustee moved to value the exemption in the former residence at zero or to declare that the exemption did not extend to sales proceeds, because debtors had no equity in their home to which the homestead exemption could attach. The district court reversed the bankruptcy court and ruled in favor of debtors, holding that the trustee’s late objection to claimed exemptions was barred. On remand, in light the Supreme Court in decision Schwab v. Reilly,(2010), the district court held that the trustee has no duty to object to to claimed exemptions within the 30-day limit under Fed. R. Bankr. P. 4003(b). The Third Circuit affirmed. The Trustee’s objection was timely and valid. Debtors did not provide sufficient notice through their disclosure in Schedule C that they intended to exempt the property’s full value. View "In Re: Messina" on Justia Law

Liberty entered into a Master Declaration and Easements, Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for a shopping mall. PMI purchased the property and entered into a Declaration that gave Liberty the right to prior approval of future purchasers and an option to purchase. PMI borrowed $3.5 million from Nationwide, using the property as collateral. Nationwide purchased title insurance from Commonwealth, containing the ALTA 9 endorsement. PMI defaulted and conveyed the property to Nationwide, which attempted to sell to Ironwood. Liberty’s successor, Franklin, refused to approve Ironwood under its rights conferred by the Declaration, based on Ironwood’s planned use as a school. Nationwide claimed that the restrictions upon which Franklin justified refusal rendered the property unusable and unsalable. Commonwealth denied the claim. The district court dismissed. The Third Circuit remanded, holding that Commonwealth is obligated to cover the claim if the restriction causing Nationwide’s harm was covered by the ALTA 9 Endorsement and not expressly excepted on Schedule B. The district court then ruled in favor of Nationwide. The Third Circuit affirmed and remanded for determination of damages owed Nationwide, relying on the plain language of the ALTA 9 rather than deferring to industry custom and usage. View "Nationwide Life Ins. v. Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Orton filed a Chapter 7 petition. On Schedule A (realty), he listed his one-eighth interest in vacant land that is subject to an oil and gas lease, stating fair market value as $34,000 and claiming an exemption for $4,250 (1/8). On Schedule B (personal property), Orton listed his one-fourth interest in royalty interest in the oil and gas lease, assigning a fair market value of $1; no well has been drilled. On Schedule C (claimed exemptions), Orton claimed wildcard exemptions, 11 U.S.C. 522(d)(5), for $4,250 and $1. No party objected. The Trustee moved to close the case and to except Orton’s royalty interest from abandonment, preserving ability to recover any future royalties for the estate. Orton objected, claiming that he had successfully, permanently removed the assets from the estate, securing for himself future appreciation, free from creditors’ claims. The Bankruptcy Court held that the Trustee was entitled to pursue any future increase in value above the amount stated in Schedule C. The district court and Third Circuit affirmed. The Trustee, not the Debtor, is entitled to post-petition appreciation in value of estate assets that surpasses the amount exempted. Orton had exempted only an interest, not the asset itself, and was entitled to only the amount listed in Schedule C, not to future appreciation. View "In Re:Orton" on Justia Law

Title insurance purchasers, on behalf of themselves and similarly situated consumers, claimed that insurers collectively fixed title insurance rates in violation of the Sherman Act. Title insurers in Delaware are required to file their insurance rates with the state Department of Insurance, Del. Code tit. 18, 2504(a). Insurers may comply with the state’s rate filing requirements through a licensed rating organization. Defendants, title insurers, are members of and file their rates through the Delaware Title Insurance Rating Bureau, which is licensed by the DOI; the statutory scheme authorizes cooperative action. The district court dismissed, holding that the complaint is barred by the filed-rate doctrine (which precludes antitrust suits based on rates currently filed with federal or state agencies), lack of standing, and federal antitrust liability exemptions. The Third Circuit affirmed.

Debtors began development of a subdivision and entered into a construction loan agreement with Bank Lenders, who retained a lien on substantially all of Debtors' assets. Debtors subsequently borrowed from Cornerstone, which similarly received liens and later agreed to subordinate the claims to that of Bank Lenders. After selling approximately a quarter of the planned units, Debtors filed petitions for relief under Chapter 11. The final plan of reorganization, confirmed by the court, specified that claims of Cornerstone would be secured to the extent determined by the court and included a budget that anticipated full payment of both Bank Lenders and Cornerstone; unsecured claimants would receive about 45 percent. The court valued Cornerstone's claims, using fair market value of the project on the plan confirmation date, rather than potential use and disposition value. Because the amount due Bank Lenders exceeded that value plus the value of other assets, no collateral remained to secure Cornerstone's claims; Cornerstone was treated as unsecured. The district court and Third Circuit affirmed. The Bankruptcy Court properly accepted the valuation because it overcame the presumed validity and amount of the Cornerstone’s secured claims. Cornerstone did not prove that secured claims were worth more than the valuation indicated.

A Trustee was appointed in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy. The estate included 44 lots, subdivided and zoned for mobile homes. Lot 45 contained an assisted living facility. The lots shared infrastructure and were subject to restrictions, including one prohibiting transfer of lots for construction of residences and requiring that title remain in the developer. GCL purchased Lot 45. The township solicitor agreed and the Bankruptcy Court declared the sale free of the restriction. The Trustee discovered that some residents had affixed mobile homes to the land. To resolve the matter, the Trustee agreed to sell lots to the residents. The trustee and the township entered agreement, abrogating the restriction as to the lots. CGL, not a party to that agreement, alleged that the sales damaged its property interests in Lot 45 and that the agreement deprived CGL of its property rights without notice and without due process of law. The Bankruptcy Court concluded that the claims were not frivolous and could be filed in state court. The district court and Third Circuit affirmed. The Barton doctrine, which requires a party seeking to sue a court-appointed receiver, to obtain leave of the appointing court, continues to apply to bankruptcy trustees.

Taxpayers (married couples) had an interest in real estate that was condemned by Pennsylvania for construction of a highway. The state agreed to pay $40.9 million, with interest, in five yearly installments. During the first three years of the agreement, the taxpayers excluded the interest from their federal income taxes as exempt under 26 U.S.C. 103, which permits exclusion of interest payments that are obligations of the state. The IRS issued to each couple a deficiency notice for $2.3 million, which was affirmed by the Tax Court. The Third Circuit reversed in part. Negotiations between the parties transformed the state's interest obligation from mandatory to voluntary. The purpose underlying Section 103 was "well served" in this case; the state was able to obtain credit from the taxpayers at a lower rate of interest than it otherwise might have had to if the condemnation proceeding had been completed.