Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff owned a rental center and retained defendants, who provide investment banking services to the equipment rental industry, to help him obtain an investor or buyer. Defendants’ advice culminated in sale of a majority of plaintiff’s stock for about $30 million. Defendants billed plaintiff $758,675. Plaintiff paid without complaint but later sued for return of the entire fee on the ground that defendants lacked a brokerage license required by Wis. Stats. 452.01(2)(a), 452.03. The district court dismissed, finding the parties equally at fault. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, declining to definitively answer whether a license was required under the circumstances that a negotiated sale of assets fell through in favor of a sale of stock. Plaintiff is not entitled to relief even if there was a violation. Referring to the classic Highwayman’s Case, the court rejected claims of in pari delicto and unclean hands; plaintiff was not equally at fault. To bar relief, however, is not punishing a victim. Plaintiff did not incur damages and is not entitled to restitution. Plaintiff sought compensation for spotting a violation and incurring expenses to punish the violator, a bounty-hunter or private attorney general theory, not recognized under Wisconsin law. The voluntary-payment doctrine is inapplicable.

Sheneman and his son purchased distressed properties, then flipped the properties by operating an elaborate mortgage fraud scheme that convinced unwitting buyers to purchase properties they could neither afford nor rent out after purchasing. Mortgage lenders were duped into financing the purchases through misrepresentations about the buyers and their financial stability. Four buyers with few assets and no experience in the real estate market purchased 60 homes. Most of the homes were eventually foreclosed upon. The buyers and lenders each suffered significant losses. Sheneman was convicted of four counts of wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1343, and sentenced to 97 months' imprisonment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence and to application of sentencing enhancements for use of sophisticated means and for losses of more than one million dollars.

Between 2004 and 2008, Brown ran an elaborate scheme that tricked lenders into issuing fraudulent mortgage loans in Chicago and Las Vegas. Brown recruited or directed dozens of individuals: lawyers, accountants, loan officers, bank employees, realtors, home builders, and nominee buyers. Of his accomplices, 32 people were criminally charged. The Chicago scheme resulted in about 150 fraudulent loans, totaling more than $95 million in proceeds from victim lenders. The Las Vegas scheme resulted in approximately 33 fraudulent loans totaling about $16 million. Brown entered guilty pleas and was sentenced to 216 months’ imprisonment for the Las Vegas scheme and 240 months’ imprisonment for the Chicago scheme, to run concurrently. The district court also imposed a restitution amount of more than $32.2 million. The Seventh Circuit affirmed Brown’s sentence, rejecting a challenge to the loss calculation. The court remanded the 66-month sentence and $7.1 restitution order against another participant in the Chicago scheme because the court incorrectly determined the number of victims.

MGIC provides private insurance on mortgage loans and incurred large losses in the financial crunch that began with the decline of prices of securities based on packages of mortgage loans. Class-action suits filed under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 were consolidated and were dismissed when the judge concluded that the complaint did not meet the standard set by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, 15 U.S.C. 78u–4(b). A single plaintiff appealed, based on fraud that allegedly occurred during MGIC's quarterly earnings call on July 19, 2007. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that the complained-of statement was true and that the complaint failed PSLRA's requirement for pleading scienter. At most plaintiff could allege that MGIC’s managers should have seen the looming problem, and establish negligence rather than the state of mind required for fraud. MGIC's managers did not have any private information that they could have revealed.

The company operates stores. The union was concerned about use of nonunion contractors who did not pay prevailing wages for construction and remodeling of stores. Unsatisfied with the company's response, the union urged a consumer boycott. Union representatives distributed handbills that were "extremely unflattering" outside the stores. Some pictured a rat to represent the company. The company ejected the representatives from the property. The NLRB issued a complaint alleging violation of the NLRA, 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(1), for discriminatory practice in prohibiting the union from handbilling while permitting nonunion solicitations and distributions. An ALJ found that as a nonexclusive easement holder at 23 of the stores, the company did not have a state property right to exclude handbillers, and had violated the Act. The Board affirmed. The Seventh Circuit affirmed and granted the Board's petition for enforcement.

The Illinois company sells title insurance through its attorney title agent program, in which it pays the consumer's real estate attorney to conduct title examination and determine whether title is insurable. Plaintiffs contend that the payment is designed to compensate for referrals, not actual services, and that the program violates Section 8 of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. 2601(a), which prohibits kickbacks and fee splitting. The district court twice denied class certification under FRCP 23(b)(3), concluding that an individual determination of liability would be required for each class member. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, noting that class actions are rare in RESPA Section 8 cases and that plaintiffs cannot establish the sole recognized exception, namely that the company split fees with attorneys who performed no services on a class-wide basis.

Taxpayers purchased a three-acre lakefront property in Chenequa, Wisconsin, demolished the house and built another. They donated the house to the local fire department to be burned down in a firefighter training exercise and claimed a $76,000 charitable deduction on their 1998 tax return for the value of the house. The IRS disallowed the deduction. The decision was upheld by the Tax Court. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding that the taxpayers did not show a value for their donation that exceeded the substantial benefit they received in return. When a gift is conditional, the conditions must be taken into account in determining fair market value of the donated property. Proper consideration of the economic effect of the condition that the house be destroyed reduces fair market value of the gift so much that no net value is ever likely to be available for a deduction.

The city bought land with the intention of transferring it to an adjoining Catholic high school for an athletic complex. In exchange, the city was to have the right to use the complex at specified times. In response to opposition by residents, the district court granted a preliminary injunction. Rather than appeal, the city moved to modify the injunction to permit it to sell to the school at appraised value. The district court denied on the ground that by not opening bidding the city was sending a message of endorsement of Catholicism. The city then obtained modification to allow it to sell the property to the highest bidder, sold to the high school, and appealed. The Seventh Circuit dismissed the appeal as moot and untimely.

The debtor's single asset is a commercial building. The lender promptly started foreclosure proceedings in state court, prevailed, and a foreclosure sale of the property was scheduled, but was stayed when the debtor filed for bankruptcy, 11 U.S.C. 362(a)(4). The lender became a participant in the bankruptcy The bankruptcy court rejected the debtor's plan to exchange the mortgage for an "indubitable equivalent," lifted the stay, and dismissed the bankruptcy. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, noting that the lender has waited years to enforce its lien and that the court was not required to further stretch the wait. The lien on Treasury bonds proposed by the debtor would not be equivalent to the lender retaining its lien on the building.

A provision of the Truth-in-Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. 1601, requires that consumers receive clear and conspicuous notice of the right to rescind within three days. Regulation Z requires that the consumer be given two copies of the notice at closing; failure to comply extends the time to rescind to three years, 13 C.F.R. 226.23(a)(3). When plaintiff closed the refinancing of his home in 2007 he signed a receipt for the notices, but he claims that he discovered, two years later, that he had only one copy. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of the lender and title company. The Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded, holding that plaintiff presented enough evidence to survive summary judgment.