Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

The Chapter 7 Trustee appealed from the Bankruptcy Court's judgment in favor of debtor's parents on a fraudulent transfer action, holding that debtor could not fraudulently transfer property that would have been exempt. Because the court concluded that the Bankruptcy Court erred in applying Minnesota fraudulent transfer law to the count seeking relief under section 548(a)(1)(B) of the Bankruptcy Code, the court reversed and remanded for further findings.

Debtors appealed the bankruptcy court's entry of summary judgment in favor of defendant in debtors' adversary action seeking, inter alia, to avoid defendant's mortgage lien on debtors' residence. The court held that summary judgment was improper in this case because there was a material issue of fact regarding whether defendant had possession of the original promissory note.

The Chapter 7 trustee appealed from the decision of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) reversing the bankruptcy court's judgment that the proceeds of personal property sold with a homestead were not proceeds of the homestead. The court held that the BAP committed two errors: first, the BAP required only "sufficient indicia" of an intent to convert non-exempt personal property into exempt homestead property where, as a matter of law, there must not only be an intent to convert non-exempt assets, but also an actual conversion; and second, in reversing the bankruptcy court, the BAP said "we find" an intent by debtor to convert non-exempt property into exempt property where findings of fact were the sole province of the bankruptcy court. The court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Plaintiffs sued Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. under the Missouri Second Mortgage Loan Act (MSMLA), Mo. Rev. State. 408.231-.241, alleging, for a putative class, that Countrywide charged them unauthorized interest and fees in violation of section 408.233.1. The district court granted summary judgment for Countrywide and plaintiffs appealed. The court held that because interest accrued for the two days before plaintiffs receive the loan discount and settlement/closing fee as a result of the alleged MSMLA violations, plaintiffs have raised a material issue of fact as to whether the alleged violations caused their loss. The court also held that because the document processing/delivery fee was not included in section 408.233's exclusive list of authorized charges, it violated the MSMLA. The court further held that because the document processing/delivery fee violated the MSMLA, the prepaid interest Countrywide collected on plaintiffs' loan was an additional violation of the statute. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Debtor appealed from the Order of the Bankruptcy Court appointing a trustee in its involuntary Chapter 11 case. The court held that since the record supported a finding of cause under 11 U.S.C. 1104(a)(1), and that the appointment of a trustee was in the interest of creditors and the estate under section 1104(a)(2), the appointment of the trustee was mandatory. Therefore, the Bankruptcy Court's order was affirmed.

This case stemmed from a dispute regarding the conversion of a railroad line on plaintiffs' property to a public trail, pursuant to the National Trail System Act of 1968, 16 U.S.C. 1241 et seq. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, brought suit against defendant, alleging claims of inverse condemnation and trespass under Missouri law. After defendant removed the case to federal district court, that court granted defendant's motion to dismiss, concluding that the applicable statutes of limitations had expired on both of plaintiffs' claims. The court held that because plaintiffs did not file their suit until December 23, 2002, both claims were time-barred, absent a tolling a provision or some exception to the statute of limitations. The court also held that plaintiffs failed to allege a continuous trespass and their trespass claim was barred by the applicable five-year statute of limitations.

The owners of Landmark Towers appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Green Tree Servicing, LLC (Green Tree), permitting Green Tree to vacate office space it subleased from the owners' tenant (DBSI). The lease agreements at issue in this case arose from a complex real estate transaction that DBSI and its affiliates commonly structured in order to generate revenue. DBSI, a tenant in common syndicator, or an affiliate - here DBSI Landmark, LLC - acquired commercial property and leased it to another affiliate - here DBSI Leaseco. The court found that, irrespective of 11 U.S.C. 365(h), principles of contract law dictated that DBSI Leaseco and Green Tree were no longer required to perform their obligations to each under the sublease. The court also found that the sublease contained promises between the tenants in common (TIC) and Green Tree via the attornment provision and therefore, the parties were in privity of contract regardless of their status as master landlord and sublessee. The court further found that the only surviving contractual interest in the sublease was the TIC's right to attornment, which was triggered only when the TIC succeeded to the interest of DBSI Leaseco. Therefore, the sublease did not require Green Tree to attorn to the TIC here.

The Minch Family sued the Estate of the Norbys in diversity, seeking injunctive relief and damages for flooding of the Minch Family's property, allegedly caused by a field dike built on the Norbys' land. At issue was whether the district court erred in concluding that the Minch Family's claims were time-barred and whether the magistrate judge abused its discretion by denying the Minch Family's motion to amend its complaint to allege a claim for punitive damages and the Minch Family's motion to amend the scheduling order. The court held that the Minch Family had failed to meet its burden of showing that the applicable two year-statute of limitations should be tolled and its claims were untimely. The court held that because it had affirmed the district court's dismissal of the Minch Family's claims as time-barred, the issue of punitive damages was moot. The court further held that because the Minch Family's motion only related to its claim for punitive damages, the court need not address the issue of whether the magistrate judge abused its discretion in denying its motion to amend the court's scheduling order. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.

Debtor appealed from the bankruptcy court's order confirming his modified Chapter 13 plan over his objection. At issue was whether the bankruptcy court could confirm the debtor's plan which provided for the avoidance of two junior liens on the debtor's principal residence. The court held that 11 U.S.C. 1322(b)(2) did not bar a Chapter 13 debtor from stripping off a wholly unsecured lien on his principal residence. The court also held that the strip off of a wholly unsecured lien on a debtor's principal residence was effective upon completion of the debtor's obligations under this plan and it was not contingent on his receipt of a Chapter 13 discharge. Accordingly, the court reversed the decision of the bankruptcy court and remanded for further proceedings where the debtor must amend his plan to provide for proper treatment of the junior lienholders' claims as unsecured nonpriority claims.

Plaintiff appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendant on his claim of malicious prosecution under Arkansas law. The district court held that plaintiff failed to present evidence sufficient to withstand summary judgment on two of the five elements necessary to sustain his claim. The court held that the district court erred in holding that the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to sustain plaintiff's claim that defendant brought suit against him on the guaranty without probable cause. The court also held that a jury must decide what was defendant's motive or purpose in suing plaintiff if it in fact understood it had no reasonable chance of prevailing on the merits of its claim against plaintiff.