Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

LaOstriches, Laura Avila-Barraza, and Avila-Barraza’s three children filed claims to property the United States was seeking civil forfeiture to based on the ground that the funds were money-laundered drug trafficking proceeds. The district court dismissed LaOstriches’s claim due to repeated failures to comply with orders that its corporate treasurer and secretary appear for discovery depositions. The district court granted summary judgment, dismissing Avila-Barraza’s claim because she failed to establish a sufficient interest in the seized property. In this case, that Avila-Barraza, the remaining claimant, was ultimately unsuccessful in defeating the government’s forfeiture claim did not convert the order dismissing LaOstriches’s claim into punishment that was subject to the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause; the district court erred in dismissing Avila-Barraza’s claim on the ground that she lacks Article III standing; in the alternative, the district court did not err in granting summary judgment rejecting Avila-Barraza’s claim that she is an innocent owner of the funds sought to be forfeited; and Avila-Barraza did have standing, and in particular, standing to contest the government’s claim that the funds are drug trafficking proceeds subject to civil forfeiture. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Barraza" on Justia Law

Appellants filed a class action claiming the right to title and possession of twelve square miles of land in southern Minnesota. Appellants allege that they are lineal descendants of the Mdewakanton band of the Sioux tribe who were loyal to the United States during the 1862 uprising, and that the Secretary of the Interior set apart the twelve square miles for the loyal Mdewakanton and their descendants. The court concluded that the district court correctly held that appellants failed to state a claim under federal common law as set forth in the progeny of Oneida Indian Nation v. County of Oneida; the district court properly granted defendants' motions to dismiss on the ground that Section 9 of the Act of February 16, 1863, Act of Feb. 16, 1863, ch. 37, 9, 12 Stat. 652, 654, does not provide a private remedy to the loyal Mdewakanton; the district court abused its discretion when it imposed sanctions, and the claims regarding the appellate-cost bond are moot; and, because the district court made no findings regarding the propriety of the Municipal Appelllees' motion for costs, the motion was moot. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of appellees' motion to dismiss; vacated the order imposing sanctions and requiring an appellate-cost bond; and remanded for limited consideration of Municipal Appellees’ motion for costs Under Rule 54(d) and 28 U.S.C. 1920. View "Wolfchild v. Redwood County" on Justia Law

The utility and its insurers filed suit against BendTec for negligence, alleging that its pipes were the source of grit and had been improperly cleaned. The district court granted summary judgment to BendTec. The court affirmed the judgment, agreeing with the district court's conclusion that the negligence claim was barred under the two year limitations period in Minn. Stat. 541.051 since the installation of the turbine was an improvement to real property. Because the two year statute of limitations in Minn. Stat. 541.051 applies and the subdivision 1(e) exception does not, and plaintiffs did not file this lawsuit within the limitations period, the district court correctly granted summary judgment to BendTec. View "Associated Electric & Gas Ins. v. BendTec, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against Green Tree to prevent it from foreclosing on plaintiffs' home. Plaintiffs alleged that Green Tree lacked authority to foreclose. The district court granted Green Tree's motion to dismiss based on plaintiffs' lack of standing to challenge the assignment between creditors and concluded that plaintiffs' notice claim failed to state a plausible claim for relief under Ashcroft v. Iqbal. The court concluded that plaintiffs' invalid assignment claim is nearly identical to the claim in Quale v. Aurora Loan Services, LLC, where the court determined the homeowners did not have standing to raise such a claim because they “were not injured by the assignment” and any harm to the homeowners was not fairly traceable to the allegedly invalid assignment. The court also rejected plaintiffs' contention that the district court erred in dismissing their amended complaint where plaintiffs failed to state a facially plausible claim for relief. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Brown v. Green Tree Servicing LLC" on Justia Law

BN applied for an exemption permitting expeditious abandonment of a railroad line. The STB granted but then revoked an exemption prior to completion of the abandonment and instead authorized BN to enter into an “interim trail use/rail banking agreement” in accordance with the National Trails System Act (Trails Act), 16 U.S.C. 1247(d), as implemented by the STB in 49 C.F.R. 1152.29. In 2014, plaintiffs, ranchers who own properties underlying and surrounding the railway right-of-way easement, filed two separate actions against the State and the Department, seeking a declaration quieting title to the right-of-way because the easement terminated by operation of law when BN ceased railroad operations. The district court consolidated the two cases and concluded that plaintiffs' claims fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the STB, and granted Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) dismissals for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court concluded that plaintiffs' claims are not within the STB’s exclusive jurisdiction, but that the Amended Complaints - alleging that defendants “stand in the shoes” of the BN, and therefore defendants cannot impose non-railroad restrictions on plaintiffs’ rights as servient landowners,- failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Accordingly, the court modified part of the district court judgment and otherwise affirmed. View "Trevarton v. South Dakota" on Justia Law

Quality Ag filed suit contending that it owns a sidetrack by means of adverse possession due to its continuous possession of the sidetrack from August 25, 2000 to August 25, 2010. BNSF has stored equipment on the sidetrack since one of its trains derailed near it on August 3, 2010. The district court granted summary judgment to BNSF, concluding that the adverse possession claim by Quality Ag was insufficiently pled, that BNSF owns the sidetrack, and that the agreement alleged by Quality Ag lacked consideration. The court concluded that Quality Ag's claim of adverse possession fails since it did not exclusively possess the sidetrack for at least ten years. Because Quality Ag has not shown that it owns the sidetrack, its breach of contract claim also fails. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Quality Ag. Serv. of Iowa, Inc. v. BNSF Railway" on Justia Law