Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

This three-way dispute between Link Development, LLC (Link), BD Lending Trust (BD), and RFF Family Partnership LP (RFF) stemmed from an unauthorized conveyance of a mortgage to BD on commercial property in Massachusetts, then owned by Link and now owned by RFF. Previous litigation resulted in settlement agreements between Link and BD and between RFF and BD. In this appeal, RFF challenged (1) the district court’s entry of summary judgment for Link and against RFF on RFF’s claims regarding the validity of the BD mortgage on the grounds that RFF was judicially estopped from challenging the validity of the mortgage, and (2) the court’s decision to exclude attorneys’ fees from damages that BD owed RFF for breach of the settlement agreement between RFF and BD, and the court’s refusal to enter judgment as a matter of law in favor of RFF on contract damages. The First Circuit (1) vacated the entry of summary judgment on RFF’s claims pertaining to the validity of the BD mortgage, holding that the district court abused its discretion in applying judicial estoppel; and (2) affirmed the district court’s decisions related to contract damages and the court’s award of attorneys’ fees under Chapter 93A of the Massachusetts General Laws. View "RFF Family Partnership, LP v. Link Dev., LLC" on Justia Law

Sharel Giroux executed a promissory note secured by a mortgage on her home. The mortgage and note were assigned to Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae). Giroux filed suit in a New Hampshire state court contending that Fannie Mae and others lacked sufficient rights to assign the note. Giroux’s claim was dismissed for lack of standing. After a foreclosure sale was scheduled, Giroux filed a complaint against Fannie Mae and MERSCORP Holdings, Inc. seeking to enjoin the sale. The action was removed to federal district court. The district court dismissed Giroux’s action, concluding that, because her claims could have been brought before the New Hampshire state court, her action was barred on res judicata grounds. Giroux moved to vacate the district court’s judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60. The district court summarily denied the request. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Giroux’s claim lacked merit, even if the court declined to offer a rationale. View "Giroux v. Fed. Nat’l Mortgage Ass’n" on Justia Law

Appellants sought permission from the Town of Rome Planning Board to build a wireless communications tower. The Planning Board voted to deny Appellants’ application. Appellants subsequently filed suit alleging various claims under the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (TCA), the Due Process Clause, and Maine law. The TCA provides relief to those who are denied permission to build telecommunications facilities at the state or local level through “final action.” The district court dismissed the majority of the TCA claims without prejudice because Appellants had not appealed to the Board of Appeals at the time they filed their TCA claims and also dismissed Appellants’ due process challenges. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court correctly dismissed Appellants’ TCA claims, as the Planning Board’s decision did not mark the end of the administrative process and thus was not a “final action” for TCA purposes; and (2) Appellants’ federal constitutional due process claims were without merit. View "Global Tower Assets LLC v. Town of Rome" on Justia Law

In 2014, Perfect Puppy, Inc. signed a lease to use a City of East Providence building for a “Puppy Sales store.” Less than two months later, the East Providence city council formally passed an ordinance banning dog and cat sales. Perfect Puppy sued East Providence in state court. The case was removed to federal court on federal-question grounds. The district judge granted East Providence summary judgment on all claims except Perfect Puppy’s takings claim. As for any possible facial-takings challenge, the judge concluded that the claim lacked development. Noting that Perfect Puppy had not asked the state for compensation, the judge deemed the as-applied challenge unripe and remanded the suit to state court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The First Circuit affirmed the judge’s handling of the facial-takings issue and dismissed Perfect Puppy’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction as to that part of the judge’s order remanding the as-applied claim to state court, holding (1) Perfect Puppy failed to bring a facial-takings challenge; and (2) the lack-of-jurisdiction ground for the remand of the as-applied challenge was colorable, which meant that the First Circuit lacked appellate jurisdiction to review the judge’s decision. View "Perfect Puppy, Inc. v. City of East Providence" on Justia Law

The decedent, who owned property in Rhode Island, entered into a reverse mortgage with Financial Freedom providing that the full amount of the debt would become due and payable upon the borrower’s death. Financial Freedom subsequently assigned the mortgage to Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. as a nominee of Financial Freedom. After the decedent died, the probate court granted the decedent’s interest in the property to Plaintiffs, the decedent’s son and daughter. Thereafter, Plaintiffs received a notice of foreclosure, foreclosure proceedings went forward, and the mortgage was reassigned to Financial Freedom. Plaintiffs sued in federal district court, contesting the validity of the serial mortgage assignments and the foreclosure itself. The district court granted summary judgment for Financial Freedom. The son appealed. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (2) Plaintiff lacked standing to challenge the mortgage assignments; and (2) Financial Freedom’s failure to file a claim in the probate proceedings did not pretermit its right to foreclosure on the property. View "Summers v. Fin. Freedom Acquisition LLC" on Justia Law