Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

Since 2001 Hoyt has owned a 40-acre lot (with a cabin) in a heavily forested region in southwestern Indiana. His lot is surrounded by lots owned by others, including a lot owned by the U.S. Forest Service. None will allow him to use their land to enable vehicular access to his property. No public roads touch his land. The owner of the lot directly to his north allows him to walk through that lot to access his lot. Wanting access to West Burma Road, which runs close to the southeastern corner of Hoyt’s lot, he sued under Indiana law and the Quiet Title Act, 28 U.S.C. 2409a. The access he sought would cross three lots. The district judge rejected his claims. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, calling the duration of the litigation “inexplicable and inexcusable.” The court rejected claims of prescriptive easement over the Forest Service land and of an easement of necessity over the southwestern lot. View "Hoyt v. Benham" on Justia Law

The Smiths lived in a Joliet home, title to which passed to wife in 2004 as an inheritance. Real estate taxes had gone unpaid in 2000, resulting in a tax lien. At a 2001 auction, SIPI purchased the tax lien and paid the delinquent taxes—$4,046.26—plus costs and was awarded a Certificate of Purchase. Smith did not redeem her tax obligation. SIPI recorded its tax deed in 2005 and sold the property to Midwest for $50,000. In 2007, the Smiths filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy relief and sought to avoid the tax sale. The bankruptcy judge and the Seventh Circuit found a fraudulent transfer (11 U.S.C. 548(a)(1)(B)) because the property was not transferred for reasonably equivalent value, but found Midwest a subsequent transferee in good faith. The 1994 Supreme Court decision, BFP v. Resolution Trust, that a mortgage foreclosure sale that complies with state law is deemed for “reasonably equivalent value” as a matter of law, does not apply in Illinois. Unlike mortgage foreclosure sales and some other states’ tax sales, Illinois tax sales do not involve competitive bidding where the highest bid wins. Instead, bidders bid how little money they are willing to accept in return for payment of the owner’s delinquent taxes. The lowest bid wins; bid amounts bear no relationship to the value of the real estate. View "Smith v. Sipi, LLC" on Justia Law