Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

Wehr Constructors, Inc. (Wehr) entered into a contract with St. Claire Medical Center (St. Claire) to build an addition to the hospital. Wehr's performance was allegedly deficient, leading to significant construction defects. St. Claire terminated the contract and sought damages from Wehr's performance-bond carrier, Travelers Casualty and Surety Company (Travelers Surety). Travelers Surety then involved Wehr in the litigation. Wehr sought defense coverage from its insurers: Phoenix Insurance Company (Phoenix), St. Paul Surplus Lines Insurance Company (St. Paul), and Travelers Property Casualty Company of America (Travelers Property).The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky ruled that none of Wehr’s insurers had a duty to defend Wehr in the lawsuit initiated by St. Claire. The court held that Phoenix’s duty to defend was not triggered because St. Claire did not assert claims directly against Wehr. It also found that St. Paul had no duty to defend because Wehr did not specifically agree to perform as a construction manager, a requirement under the St. Paul policy. Although Wehr did not seek summary judgment against Travelers Property, the court noted that Travelers Property also had no duty to defend for the same reasons as Phoenix.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s decision regarding St. Paul, agreeing that Wehr did not specifically agree to serve as a construction manager. However, it reversed the decision regarding Phoenix, holding that Phoenix had a duty to defend Wehr because the damages alleged by St. Claire potentially fell within the policy coverage, and Wehr was a party to the suit. The court vacated the decision regarding Travelers Property and remanded for further proceedings to determine whether Travelers Property had a duty to defend, given the ambiguity in the district court’s ruling and the stipulation by the parties. View "Phoenix Insurance Co. v. Wehr Constructors, Inc." on Justia Law

Tyler Ross, a manager and co-CEO of ROCO Real Estate LLC and ROCO Management LLC, pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States. Ross was involved in a scheme to provide mortgage lenders with inflated income information about properties owned by his real-estate-investment firm. The scheme involved submitting false financial documents to mortgage lending businesses to make underperforming properties appear more profitable than they were, thereby obtaining favorable mortgage valuations and refinancing terms.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan applied a sentencing enhancement for defendants who derived more than $1,000,000 in gross receipts from one or more financial institutions as a result of their offense. The district court found that Ross's conduct met the enhancement's requirements, as he received over $2 million from a property sale financed by a loan from JPMorgan Chase Bank, which relied on falsified financial documents provided by Ross. The district court sentenced Ross to 12 months and one day of imprisonment, granting a downward variance from the guideline range of 46-57 months.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's judgment. The court held that the gross-receipts enhancement was correctly applied because Ross's offense targeted financial institutions, and he derived gross receipts from a financial institution as a result of his offense. The court rejected Ross's arguments that the enhancement should only apply when a defendant causes loss to a financial institution and that his receipts were derived from a real-estate firm rather than a financial institution. The court emphasized that the enhancement applies to gross receipts obtained directly or indirectly from a financial institution as a result of the offense. View "United States v. Ross" on Justia Law

Faytima Howard failed to pay her property taxes, leading Macomb County, Michigan, to seize and sell her property in 2023. Howard sued, claiming the county violated the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment by keeping proceeds exceeding her tax debt. Previously, Michigan's foreclosure regime was found unconstitutional for not compensating property owners for the surplus from foreclosure sales. However, Michigan amended its law in 2020 to allow property owners to claim any surplus value from foreclosed properties. Howard did not utilize this process.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan dismissed Howard's complaint for failure to state a claim. The court noted that Michigan's amended law provided a procedure for property owners to claim surplus proceeds, which Howard did not follow. The district court concluded that because Howard did not take advantage of the process, her claim was invalid.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that Michigan's procedure for claiming surplus proceeds from foreclosure sales complies with the Takings Clause, as it provides property owners with a reasonable opportunity to claim any surplus. The court distinguished this case from others where no such process was available, emphasizing that Howard's failure to follow the state procedure meant no taking occurred. The court also rejected Howard's arguments that the process was overly burdensome and that the lack of interest and attorney's fees constituted a taking. The court concluded that Michigan's procedures are constitutionally sound and do not violate the Fifth Amendment. View "Howard v. Macomb Cnty., Mich." on Justia Law

Michael and Rebecca McIntosh owned a mobile home park in Madisonville, Kentucky. In 2020, a tenant complained about mold and mildew in one of the mobile homes. The City of Madisonville inspected the home and found it unsafe, condemning it and giving the McIntoshes 30 days to submit repair plans. The McIntoshes disputed the condemnation, claiming they made necessary repairs and attempted to contact city officials multiple times without success. The City demolished the mobile home a month later.The McIntoshes pursued a § 1983 action, alleging due process violations. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the City, leading the McIntoshes to appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that while the City provided adequate notice of the condemnation, it failed to provide the McIntoshes with a pre-demolition hearing, as required by due process. The court noted that the City’s Code promised a hearing before a Local Appeals Board, which did not exist. The court also found that informal opportunities for a hearing were not adequately communicated to the McIntoshes. However, the court upheld the district court’s decision on the substantive due process claim, stating that the City’s actions did not rise to the level of conscience-shocking behavior. The court reversed the district court’s summary judgment on the procedural due process claim and affirmed the decision on the substantive due process claim, remanding the case for further proceedings on the procedural due process claim. View "McIntosh v. City of Madisonville" on Justia Law

Debtor-landlord did not retain sufficient rights in rents assigned to lender for those rents to be included in landlord's bankruptcy estate. Town Center owns a 53-unit Shelby Township residential complex; its construction was financed by a $5.3 million loan owned by ECP. The mortgage included an assignment of rents to the creditor in the event of default. Rents from the complex are Town Center’s only income. Town Center defaulted. ECP sent notice to tenants in compliance with the agreement and with Mich. Comp. Laws 554.231, which allows creditors to collect rents directly from tenants of certain mortgaged properties. ECP recorded the notice documents as required by the statute. ECP filed a foreclosure complaint. A week later, Town Center filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy relief, then owing ECP $5,329,329 plus fees and costs. The parties reached an agreement to allow Town Center to collect rents, with $15,000 per month to pay down the debt to ECP and the remainder for authorized expenses. Town Center’s bankruptcy petition resulted in an automatic stay on the state-court case, 11 U.S.C. 362(a). ECP unsuccessfully moved to prohibit Town Center from using rents collected after the petition was filed. The district vacated. The Sixth Circuit reversed; Town Center did not retain sufficient rights in the assigned rents under Michigan law for those rents to be included in the bankruptcy estate. View "In re: Town Center Flats, LLC" on Justia Law

In 2014, Brown filed a voluntary Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition, disclosing her ownership of a residence in Ypsilanti, Michigan, valued at $170,000 and subject to $219,000 in secured mortgage claims held by two separate creditors. Brown’s initial petition stated her intent to surrender her residence to the estate and did not claim any exemptions for the value of her redemption rights under Michigan law. The Trustee sought the court’s permission to sell the house for $160,000 and to distribute the proceeds among Brown’s creditors and professionals involved in selling the home. Brown objected and sought to amend her initial disclosures to claim exemptions for the value of her redemption rights (about $23,000) under Mich. Comp. Laws 600.3240, citing 11 U.S.C. 522(d). The bankruptcy court granted the Trustee permission to sell the property and denied Brown’s requested exemptions. The district court and Sixth Circuit affirmed, reasoning that Brown lacked any equity in the property after it sold for substantially less than the value of the secured claims. View "Brown v. Ellmann" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs each owned real property in Van Buren County, Michigan in but failed to pay property taxes for 2011. In 2012, the properties became subject to forfeiture and foreclosure. In 2014, the circuit court issued a foreclosure judgment; title to the properties passed in fee simple absolute to the county. Months later, the county sold the properties at an auction. The minimum bid for each of the properties was calculated by totaling “[a]ll delinquent taxes, interest, penalties, and fees due on the property” plus the “expenses of administering the sale, including all preparations for the sale.” Wayside Church’s former property had a minimum bid of $16,750, but sold for $206,000. The minimum bid for the Stahl property was $25,000; the property sold for $68,750. The Hodgens property required a minimum bid of $5,900, but sold for $47,750. Plaintiffs sought return of the surplus funds, citing 42 U.S.C. 1983, and alleging that they had a cognizable property interest in their foreclosed properties and in the surplus proceeds generated by the sales, so that Defendants were required to pay just compensation under the Fifth Amendment. The Sixth Circuit vacated dismissal for failure to state a claim and remanded for dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. the district court erred in finding that the claims were not barred by the Tax Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. 1341, and the doctrine of comity. View "Wayside Church v. Van Buren County" on Justia Law

In 1949, the federal government deeded a large parcel to the Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District (MWCD), the entity responsible for controlling flooding in eastern Ohio. The deed provided that the land would revert to the United States if MWCD alienated or attempted to alienate it, or if MWCD stopped using the land for recreation, conservation, or reservoir-development purposes. MWCD sold rights to conduct hydraulic fracturing (fracking) operations on the land. Fracking opponents discovered the deed restrictions and, arguing that MWCD’s sale of fracking rights triggered the reversion, filed a “qui tam” suit under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3729. alleging that MWCD was knowingly withholding United States property from the government. The Sixth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the claim. The court noted recent legislative amendments that replace a fraudulent-intent requirement in two FCA provisions with a requirement that the defendant acted “knowingly,” but concluded that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim even under the more lenient scienter requirement; they did not specify whether or how MWCD knew or should have known that it was in violation of the deed restrictions, such that it knew or should have known that title to the property reverted to the United States. View "Harper v. Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District" on Justia Law

East of Youngstown’s Center Street Bridge, Allied owns land containing the “LTV tracks.” Mahoning Railroad Company has an easement to use those tracks. Mahoning began parking rail cars on the tracks, which Allied considered a violation of the easement. A state court referred the matter to the Surface Transportation Board. Allied challenged the Board’s jurisdiction, arguing that the tracks were “spur, side, or industrial tracks,” excepted tracks under 49 U.S.C. 10906. The Board concluded (erroneously) that it had previously authorized Mahoning to provide common-carrier service using the LTV tracks; that Mahoning, therefore, was a “railroad carrier”; and that the easement did not forbid the use. Allied introduced an affidavit from a former Mahoning employee, asserting that the LTV tracks had been built as part of a strictly in-plant system and were never subject to Board control, then argued that the LTV tracks were private tracks outside the Board’s jurisdiction, rather than excepted tracks. The Board agreed that it had not authorized Mahoning to use the tracks, but concluded that the LTV tracks were mainline tracks, over which it had jurisdiction. Because Allied waited five years to clarify its position, the Board did not consider the “new evidence” and reaffirmed. Mahoning alleges that it owns lot 62188, west of the bridge; Allied alleges that it bought the lot and sought to evict Mahoning. The Board concluded that the 62188 tracks are either excepted or mainline tracks, within its jurisdiction, and remanded to state court for determination of land title. The Sixth Circuit denied an appeal. Mahoning’s use of the tracks fits the statutory definition of “transportation by rail carrier . . . by railroad” and is within the Board’s jurisdiction View "Allied Erecting & Dismantling Co., Inc. v. Surface Transp. Bd." on Justia Law

In 2006, plaintiffs procured a mortgage from Regions to purchase a home near the Cumberland River. The National Flood Insurance Act (NFIA) requires mortgagors to obtain flood insurance for properties in flood zones, 42 U.S.C. 4012a(b)(1). CoreLogic provided Regions with flood-zone certification. The National Flood Insurance Program Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) showed that the property was in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA), but CoreLogic informed plaintiffs that their property was in a non-SFHA zone. FEMA issued a revised FIRM for the area months later. Regions informed plaintiffs that their home was in a flood zone and that they must procure flood insurance within 45 days. Plaintiffs hired Vandenbergh, who procured for them a Nationwide Standard Flood Insurance Policy for a home constructed before the effective FIRM. Plaintiffs’ home, built in 1984, after the 1981 FIRM, required a post-FIRM policy, under which they could receive full coverage only after obtaining an elevation certificate showing sufficient elevation above the base flood zone. A 2010 flood submerged plaintiffs’ home in 16” of water. Nationwide informed plaintiffs of pre-/post-FIRM discrepancy and required an elevation certificate, which showed that the home’s lower level was below the base flood-zone elevation. Because plaintiffs’ home was post-FIRM and situated below the base flood-zone elevation, their SFIP did not cover all losses “below the lowest elevated floor.” FEMA upheld Nationwide’s coverage determination. The Sixth Circuit affirmed partial summary judgment for Vandenbergh, but vacated dismissal of claims against Regions, CoreLogic, and Nationwide. The NFIA did not preempt state-law claims arising from procurement of the SFIP: that plaintiffs would not have purchased their home absent defendants’ negligence and breach of fiduciary duty. View "Harris v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins." on Justia Law