Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

Santa Rita Holdings, Inc. applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) from the County of Santa Barbara to cultivate cannabis on a 2.54-acre parcel owned by Kim Hughes. The only access to the parcel is through a private easement over land owned by JCCrandall, LLC. The County's fire and public works departments deemed the road adequate for the project. Despite JCCrandall's objections, the County granted the CUP, and the Board of Supervisors upheld this decision.JCCrandall petitioned for a writ of administrative mandate, arguing that the use of the easement for cannabis activities was prohibited by the easement deed and federal law, that state law required their consent for such activities, and that the road did not meet County standards. The trial court denied the petition, applying the substantial evidence standard and finding the County's decision supported by substantial evidence.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Six, reviewed the case. The court determined that the trial court erred in applying the substantial evidence standard instead of the independent judgment standard, as JCCrandall's right to exclude unauthorized persons from their property is a fundamental vested right. The appellate court held that under federal law, cannabis is illegal, and thus, the use of the easement for cannabis transportation exceeds the scope of the easement. The court also found that the County's reliance on Civil Code section 1550.5, subdivision (b), which deems cannabis activities lawful under California law, defies the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Consequently, the judgment was reversed, and costs were awarded to JCCrandall. View "JCCrandall v. County of Santa Barbara" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute over two adjacent properties, each containing a multi-unit apartment complex with on-site parking. The plaintiffs, Eli and Maha Batta, sought to establish easement rights for additional parking and trash dumpsters on a disputed area of the adjacent property owned by the defendant, Therese Hunt. The Battas purchased their property from Hunt in 1994 and claimed that their tenants had used the disputed area for parking and dumpsters since then.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County conducted a bench trial and ruled in favor of the Battas, finding they had established easement rights by oral grant, prescription, and implication. The court granted the easement but ordered it to expire upon a bona fide sale of either property. Both parties appealed the decision. Hunt argued that the trial court erred in granting the easement on procedural and evidentiary grounds, while the Battas contended that the court abused its discretion by ruling that the easement would expire upon a sale.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case and found that the trial court's findings were inconsistent and irreconcilable. The trial court had found both that Hunt had granted an easement and that the Battas' use of the property was without permission, which are contradictory. The appellate court concluded that these inconsistent findings required reversal. Additionally, the appellate court found that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the Battas to amend their complaint to add a cause of action for an easement by implication without giving Hunt the opportunity to rebut the evidence.The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Batta v. Hunt" on Justia Law

The case involves a proposed residential housing development project near the University of Southern California (USC) by the City of Los Angeles. The project, which includes 102 units and various amenities, was found by the City to be exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as a Class 32 urban in-fill development. The appellants, West Adams Heritage Association and Adams Severance Coalition, challenged this determination, arguing that the City abused its discretion by not finding the project consistent with the applicable redevelopment plan, improperly relying on mitigation measures for noise impacts, and failing to show the project would not have significant adverse impacts on traffic safety.The Los Angeles County Superior Court denied the appellants' writ petition, rejecting their challenges to the project. The court found that the City did not abuse its discretion in concluding the project would not have significant impacts on traffic or historical resources. The appellants then appealed the decision.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case. The court initially reversed the trial court's decision, holding that the City improperly relied on mitigation measures for noise impacts. However, the Supreme Court transferred the case back to the Court of Appeal with instructions to reconsider in light of Assembly Bill No. 1307 and the Make UC A Good Neighbor v. Regents of University of California decision.Upon reconsideration, the Court of Appeal held that under the new law, noise generated by project occupants and their guests is not considered a significant environmental effect under CEQA. Therefore, the noise concerns do not preclude the application of the Class 32 exemption. The court also determined that the City must assess whether the project is consistent with the applicable redevelopment plan before granting the exemption. The court reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the case for the City to conduct this analysis. The court also concluded that the state density bonus law preempts the redevelopment plan's density provisions, allowing the City to calculate the project's allowable density based on the general zoning ordinance. View "West Adams Heritage Assn. v. City of Los Angeles" on Justia Law

Condominium owners Gregory and Kathleen Haidet filed a lawsuit against their homeowners association (HOA), Del Mar Woods Homeowners Association, alleging that their upstairs neighbors' improperly installed floors constituted a nuisance. The HOA demurred to the Haidets' initial complaint, and the trial court sustained the demurrer, dismissing one cause of action without leave to amend and two with leave to amend. The Haidets chose not to amend their claims against the HOA and instead filed an amended complaint naming only other defendants. Subsequently, the Haidets filed a motion to dismiss the HOA without prejudice, while the HOA filed a motion to dismiss with prejudice. The trial court granted the HOA's request for dismissal with prejudice and awarded the HOA attorney fees.The trial court found that the Haidets' breach of contract claim failed because the governing documents did not require HOA consent for installing hardwood flooring. Additionally, the claims were time-barred as the Haidets had notice of their claims starting in 2016 but did not file until 2022. The court also found that the HOA had no fiduciary duty regarding the structural violation of the governing documents and that the business judgment rule applied to the HOA's decisions. The court dismissed the breach of fiduciary duty claim without leave to amend.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case. The court held that the trial court was permitted to dismiss the HOA with prejudice under Code of Civil Procedure section 581, subdivision (f)(2), as the Haidets failed to amend their claims against the HOA within the allowed time. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's determination that the HOA was the prevailing party for purposes of Civil Code section 5975 and its award of $48,229.08 in attorney fees. The judgment was affirmed. View "Haidet v. Del Mar Woods Homeowners Assn." on Justia Law

Best Development Group, LLC proposed to develop a Grocery Outlet store in King City. The King City Planning Commission approved the project, determining it was exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under the class 32 categorical exemption for infill development. Efrain Aguilera appealed this decision to the King City Council, which denied the appeal and upheld the exemption. Aguilera and Working Families of Monterey County then filed a petition for writ of mandate, arguing that the class 32 exemption did not apply because the project was not in an urbanized area and the environmental assessment was inadequate.The Monterey County Superior Court denied the petition, ruling that the class 32 exemption did not require the project to be in an urbanized area as defined by CEQA and that substantial evidence supported the City’s determination that the project met the exemption criteria. The court also found that the City was not required to conduct a formal environmental review.The California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court held that the terms “infill development” and “substantially surrounded by urban uses” in CEQA Guidelines section 15332 should not be interpreted using the statutory definitions of “infill site,” “urbanized area,” and “qualified urban uses” from other sections of CEQA. The court found that the regulatory intent was to reduce sprawl by exempting development in already developed areas, typically but not exclusively in urban areas. The court also determined that substantial evidence supported the City’s finding that the project site was substantially surrounded by urban uses, based on the environmental assessment and aerial photographs.The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, concluding that the class 32 exemption for infill development applied to the Grocery Outlet project, and no further CEQA compliance was required. View "Working Families of Monterey County v. King City Planning Com." on Justia Law

Flathead Properties, L.L.C. (Appellant) owned a tract of land along Flathead Lake that became an island during certain months due to rising water levels. In 2011, Appellant received a permit from the Flathead County Planning and Zoning Office to build a bridge connecting the island to the peninsula. The Community Association for North Shore Conservation (C.A.N.S.C.) challenged the permit, arguing it violated the Montana Lakeshore Protection Act. The District Court voided the permit and ordered the bridge's removal, a decision upheld by the Montana Supreme Court.Following the Supreme Court's decision, Appellant filed a claim for inverse condemnation against Flathead County, arguing that the court-ordered removal of the bridge constituted a taking of its vested property interest, requiring compensation. The County filed a motion to dismiss under M. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), arguing that since the permit was void ab initio, Appellant never had a vested property interest. The District Court granted the motion, agreeing with the County's reasoning.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case and reversed the District Court's decision. The Court held that Appellant's complaint contained sufficient facts to support a claim for inverse condemnation or, alternatively, a regulatory takings claim. The Court noted that Appellant had a constitutionally protected property interest in the bridge once it was built and that the County's actions in issuing and then voiding the permit could be seen as a taking requiring just compensation. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Flathead Properties L.L.C. v. Flathead Cty" on Justia Law

Appellees Gordon Tait and Michelle Janz plan to build a residence at the base of their property adjacent to Whitefish Lake. The proposed access to their home is a narrow dirt road that crosses both Appellees’ and Appellants’ lots, part of an express easement allowing all lot owners to use the road. Appellants challenged this use, arguing the easement was intended only for summer access to the lake, not for regular travel to a residence, and that their properties would be unduly burdened by the construction.The Eleventh Judicial District Court, Flathead County, ruled in favor of Appellees, determining the easement’s language was specific and did not prohibit year-round use of the road. The court granted summary judgment to Appellees, leading to this appeal.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. The court examined the easement’s language and found it unambiguous regarding year-round use. The easement explicitly permitted motor vehicle traffic across a ten-foot right of way without seasonal limitations. The court noted that while the easement limited shared maintenance costs to summer use, it did not restrict the road’s use to summer months only. The court also found no basis to prohibit the use of the road for constructing a residence, as the easement did not limit the type of access provided.The court affirmed the District Court’s decision, holding that the easement allowed year-round use and did not restrict the road’s use to accessing only non-residential structures. Concerns about potential overburdening of the easement due to construction were deemed speculative and not ripe for adjudication. View "Archer v. Tait" on Justia Law

Donald Fleming filed a lawsuit against Caribou Creek Log Homes, Inc. and North Idaho Insulation, LLC, alleging that spray foam insulation installed by North Idaho Insulation caused significant structural damage to his residence in Montana. Fleming's claims included negligence, violations of residential construction defect statutes, the Montana Consumer Protection Act, and breach of warranties. North Idaho Insulation then filed a third-party complaint against Southwest Distributing Co. (Southwest), alleging that Southwest manufactured and sold the defective spray foam insulation and seeking indemnification and contribution.The Montana Nineteenth Judicial District Court denied Southwest's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, concluding that it had specific personal jurisdiction over Southwest under Montana Rule of Civil Procedure 4(b)(1). Southwest then petitioned the Montana Supreme Court for a writ of supervisory control, arguing that the District Court erred in its jurisdictional ruling.The Montana Supreme Court reviewed the case and determined that the District Court erred in concluding it had specific personal jurisdiction over Southwest. The Supreme Court found that Southwest did not transact business in Montana related to the claims and that the claims did not arise from Southwest's activities in Montana. Additionally, the Court held that the stream-of-commerce theory did not apply, as Southwest did not purposefully direct its activities toward Montana. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted the petition for a writ of supervisory control, reversed the District Court's order, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Southwest v. 19th Judicial Dist." on Justia Law

This case involves a dispute over an unrecorded parking agreement related to an office building, hotel, and parking garage in downtown San Antonio. The agreement, executed in 2005, reserved parking spaces in the garage for the office building's occupants and was intended to run with the land. However, it was not recorded in the county's real property records. In 2006, HEI San Antonio Hotel, LP purchased the garage and hotel, financing the purchase through a loan from Merrill Lynch, which was aware of the parking agreement. In 2008, Cypress Real Estate Advisors, through its entity CRVI Crowne Plaza, purchased a note from Merrill Lynch but did not inquire about the parking agreement despite having access to relevant documents.The trial court ruled that the parking agreement was an enforceable easement and rejected the lender's and its affiliate's bona fide purchaser defenses. The Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas agreed that the agreement was an easement but concluded that the lender took the loan without notice of the easement, thus sheltering its affiliate from enforcement.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case and agreed with both lower courts that the parking agreement is an easement. However, it disagreed with the Court of Appeals regarding the notice issue. The Supreme Court concluded that both the lender and its affiliated owner had sufficient notice to remove any bona fide purchaser protection. Therefore, the easement was enforceable against the affiliated owner.The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "425 SOLEDAD, LTD. v. CRVI RIVERWALK HOSPITALITY, LLC" on Justia Law

Kenneth Hahn, who owns a non-participating royalty interest (NPRI) in a mineral estate leased by ConocoPhillips, disputed the amount of royalty owed to him. Hahn's NPRI was initially set at a fixed 1/8 share of production. The case centered on whether this share was reduced when Hahn ratified a subsequent lease by the mineral estate owner, which included its own royalty term, or when he signed a stipulation and cross-conveyance agreeing to accept a different royalty.The trial court denied Hahn's motion for partial summary judgment and granted the Gipses' motion, declaring that Hahn's NPRI was a floating fraction of the landowner's royalty. Hahn appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Hahn's NPRI was a fixed 1/8 share and that the stipulation could not alter this interest. The case was remanded for further proceedings. On remand, the trial court again ruled in favor of ConocoPhillips, declaring that Hahn's ratification of the lease subjected his NPRI to the lease's royalty provision. Hahn appealed again.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case and agreed with the Court of Appeals that Hahn's ratification of the lease did not reduce his NPRI from a fixed to a floating fraction. However, the Supreme Court disagreed with the Court of Appeals regarding the stipulation and cross-conveyance. The Court held that the stipulation did effectively reduce Hahn's NPRI by conveying part of it to the mineral fee owner. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' judgment in part and rendered judgment that ConocoPhillips correctly calculated Hahn's share of proceeds from the production on the pooled unit. View "CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY v. HAHN" on Justia Law