Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

Naomi Bermudez, a tenant in a federally subsidized housing complex managed by Mercy Housing Management Group Inc., faced eviction after Mercy Housing alleged she violated her lease by having an unauthorized guest who stayed beyond the allowed period, repaired vehicles on the property, and harassed another resident. Bermudez denied these allegations and requested a jury trial to resolve the factual disputes.The Denver County Court denied Bermudez's request for a jury trial, stating that there is no constitutional right to a jury trial in civil matters in Colorado. Bermudez then filed a petition with the Supreme Court of Colorado, arguing that she was entitled to a jury trial under the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure and the statutory framework governing forcible entry and detainer (FED) actions.The Supreme Court of Colorado reviewed the case and held that Bermudez is entitled to a jury trial on the factual disputes in the FED-possession action. The court found that the right to a jury trial in such cases is rooted in the statutory framework and the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure, specifically C.R.C.P. 338(a), which provides for a jury trial in actions for the recovery of specific real property. The court also determined that the FED statute and C.R.C.P. 338(a) are compatible and that the statutory right to a jury trial applies to factual disputes in FED-possession actions.The court acknowledged concerns about the potential burden on the county courts but concluded that the limited nature of the jury-trial right would not prove unworkable. The court reversed the county court's denial of Bermudez's jury demand, made absolute the order to show cause, and remanded the case with instructions for the county court to schedule a jury trial on the factual issues related to the possession dispute. View "Mercy Housing Management Group Inc. v. Bermudez" on Justia Law

The case involves a challenge to the County of Los Angeles's decision to ban new vineyards in the Santa Monica Mountains North Area. The area is a significant ecological and scenic resource, with most of its land designated as open space. In 2016, the County began updating the North Area Plan and Community Standards District, which included regulations for vineyards. Initially, the draft environmental impact report proposed stringent regulations but did not ban new vineyards. However, after public comments, the County Board of Supervisors decided to impose a total ban on new vineyards.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County denied the petition for a writ of mandate filed by John Gooden and the Malibu Coast Vintners and Grape Growers Alliance, Inc. The petitioners argued that the County violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by not recirculating the environmental impact report after the vineyard ban was added and that the County failed to follow Government Code section 65857 by not referring the ban back to the Department of Regional Planning.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Two, affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that the addition of the vineyard ban did not alter the nature or main features of the project described in the environmental impact report, thus not rendering the project description unstable. The court also found that the petitioners had waived any claim for recirculation. Additionally, the court assumed a procedural error under Government Code section 65857 but concluded that the petitioners failed to demonstrate that this error was prejudicial or that a different outcome was probable if the error had not occurred. View "Gooden v. County of Los Angeles" on Justia Law

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. JCCrandall objected to the use of its easement for cannabis transportation. Despite the objection, the County granted the CUP, and the County’s Board of Supervisors upheld the decision, finding the road adequate for the project.JCCrandall petitioned for a writ of administrative mandate, challenging the County’s determination. JCCrandall argued that the use of the easement for cannabis activities was prohibited by the easement deed and federal law, required JCCrandall’s consent under state law, and violated County standards for private roads. 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 held 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 its property is a fundamental vested right. The appellate court also found 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 concluded that the County’s reliance on Civil Code section 1550.5, subdivision (b) was misplaced, as it defies the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The judgment was reversed, and costs were awarded to JCCrandall. View "JCCrandall v. County of Santa Barbara" on Justia Law

This 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. Hunt refused to sign a parking covenant in 2019, leading the Battas to file a lawsuit seeking to quiet title to an easement by grant, prescription, or irrevocable license, and for breach of contract.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 ordered that the easement would 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 rights, 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, Division Eight, reviewed the case and found that the trial court's findings were inconsistent. The trial court had found both that Hunt had granted an easement and that the Battas' use of the property was adverse, which are mutually exclusive conditions. 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. Consequently, the judgment was reversed and the case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Batta v. Hunt" on Justia Law

David Polkow rented a residential home from Frank Kahl under a written lease agreement that transitioned to a month-to-month basis after its initial term. In 2022, they signed a new three-year lease. Frank later transferred his interest in the property to the Frank J. Kahl Revocable Trust, with his son David Kahl managing the property as trustee after Frank's death. In January 2023, David Kahl filed an eviction action against Polkow, seeking possession of the property, damages for delinquent rent, and attorney fees.The Yellowstone County Justice Court awarded Kahl possession of the property and attorney fees but denied the request for delinquent rent. Kahl then sought additional damages for property damage, which led to a hearing where he claimed $128,644.07 in damages. The Justice Court awarded Kahl $58,753.73 in damages, plus interest and attorney fees, despite Polkow's objection that the amount exceeded the court's $15,000 jurisdictional limit. Polkow appealed to the Thirteenth Judicial District Court, which affirmed the Justice Court's decision, interpreting that the court had concurrent jurisdiction with the district court for landlord-tenant disputes.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case and reversed the lower courts' decisions. The Supreme Court held that the Justice Court lacked jurisdiction to award damages exceeding the $15,000 limit imposed by § 3-10-301, MCA. The court clarified that the concurrent jurisdiction statutes did not override this limit. The case was remanded for the Justice Court to vacate the damages award and dismiss the claim for compensatory damages without prejudice, allowing Kahl to refile in District Court. The award of attorney fees and costs was affirmed. View "Kahl v. Polkow" on Justia Law

Vernon K. Stensvad, the plaintiff, owns a small cattle herd and entered into a Grazing Lease Contract with Newman Ayers Ranch, Inc. in July 2022. The contract stipulated that Stensvad would graze his cattle on Ayers Ranch's property for a fee, with higher winter rates to be determined. Stensvad paid the fees for July and August but later agreed orally to perform labor in exchange for reduced fees. Disputes arose over the quality of Stensvad's work and the amount owed. In October 2023, Ayers Ranch issued an agister’s lien for $78,662.50, seizing Stensvad’s herd. Stensvad sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the sale of his cattle under the lien.The Seventh Judicial District Court in Prairie County granted Stensvad’s application for a preliminary injunction, ordering the cattle to be moved to a third-party feed lot. Ayers Ranch appealed, arguing that the District Court failed to consider all four factors required for a preliminary injunction under Montana law and that a preliminary injunction was not an appropriate remedy for challenging an agister’s lien.The Montana Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the District Court manifestly abused its discretion by not addressing all four factors of the preliminary injunction standard. The Supreme Court clarified that under the revised standard, a party must satisfy all four factors: likelihood of success on the merits, likelihood of irreparable harm, balance of equities, and public interest. The Court adopted the "serious questions" test from the Ninth Circuit, allowing for flexibility in evaluating these factors. The case was remanded for the District Court to make supplemental findings consistent with this standard. The Supreme Court also held that a preliminary injunction is an appropriate remedy to challenge an agister’s lien and that Stensvad did not have an adequate remedy at law. View "Stensvad v. Newman Ayers Ranch" on Justia Law

In August 2010, the Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University filed a suit to expropriate property in New Orleans for constructing an academic medical center. The property owners, Allen Bickham and others, were named as defendants. A default judgment was obtained in March 2011, setting compensation for the property. In October 2011, James Alderdice intervened, claiming a mortgage on the property and seeking damages for lack of notice and demolition of the building.The Orleans Civil District Court granted a peremptory exception of no right of action against Alderdice in March 2014, dismissing his intervention. The Court of Appeal reversed this decision in March 2015, allowing Alderdice to assert his rights as a mortgagee. Alderdice then moved for a status conference and later for a trial date. In March 2017, a joint motion to continue the trial without date was filed and granted. Subsequent motions were filed, including a motion to set for trial in March 2020. The Board moved to dismiss the intervention as abandoned in June 2023, arguing that no steps had been taken for over three years.The Supreme Court of Louisiana reviewed whether the joint motion to continue trial without date constituted a "step" under Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 561, which would interrupt the abandonment period. The Court held that such a motion is not a step as it does not hasten the case towards judgment. However, the Court found that the joint motion reflected the parties' intent to advance the lawsuit, thus waiving the abandonment claim. Additionally, the Court noted that the abandonment period was suspended due to the Covid-19 emergency, and Alderdice's motion to set for trial in March 2020 interrupted the abandonment period. The Court affirmed the lower courts' rulings, denying the Board's motion to dismiss the case as abandoned. View "BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY AND AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE VS. BICKHAM" on Justia Law

The case involves William Phillip Jackson, who owes unpaid federal taxes to the United States. Following a jury trial and post-trial proceedings, the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri entered a judgment against Jackson for $2,396,800.47 and ordered the foreclosure and sale of four properties owned by Jackson and his wife. Jackson filed multiple motions to amend or vacate the sale, which were denied, and his appeals to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals were unsuccessful. Jackson then filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy relief, but the United States proceeded with evictions and seized personal property before being notified of the bankruptcy filing.The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Missouri heard Jackson's motion for contempt and turnover of property and the United States' motion to lift the automatic stay nunc pro tunc. The bankruptcy court denied Jackson's motion and granted the United States' motion, annulling the automatic stay retroactively to the date of Jackson's bankruptcy filing. Jackson appealed this decision but did not seek a stay of the order pending appeal. While the appeal was pending, the United States sold the properties at auction, and the district court confirmed the sales and approved the disbursement of proceeds.The United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and determined that the appeal was constitutionally moot. The court held that since the properties had been sold and Jackson did not obtain a stay pending appeal, there was no effective relief that could be granted. Consequently, the appeal of the bankruptcy court's order annulling the stay and denying Jackson's motion for contempt and turnover was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. View "Jackson v. United States" on Justia Law

A property owner sought to subdivide a 161.6-acre property in Westminster, Vermont, to create two residential lots with frontage on Old Codding Road, a private road discontinued in 1893. The Westminster Development Review Board (DRB) granted the subdivision permit, finding that the applicant had made a "threshold showing" of the right to use Old Codding Road. Neighbors appealed, arguing that the applicant did not have a legal right-of-way over the road.The Environmental Division affirmed the DRB's decision, concluding that the applicant had made the necessary threshold showing of a right to use the road based on historical use by the applicant's predecessors and other neighbors without deeded rights-of-way. The court declined to fully evaluate whether the road was formally laid out before its discontinuance, citing a lack of jurisdiction to determine private property rights.The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that the Environmental Division erred in requiring only a threshold showing and in holding that it lacked jurisdiction to determine the existence of an easement or right-of-way. The Supreme Court held that the Environmental Division has jurisdiction to decide whether the applicant has a permanent easement or right-of-way, as required by the Vermont Planning and Development Act and the Westminster Zoning Bylaws. The court emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the permit applicant to establish the necessary easement or right-of-way.The Vermont Supreme Court reversed the Environmental Division's decision and remanded the case for a determination of whether the applicant has an easement or right-of-way over Old Codding Road. The Environmental Division must now fully evaluate the evidence regarding the road's layout and the applicant's claimed right-of-way. View "In re Ranney Dairy Farm, LLC" on Justia Law

In 2012, two individuals, Moore and Lloyd, obtained a $185,000 judgment against Mikul and Sanders. They applied for a writ of execution to auction two properties owned by Mikul and Sanders, and they were the highest bidders for one parcel at $130,000. Mikul, who resided on the property, contested the sale, claiming ownership and arguing that the sale price was unconscionably low. The Shelby Circuit Court initially ruled in favor of Moore and Lloyd, granting them possession of the property. Mikul's subsequent appeals and motions to intervene were denied, and the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision without an opinion.Moore and Lloyd then filed an action in the Shelby Circuit Court seeking immediate possession of the property. The court granted their motion but stayed the execution of the judgment. Over the years, Moore and Lloyd filed multiple motions to dissolve the stay and sought writs of execution, but the court repeatedly denied their requests. In 2022, the Alabama Supreme Court noted that Moore and Lloyd had not argued that the stay was "immoderate" in the lower court and suggested they seek dissolution of the stay in the original action.Moore and Lloyd filed a motion to dissolve the stay in 2022, arguing it was immoderate. The Shelby Circuit Court, however, did not dissolve the stay and instead set the matter for a trial. The Alabama Supreme Court reviewed the case and concluded that the stay, which had been in place for six years, was indefinite and without continued justification, making it immoderate and beyond the court's discretion. The Supreme Court issued a writ of mandamus directing the circuit court to dissolve the stay and a writ of prohibition to vacate the orders setting the case for trial, limiting the court to issuing orders necessary to wind up the litigation. View "Ex parte Moore" on Justia Law