Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

A group of Carteret County property owners challenged the county’s policy of charging waste disposal fees. The county does not provide direct trash or recycling collection services but instead offers access to waste disposal sites and a landfill. The county funded these facilities by charging fees to property owners, including both those who potentially used the county sites and those who hired private waste collection services. The plaintiffs argued that the county unlawfully charged these fees to property owners who never used the county sites or who had private waste collection, and also that the total fees collected exceeded the cost of operating the facilities, in violation of state law.Following extensive discovery, the Superior Court in Carteret County considered plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. The court rejected one proposed class, finding that determining whether each property owner actually used a county site would require individualized inquiries that would predominate over common issues. However, the court certified three other classes: those allegedly charged fees despite using private waste collection services, and those asserting that the county collected fees beyond its actual operating costs. The county appealed the class certification order directly to the Supreme Court of North Carolina. The plaintiffs did not cross-appeal the denial of the first class.The Supreme Court of North Carolina affirmed the Superior Court’s class certification order. The Court held that it is feasible to ascertain class members who used private waste collection services by relying on the customer lists from the limited number of providers in the county. The Court also determined that issues of predominance and superiority did not bar class certification and that any future developments could be addressed through modification or decertification of the class. Thus, the trial court’s order was affirmed. View "Armistead v. County of Carteret" on Justia Law

A renewable energy developer was awarded a standard-offer contract in 2014 to build a solar facility in Bennington, Vermont, with a requirement to commission the project by 2016. The developer repeatedly sought and received extensions to this deadline, while simultaneously pursuing a certificate of public good (CPG), which is also required for construction. The Public Utility Commission (PUC) granted the CPG in 2018, but it was appealed, reversed, and ultimately denied on remand due to violations of local land conservation measures and adverse impacts on aesthetics. The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the final CPG denial in 2023.While litigation over the CPG was ongoing, the developer continued to seek extensions of its standard-offer contract’s commissioning milestone. The fifth extension request, filed in 2021, asked for a deadline twelve months after the Supreme Court’s mandate in the CPG appeal. The hearing officer recommended granting it, but the PUC did not act on the request until 2024, by which time the developer’s CPG had been finally denied. The PUC dismissed the fifth extension request as moot, finding the contract had expired by its own terms. The PUC also denied the developer’s motion for reconsideration and a sixth extension request, on the same grounds.On appeal, the Vermont Supreme Court reviewed the PUC’s actions with deference, upholding its factual findings unless clearly erroneous and its discretionary decisions unless there was an abuse of discretion. The Court held that the PUC properly concluded the requested extension was moot, the contract was null and void by its terms, and there was no abuse of discretion. The Court also rejected arguments that the PUC’s actions were inconsistent with other cases or violated constitutional rights. The orders of the PUC were affirmed. View "In re Petition of Apple Hill Solar LLC" on Justia Law

The dispute arose after Will Pecue contracted with Gulf Coast Dock Masters/H5K Company, LLC, represented by Ryan Hess, to replace two piers near Pecue's residence. One pier, the "harbor pier," was completed and paid for in full, while the other, the "social pier," was left unfinished after Pecue terminated the contract. Pecue became dissatisfied upon discovering that nontreated lumber was used on the social pier, contrary to contract specifications. Although some boards were replaced, Pecue claimed Hess refused to fix all affected areas and ultimately sent a notice of default. Pecue also asserted that H5K was not a legitimate business entity, which he argued prevented him from obtaining contractual remedies.The Baldwin Circuit Court held a bench trial, during which Pecue pursued only a fraud claim against Hess and H5K, seeking substantial damages. Pecue testified about the alleged misrepresentation of H5K's existence and Hess's refusal to remedy the workmanship issues. The trial court entered judgment in favor of Pecue for $100,000 against Hess and "Ryan Hess D/B/A Gulf Coast Dock Masters." Hess filed a postjudgment motion challenging the sufficiency of the evidence for fraud, but the motion was denied.The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed the case, applying both the ore tenus and de novo standards of review as appropriate. The court found that the evidence did not support Pecue's claim of fraud. Specifically, there was no misrepresentation of material fact regarding H5K’s existence, and any alleged misrepresentation did not proximately cause Pecue’s damages. Further, there was no evidence of promissory fraud. The Supreme Court of Alabama reversed the trial court’s judgment and remanded the case with instructions to enter judgment in favor of Hess on Pecue’s fraud claim. View "Hess v. Pecue" on Justia Law

A redevelopment project in Tunica County, Mississippi, involved a distressed property previously operated as a casino. The county sought to acquire the property from its private owner, TJM Properties, Inc., with plans to redevelop it into a convention center complex. Plaintiffs, including Don Hewitt, Advanced Technology Building Solutions, LLC (ATBS), and Tunica Hospitality & Entertainment, LLC (TH&E), invested significant sums in anticipation of becoming the developer and manager under a series of agreements and extensions. However, the purchase option was never exercised, and a senior lienholder ultimately foreclosed on the property.The Tunica County Chancery Court found that the plaintiffs never acquired title, held no enforceable lien, and were not parties to the key asset-purchase agreement. The court dismissed their claims with prejudice, holding that they lacked a legally cognizable property interest, standing to assert a claim, or entitlement to relief. Additionally, the chancery court enforced a previous agreed order requiring the plaintiffs to pay $200,000 to TJM for property maintenance, a payment that was never made.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the case and affirmed the chancery court’s dismissal of all claims with prejudice. The court held that the plaintiffs had no valid or enforceable lien on the property because they were not licensed contractors, performed no actual construction, and had previously waived any lien rights by consent order. The court also found no error in enforcing the $200,000 judgment and concluded that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the transfer of funds between the county and TJM. The judgment of the Tunica County Chancery Court was therefore affirmed. View "Hewitt v. TJM Properties, Inc." on Justia Law

A bank made a $1.9 million loan secured by a mortgage on over 750 acres of real property. About a year later, a portion of the property was sold to a third party, who financed the purchase with a loan from a second bank. During the closing, a vice president of the first bank assured the title company that the bank would release its mortgage on the sold parcel. Relying on this representation, the title company distributed the proceeds, and the second bank lent money for the purchase. Years later, the first bank attempted to enforce its mortgage against the property, claiming its lien was superior to the interests of the second bank and the purchaser.The Lincoln County Circuit Court heard the case after the original borrowers filed for bankruptcy, which stayed claims against them except for breach of contract and foreclosure. The first bank obtained a default judgment for breach of contract against the borrower, but the case continued against the subsequent purchaser and the second bank. These parties moved for summary judgment, arguing the first bank was estopped from asserting its lien due to its agent’s prior representation. The circuit court granted summary judgment in their favor, and the first bank appealed. The Arkansas Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of a final order due to ambiguous abandonment of unresolved claims.The Supreme Court of Arkansas reviewed the case and held that the first bank’s abandonment of pending claims in its notice of appeal was sufficient for finality, allowing the appeal to proceed. On the merits, the court found no disputed material facts regarding the agent’s authority or the parties’ reliance on the representation. The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment, holding that equitable estoppel barred the first bank from enforcing its lien under these circumstances. The opinion of the Court of Appeals was vacated. View "RELYANCE BANK, N.A. v. PHARR" on Justia Law

A company sought to operate a red-dirt surface mine on approximately twenty acres in a part of Washington County that was zoned for agricultural and single-family residential uses. The company, operating as Heritage Farms, applied for a conditional use permit, which the Washington County Planning Board considered and ultimately denied. The company then appealed this denial to the Washington County Quorum Court, which upheld the Planning Board’s decision and adopted an ordinance reflecting the denial. The company further appealed to the Washington County Circuit Court. During the circuit court proceedings, several local residents and a neighborhood association were allowed to intervene. The company moved for summary judgment, arguing that the denial was arbitrary and capricious, while the intervenors and county argued that the proper standard of review was arbitrary and capricious because the action was legislative, and that there was a rational basis for the denial.The Washington County Circuit Court found that the quorum court’s denial of the permit was a legislative act and thus applied the arbitrary-and-capricious standard of review. The court also held that Arkansas Code Annotated section 14-17-211 was unconstitutional to the extent that it permitted de novo review of legislative zoning decisions. Applying the arbitrary-and-capricious standard, the circuit court concluded there was a rational basis for the denial and affirmed the quorum court’s action. The Arkansas Court of Appeals then affirmed the circuit court’s order.The Supreme Court of Arkansas reviewed the case and held that the denial of the conditional use permit was a quasi-judicial act, not a legislative one, because it involved applying existing ordinance provisions to the facts of the application rather than creating new law. Therefore, the circuit court should have conducted a de novo review rather than applying the arbitrary-and-capricious standard. The Supreme Court of Arkansas reversed the circuit court’s judgment, vacated the Court of Appeals’ opinion, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "MMSC, LLC V. WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS" on Justia Law

A residential property in Anoka County was foreclosed upon by the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA), which then obtained a sheriff’s certificate of sale. Creative Real Estate, Inc. (Creative), a junior creditor with a mechanic’s lien for improvements on the property, filed a Notice of Intention to Redeem. Creative satisfied its mechanic’s lien and, the following day, tendered the redemption money to the county sheriff, who issued a Certificate of Redemption in Creative’s name. Creative then conveyed the property to a third party. The sheriff delivered the redemption funds to MHFA’s counsel, but neither MHFA nor its attorney returned the funds to Creative or the sheriff. Instead, the funds were eventually deposited into the attorney’s trust account, and MHFA challenged the validity of Creative’s redemption in district court.The Anoka County District Court granted summary judgment for MHFA, finding that MHFA did not waive its right to contest the redemption because it had not actively solicited or knowingly waived any irregularities, and because Creative’s mechanic’s lien was no longer valid at the time of redemption. The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed, agreeing that MHFA had not accepted or appropriated the redemption funds such that it would be deemed to have waived its right to contest the redemption.The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that a holder of a sheriff’s certificate of sale waives the right to contest a junior creditor’s redemption by accepting the redemption money. Acceptance occurs when the certificate holder receives the money and fails to return it as soon as administratively possible. The court found that MHFA received and retained the redemption funds without returning them, thereby waiving its right to challenge Creative’s redemption. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. View "Court of Appeals Petition of Minnesota Housing Finance" on Justia Law

Two neighboring landowners in Middletown, Delaware, disputed whether a cross-easement existed that would allow one parcel (Reybold’s) to use a highway entrance situated on the other parcel (Summit’s). The properties were originally subdivided from a larger tract owned by Viola Carter. During the subdivision and rezoning process in the 1980s, the developer’s engineer, at the request of government agencies, included a note on the record plan stating that “a cross-easement is hereby established” between the parcels for vehicular and pedestrian access. Carter signed the record plan, certifying her ownership and intent to develop according to the plan. The record plan was recorded, and both properties were subsequently sold to new owners, with deeds referencing the plan.Years later, after Reybold purchased one parcel, it sought to enforce the cross-easement to gain more valuable access to the main road. Summit, the owner of the adjoining shopping center parcel, refused to recognize the easement. Reybold sued Summit in the Court of Chancery. A Magistrate in Chancery found that an express cross-easement had been created and could be enforced by Reybold. However, the Vice Chancellor, on de novo review, disagreed, holding that the record plan note was a “notation” under the County Code, which only the County could enforce, and that there was insufficient evidence of the original owner’s intention to create a private easement.The Supreme Court of the State of Delaware reversed the Court of Chancery. It held that the landowner’s signature and certification on a recorded plan containing a note establishing a cross-easement were sufficient to create an enforceable express easement appurtenant. The Court ruled that Summit, as a subsequent purchaser, is bound by this easement, and entered judgment for Reybold. View "Reybold Venture Group IX, LLC v. Summit Plaza Shopping Center, LLC" on Justia Law

A property owner on West Point Island sought to extend an existing dock into Barnegat Bay. The owner obtained permits from both the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and the Army Corps of Engineers, and received a tidelands license from the Tidelands Resource Council (TRC). After the extension was completed, it was found to be slightly south of the permitted location, prompting the owner to seek a modified permit and license for the as-built dock. The adjacent property owner objected, arguing the extension created navigational hazards and interfered with their own dock’s use.The TRC held public hearings, considered testimony and written submissions, and ultimately approved the modified license, finding the extension complied with applicable rules and did not interfere with navigation or the rights of the objecting neighbor. The DEP approved the decision. The neighbor appealed to the Superior Court, Appellate Division, arguing that the TRC lacked authority to set or modify pierhead lines through individual license proceedings and that such lines must be established uniformly around islands in advance under Section 19 of the Tidelands Act. The Appellate Division affirmed the TRC’s decision, finding it was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, and holding that the TRC was permitted to establish or modify pierhead lines in connection with individual licenses.The Supreme Court of New Jersey reviewed the case and held that the Tidelands Act authorizes the TRC to set or modify pierhead lines in the context of reviewing individual tidelands license applications, rather than requiring the TRC to establish uniform pierhead lines around all islands prospectively. The Court affirmed the Appellate Division’s judgment, concluding that the TRC did not exceed its statutory authority in issuing the licenses at issue. View "In the Matter of Jibsail Family Limited Partnership" on Justia Law

A group comprised of property owners from several Montana cities challenged the constitutionality of several zoning and land use laws enacted in 2023, including statutes requiring municipalities to permit accessory dwelling units and duplexes in single-family zones, and the Montana Land Use Planning Act (MLUPA), which imposed comprehensive planning requirements on larger cities. The group argued that these laws unfairly burdened single-family neighborhoods, undermined the right of citizens to participate in land-use decisions, and violated equal protection by creating arbitrary distinctions between citizens.The Eighteenth Judicial District Court initially granted partial relief to the challengers, enjoining certain statutory provisions it found violated the right to participate, and declared that the new laws could not supersede more restrictive private covenants. The court also held that the housing statutes did not violate equal protection. Parties on both sides appealed.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed these rulings. It first found that the public participation claims were justiciable, as a live controversy remained due to the likelihood of the challenged provisions recurring after temporary legislative amendments expired. The court held that the MLUPA’s public participation procedures did not, on their face, violate the Montana Constitution’s right to participate, as the statutes provided for notice and reasonable opportunity for public input, especially during the development of comprehensive plans, even if not at every stage of the process.The court also affirmed that the statutes did not violate equal protection, because the alleged classes—citizens in cities subject to MLUPA versus those outside, or those with versus without private covenants—were not similarly situated for constitutional purposes. Finally, the court vacated the lower court’s declaratory judgment regarding private covenants, finding it was an improper advisory opinion. The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and vacated in part the lower court’s judgment. View "M.A.I.D. v. State" on Justia Law