Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

In this action to foreclose on a mortgage on Defendant's real property, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the appellate court upholding the decision of the trial court to grant a motion for a protective order regarding the production of MTGLQ Investors, L.P.'s mortgage file, holding that the trial court erred in granting the protective order.Defendant executed a promissory note that was secured by a mortgage deed on Defendant's residential property. JPMorgan Chase Bank filed the present foreclosure action alleging that Defendant was in default. MTGLQ was subsequently substituted for JPMorgan. When Defendant sought production of MTGLQ's mortgage file relating to the mortgage note and deed at issue in this case and other documents MTGLP moved for a protective order, which the trial court granted to prevent the improper use of discovery. The trial court rendered judgment of foreclosure by sale in favor of MTGLQ. The appellate court affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court abused its discretion in granting MTGLQ's motion for a protective order, and Defendant established that he was harmed by the granting of the motion for a protective order. View "JPMorgan Chase Bank, Nat'l Ass'n v. Lakner" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that an action taken by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) in issuing a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System/State Disposal System permit was arbitrary and capricious and that the permit did not comply with a Minnesota rule addressing wastewater discharges to groundwater, Minn. R. 7060.0600, subp. 2.At issue was the MPCA's issuance of the permit for a Poly Met Mining, Inc. project. The court of appeals reversed in part, concluding that the MPCA failed properly to consider whether the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) applied to future discharges from Poly Met's facility to groundwater. The Supreme Court remanded the cause, holding (1) remand was required because there were suggestions that the MPCA did not properly consider whether the permit complies with the CWA and that the MPCA did not genuinely engage in reasoned decision-making; (2) remand was required for consideration of whether a variance was available to allow the planned discharge to the unsaturated zone within the containment system; and (3) the prohibition on injecting polluted water directly to the groundwater saturated zone for long-term storage did not apply in this case. View "In the Matter of the Denial of Contested Case Hearing Requests & Issuance of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the summary judgment granted by the district court in favor of a non-shareholder officer and a non-shareholder former director in this suit brought by Landlord seeking to pierce the corporate veil of a commercial tenant (Tenant), who failed or refused to pay a judgment against it, holding that the district court did not err.Landlord sued Tenant for nonpayment of rent and recovered a judgment. When Landlord was unable to recover on its judgment it commenced the instant action seeking to pierce Tenant's corporate veil and hold a non-shareholder officer and a non-shareholder former director personally liable for the judgment against Tenant. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of Defendants and dismissed the case with prejudice. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding the factors did not weigh in favor of veil piercing. View "407 N 117 Street v. Harper" on Justia Law

In this challenge to "Measure Z," a Monterey County ordinance, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeal affirming the judgment of the trial court in favor of Plaintiffs on preemption grounds, holding that Cal. Pub. Res. Code 3106 preempts Measure Z.Plaintiffs - Chevron U.S.A. Inc. and other oil producers and mineral rights holders - brought six actions against the County challenging Measure Z, a local ordinance banning oil and gas wastewater injection and impoundment and the drilling of new oil and gas wells in the County's unincorporated areas. The trial court issued a writ of mandate directing the County to invalidate two prohibitions in the measure that applied to the County's unincorporated areas. The court of appeal affirmed on grounds of state preemption. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Measure Z contradicts, and therefore conflicts with and is preempted by, section 3106. View "Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. County of Monterey" on Justia Law

In 1993, respondents Brock and Diane Maslonka purchased land bordering the Pend Oreille River. A dam had been constructed on the river in 1955. The previous owners informed the Maslonkas that the land occasionally flooded. In 2016, the Maslonka sued the Pend Oreille Public Utility District (PUD), alleging its operation of the dam entitled them to damages based on inverse condemnation, trespass, nuisance and negligence. The trial court found the subsequent purchaser rule barred the inverse condemnation claim, and the PUD established a prescriptive easement barring the trespass and nuisance claims. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding the PUD could not benefit from the subsequent purchaser rule because it failed to prove its conduct constituted a taking prior ro the Maslonkas’ purchase. The Washington Supreme Court held that an inverse condemnation claimant must show the subsequent purchaser rule does not bar their suit. Further, an inverse condemnation claimant barred by the subsequent purchaser rule has no viable tort claim if the tort is based ont he’s same government conduct. The Court reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded to the trial court to reinstate its summary judgment orders. View "Maslonka v. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1 of Pend Oreille County" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs AZNH Revocable Trust (AZNH) and John and Susan Sullivan, trustees, appealed a superior court order denying their request for preliminary injunctive relief against defendant Spinnaker Cove Yacht Club Association, Inc. (the Association), and granting the Association’s motion to dismiss. Spinnaker Cove Yacht Club (Spinnaker Cove) is a condominium consisting of ninety-one units and common area. Appurtenant to each unit is the exclusive right to use a boat slip corresponding to that unit. The Association was an organization created to manage and control Spinnaker Cove. Plaintiffs requested the court to enjoin the Association “from expending assessment monies or incurring any debt to purchase land outside the Condominium.” They also sought declarations that the condominium instruments of Spinnaker Cove and New Hampshire law prohibited the Association from both “expending assessment monies or incurring any debt to purchase land outside the Condominium to add guest parking spaces” and “expanding the Condominium.” The court reasoned that “[b]ecause the Condominium Act allows the Association to purchase land, and the Declaration does not prohibit same,” the plaintiffs’ complaint “fails to state a claim as a matter of law.” The New Hampshire Supreme Court concurred with the trial court's conclusion and affirmed. View "AZNH Revocable Trust & a. v. Spinnaker Cove Yacht Club Association, Inc." on Justia Law

Luster was buying a house on contract and had already paid the owner at least 20 percent of the price of the home. The village contacted Luster to obtain the property to create a municipal park. Luster rebuffed this offer. The village then contacted the seller. Luster claims the village knew of his contract but convinced the seller to convey a warranty deed to the village without notifying Luster. The village then sent a letter to Luster demanding immediate possession of the property. According to Luster, he was unable to insure the house because of the ownership dispute. The house burned down while Luster was attempting to quiet title, destroying his family’s possessions and leaving them homeless. Luster sued the village under 42 U.S.C. 1983, seeking damages for his lost property and the village’s “malicious conduct.” He alleged that the village took the home without adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard.The Seventh Circuit vacated the dismissal of the complaint. Luster’s complaint does not allege or permit a reasonable inference that he was deprived of his property by the random, unauthorized acts of any village employee. Absent any obvious reason why the village could not have provided advance notice and a pre-deprivation hearing before it seized Luster’s property interest, the adequacy of a post-deprivation remedy is irrelevant. View "Luster v. Village of Ashmore" on Justia Law

Defendants GADECO, LLC, and Continental Resources, Inc. appealed a judgment quieting title in oil and gas leasehold interests in Zavanna, LLC. Zavanna and the Defendants made competing claims to oil and gas leasehold interests covering 1,280 gross acres in Williams County, North Dakota. These interests were located in the Golden Unit; the Golden Well was the only well producing oil and gas from the subject leasehold within the Golden Unit. GADECO operated the Golden Well. Zavanna was the lessee by assignment of the “Top Leases” and GADECO and Continental were the lessees of the “Bottom Leases.” The Top Leases and Bottom Leases covered the same lands and leasehold interests. The Bottom Leases automatically terminated upon cessation of production unless certain express conditions were met. The Bottom Leases stated that a cessation of production after the lease’s primary term would not terminate the lease if the lessee restores production or commences additional drilling or reworking operations within 90 days (or 120 days in the case of the Parke Energy Leases) from the date of cessation of production. After a bench trial, the district court quieted title in Zavanna, concluding the Bottom Leases terminated by their own terms when production ceased and GADECO failed to timely commence drilling or reworking operations. The court found three periods of production cessation. The court concluded Defendants bore the burden to prove that production did not cease or reworking operations were timely commenced. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the district court did not err in concluding Defendants’ leases terminated under their terms when production ceased and Defendants failed to timely commence reworking operations, and in concluding Defendants failed to show a force majeure condition saved the leases from termination. View "Zavanna v. Gadeco, et al." on Justia Law

In this appeal concerning the state's Emergency Mortgage Assistance Program (EMAP), Conn. Gen. Stat. 8-265cc through 8-265kk, which is designed to assist homeowners in avoiding foreclosure, the Supreme Court concluded that the EMAP notice requirement in section 8-265ee(a) is not jurisdictional in nature and that section 8-265ee(a) requires that a mortgagee provide an EMAP notice for each foreclosure action initiated.At issue on certified appeal were two questions relating to the requirement set forth in section 8-265ee(a) that mortgagees provide notice to homeowners to inform them of the resources available under EMAP. The Supreme Court concluded (1) an EMAP notice sent before the commencement of a prior foreclosure action by the predecessor mortgagee is not jurisdictional; and (2) an EMAP notice sent before the commencement of a prior foreclosure action by the predecessor mortgagee was not valid for a subsequent action initiated by the successor mortgagee. View "KeyBank, N.A. v. Yazar" on Justia Law

Wilson was traveling at O’Hare airport with $33,783 in cash. The Drug Enforcement Administration seized the money, suspecting that the proceeds were from illegal drug activity. DEA notified Wilson that it would declare the seized cash as government property by administrative forfeiture. Under the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act (CAFRA), 18 U.S.C. 983(a)(1)(A), Wilson had to file a “claim” with DEA by September 25, 2020. She received the required notice that failure to file a timely claim would waive her right to contest the forfeiture. On September 18, 2020, Wilson’s attorney mistakenly filed the wrong form, a “petition for remission,” which seeks to reduce the amount of seized money subject to forfeiture. Wilson’s attorney realized the mistake about five months later and sent a letter. DEA declined to correct the error.The Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Wilson’s Motion to Recover Seized Property under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g), which “is properly invoked to request the return of seized property before forfeiture proceedings have been initiated.” CAFRA is “the exclusive remedy for seeking to set aside a declaration of forfeiture.” Wilson did not assert any challenge to the notice she received from the DEA; her argument amounted to a request for equitable relief. Apart from challenges based on notice, “Congress has authorized no other means for challenging a declaration of forfeiture” in federal court. View "Wilson v. United States" on Justia Law