Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Judicial Court reversed the decision of the district court granting a partial summary judgment construing a long-term written lease between Owner and Tenant and, after a trial, entering a judgment regarding the parties dispute over minimum rent, holding that a factual issue existed precluding summary judgment.Owner sued Tenant for breach of contract after the parties could not agree when renegotiating minimum rent, alleging express breach of contract, declaratory judgment, and breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing. The district court entered partial summary judgment in favor of Owner construing the lease but held that there were material facts in dispute as to whether Owner violated the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing when renegotiating. After a trial, the court entered judgment for Owner. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the provision in the lease regarding minimum rent is ambiguous, and therefore, the court's entry of partial summary judgment on the issue must be reversed. The Court remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Brush & Co. v. W. O. Zangger & Son, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court granting summary judgment for Respondent in this action claiming that Respondent owned fifty percent interest in the oil and gas estate Petitioners purchased at prior tax sales, holding that the circuit court erred.In 1989, Respondent and Petitioners participated in a tax sale after a delinquent taxpayer neglected to pay taxes on 135 acres of property and twenty-five percent of its subjacent oil and gas estate. Respondent bought the property, and Petitioners bought the interest in the oil and gas estate. In 1993, Petitioner brought another twenty-five percent interest in the same oil and gas estate after another tax resulting from a different taxpayer's delinquency. Respondent subsequently filed this lawsuit claiming ownership in the fifty percent interest in the oil and gas estate Petitioners had purchased. The circuit court granted summary judgment for Respondent. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Petitioners purchased a valid tax deed to the oil and gas estate, and Respondent lacked grounds to challenge Petitioners' tax-sale deed; and (2) as to Petitioners' 1995 deed, the delinquent taxpayer clearly owned the twenty-five percent interest in the oil and gas estate for which his taxes were delinquent. View "Collingwood Appalachian Minerals III, LLC v. Erlewine" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed in part and vacated in part the decision of the circuit court determining that the Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act (Uniform Act) applied to the Glade Springs Village (GSV) community and finding that Justice Holdings, LLC, the developer of GSV, owed funds to the GSV Property Owners Association, Inc., holding that the order was insufficient to allow adequate appellate review with respect to the assessments and other funds.Justice Holdings controlled the Association and selected the Association's Board of Directors until 2018, when the GSV lot owners elected the Board. Justice Holdings later sued the Association for nonpayment on a loan, claiming breach of contract and entitlement to specific performance. The Association counterclaimed, seeking a declaratory judgment that the Association's declaration's exemption provisions violated the Uniform Act. The circuit court granted summary judgment for the Association. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the circuit court to the extent it granted summary judgment on the loan issue and finding that the Uniform Act applied; but (2) reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded the portion of order regarding the payments of assessments and funds because the order made insufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law to allow adequate appellate review. View "Justice Holdings, LLC v. Glade Springs Village Property Owners Ass'n" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the opinion of the court of appeals in this case involving the concept of "waste" as it exists in Kentucky law, holding that Ky. Rev. Stat. 381.350 is applicable only in instances in which a party has pled voluntary waste.Under Ky. Rev. Stat. 381.350, a life tenant who commits waste against the corpus of an estate shall "lose the thing wasted and pay treble the amount at which the waste is assessed." At issue was when the statute of limitations began to run in this case, a question that required resolution of the concept of "waste" as it exists in Kentucky law, which required the Supreme Court either to affirmed its longstanding distinction between voluntary and permissive waste or to collapse the two categories into simply "waste." The Supreme Court held (1) long-standing case law continues to be accurate statements of the law of waste as it exists in Kentucky, therefore, section 381.350 continues to apply only to claims of voluntary waste; and (2) the trial court correctly determined that the plaintiff in this case stated claims for voluntary waste. View "Ferrill v. Stock Yard Bank & Trust Co." on Justia Law

Jay Wright appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to his ex-wife, Kristie Parish. Wright and Parish were married in 2002 and divorced in 2019. Before they were married, Wright and Parish, as single persons, purchased two adjacent parcels of real property in Island Park, and their ownership of the property did not change following their marriage. A magistrate court presided over their divorce proceedings and the distribution of their community property. The magistrate court classified as community property certain loan payments and improvements that had been made for the benefit of the Island Park Properties but specifically declined to divide the properties because the court concluded the properties were separate property and that it “lack[ed] authority to divide the property.” The magistrate court concluded that Wright and Parish “apparently” owned the properties as tenants-in-common, each with a fifty percent interest, though it never made a definitive ruling on each party’s interest, concluding only that they were “joint owners[.]” Roughly one year after the magistrate court entered its final judgment for the divorce, Wright filed suit seeking a partition of the Island Park Properties and for Parish to deed them to him, arguing in part that his ownership interest in the properties exceeded the fifty percent determination that the magistrate court had ostensibly made. In response, Parish moved for summary judgment, arguing that Wright’s claim that he was entitled to a greater ownership interest was precluded by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel. The district court granted Parish’s motion for summary judgment after determining that the issues in Wright’s complaint had already been litigated in the prior divorce proceedings. As a result, the district court concluded that the proceeds from the sale of the properties should be equally divided between Wright and Parish. Wright appealed. The Idaho Supreme Court determined the district court erred in granting summary judgment to Parish, and remanded the case for the trial court to consider whether Wright could produce evidence to overcome the rebuttable presumption of equal ownership in the properties. View "Wright v. Parish" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order issued by the district court denying Montana Opticom, LLC's motion to disqualify counsel for Scott Rysewyk, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion to disqualify Rysewyk's counsel.Rysewyk, represented by Rabb Law Firm (RLF), filed a complaint alleging trespass, ejectment, negligent civil conspiracy, and inverse condemnation by Opticom and Jim Dolan, Jr., a partial owner of Opticom. Opticom filed a motion to disqualify Rysewyk's counsel, arguing that Rysewyk's counsel of record was disqualified from representing him because of the firm's earlier representation of Dolan. The district court denied the motion on the grounds that Opticom offered "no proof of any actual prejudice flowing from the alleged conflict of interest." The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because the district court was presented with no evidence that Opticom was actually prejudiced, the court did not act arbitrarily or exceed the bounds of reason by denying Opticom's motion to disqualify. View "Rysewyk v. Mont. Opticom, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court, holding that the Missouri Constitution does not permit the General Assembly to limit the Conservation Commission's authority to expend and use conservation funds for constitutionally-enumerated purposes.The General Assembly enacted House Bill No. 2019 in 2020, appropriating $21 million to the Conservation Commission. The General Assembly, however, removed language from HB 2019 regarding use of the Commission's funds, including for land acquisition and payments in lieu of taxes (PILT). Later, the Commission attempted to withdraw funds to pay for a land acquisition and for PILT, but the Office of Administration denied the requests. The Commission and the Missouri Department of Conservation brought this action against the Attorney General and the Commissioner of the Office of Administration seeking declaratory relief to require certification of PILT payments. The circuit court ordered the Commissioner to certify the land purchase and PILT payments as requested. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, in passing HB 2019, the General Assembly invaded the Commission's constitutional authority by attempting to limit the constitutionally-enumerated purposes for which the Commission could use its funds. View "Conservation Comm'n v. Bailey" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the circuit court dismissing Petitioner's complaint seeking declaratory relief regarding the ownership of real property located in Martinsburg, holding that the circuit court did not err in dismissing the complaint.Petitioner brought this complaint seeking a declaratory judgment that she was entitled to ownership of the disputed real property and alleging claims of breach of fiduciary duty, tort of outrage, conversion, and tort damages. The circuit court granted Respondent's motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, under the facts of this case, Petitioner was not entitled to ownership of the real property or any of its household belongings. View "Gabbert v. Richard T. Coyne Trust" on Justia Law

Petitioners-appellants the Reeses and their neighbors challenged the Blackfoot City Council’s decision to approve a Planned Unit Development (“PUD”) in a “Residential Ranchette” zoning district. The district court dismissed their petition for judicial review after holding the Reeses did not demonstrate prejudice to a substantial right. After review, the Idaho Supreme Court found no reversible error and affirmed the district court's decision. View "Reese v. City of Blackfoot" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of a neighborhood association seeking to enforce a restrictive covenant, holding that the district court did not err in granting the association's motion for summary judgment or in overruling the homeowners' cross-motion for summary judgment.The Pine Tree Neighborhood Association (PTNA) brought this action against Homeowners alleging that Homeowners' lot was subject to a restrictive covenant prohibiting them from continuously parking their RV on their lot and seeking a permanent injunction. In response, Homeowners alleged that the restrictive covenants were unenforceable as a matter of law and, alternatively, that the PTNA waived the right to enforce the covenants. The district court granted summary judgment for the PTNA. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment for the PTNA. View "Pine Tree Neighborhood Ass'n v. Moses" on Justia Law