Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

The plaintiff, a property owner in Fairfield, Connecticut, sought approval from the town's zoning commission to build a forty-unit affordable housing development. The application included a request for a text amendment to the zoning regulations and approval of a site plan and certificate of zoning compliance. The proposed building exceeded the height limits of the residence A zone district, where the property is located, which typically allows only single-family dwellings with a maximum height of thirty-two feet.The zoning commission denied the text amendment request, citing inconsistency with the town's plan of conservation and development, among other reasons. However, it conditionally approved the site plan and certificate of zoning compliance, provided the building height was reduced to three stories and forty feet. The commission justified the height restriction by stating that the proposed building's visibility from a nearby historic district would harm the district's integrity, which it deemed a substantial public interest.The plaintiff appealed to the Superior Court, which consolidated the case with an appeal from four intervenors who opposed the development. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, finding that the commission had improperly failed to apply the standards of Connecticut's affordable housing statute (§ 8-30g) to the text amendment request. The court also concluded that the commission did not meet its burden of proving that the height restriction was necessary to protect a substantial public interest that outweighed the need for affordable housing.The Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision regarding the height restriction, agreeing that the commission failed to demonstrate that the restriction was necessary to protect a substantial public interest in historic preservation that outweighed the need for affordable housing. However, the Supreme Court partially reversed the trial court's decision on the text amendment, ruling that § 8-30g applied only to the plaintiff's property and not to the entire residence A zone district. The case was remanded with instructions to grant the text amendment limited to the plaintiff's property. View "131 Beach Road, LLC v. Town Plan & Zoning Commission" on Justia Law

A nonprofit association of homeowners in Woodbridge appealed a decision by the Connecticut Siting Council, which approved a telecommunications company's application to construct a cell phone tower in the town. The plaintiff intervened in the administrative proceeding, arguing that the proposed tower would unreasonably impact nearby scenic resources and vistas. During the hearings, the council stated that property values were not among the statutory criteria to be considered. The telecommunications company presented evidence that the tower would improve cell coverage, while the plaintiff's consultant argued that alternative locations would provide better coverage with less impact on residential neighborhoods.The trial court dismissed the plaintiff's administrative appeal, concluding that the council's decision was supported by substantial evidence and was reasonable. The court noted that the council had considered evidence from residents about the tower's impact on property values and had sufficiently considered alternative locations but found the approved site to be the most appropriate.The Connecticut Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the plaintiff had standing to raise the claim about property values. However, the court concluded that a facility's impact on property values is not an enumerated or unenumerated significant adverse effect that the council must consider under the statute. The court also found that the council's decision was supported by substantial evidence, including extensive testimony and documentary evidence about the coverage provided by the proposed and alternative locations. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the council's approval of the tower. View "Woodbridge Newton Neighborhood Environmental Trust v. Connecticut Siting Council" on Justia Law

Robert Turner, a property owner in Suwannee County, Florida, claimed that his homestead property was sold at an impermissibly low amount under Florida law, which deprived him of any surplus after back taxes and costs were deducted. Turner had a homestead exemption on his property, which was automatically renewed until 2015. After failing to pay property taxes, a tax certificate was issued, and a tax deed sale was conducted in 2015. Turner alleged that the sale was unlawful because it did not account for the homestead exemption, and he did not receive proper notice of the sale.Turner initially sought relief in state court, challenging the removal of his homestead exemption, but his complaint was dismissed as untimely. He then filed a federal lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming violations of his constitutional rights, including First Amendment retaliation, Fourth Amendment illegal seizure, and due process violations. The federal district court dismissed his complaint, finding that abstention was warranted under the comity doctrine, which prevents federal courts from interfering with state tax administration when state remedies are adequate.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the district court's decision. The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the relief Turner sought would disrupt Florida's administration of its ad valorem property tax scheme. The court found that Florida provided plain, adequate, and complete state remedies, including the ability to challenge tax deed sales and homestead exemption removals in state court. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in abstaining from exercising jurisdiction under the comity doctrine. View "Turner v. Jordan" on Justia Law

In May 2017, the City of Alameda leased residential property to Shelby Sheehan. Sheehan stopped paying rent in December 2020 and did not pay for over 17 months. On April 5, 2022, the City served Sheehan with a three-day notice to pay rent or vacate, specifying payment to be made to "City of Alameda c/o River Rock Real Estate Group." Sheehan neither paid nor vacated, prompting the City to file an unlawful detainer action.Sheehan moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing the notice was defective because it did not name a natural person as the payee and was ambiguous about the payment method. The trial court agreed, finding the notice invalid for not identifying a natural person and for being ambiguous about acceptable payment methods. Consequently, the court dismissed the action, and the City appealed.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, reviewed the case de novo. The court disagreed with the trial court's narrow interpretation of "person" under Code of Civil Procedure section 1161(2), holding that "person" includes corporations as well as natural persons. However, the court found the notice defective because it did not provide the correct and complete name of the corporation to whom rent should be paid, creating ambiguity and confusion. Therefore, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of Sheehan, concluding that the notice did not strictly comply with statutory requirements. The court did not address the trial court's finding of ambiguity based on payment method due to the notice's other deficiencies. View "City of Alameda v. Sheehan" on Justia Law

In February 2019, the Colberts entered into a real-estate sales contract with A & W Contractors, LLC to purchase a remodeled 54-year-old house. A home inspection revealed issues with the plumbing, septic system, and electrical wiring. The parties amended the contract to address these issues, and A&W claimed to have made the necessary repairs. Despite lingering concerns, the Colberts proceeded with the purchase after A&W's real-estate agent allegedly offered a three-month builder's warranty. After moving in, the Colberts experienced significant problems with the house's systems and spent approximately $90,000 on repairs.The Colberts sued A&W, and the case went to trial in the Jefferson Circuit Court. The jury found in favor of the Colberts on their breach-of-contract and fraud claims, awarding them compensatory and punitive damages. The trial court entered a judgment on the jury's verdict and denied A&W's post-trial motions to alter, amend, or vacate the judgment or for a new trial.The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed the case. It held that the trial court erred in granting a judgment as a matter of law (JML) in favor of the Colberts on their breach-of-contract claim, as there was conflicting evidence that should have been resolved by the jury. However, the Supreme Court affirmed the jury's verdict on the fraudulent misrepresentation and fraudulent suppression claims, noting that A&W had failed to preserve certain evidentiary and sufficiency-of-the-evidence arguments for appellate review. The case was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. View "A & W Contractors, LLC v. Colbert" on Justia Law

Senske Rentals, LLC, owns property in a subdivision affected by a City of Grand Forks improvement project to pave gravel roads and install street lighting. The city council approved a resolution creating a special assessment district for the project, and the City’s special assessment commission assigned benefits to the affected properties based on frontage, sideage, and square footage. Property owners were notified, and public input meetings were held. Despite protests from property owners, including Senske Rentals, the commission approved the special assessments.The district court of Grand Forks County affirmed the city council’s decision to approve the commission’s determination on the special assessments. Senske Rentals appealed, arguing that the commission failed to perform the required benefit analysis under North Dakota law and that the special assessment amounted to an unconstitutional taking. The district court denied Senske’s motions to strike certain documents from the record and to supplement the record, ultimately affirming the city council’s decision.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and concluded that the City’s special assessment commission did not properly determine the benefits accruing to Senske’s property as required by N.D.C.C. § 40-23-07. The court held that the statute requires a determination of special benefits independent of, and without regard to, the cost of the improvement project. The court found that the City had conducted a cost allocation rather than an independent determination of benefit, which was arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable. The Supreme Court reversed the district court’s order and remanded the case to the City for a proper determination of special benefits to Senske’s lots, independent of the project’s cost, and to apply that special benefit as a limit on assessments to each of Senske’s lots. View "Senske Rentals v. City of Grand Forks" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, Sharon Mitzel, Alan Mitzel, and Eric Mitzel, filed a legal malpractice lawsuit against Vogel Law Firm and Jerilynn Brantner Adams, alleging negligence in a divorce action involving the disposition of land known as Section 19. Fred and Sharon Mitzel, who were married and had two sons, formed a family limited partnership and conveyed their farm, including Section 19, to it. During their divorce, they agreed that Section 19 would go to Fred, subject to deeding it to their sons upon his death. However, a subsequent quiet title action determined that the family partnership owned Section 19, nullifying the divorce judgment's property distribution.The District Court of Cass County granted partial summary judgment dismissing Alan and Eric Mitzel’s claims, ruling they lacked standing as non-clients to sue for legal malpractice. The court also granted judgment as a matter of law dismissing Sharon Mitzel’s claims, concluding she presented no evidence that she gave up any marital property to secure the agreement for Section 19 to be deeded to her sons upon Fred’s death. Sharon Mitzel’s claim for attorney’s fees and costs incurred due to Vogel’s alleged malpractice was also dismissed.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court’s decision to dismiss Alan and Eric Mitzel’s claims, agreeing they lacked standing. The court also upheld the measure of damages used by the lower court, which was based on what Sharon Mitzel gave up to secure Section 19 for her sons. However, the Supreme Court found that the lower court erred in determining Sharon Mitzel presented no evidence of incurring attorney’s fees and costs due to Vogel’s alleged malpractice. The case was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. View "Mitzel v. Vogel Law Firm" on Justia Law

The City of Sammamish passed an ordinance to condemn property rights in George Davis Creek, which runs through the petitioners' property, for stormwater management and fish passage protection. The city aimed to address storm drainage issues, improve traffic safety, provide flood protection, and remove barriers to fish passage. The petitioners argued that the city lacked authority to condemn their property for fish passage purposes, citing the salmon recovery act (SRA) and a previous case, Cowlitz County v. Martin.The Superior Court denied the city's motion for condemnation, agreeing with the petitioners that the city had no authority to condemn private property for fish passage purposes. The city appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed the decision, holding that the city had statutory authority under RCW 8.12.030 to condemn property for stormwater management. The court distinguished this case from Cowlitz County, noting that the project in question had multiple purposes, including stormwater management, which is explicitly authorized by the statute.The Supreme Court of the State of Washington reviewed the case to determine the scope of the city's statutory condemnation authority. The court held that RCW 8.12.030 grants cities the authority to condemn property for stormwater management and other public uses. The inclusion of fish passage as one of the project's purposes did not divest the city of its authority to condemn property for stormwater management. The court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. View "City of Sammamish v. Titcomb" on Justia Law

Nine Black, female, low- to moderate-income first-time homebuyers purchased condominium units at the RiverEast at Grandview Condominium complex through the District of Columbia’s Housing Purchase Assistance Program. Shortly after moving in, they encountered severe habitability issues, including foundation problems, sewage, and mold. Their attempts to resolve these issues were unsuccessful, leading them to file a thirteen-count lawsuit against the developers, the District of Columbia Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD), and the RiverEast at Grandview Condominium Owner’s Association. The developers later filed for bankruptcy, and the plaintiffs were forced to evacuate their units.The Superior Court of the District of Columbia granted motions to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims against the District and the Association for failure to state a claim. The court found that DHCD, as a District agency, was non sui juris and thus incapable of being sued. It also concluded that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim under the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act (CPPA) because the District could not be considered a “merchant” under the statute. The court dismissed other claims, including violations of the District of Columbia Human Rights Act (DCHRA), breach of contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), and negligence.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s dismissal of the CPPA claim, holding that the District could be considered a merchant under the statute. The case was remanded for further consideration of whether the District’s trade practices were unfair or deceptive. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the DCHRA, breach of contract, IIED, and negligence claims, finding that the plaintiffs failed to sufficiently allege facts to support these claims. The court also upheld the trial court’s denial of the plaintiffs’ request to amend their complaint. View "May v. River East at Grandview" on Justia Law

In 2022, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed an ordinance extending the notice period for landlords pursuing at-fault evictions. The San Francisco Apartment Association and Small Property Owners of San Francisco Institute sought a writ of mandate to prevent the City and County of San Francisco from enforcing the ordinance, arguing it was preempted by state law. The trial court partially granted the petition, finding the ordinance preempted only for nonpayment of rent evictions. Both parties appealed.The San Francisco Superior Court initially ruled that the ordinance conflicted with state law only regarding nonpayment of rent, citing a split in authority on notice periods for other fault-based evictions. The court referenced Tri County Apartment Association v. City of Mountain View, which invalidated extended notice periods, and Rental Housing Association of Northern Alameda County v. City of Oakland, which allowed them. The trial court felt bound by Rental Housing and limited its ruling to nonpayment of rent.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, reviewed the case and concluded that the entire ordinance was preempted by state law. The court found that the ordinance was procedural, not substantive, as it extended the state-mandated three-day notice period to a minimum of 13 days, conflicting with the Unlawful Detainer Act's timelines. The court determined that state law fully occupies the field of landlord-tenant notification timelines, making the local ordinance invalid.The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's judgment in part, ruling that the entire ordinance was preempted by state law, and directed the superior court to issue a writ of mandate preventing the City and County of San Francisco from enforcing the ordinance. The plaintiffs were awarded their costs on appeal. View "S.F. Apartment Assn. v. City & County of S.F." on Justia Law