Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

In 2006, Respondent Jerome Silvernagel took out a second mortgage on a home. He agreed to make monthly payments to pay down the principal and 10% annual interest, with any remaining balance due in 2036. Silvernagel alone signed the promissory note, agreeing to repay the underlying loan. But both he and Respondent Dan Wu signed the deed of trust securing payment of the note. The deed of trust contained an acceleration clause, giving the lender the power to declare the entire loan immediately due and payable upon default. When exercised, acceleration authorized the lender to foreclose on the property to satisfy the outstanding debt and any related fees. In 2012, a bankruptcy court discharged Silvernagel’s personal liability on the mortgage under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code. Silvernagel had stopped making payments on the note before the discharge and made no payments since. The discharge prohibited creditors from attempting to collect the debt from Silvernagel directly, but it did not extinguish “the right to enforce a valid lien, such as a mortgage or security interest, against the debtor’s property after the bankruptcy.” In 2019, US Bank allegedly threatened to foreclose on the property if Silvernagel did not make payments on his mortgage. Silvernagel and Wu (hereinafter collectively, “Silvernagel”) filed this case in response, requesting declaratory relief to prevent US Bank’s enforcement of the deed of trust. He argued that US Bank’s interest was extinguished by the six-year statute of limitations on debt collection. Alternatively, he asserted that the doctrine of laches prevented enforcement of the agreement. The trial court dismissed the case, determining that US Bank’s claim had not accrued (meaning that the six-year limitation period hadn’t even commenced). A division of the court of appeals reversed, holding that the statute of limitations began to run upon Silvernagel’s 2012 bankruptcy discharge, barring US Bank’s claim. The Colorado Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals: when there is no evidence that the lender accelerated payment on the mortgage agreement, a claim for any future payment doesn’t accrue until that payment is missed under the agreement’s original terms. View "US Bank, N.A. v. Silvernagel, et al." on Justia Law

Venetian Condominiums Maintenance Corporation was a condominium project with 368 condominium units in the University Town Center area of San Diego. It was a nonprofit mutual benefit corporation governed by the California Nonprofit Mutual Benefit Corporation Law. Ali Ghorbanzadeh owned 18 units at the Venetian. He was elected to Venetian’s board of directors in 2008. In 2009, Ghorbanzadeh appointed his son Sean Gorban to the board. They controlled the three-member board continuously from 2009 through at least 2021. Guy Takiguchi was elected as the third director in 2015. From 2009 to 2021, the board repeatedly failed to hold annual elections, either due to the absence of a quorum or for other reasons. Ghorbanzadeh’s seat was up for re-election at the 2020 annual meeting, and there were two other candidates for the seat, including Nishime. The Ballot Box, Inc. contracted as the Venetian's inspector of elections, declaring there was no quorum for the meeting because Ballot Box had only received 166 ballots, and the quorum was 188. Nishime participated in the January 20, 2021 meeting remotely by computer and took multiple screenshots of the participants. Nishime was able to identify eight members who were present (representing 37 units). Had those units been counted with written ballots, there would have been a quorum of 203 present at the meeting. The eight participating members who represented units for which no ballot had been submitted included Ghorbanzadeh (representing 18 units), his son Sean Gorban (representing one unit), his other son Brian Gorban (representing three units), and an ally of Ghorbanzadeh’s who was also running for the director’s seat (representing one unit). An allegation asserted Ghorbanzadeh and his allies did not submit their ballots “in a deliberate and tactical effort to not reach quorum so they could remain in power another year or two.” Venetian submitted no evidence refuting this accusation. The Court of Appeal concluded the trial court properly ordered Venetian to hold a meeting for the purpose of counting the 166 written ballots cast for its January 20, 2021 annual member meeting and election. Substantial evidence supported the trial court’s finding that there was a quorum present for that meeting. By adjourning the meeting based on the purported absence of a quorum, Venetian failed to conduct the scheduled meeting or cover the noticed agenda items, which included counting the ballots and determining the results. View "Takiguchi v. Venetian Condominiums Maintenance Corp." on Justia Law

In 2017, the County initiated an administrative tax foreclosure against BSI. The County Board of Revision (BOR) issued its final adjudication of foreclosure in June 2019. Because the County had opted for the alternative right of redemption, BSI had 28 days to pay the taxes before the County took title to the property. Days later, BSI filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition, which automatically stayed the BOR’s final judgment and 28-day redemption period. The bankruptcy court granted the County relief from the stay on January 17, 2020. The BOR determined that the statutory redemption period expired on January 21, 2020. On January 30, rather than sell the property, the County transferred it to its land bank (Ohio Rev. Code 323.78.1). When a county sells foreclosed property at auction, it may not keep proceeds beyond the taxes the former owner owed; if the county transfers the property to the land bank, “the land becomes ‘free and clear of all impositions and any other liens.’”BSI filed suit, 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that a significant difference between the appraised value of the property and the amount that the County alleged BSI owed meant that the County’s action violated the Takings Clause. The district court dismissed the case under the two-year statute of limitations. The Sixth Circuit reversed. The limitations period began to run when the redemption period ended on January 21, 2020. If BSI paid its delinquent taxes during that period, the County would have been prohibited from taking the property. View "Beaver Street Investments, LLC v. Summit County, Ohio" on Justia Law

Consolidated appeals arose from a dispute between Richard Bentley and his brother, James Randall Bentley ("Randy"), and from a dispute between Richard and his ex-wife, Leslie Bentley. In case no. CV-19-7, an action concerning the administration of the estate of Richard and Randy's father, Dedrick William Bentley ("the estate action"), Richard, as coexecutor of Dedrick's estate, asserted cross-claims against Randy, as the other coexecutor of the estate. Richard sought, among other things, the return of certain real property previously owned by their parents to Dedrick's estate and sought to eject Randy from that property. Randy moved for summary judgment on those cross-claims, which was granted by the circuit court. Although the circuit court certified its partial summary judgment as final pursuant to Rule 54(b), Ala. R. Civ. P., that certification was improper, and therefore Richard's appeal of the partial summary judgment (appeal no. SC- 2022-0522) should have been dismissed. In case no. CV-20-900058 ("the fraudulent-transfer action"), Leslie sued Richard seeking to set aside, pursuant to the Alabama Fraudulent Transfer Act ("the AFTA") the allegedly fraudulent transfer of assets that Richard had obtained or inherited from Dedrick's estate to a trust that Richard had created. Leslie moved for summary judgment, which was granted by the circuit court, and Richard appealed (appeal no. SC-2022- 0526). Finding no error in that judgment, the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed. View "Bentley v. Bentley" on Justia Law

In this case, a purchase agreement provided provided that the parties were obligated to close a real-estate sale unless the buyer -- Lafayette Land Acquisitions II, LLC ("Lafayette Land") -- rejected the deal in writing before the end of the due-diligence period. Although the parties disputed when that period began, and how long it lasted, it was undisputed that Lafayette Land never rejected the deal. Therefore, the Alabama Supreme Court concluded the parties were obligated to close. Because the Circuit Court held otherwise, judgment was reversed and remanded. View "Lafayette Land Acquisitions II, LLC v. Walls" on Justia Law

Sheryl Lyne, individually and as the personal representative of the estate of Robert L. Kawzinski, filed suit against Debra Ann Kawzinski ("Debra Ann") to quiet title to a piece of real property to which Lyne and Debra Ann both claimed an ownership interest. Lyne further requested that the circuit court require the property to be sold and the proceeds divided among the rightful owners of the property. The circuit court entered a summary judgment in favor of Lyne. Debra Ann appealed. The Alabama Supreme Court dismissed Debra Ann's appeal as untimely filed. View "Kawzinski v. Lyne" on Justia Law

In this mineral lease dispute, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals concluding that a lease deadline and untimely scheduled drilling date were irrelevant for invoking a force majeure clause and thus reversing the trial court's judgment and remanding the case, holding that the court of appeals erred.In reversing the trial court's judgment, the court of appeals determined that fact issues existed both as to whether the force majeure clause applied and as to each element of the lessee's tortious-interference claims. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case, holding (1) construed in context, the phrase "Lessee's operations are delayed by an event of force majeure" does not refer to the delay of a necessary drilling operation already scheduled to occur after the deadline for perpetuating the lease; (2) the force majeure clause in this case did not save the lease; and (3) to the extent the lessee's tortious-interference claims were predicated on the force majeure clause's saving the lease, a take-nothing judgment is rendered in part. View "Point Energy Partners Permian, LLC v. MRC Permian Co." on Justia Law

In this action concerning a lease renewal for property on which a cell tower was built the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court and the court of appeals in favor of a cell phone service company and dismissing this action brought by property owners, holding that there was no error.In 1988, the cell phone company entered into a thirty-year lease of the subject property that included a thirty-year renewal option. In 2018, when the lease came up for renewal, the rent was substantially below market, and the company gave written notice of renewal to the property owners. Because the company did not immediately pay the renewal rent the property owners brought suit arguing that the option had not been validly exercised. The district court granted judgment for the cell phone company, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the property owners were not entitled to relief on their allegations of error. View "Pitz v. U.S. Cellular Operating Co. of Dubuque" on Justia Law

The junior creditor, WBL SPO, LLC (WBL), claimed it was entitled to sue the foreclosing creditor, West Town Bank & Trust (West Town), for not bidding a high enough price for an encumbered property. In 2015, West Town loaned $4.4 million to DIA Lodging and DJ Lodging (collectively, DJ Lodging). The loan was secured not only by the Biloxi hotel but also by another hotel in Forrest City, Arkansas. At the time of the loan, the preloan appraisal valued the Biloxi hotel at $5.45 million. WBL had the second mortgage on the Biloxi hotel; both loans were secured by the Biloxi and Arkansas hotels. DJ Lodging quickly fell behind on its weekly payments to WBL. It also defaulted on its payments to West Town. Based on the default, West Town informed WBL of its intention to commence a nonjudicial foreclosure. West Town had obtained an appraisal of the hotel in January 2020 that indicated the fair market value of the property was $2.75 million. The year before, in February 2019, West Town had obtained an appraisal from a different firm valuing the property at just $1.7 million. West Town decided to split the difference between the two appraisals and make a $2.195 credit bid at the foreclosure sale. West Town averred that, at the time of foreclosure, DJ Lodging still owed $4.5 million. WBL was owed half a million dollars. The foreclosure sale proceeded in March 2020, and West Town’s $2.195 million credit bid was the only bid. West Town transferred its interest in the hotel to Patriarch, LLC, a single-purpose entity established to hold properties West Town acquired in foreclosure. Patriarch then sold the property to a third party for $1.9 million. WBL claimed it was entitled to an “equitable credit” in the form of money damages for the difference between the amount West Town purchased the hotel at the foreclosure sale and the allegedly higher commercially reasonable value of the property. The trial court rejected WBL’s equitable-credit claim. Because WBL’s claims against West Town were based on an asserted legal right that did not exist, the Mississippi Supreme Court concurred West Town was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. View "WBL SPO I, LLC v. West Town Bank & Trust" on Justia Law

The Map, filed with the Alameda County Recorder’s Office in 1854, depicts lots 15-18. In 1877, those lots were conveyed with others and were separately identified. Lots 15-18 were transferred in a single conveyance in 1885, 1887, and 1913. Lot 18 remained as depicted on the 1854 Map. In 1944, lots 17 and 18 and part of lot 16 were transferred in a single deed. In 2015, Crescent acquired those lots by a single deed. Crescent applied for a certificate of compliance for lot 18. The city surveyor agreed lot 18 “was legally created" but concluded, that lots “18 and 17, and a portion of 15 and 16 were merged" by a 1933 probate judgment because “[t]he adjudicated lines of the original lots were removed" by metes and bounds description, and they were effectively re-subdivided by the 1944 conveyance. There had “been no effort to divide the parcel into the original 25-foot configurations,” no separately assessed parcel existed for lot 18 in 1972, and the lot had not been “separately” conveyed.The court of appeal ruled in favor of Crescent. Lot 18, conveyed in conjunction with three or fewer other lots before the enactment of any ordinance governing such subdivisions, is presumptively lawful (Government Code 66412.6(a) and 66499.30(d)). It is irrelevant whether the original Map created legal parcels or whether lot 18 was ever “merged” into the adjoining lots, as the city never attempted to justify its denial of a certificate of compliance on that basis. View "Crescent Trust v. City of Oakland" on Justia Law