Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

A Maryland real estate investment trust with over 12,000 shareholders entered into an advisory agreement with UMTH General Services, L.P. and its affiliates to manage the trust’s investments and operations. The agreement stated that the advisor was in a fiduciary relationship with the trust and its shareholders, but individual shareholders were not parties to the agreement. After allegations of mismanagement and improper advancement of legal fees surfaced, a shareholder, Nexpoint Diversified Real Estate Trust, sued derivatively in Maryland. The Maryland court dismissed the claims for lack of standing and subject matter jurisdiction. Nexpoint then transferred its shares to a subsidiary, which, along with Nexpoint, sued the advisors directly in Texas, alleging corporate waste and mismanagement, and claimed the advisory agreement created a duty to individual shareholders.In the 191st District Court of Dallas County, the advisors filed a plea to the jurisdiction, a verified plea in abatement, and special exceptions, arguing that the claims were derivative and belonged to the trust, so the shareholders lacked standing and capacity to sue directly. The trial court denied these motions. The advisors sought mandamus relief from the Fifth Court of Appeals, which was denied, and then petitioned the Supreme Court of Texas.The Supreme Court of Texas held that while the shareholders alleged a financial injury sufficient for constitutional standing, they lacked the capacity to sue individually because the advisory agreement did not create a duty to individual shareholders, nor did it confer third-party beneficiary status. The agreement benefited shareholders collectively through the trust, not individually. The court conditionally granted mandamus relief, directing the trial court to vacate its order and dismiss the case with prejudice, holding that shareholders must pursue such claims derivatively and in the proper forum as specified by the trust’s governing documents. View "IN RE UMTH GENERAL SERVICES, L.P." on Justia Law

Bedford Recycling, Inc. applied to the Monroe County Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) for a conditional use permit to operate a scrap metal collection and sorting facility on property zoned for mineral extraction. The county’s zoning ordinance did not specifically allow scrap metal recycling, so Bedford sought approval under the category of “Central Garbage/Rubbish Collection Facility.” The BZA granted the permit after a public hearing in which Bedford acknowledged the facility would not handle solid waste, a typical requirement for the permit. Subsequently, Republic Services, a neighboring property owner, filed for judicial review, arguing that Bedford’s facility did not meet the ordinance’s requirements. While preparing written findings to support its decision, the BZA’s attorney concluded that granting the permit was a legal error, as Bedford’s proposed use did not fit the permit’s definition.After several meetings and changes in BZA membership, the Board voted to revoke Bedford’s permit, finding that the facility was essentially a scrap yard, which was not a permitted use in the zoning district. Bedford then sought judicial review in the Monroe Circuit Court, which found that the BZA lacked statutory authority to revoke the permit based on a change in reasoning or alleged legal error, and reinstated the permit. The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the BZA could correct its own legal error and revoke the permit.The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer, vacating the Court of Appeals’ decision. The Court held that administrative bodies like the BZA have only the powers expressly granted by statute and possess no inherent or common law authority to reconsider or revoke final decisions absent explicit legislative authorization. The Court disapproved prior appellate decisions that recognized an “error of law” exception. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s order vacating the BZA’s revocation and reinstated Bedford’s conditional use permit. View "Monroe County Board of Zoning Appeals v. Bedford Recycling, Inc." on Justia Law

A resident of University Heights, Ohio, who practices Orthodox Judaism, sought to use his home for group prayer sessions due to religious obligations and restrictions on travel during the Sabbath. After inviting neighbors to participate in these gatherings, a neighbor complained to city officials, prompting the city’s law director to send a cease-and-desist letter, warning that using the home as a place of religious assembly violated local zoning laws. The resident then applied for a special use permit to operate a house of worship but withdrew his application before the city’s Planning Commission could reach a decision, stating he did not wish to operate a house of worship as defined by the ordinance. Despite withdrawing, he later filed a federal lawsuit against the city and several officials, alleging violations of federal and state law, including constitutional and statutory claims.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio granted summary judgment for the city and its officials. The court found that the plaintiff’s claims under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and the Ohio Constitution were unripe because there was no final decision by the relevant local authorities regarding the application of the zoning ordinance to his property. The court also rejected his Fourth Amendment and Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE Act) claims on the merits and declined supplemental jurisdiction over a state public records claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed. The court held that most of the plaintiff’s claims were unripe because he withdrew his application before any final decision was made by the city’s zoning authorities, and thus there was no concrete dispute for federal review. The court also held that his facial challenges to the ordinance were forfeited and, in any event, failed as a matter of law. The court further concluded that the Fourth Amendment and FACE Act claims failed on the merits and found no abuse of discretion in declining supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim. View "Daniel Grand v. City of University Heights, Ohio" on Justia Law

RTI, LLC and RTI Holdings, LLC sought to construct a specialized clinical research facility in Brookings, South Dakota, designed for animal health research trials with stringent air filtration and ventilation requirements. Acting as the general contractor, RTI hired designArc Group, Inc. as architect and several contractors, including Pro Engineering, Inc., Ekern Home Equipment Company, FM Acoustical Tile, Inc., and Trane U.S. Inc., to design and build the facility. After completion in April 2016, RTI experienced significant issues with air pressure, ventilation, and ceiling integrity, leading to contamination problems that disrupted research and resulted in financial losses.The Circuit Court of the Third Judicial Circuit, Brookings County, reviewed RTI’s claims for breach of contract and breach of implied warranties against the architect and contractors. All defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that RTI’s claims were based on professional negligence and required expert testimony, which RTI failed to provide. The circuit court agreed, finding RTI’s CEO unqualified as an expert, and granted summary judgment to all defendants. The court also denied RTI’s motion to amend its complaint to add negligence claims, deeming the amendment untimely and futile due to the lack of expert testimony.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota affirmed the summary judgment for designArc, Pro Engineering, and FM Acoustical, holding that expert testimony was required for claims involving specialized design and construction issues, and that RTI’s CEO was not qualified to provide such testimony. However, the court reversed the summary judgment for Trane and Ekern, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding Trane’s alleged faulty installation and Ekern’s potential vicarious liability. The court also reversed the denial of RTI’s motion to amend the complaint, concluding the proposed amendments were not futile and would not prejudice Trane or Ekern. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "RTI, LLC v. Pro Engineering" on Justia Law

Jeremy and Abbey Coyle brought a civil trespass action against Kenneth and Kelli McFarland, alleging that a portion of the McFarlands’ driveway and vehicles encroached on the Coyles’ property, Lot Q1, in Belle Fourche, South Dakota. The dispute centered on whether a public right-of-way (Walworth Street) extended along the entire southeastern boundary of the McFarlands’ Lot 25A, which would affect the property boundaries and the alleged trespass. The Coyles claimed the right-of-way ended at a certain point, while the McFarlands argued it continued along the full boundary, relying on subdivision plats, improvement agreements, and city ordinances.After the Coyles filed their complaint, the McFarlands answered and asserted their defense based on the Subdivision Improvements Agreement and city records. The Coyles then moved for partial summary judgment before any discovery had occurred. The McFarlands failed to respond within the statutory deadline and subsequently moved for a continuance under SDCL 15-6-56(f), submitting affidavits explaining the need for additional discovery and citing personal circumstances for the delay. The Circuit Court for the Fourth Judicial Circuit, Butte County, denied the continuance and granted partial summary judgment to the Coyles, finding the right-of-way ended as the Coyles claimed and ordering the McFarlands to remove their assets from Lot Q1. The court later denied the McFarlands’ motion for reconsideration and motion for relief from judgment.On appeal, the Supreme Court of South Dakota held that the circuit court abused its discretion by denying the McFarlands’ motion for a continuance. The Supreme Court found that the McFarlands’ affidavits met the requirements for additional time under Rule 56(f), that excusable neglect was present due to counsel’s personal circumstances, and that no prejudice to the Coyles was shown. The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court’s orders and remanded for further proceedings. View "Coyle v. Mcfarland" on Justia Law

David Scott Taylor owns property near Pinnacle Mountain in Pulaski County, Arkansas, adjacent to land owned and developed by Rick Ferguson and several related entities. Ferguson’s property, which is being developed into the Paradise Valley subdivision, allegedly causes increased stormwater runoff that floods Taylor’s land. Taylor claims that the development’s clearing of vegetation, paving, and planned drainage ditch will exacerbate flooding, potentially increasing it by up to 400 percent. Taylor filed suit in Pulaski County Circuit Court, seeking damages and equitable relief to require Ferguson to construct a larger storm-water detention pond to mitigate the flooding.After Taylor filed his complaint, Ferguson moved to dismiss, arguing that the claims involved matters assigned to the exclusive original jurisdiction of the county court under article 7, section 28 of the Arkansas Constitution, specifically relating to county roads, internal improvement, and local concerns. Taylor amended his complaint to remove references to county roads and public nuisance, focusing solely on private flooding. The circuit court initially denied Ferguson’s motion but later reconsidered and dismissed the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, finding that the dispute fell within the county court’s exclusive original jurisdiction. Ferguson then nonsuited his counterclaim, and Taylor appealed.The Supreme Court of Arkansas reviewed the circuit court’s dismissal de novo. It held that Taylor’s claims do not involve county roads, internal improvement, or local concerns as those terms are used in article 7, section 28. The court found that the dispute is a private residential matter over flooding, not a public infrastructure or county regulatory issue, and thus falls within the jurisdiction of the circuit court. The Supreme Court of Arkansas reversed the circuit court’s dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "TAYLOR V. FERGUSON" on Justia Law

Susan Boggs and Fouad Rachid reside in a home owned by Fouad, Inc., located in Olmsted Township near the Cleveland-Hopkins International Airport. Boggs alleges that increased air traffic and airport operations, particularly following a runway expansion project, have caused significant noise, vibrations, and emissions, rendering the property unsuitable for residential use and amounting to a governmental taking. Boggs declined Cleveland’s offer to purchase an avigation easement and subsequently filed a mandamus action against the City of Cleveland, seeking to compel the city to initiate appropriation proceedings to determine compensation for the alleged taking.The case was initially removed to federal court, where Boggs pursued administrative remedies with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), but her claims were rejected. After further federal litigation, the district court granted summary judgment to Cleveland on federal claims and remanded the state-law claims to the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas. In state court, both parties moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted summary judgment to Cleveland, finding that Boggs lacked standing because Cleveland, as a municipality, lacked authority to appropriate property outside its boundaries. The Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Boggs’s injury was not redressable since Cleveland could not be compelled to initiate appropriation proceedings for property outside its jurisdiction.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case and reversed the judgment of the Eighth District Court of Appeals. The court held that under Article I, Section 19 of the Ohio Constitution, a landowner whose property has been taken by a foreign municipality has standing to pursue a mandamus action to force the municipality to institute appropriation proceedings for compensation, regardless of whether the property is located within the municipality’s boundaries. The case was remanded for further proceedings, including consideration of the statute-of-limitations issue. View "State ex rel. Boggs v. Cleveland" on Justia Law

A married couple, Carlos Del Amo and his wife, opened a joint checking account at TD Bank in Florida. The account’s signature card listed both their names and, in small print, stated that “joint accounts are owned as joint tenants with right of survivorship.” When Mr. Del Amo filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, he claimed the account as exempt property, arguing it was owned as a tenancy by the entirety—a form of ownership that protects the account from creditors of only one spouse under Florida law. Storey Mountain, a creditor, objected, contending that the account was not exempt because the signature card’s language created a joint tenancy with right of survivorship, not a tenancy by the entirety.The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida found the statutory language unclear as to what constitutes “otherwise specified in writing” under Florida Statutes § 655.79(1). Relying on the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Beal Bank, SSB v. Almand and Associates, the bankruptcy court held that, absent an express disclaimer of tenancy by the entirety on the signature card, the account was presumed to be held as a tenancy by the entirety. The court overruled Storey Mountain’s objection. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida affirmed, agreeing that the 2008 amendment to § 655.79(1) did not abrogate Beal Bank’s requirement for an express disclaimer.On further appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the lower courts. The Eleventh Circuit held that, under Florida law, a joint bank account held by a married couple is presumed to be a tenancy by the entirety unless there is an explicit written disclaimer of that form of ownership. The court found that the language on the signature card was insufficient to constitute such a disclaimer, and thus the account was exempt property in the bankruptcy proceedings. View "Storey Mountain v. Del Amo" on Justia Law

Two young children, ages four and two, suffered severe injuries after falling from a second-floor bedroom window in their apartment, which had recently undergone renovations. The property owner and manager had replaced the window without installing a fall prevention device, despite the window’s low sill height and significant drop to the ground. The children, through their guardian ad litem, sued the owner and manager for negligence, alleging both general negligence and negligence per se based on an alleged violation of the California Building Standards Code, which requires fall prevention devices on certain windows.The Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, heard the case. Before trial, the defendants sought summary adjudication and moved in limine to exclude expert testimony regarding the Building Code, arguing that the property was exempt from current requirements due to compliance with the code at the time of original construction and the use of “like-for-like” materials during renovation. The trial court denied these pretrial motions but, after plaintiffs presented their case at trial, granted a nonsuit on both negligence theories, finding no duty under general negligence and that the code exemption applied to the negligence per se claim.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the case. It affirmed the trial court’s ruling on general negligence, holding that the harm was not sufficiently foreseeable to impose a duty on the landlord under the circumstances. However, it reversed the nonsuit on negligence per se, holding that the trial court misinterpreted the Building Code: a window is not an “original material” exempt from current safety requirements. The appellate court remanded the case for retrial on the negligence per se claim. View "Jimenez v. Hayes Apartment Homes, LLC" on Justia Law

In this case, the plaintiff bank sought to foreclose on a residential property in Vermont after the defendant defaulted on a $365,000 loan originally issued by Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. The mortgage was assigned to the plaintiff, and the bank alleged it was the holder of the note. However, the copy of the note attached to the complaint was made out to the original lender and lacked any indorsement. Over the years, the case was delayed by mediation, bankruptcy, and various motions. At trial, the plaintiff produced the original note with an undated indorsement in blank, but could not establish when it became the holder of the note.The Vermont Superior Court, Windsor Unit, Civil Division, denied the plaintiff’s initial summary judgment motion, finding that the plaintiff had not established standing under the Uniform Commercial Code. A later summary judgment was vacated due to procedural errors. After a hearing, the court found the plaintiff was currently a holder of the note and that the defendant had defaulted, but concluded that the plaintiff failed to prove it had the right to enforce the note at the time the complaint was filed, as required by U.S. Bank National Ass’n v. Kimball. Judgment was entered for the defendant, and the plaintiff’s post-judgment motion to designate the judgment as without prejudice was denied.On appeal, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision. The Court held that a foreclosure plaintiff must demonstrate standing by showing it had the right to enforce the note at the time the complaint was filed, declining to overrule or limit Kimball. The Court also declined to address whether the judgment should be designated as without prejudice, leaving preclusion consequences to future proceedings. View "The Bank of New York Mellon v. Quinn" on Justia Law