Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

A joint drainage district, managed by the boards of supervisors for Floyd and Cerro Gordo Counties, sought to require a railroad company to install a new, larger drainage culvert through a railroad embankment to improve water flow and address aging infrastructure. The existing culvert, over a century old, was deteriorating and positioned too high to drain water effectively. The proposed construction involved a trenchless “jack and bore” method designed to avoid any interruption to rail service. The railroad company objected, arguing that federal law preempted state drainage law and that the construction would jeopardize railroad operations.After a remand from the Surface Transportation Board, the Iowa District Court for Floyd County conducted a bench trial and concluded that federal law—the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act—preempted the drainage district’s authority. The district court found that the proposed installation posed risks to rail operations and issued a writ of mandamus preventing the project. The Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed this decision.On further review, the Iowa Supreme Court held that the federal statute did not categorically preempt state drainage law in this context and that preemption would only apply if the project imposed more than incidental interference with rail operations. After a de novo review of the evidence, the court determined that the proposed culvert installation would have only incidental effects on rail transportation and that the railroad had not met its burden of showing unreasonable interference. The Iowa Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals’ decision, reversed the district court’s judgment, and remanded the case for entry of judgment in favor of the drainage district, dissolving the writ of mandamus. View "Iowa Northern Railway Company v. Floyd County Board of Supervisors" on Justia Law

In 2022, voters in a California city approved an initiative known as Measure H, which amended the city charter to establish rent control, just cause eviction protections, and an independent Rental Housing Board with significant regulatory authority over rental housing, rent increases, and evictions. The measure limited annual rent increases for certain multifamily units, prohibited evictions without just cause, and required the city council to appoint a supermajority of tenants to the Rental Housing Board. It also contained provisions for mandatory landlord-paid relocation assistance in certain circumstances and additional notice requirements prior to eviction for nonpayment of rent.After certification of the election results, a group of landlords and a rental housing trade association challenged the validity of Measure H in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. They alleged the measure constituted an impermissible revision of the city charter under the California Constitution, imposed unconstitutional property qualifications for public office, violated equal protection, and was preempted by various state laws. The superior court rejected most of these claims, holding that Measure H was a lawful charter amendment, did not violate constitutional protections regarding property qualifications or equal protection, and did not conflict with state law except in one respect: it partially severed language in the measure that imposed greater notice requirements than those mandated by state statutes for termination of tenancy.Upon review, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Seven, reversed in part. The court held that Measure H was a permissible charter amendment, not an impermissible revision; that restricting certain board seats to tenants with a leasehold interest did not violate the constitutional prohibition on property qualifications for office; and that the tenant-majority requirement did not violate equal protection under rational basis review. However, the court found that the relocation assistance provision for tenants displaced by lawful rent increases was preempted by the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, and that the additional notice requirement for evictions due to nonpayment of rent was preempted by the Unlawful Detainer Act. The preempted provisions were declared void, and the matter was remanded for the superior court to enter judgment consistent with these findings. View "California Apartment Assn. v. City of Pasadena" on Justia Law

A property owner sought to develop a parcel of land in a town, which required rezoning and environmental review. In 2017, while preparing its zoning petition, the owner and the town entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) that purported to bind the town and its successors to continue reviewing the zoning petition until a final determination was reached, based on empirical data. The owner submitted its petition and participated in the environmental review process, investing significant resources. After local elections in 2019, a new town supervisor and board, who opposed the project, voted to terminate review of the zoning petition and the related environmental process.The property owner filed suit against the town, its board, and the supervisor, alleging breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, based on the town’s termination of the review process. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the MOU was unenforceable under the term limits doctrine and contract zoning doctrine. The Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dismissed the complaint, holding the MOU invalid. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed that decision.The New York Court of Appeals reviewed the case after granting leave to appeal. The Court held that the MOU was invalid and unenforceable under the term limits doctrine because it impermissibly bound successor town boards in the exercise of their legislative discretion over zoning matters. The Court found that such an agreement was not specifically authorized by statute or charter, and did not fall within an exception for proprietary acts. As a result, the property owner’s contractual claims failed as a matter of law. The Court affirmed the Appellate Division’s order. View "Hudson View Park Co. v Town of Fishkill" on Justia Law

The case involves an individual who left his Florida residence in August 2018 to care for his terminally ill brother, a tenant in a New York City Mitchell-Lama apartment. After the brother’s death in March 2020, the petitioner sought succession rights to the apartment, which required him to prove that the apartment was his primary residence for at least one year prior to his brother’s death. The petitioner submitted various documents, including income certifications, power of attorney forms, and certain public assistance records. However, some materials listed his Florida address, and much of his supporting documentation either fell outside the relevant one-year period or was not addressed to the apartment in question.The housing company denied his application, concluding that he failed to establish primary residency during the required time. The New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) upheld this decision after an administrative appeal, finding the evidence insufficient. The petitioner then challenged the agency’s determination through a CPLR article 78 proceeding. The Supreme Court annulled the agency’s decision and granted succession rights, ruling the denial irrational. On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed, holding that the agency’s denial had a rational basis, especially given the petitioner’s failure to supply certain key documents such as New York State tax returns or proof of exemption.The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision. The Court held that, under the applicable regulations, the agency’s determination that the petitioner failed to prove the apartment was his primary residence for the required period was supported by a rational basis. The Court emphasized that the agency’s decision was neither arbitrary nor capricious, and the evidence provided by the petitioner did not meet the burden required to establish primary residency for succession rights. The order dismissing the petition was affirmed. View "Matter of Mantilla v New York City Dept. of Hous. Preserv. & Dev." on Justia Law

A carpenter employed by a subcontractor was injured after falling from a ladder owned by another subcontractor, DAL Electrical Corporation, while working on a renovation project at an office building. The injured worker was using his own employer’s equipment in the morning but, after lunch, returned to the worksite without his equipment and used an unattended DAL ladder, which was defective and marked with blue tape. He was injured when the ladder wobbled and he fell, impaling himself on a tool in his belt. The worker brought claims under New York Labor Law and for common-law negligence against the project’s general contractor, premises owner, and DAL, asserting the defective ladder caused his injuries. The general contractor and owner sought indemnification from DAL under their subcontract.The Supreme Court of Bronx County granted the worker’s motion for partial summary judgment on one Labor Law claim and denied DAL’s motion to dismiss other claims and cross-claims by the general contractor and owner. The court also granted the general contractor and owner summary judgment on their contractual indemnification claim against DAL. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified this order by denying summary judgment on contractual indemnification and granting summary judgment for DAL on all claims and cross-claims against it. The general contractor and owner appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision. The Court held that none of the indemnification provisions in the subcontract required DAL to indemnify the general contractor or owner for the worker’s injuries because the injuries did not arise from DAL’s performance of its contractually defined work. The Court also found that DAL did not owe a duty of care in tort to the injured worker, as the facts did not fit within any recognized exception to the general rule against extending contractual duties to non-contracting third parties. The certified question was answered in the affirmative. View "Dibrino v Rockefeller Ctr. N., Inc." on Justia Law

A non-profit religious organization sought to build an outdoor grotto, including a shrine, plaza, and walking path, on land adjacent to its existing church property. The new grotto was planned for a parcel subject to a lease and eventual transfer to the organization. The property was zoned for residential use, and while the church itself predated the zoning ordinance, the construction of accessory religious structures was not directly permitted under the current ordinance unless the church was located adjacent to an arterial street. The organization’s application acknowledged this restriction but requested approval for the project and setback variances.The Park Hills Board of Adjustment held a public hearing, received input both for and against the project, and ultimately approved the conditional use permit and variances, conditioned on the property transfer. Neighbors opposed to the project, specifically the Frederics, challenged the Board’s decision in the Kenton Circuit Court, arguing that the Board exceeded its authority under local ordinances and state law. The circuit court ruled in favor of the defendants, finding that the church was “grandfathered” due to its pre-zoning existence and that the Board did not act arbitrarily. The court did not address the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) claim raised during summary judgment.On appeal, the Kentucky Court of Appeals reversed, holding the Board acted arbitrarily and exceeded its authority, as the expansion constituted an impermissible enlargement of a nonconforming use under both the zoning code and state law. The court also found no RLUIPA violation, reasoning that the ordinance did not impose a substantial burden on religious exercise.The Supreme Court of Kentucky granted discretionary review. The Court held that the RLUIPA defense was properly before it, as it had been tried by implied consent of the parties. On the merits, the Court concluded that denial of the permit did not impose a substantial burden under RLUIPA, applying the Sixth Circuit’s standard. The Court also found that the zoning ordinance did not violate RLUIPA’s equal-terms provision. The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ ruling, vacating the Board’s grant of the permit and variances. View "MISSIONARIES OF SAINT JOHN THE BAPTIST, INC. V. FREDERIC" on Justia Law

A company that owns and operates the only landfill in a particular town challenged a local law that required the landfill’s closure by a specified date. The law was enacted after community complaints regarding odors. When the law was first passed, the town’s attorney acknowledged that a State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) review was required, but the Board adopted the law and related SEQRA documents without substantive discussion. After a subsequent law rescinded and then court action reinstated the original law, the landfill owner again brought a proceeding, claiming, among other things, that the Board failed to comply with SEQRA by not taking a “hard look” at environmental impacts.The Supreme Court initially dismissed the action on statute of limitations grounds, but the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, reversed that decision, holding the claim was timely. After the parties resolved all non-SEQRA claims, Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the landfill owner, finding it had standing and that the Board did not properly comply with SEQRA. The Appellate Division reversed, concluding the owner lacked standing because it had not shown it suffered or would suffer an environmental injury. The dissent argued that under Matter of Har Enterprises v Town of Brookhaven and Gernatt Asphalt Products v Town of Sardinia, property owners directly affected by a government action do not need to allege environmental harm to have standing under SEQRA.The New York Court of Appeals held that the landfill owner has standing to challenge the Board’s SEQRA compliance simply by virtue of owning property directly affected by the local law, following the holdings in Har Enterprises and Gernatt Asphalt Products. The Court further declined to review the statute of limitations argument at this stage, as that issue had already been resolved and was not properly before it. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order and remitted the case for further proceedings. View "Seneca Meadows, Inc. v. Town of Seneca Falls" on Justia Law

This dispute involves two parcels of undeveloped land in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, owned by a nonprofit conservation organization. The parcels abut land owned by two individuals who operate an excavation and topsoil business. The individuals claimed to have used the parcels exclusively for their business activities for over 40 years, including excavation, storage, and staging, and to have controlled access to the lots with locked gates. In 2018, they initiated a quiet title action to acquire title to the parcels by adverse possession. The record title owner, the conservation organization, contested the action, asserting the individuals were not in legal possession and presenting aerial photographs to show the land remained in its natural state.The Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County held an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the individuals satisfied the jurisdictional prerequisite of possession necessary for a quiet title action. The court found the individuals were in possession of at least a portion of both parcels, based largely on evidence of their use and control of access, and directed the record owner to file an ejectment action. The owner appealed, and the Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed, agreeing with the trial court’s finding that the individuals had demonstrated sufficient possession to proceed with the quiet title action.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed whether the presumption of possession by the record title holder could be overcome and whether a stricter standard for possession applied due to the parcels’ character as woodlands. The Court held that a record title owner’s presumption of possession may be rebutted by credible evidence of another party’s dominion and control over the property. The stricter standard for possession of woodlands is not relevant at this preliminary stage. The order compelling the record owner to file an ejectment action was affirmed. View "Duncan v. Chartiers Nature Conservancy, Aplt." on Justia Law

Two neighbors own adjacent properties in a subdivision, with one property benefiting from a road easement across the other’s land. The easement includes both a paved portion and a 244.5-foot gravel or dirt driveway segment. The defendant uses this gravel road for access. In an earlier lawsuit, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant had entered the property to clear trees, perform excavation, and build a rock wall without permission. That suit was resolved by partial settlement and judgment. While the first case was still pending, the plaintiff filed a second suit seeking to stop the defendant from paving the gravel portion of the easement, arguing that paving was not necessary for reasonable use.The Superior Court of El Dorado County first denied the defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, rejecting arguments that the second complaint improperly split causes of action and was legally insufficient. The court found the new suit did not overlap with the first, as the threat to pave the easement arose after the initial complaint and involved distinct allegations. After a bench trial, the court determined that paving the driveway was not reasonably necessary for safe and convenient vehicular access, and issued an injunction prohibiting the defendant from paving.The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, reviewed the case. It affirmed the trial court’s rulings, holding that the second suit was not barred as an improper splitting of actions because it addressed a different episode and new factual circumstances. The court further held that the scope of an easement does not automatically include the right to pave; such improvements must be reasonably necessary for the convenient use of the easement, as determined by the facts. The appellate court found no error with the trial court’s application of the legal standard or its factual findings, and affirmed the judgment in favor of the plaintiff. View "Berstein v. Sebring" on Justia Law

Timothy Hale and Sonja Ringen constructed a storage building on their commercially zoned property in Laramie without first obtaining a building permit. When the City of Laramie discovered the construction, it issued a stop work order and a cease-and-desist letter. Despite these notices, Hale and Ringen continued building and subsequently applied for a permit, which the City denied due to deficiencies in the application. After further unsuccessful permit attempts and ongoing disputes over the City’s requirements—including requests for disassembly of the structure—the City sought and obtained a permanent injunction from the District Court of Albany County, restricting use of the building until permitting was complete and compliance was achieved.The District Court of Albany County conducted a bench trial in May 2022 and granted the City’s request for a permanent injunction. The court outlined a process for inspections, identification of code violations, and corrective actions, but continued conflict between the parties hindered progress. Multiple rounds of correspondence, inspections, and motions ensued, with the City insisting on structural disassembly and Hale/Ringen providing documentation to support their position. Hale and Ringen eventually moved to vacate the injunction, arguing it was no longer equitable given their efforts and the City’s refusal to issue a permit. The district court denied their motion, citing only the parties’ lack of agreement, and provided no substantive analysis of the evidence.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Wyoming determined that the district court abused its discretion by failing to consider the evidence and arguments presented before denying the motion to vacate or modify the injunction. The Supreme Court held that a court must exercise discretion and decide motions on their merits, rather than requiring agreement between adversarial parties. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the district court’s order and remanded the case for full consideration of Hale/Ringen’s motion in light of all relevant facts and equities. View "Hale v. City of Laramie" on Justia Law