Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

The dispute arose over whether certain parcels of land owned by Vintage II, LLC and Christine Holding in Teton County, Idaho, were subject to covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs) or other limitations associated with the adjacent Teton Saddleback Vistas Subdivision. The plaintiffs sought to quiet title, arguing their properties were not encumbered by three recorded CC&R instruments. The defendant homeowners association claimed the properties were subject to restrictions, including those set forth in a recorded Master Plan referenced in the plaintiffs’ deeds.The District Court of the Seventh Judicial District reviewed the case after a bench trial. It found that the CC&Rs did not encumber the subject properties due to deficiencies in their recording and description. However, the court concluded that the Master Plan, referenced in the plaintiffs’ deeds, did impose restrictions such as lot numbers, sizes, and open area requirements, and thus encumbered the properties. The court denied the plaintiffs’ request to quiet title, holding that the Master Plan created enforceable restrictions and a common law dedication of open space.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho affirmed the district court’s decision to admit the Master Plan into evidence, finding it relevant because it was referenced in the deeds and material to the quiet title action. However, the Supreme Court reversed the district court’s conclusions that the Master Plan created restrictive covenants or a common law dedication. The Court held that the Master Plan did not clearly express any binding restrictions or dedication, and thus could not encumber the properties. The amended judgment was vacated, and the case was remanded for entry of judgment in favor of the appellant, Vintage II, LLC. The Court awarded costs to Vintage as the prevailing party. View "Vintage II, LLC v. Teton Saddleback" on Justia Law

Two related Wyoming companies, one owning the surface estate and the other owning the mineral estate in an adjacent tract, sought to drill a horizontal well. The plan involved drilling from the surface owner’s land, traversing through federally owned subsurface minerals, and ending in the mineral owner’s adjacent tract. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), which manages the federal minerals, informed the companies that they needed to obtain a permit to drill through the federal mineral estate, as the process would involve removing a small amount of federal minerals. The companies disagreed, arguing that BLM lacked authority to require a permit for a well that would not produce from the federal minerals, and filed suit seeking a declaration of their right to drill without BLM’s consent.The United States District Court for the District of Wyoming ruled in favor of BLM, holding that Congress had retained sufficient regulatory authority over the mineral estate and had delegated that authority to BLM under the Mineral Leasing Act. The court concluded that BLM could require a permit for the proposed traversing well and that the companies qualified as “operators” under BLM regulations, thus subject to the permit requirement.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The Tenth Circuit determined that the dispute was fundamentally about property rights—specifically, whether the surface owner had the right to drill through the federal mineral estate without BLM’s consent. The court held that such disputes must be brought under the Quiet Title Act (QTA), which is the exclusive means for challenging the United States’ title or property interests in real property. Because the companies brought their claim under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Declaratory Judgment Act instead of the QTA, the district court lacked jurisdiction. The Tenth Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. View "True Oil v. BLM" on Justia Law

A dispute arose over the ownership of real property located at 829 Yale Street in Houston, Texas. In 2019, Nicholas Fugedi, acting as trustee for the Carb Pura Vida Trust, initiated a quiet title action against several defendants. The central issue became whether the trust, and specifically Fugedi’s appointment as trustee, was used as a device to create diversity jurisdiction in federal court, given that Fugedi was a citizen of Michigan while the underlying parties were Texas residents.Initially, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas ruled against Fugedi, finding the deed void under Texas law. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed that decision but noted that the district court could consider new evidence on remand regarding whether the trust was a sham created to manufacture diversity jurisdiction. On remand, the district court found that Fugedi had been appointed as a sham trustee solely to create diversity jurisdiction, and dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1359.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s dismissal de novo, and its factual findings for clear error. The Fifth Circuit held that 28 U.S.C. § 1359 applies to trusts and that a trust can be used as a device to improperly manufacture diversity jurisdiction. The court found no clear error in the district court’s factual findings that Fugedi was appointed as a sham trustee for the purpose of creating federal jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. View "Fugedi v. Initram" on Justia Law

A group of plaintiffs, who are successors to a 1968 lease for 2,400 acres of undeveloped coastal land in San Luis Obispo County, challenged the lessor’s assertion that their lease was limited to 51 years under California Civil Code section 717, which restricts leases of land for “agricultural purposes” to a maximum of 51 years. The property, known as Wild Cherry Canyon, had historically been used for cattle grazing, but the plaintiffs argued that the primary purpose of the lease was not agricultural, but rather estate planning, development, and, in practice, minimal cattle grazing for wildfire prevention.The Superior Court of San Luis Obispo County conducted a bench trial and issued a detailed statement of decision. The court found that the lease was for agricultural purposes, specifically to continue the property’s existing use for cattle grazing, and that this use fell within the meaning of “agricultural purposes” under section 717. As a result, the court ruled that the lease expired after 51 years, in December 2019, and entered judgment in favor of the lessor, Eureka Energy Company, quieting title in its favor and rejecting the plaintiffs’ claims for declaratory relief and to quiet title to their leasehold interest.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Six, reviewed the case and reversed the trial court’s judgment. The appellate court held that while “agricultural purposes” in section 717 can include cattle grazing, the minimal grazing conducted here—primarily for wildfire suppression and not as a commercial agricultural activity—did not constitute an “agricultural purpose” within the meaning of the statute. Therefore, the 51-year lease limitation did not apply, and the plaintiffs’ lease was not subject to forfeiture on that basis. The appellate court ordered that judgment be entered in favor of the plaintiffs. View "Pacho Limited Partnership v. Eureka Energy Co." on Justia Law

Several general law cities in California challenged the constitutionality of a state law, Senate Bill No. 9 (SB 9), which requires local agencies to ministerially approve two-unit housing projects and urban lot splits in single-family residential zones. The cities argued that SB 9 usurps their authority over local land use and zoning, imposes a uniform approach that disregards local needs and conditions, and is not reasonably related to its stated goal of ensuring access to affordable housing, as it does not mandate affordability for new units.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County reviewed the cities’ complaint and the state’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and demurrer. The trial court concluded that, as general law cities, the plaintiffs could not invoke the municipal affairs doctrine under article XI, section 5 of the California Constitution, which provides certain protections only to charter cities. The court also found that the cities failed to identify any constitutional provision that SB 9 violated and determined there was no reasonable likelihood that the complaint could be amended to state a viable cause of action. Judgment was entered in favor of the state, and the cities appealed.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Four, affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The appellate court held that general law cities are not protected by the municipal affairs doctrine and must yield to conflicting state law. The court further found that the cities did not identify a constitutional right that SB 9 violated and failed to show that the statute was unconstitutional on its face or as applied. The court also concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend the complaint, as no viable claim could be stated. View "City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. State" on Justia Law

A residential community consisting of sixty-seven homes was developed and sold by a developer, with a separate contractor responsible for construction. Each homebuyer entered into a purchase agreement with the developer, which included an anti-assignment clause stating that the agreement and the buyer’s rights under it could not be assigned without the developer’s written consent. The developer later created a homeowners’ association (HOA) to manage the community’s common areas and certain aspects of the homes’ exteriors. After construction, the HOA alleged that the community suffered from construction defects and filed suit against both the developer and the contractor, asserting claims under Arizona’s dwelling action statutes and for breach of the implied warranty of workmanship and habitability.The Superior Court in Maricopa County granted summary judgment for the defendants, holding that the HOA had no legal right to assert a claim for breach of the implied warranty and that the purchase agreement’s anti-assignment clause barred homeowners from assigning such claims to the HOA. The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed, reasoning that the implied warranty claim was part of the contract and that the anti-assignment clause validly precluded assignment of those claims to the HOA.The Supreme Court of the State of Arizona reviewed the case to determine whether the anti-assignment clause prevented homeowners from assigning their accrued claims for breach of the implied warranty to the HOA. The court held that the anti-assignment clause, which prohibited assignment of the agreement and the buyer’s rights under it, did not prohibit the assignment of accrued claims for damages arising from breach of the implied warranty. The court distinguished between assignment of contract rights and assignment of claims for damages, concluding that the latter was not barred by the agreement’s language. The Supreme Court vacated the relevant portions of the Court of Appeals’ decision, reversed the trial court’s summary judgment on the implied warranty claim, and remanded for further proceedings. View "POINTE 16 v GTIS-HOV" on Justia Law

A couple purchased a home from another couple, relying on representations made in a property condition disclosure form as required by Idaho law. After moving in, the buyers discovered significant defects in the home, including unpermitted additions and structural problems that were not disclosed. The buyers hired experts who confirmed that the attic and kitchen additions were structurally unsound and that required permits had not been obtained. The buyers filed suit three years after the sale, alleging breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, violation of the Idaho Property Condition Disclosure Act, and fraud.The case proceeded in the District Court of the Third Judicial District, Canyon County. A jury found in favor of the buyers on all claims except the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, awarding $63,024 in damages. After trial, the district court granted a directed verdict for the sellers on the Disclosure Act claim, finding it barred by a three-year statute of limitations, but denied the sellers’ motions on the fraud and contract claims. The court also denied the buyers’ request for attorney fees, reasoning they were not the prevailing party.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho affirmed the district court’s denial of the sellers’ motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the fraud claim, holding that the buyers’ fraud claim was not time-barred because they did not discover the fraud until after closing, and that substantial evidence supported the jury’s verdict. The Supreme Court reversed the district court’s dismissal of the Disclosure Act claim, holding that the claim accrued at closing, not upon delivery of the disclosure form, and thus was timely. The Court also held that the buyers were entitled to attorney fees under the purchase agreement and remanded for a determination of the amount. The buyers were awarded attorney fees and costs on appeal. View "VanRenselaar v. Batres" on Justia Law

A dispute arose between two companies, one a contractor and the other a developer, over a construction project in Maui. The disagreement was submitted to binding arbitration, resulting in an award in favor of the developer. The developer sought to confirm the award in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, but the contractor challenged the award, alleging the arbitrator was evidently partial due to undisclosed relationships. The circuit court initially confirmed the award, but on appeal, the Supreme Court of Hawai‘i remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing on the partiality claim. After the hearing, the circuit court found evident partiality, denied confirmation, vacated the award, and ordered a rehearing before a new arbitrator.Following this, the contractor moved for taxation of costs incurred on appeal, which the circuit court granted. The developer sought to appeal the costs order, but the circuit court denied an interlocutory appeal. A new arbitration was held, again resulting in an award for the developer, which was confirmed in a new special proceeding with a final judgment entered. The developer then appealed the earlier costs order from the first special proceeding.The Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) dismissed the appeal as untimely, reasoning that the circuit court’s order vacating the first arbitration award and ordering a rehearing was an appealable final order under Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 658A-28(a)(3), making the subsequent costs order also immediately appealable.The Supreme Court of Hawai‘i reviewed the case and held that an order vacating an arbitration award and directing a rehearing is not an appealable order under HRS § 658A-28(a). The court clarified that such orders lack finality, regardless of whether the rehearing is full or partial, and reaffirmed the majority rule previously adopted in State of Hawaii Organization of Police Officers (SHOPO) v. County of Kauai. The Supreme Court vacated the ICA’s dismissal and remanded the case for entry of a final judgment, so the merits of the appeal could be addressed. View "Nordic PCL Construction, Inc. v. LPIHGC, LLC" on Justia Law

Eileen Adams and her husband lost their New Jersey home to foreclosure after a series of events involving the transfer and assignment of their mortgage. The mortgage, originally held by AmTrust Bank, was assigned to EverBank after AmTrust’s failure, and then to Nationstar Mortgage. Adams defaulted on the mortgage, leading EverBank to initiate foreclosure proceedings. Although Adams answered the foreclosure complaint, she did not oppose summary judgment, which was granted in favor of EverBank. Subsequent assignments and litigation ensued, but Adams and her husband ultimately lost their appeals in the New Jersey courts, including a denial of review by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.After exhausting state-court remedies, Adams and her husband filed multiple bankruptcy petitions in an effort to prevent the foreclosure sale. In the most recent Chapter 13 case, Nationstar moved for relief from the automatic stay to proceed with the sale. The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey granted Nationstar’s motion. Adams appealed to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, which affirmed the Bankruptcy Court’s order and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, reasoning that Adams was seeking to overturn a state-court judgment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and held that, while the District Court erred in applying the Rooker-Feldman doctrine to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, Adams’s claims were nonetheless precluded under New Jersey law. The Third Circuit clarified that Rooker-Feldman is a narrow doctrine and does not bar jurisdiction in this context; instead, principles of claim preclusion apply because Adams’s arguments had already been litigated and decided in state court. The Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s order insofar as it upheld the Bankruptcy Court’s decision to lift the automatic stay. View "In re: Adams" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between the owners and operators of a tourist attraction, Bear World, and the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) over the closure of an intersection on Highway 20 in Madison County, Idaho. Bear Crest Limited LLC owns parcels of land leased to Yellowstone Bear World Inc., and Michael Ferguson is associated with both entities. In 1973, the original landowners (the Gideons) conveyed land to ITD’s predecessor for highway expansion, reserving “Access to the County Road Connection.” In 2016, as part of a highway upgrade to controlled-access status, ITD closed the intersection nearest Bear World, requiring visitors to use a more circuitous route, increasing travel distance by about five miles.After the intersection closure, the plaintiffs sued ITD for breach of contract and inverse condemnation, arguing that the closure violated the reserved access right in the Gideon deed and constituted a taking of property without just compensation. Both parties moved for summary judgment. The District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, Madison County, granted summary judgment to ITD, finding that the deed did not guarantee access to Highway 20, only to a county road, and that the closure did not amount to a compensable taking since alternative access remained.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho reversed in part, vacated the district court’s judgment, and remanded. The Court held that Bear Crest Limited had standing and that the Gideon deed unambiguously reserved access to the specific Highway 20 connection, not merely to a county road. The Court found that ITD’s closure of the intersection breached the deed and substantially impaired Bear Crest’s access rights, constituting a taking under Idaho law. The Court directed entry of partial summary judgment for Bear Crest on both claims, reserving damages and other issues for further proceedings. View "Bear Crest Limited LLC v. State of idaho" on Justia Law