Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming the trial court's denial of Defendant's motion to dismiss the criminal case against him based on an alleged violation of his statutory speedy-trial right, holding that the State did not violate Defendant's speedy-trial rights.The day before trial was set to begin, Defendant moved to dismiss the case base on an alleged violation of his statutory right to a speedy trial. The trial court denied the motion. Thereafter, Defendant entered a plea of no contest to a single felony count. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no violation of Defendant's statutory speedy-trial rights in this case. View "State v. Belville" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court issuing a decree quieting title to a claimed easement in favor of Rose Family Trust (Rose), holding that the district court did not err by determining that a "notice of purchaser's interest" (NPI) did not convey title to the easement in dispute.Rose filed this action to quiet title and to enjoin use of the claimant easement by Appellants. The district court ruled in favor of Rose, holding that the NPI at issue did not constitute a valid instrument of conveyance and therefore did not transfer any easement rights to Appellants. On appeal, Appellants argued that the NPI was itself an instrument of conveyance and, alternatively, that the NPI functioned as an abstract of an instrument of conveyance. The Supreme Court disagreed and affirmed, holding that neither the NPI nor the abstracted contract for deed effectuated title transfer, and therefore, there was no actual conveyance on which Appellants could base their claim. View "Towsley v. Stanzak" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant and dismissing Plaintiff's claims for unjust enrichment, constructive trust, and quiet title, holding that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment to Defendant on all three claims.Plaintiff, Defendant's mother, brought this suit seeking to quiet title to a parcel of property that Defendant acquired when he exchanged it for a parcel of property that his parents deeded to him years earlier. The district court granted summary judgment to Defendant on Plaintiff's claims for unjust enrichment, constructive trust, and quiet title. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the right to bring a quiet title action belonged to Defendant, not Plaintiff. View "Statzer v. Statzer" on Justia Law

In 2008, California enacted a Property Assessed Clean Energy program (PACE) as a method for homeowners to finance energy and water conservation improvements. A PACE debt was created by contract and secured by the improved property. But like a tax, the installment payments were billed and paid as a special assessment on the improved property, resulting in a first-priority tax lien in the event of default. The named plaintiffs in these putative class actions were over 65 years old and entered into PACE contracts. The defendants were private companies who either made PACE loans to plaintiffs, were assigned rights to payment, and/or administered PACE programs for municipalities. The gravamen of the complaint in each case was that PACE financing was actually, and should have been treated as, a secured home improvement loan. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants engaged in unfair and deceptive business practices by violating consumer protection laws, including Civil Code section 1804.1(j), which prohibited taking a security interest in a senior citizen’s residence to secure a home improvement loan. Generally, a taxpayer could not pursue a court action for a refund of property taxes without first applying to the local board of equalization for a reduction and then filing an administrative claim for a refund. Here, defendants demurred to the complaints on the sole ground that plaintiffs failed to allege they first exhausted administrative remedies. The trial court agreed, sustained the demurrers without leave to amend, and entered a judgment of dismissal in each case. On appeal, plaintiffs primarily contend they were not required to pursue administrative remedies because they have sued only private companies and do not challenge “any aspect of the municipal tax process involved.” The Court of Appeal found that despite their assertions to the contrary, plaintiffs did challenge their property tax assessments. And although they did not sue any government entity, the “consumer protection statutes under which plaintiffs brought their action cannot be employed to avoid the limitations and procedures set out by the Revenue and Taxation Code.” Thus, the Court concluded plaintiffs were required to submit their claims through the administrative appeals process in the first instance. "Their failure to do so requires the judgments to be affirmed." View "Morgan v. Ygrene Energy Fund, Inc." on Justia Law

Phillip and Anna Kennedy contracted with DIMA Homes, Inc., to build a house on property they owned in Marion County, Mississippi. The Kennedys failed to pay DIMA, and DIMA obtained a judgment, which it properly enrolled, creating a judgment lien on the property. The Kennedys then failed to pay property taxes, and in 2016, the land was sold at a tax sale to ACC Tax Sales Property, LLC. HL&C Marion, LLC, obtained the property from ACC. DIMA did not receive notice of the tax sale. In 2019, more than two years after the tax sale, HL&C filed suit to quiet title. The chancery court ruled that the failure to give written notice of the sale to DIMA resulted in an extension of the two-year redemption period and set aside the tax sale. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Granting certiorari review, the Mississippi Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and the chancellor, holding that no legal authority required notice of the tax sale to have been given to DIMA. Accordingly, judgment was rendered in favor of HL&C Marion. View "HL&C Marion, LLC v. DIMA Homes, Inc." on Justia Law

Long Beach Harbor Resort, LLC (the Resort), leased a parcel of land located on the Public Trust Tidelands from the City of Long Beach. The issue this case presented for the Mississippi Supreme Court to determine was whether the Resort was required to enter into a separate lease with the Secretary of State for the use of the tidelands property or whether the Resort already had a valid lease allowing use of the tidelands in question. The Supreme Court found that the State of Mississippi had, through its Boundary Agreement and Tidelands Lease with the City of Long Beach, ratified the prior lease entered into between the City and the Resort. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the chancery court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Resort and found that the Resort had a valid tidelands lease as ratified by the Secretary of State. View "Mississippi v. Long Beach Harbor Resort, LLC" on Justia Law

The issue this case presented for the Idaho Supreme Court's review centered on the scope of a statutory ditch right-of-way, whether a prescriptive easement could be obtained for overspray from an irrigation pivot, and whether a license agreement could bind succeeding property owners. Historically, the Lavertys flood irrigated their property. In 1999, a pivot irrigation system was constructed on the land now owned by the Chesters. The pivot was designed to intentionally spray water onto parcels 2 and 3 to maximize the irrigation coverage on the Chesters’ property. Irrigation water for that pivot (and for flood irrigation before it) was delivered to the Chesters’ property from the Gini canal through a series of ditches. Parcels 2 and 3 were subject to a ditch easement provided for in a deed executed between the Lavertys and Bevilaqua in 1986 (the “Confirmation Deed”); the Chesters were the Lavertys’ successors in interest with respect to the ditch easement discussed in the Confirmation Deed. In 2009, Dolly Smith, another former owner of parcels 2 and 3, installed a ten-inch diameter culvert in a portion of the North ditch. The Chesters disagreed with the size of the pipe and executed and recorded a license agreement with Smith to govern the installation of a new culvert. In October 2016, Wild Idaho purchased parcels 2 and 3. The relationship between Wild Idaho’s owner, Kyle Arneson, and the Chesters quickly soured. Various disputes between the parties led to Arneson restricting the Chesters’ access to Wild Idaho’s property in the spring of 2017. The Supreme Court concluded the district court's order defining the scope of the Chesters' ditch right-of-way was affirmed in part and reversed in part. The Court found the district court erred in denying the Chesters’ prescriptive easement defense to Wild Idaho’s nuisance and trespass claims. But the district court did not err in striking the license agreement as an unreasonable cloud on Wild Idaho’s title. View "Chester v. Wild Idaho Adventures RV Park, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied Petitioner's petition seeking a writ of prohibition to halt an ongoing appropriation case in the Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas, holding that Petitioner failed to establish that he was entitled to a writ of prohibition.In the appropriation case, the Mill Creek Metropolitan Park District sought to take Petitioner's property so it could build a biking trail. During the pendency of the case, the General Assembly passed a law stating that a park district in Mahoning County may not use its power of eminent domain to build a recreational trail. Arguing that the new law divested the Mahoning County court of jurisdiction, Petitioner brought suit asking for a writ of prohibition halting the appropriation proceeding. The Supreme Court denied the writ, holding (1) the anti-appropriation provision did not patently and unambiguously eliminate the Mahoning County Common Pleas Court's subject matter jurisdiction; and (2) because Petitioner had an adequate remedy by way of an appeal and the trial court did not patently lack jurisdiction, Petitioner was not entitled to a writ of prohibition. View "Schlegel v. Sweeney" on Justia Law

Consolidated appeals stemmed from an action filed by The Citizens Bank ("Citizens Bank") against Steve Matherly ("Steve"); Sue E. Matherly a/k/a Sue Ellen Stratten, Steve's former spouse ("Sue"); and Penn Waters, LLC ("Penn Waters"). The initial complaint sought: (1) to quiet title to certain real property in Steve; (2) an accounting from Penn Waters as to the balance allegedly owed on a mortgage securing a home-equity line of credit on the same real property; (3) damages from Steve for breach of contract and fraud based on his failure to pay on his personal guaranty of a corporate debt; and (4) a judicial foreclosure of the mortgage securing the indebtedness owed Citizens Bank by Steve. In the course of the proceedings, Steve's current spouse, Jenny Matherly ("Jenny"), intervened as a defendant, claiming a homestead interest in the real property at issue. Eventually, the circuit court entered two orders granting summary judgment in favor of Citizens Bank. The first order awarded the real property in question to Citizens Bank and granted it immediate possession thereof, requiring Steve and Jenny to vacate the property, awarded Jenny $5,000 based on a homestead claim, and required Steve to pay the deficiency balance owed by him to Citizens Bank following foreclosure on the subject real property. The second order concluded that the mortgage held by Penn Waters was void because it had been previously satisfied. Both Jenny and Penn Waters appealed the circuit court's judgments, and Citizens Bank cross-appealed the circuit court's judgment awarding $5,000 to Jenny. Steve did not appeal the judgment against him, and Sue was not a party to the appeals. Finding no reversible error, the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's judgments. View "Penn Waters, LLC v. The Citizens Bank" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed from a district court judgment granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss her complaint. n relevant part, the district court found wanting her claims for fraud in the enforcement of a mortgage; fraud upon the court; collusion and deceit upon the court in violation of New York State Judiciary Law Section 487; and negligence. It explained that it was precluded by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine from adjudicating all of Plaintiff’s claims, and that, in any event, principles of res judicata and estoppel barred her from pursuing these claims.   The Second Circuit affirmed in part the district court’s judgment dismissing Plaintiff’s fraud and negligence claims against the Attorney Defendants and vacated in part the dismissal of her claims under New York Judiciary Law Section 487. The court concluded that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not require the dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims; that res judicata does not bar her claims, and that collateral estoppel bars her fraud and negligence claims, but not her section 487 claim for deceit upon the court View "Hansen v. Miller" on Justia Law