Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court determining that Petitioner's predecessors in interest (the Stephens) were not bona fide purchasers when they acquired the subject property at a trustee's sale, holding that the circuit court was clearly wrong.Petitioner, the owner of the subject property, sought a declaratory judgment that the property, which was purchased by her predecessors in interest at a trustee's sale following the original owner's default on a loan secured by a deed of trust, was free of covenants or restrictions that post-dated the execution of the deed of trust. The circuit court found that Respondents had an easement on the property, concluding that neither Petitioners nor her predecessors in interest were bona fide purchasers of the acreage and that Respondents had an easement in the subject property. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the circuit court was clearly wrong in determining that the Stephens were not bona fide purchasers when they acquired the property at a trustee's sale; and (2) Petitioner took the property free and clear of all prior covenants and restrictions that post-dated the execution of the deed of trust. View "Goddard v. Hockman" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals and remanded this case, holding that, for property to be commandeered, the government must exercise exclusive control over or obtain exclusive possession of the property such that the government could physically use it for an emergency management purpose.Appellant brought this suit arguing that his hospitality businesses were commandeered when the Governor issued emergency executive orders in response to the COVID-19 pandemic that imposed capacity limits for dining beginning in March 2020. As the owner of the commandeered property, Appellant argued, he was entitled to just compensation for the government's use under Minn. Stat. 12.34. The district court dismissed the commandeering claim, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the government exercises exclusive physical control or exclusive possession of private property when only the government may exercise control or possession of the property and the owner is denied all control over or possession of the property; and (2) remand to the district court for further proceedings was required in this case. View "Buzzell v. Walz" on Justia Law

A miner signed a 20-year lease with a corporate landowner for an easement allowing him access to his limestone-mining operation. The lease included an option to extend it for up to three additional 10-year terms as long as the miner was not in default and gave prior written notice of his intent to extend. At the close of year 19, the miner sent a check prepaying the final calendar year, plus the six weeks following the lease’s expiration date. And after the expiration date the miner sent another check prepaying the next year (year 21) without ever providing the express notice of intent to extend required by the lease. The corporation accepted both of the rent checks. Five months later the corporation sued the miner and his company, contending that he was in breach and the lease had expired. The corporation later amended its complaint to add a claim for forcible entry and detainer seeking to recover possession of the premises by court order, and shortly afterward served the miner with a notice to quit. The court held a hearing nearly 11 months later and granted the forcible-entry claim. Appealing, the miner contended the parties’ dispute was too complex to be resolved through forcible entry and detainer proceedings with limited opportunities for discovery; that the forcible entry and detainer proceeding was unlawful because at the time the claim was asserted the corporation had not yet served the notice to quit; and that the miner’s company was improperly named as a defendant and included in the forcible entry and detainer judgment. Finding no reversible error, the Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the superior court's judgment. View "Caswell, et al. v. AHTNA, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality's (TCEQ) general jurisdiction over water and water rights, including the issuance of water rights permits and water rights adjudication, does not include the authority to adjudicate conflicting claims to ownership of surface-water rights.Plaintiff brought this complaint seeking declarations that it was the sole owner of certain surface-water rights. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing that TCEQ has exclusive original jurisdiction to determine water-ownership rights. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that TCEQ lacks jurisdiction to decide conflicting claims of ownership to surface-water rights and that the adjudication of such claims is for the courts. View "Pape Partners, Ltd. v. DRR Family Properties LP" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court that $18,000 in cash be forfeited to the State after finding that the State had shown by clear and convincing evidence that the cash was used or intended to be used to facilitate a violation of the Uniform Controlled Substances Act, holding that there was no error.On appeal, Christopher Bouldin, from whom the cash was seized by a law enforcement officer during a traffic stop, argued that the district court applied an incorrect standard of proof and that there was insufficient evidence to order the forfeiture. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court applied the standard of proof required by the governing statute; and (2) the evidence was sufficient to support the district court's finding that the $18,000 was subject to forfeiture. View "State v. $18,000" on Justia Law

Canyon Vineyard Estates I, LLC (CVE) appealed from a grant of summary judgment in favor of Mountains Restoration Trust (MRT), John Paul DeJoria, the County of Los Angeles, and the California State Attorney General. CVE also appeals from an injunction in favor of MRT and from an award of attorney fees and costs in favor of MRT and the Attorney General.   The Second Appellate District affirmed the summary judgment order finding that there is no genuine issue of material fact that the property is subject to a valid conservation easement. However, the court concluded that the injunction is overbroad in that it improperly bars CVE from filing further litigation to challenge the conservation easement without regard to the potential merits of a future claim. Thus, the court reversed the injunction and remanded the matter to the trial court to enter a new injunction that is more narrowly tailored so that it does not enjoin future lawful actions by CVE. The court reasoned that CVE has not demonstrated a triable issue of fact as to whether Tuna Canyon remains subject to a conservation easement held by MRT. The court explained that the grant of a fee title subject to a condition subsequent did not preclude the grant of a conservation easement. Moreover, the court held that the trial court must ensure the injunction does not preclude CVE from exercising its right to seek relief in court. View "Canyon Vineyard Estates I v. DeJoria" on Justia Law

Sara, an elderly woman, owned the property and resided there with her husband, who has dementia. San Mateo County informed Sara that she owed taxes and faced foreclosure. Miller, a real estate salesperson, contacted Sara and offered to secure a reverse mortgage to pay Sara’s tax obligation. Miller provided Sara with a document to sign. Sara believed the document was to secure a $500,000 reverse mortgage and that after she signed, Miller would pay the taxes. Sara did not read the document but signed it. The document was actually a purchase agreement. A deed transferring the property to Rex was recorded the same day. The District Attorney’s Office notified Sara of the sale. Lion had purchased the property from Rex. Miller pled no contest to unlawfully and knowingly procuring and offering a false or forged instrument to be filed in a state public office and grand theft of the property. Lion filed a quiet title action.The state moved to void the deed to Rex. The court determined the deed was forged and that the matter was appropriately addressed in the criminal proceeding. The court of appeal affirmed the adjudication of the deed as void from its inception, rejecting arguments that Miller’s no contest plea “was not an adjudication of the alleged falsity or forgery” of the deed, that the finding was not supported by the record, and the court should have deferred to the pending quiet title action. View "People v. Miller" on Justia Law

S Bar Ranch owned approximately 3000 acres of land in rural Elmore County, Idaho. S Bar purchased the land in 2015. There were very few structures on S Bar’s property, save for an airplane hangar that included a five-hundred square-foot apartment. S Bar’s address was listed in Sun Valley, Idaho, and its principal, Chris Stephens, used the property for recreational purposes. Cat Creek Energy, LLC, an Idaho company managed by John Faulkner, owned and managed more than 23,000 acres of land in Elmore County near Anderson Ranch reservoir. Faulkner, on behalf of his other companies, leased land to Cat Creek to develop the project at issue in this dispute. In late 2014 and early 2015, Cat Creek began the process of obtaining conditional use permits (“CUPs”) for a proposed alternative energy development (“the project”) in Elmore County. As initially proposed, the project had five components: a 50,000 acre-foot reservoir with hydroelectric turbines, up to 39 wind turbines, approximately 174,000 photovoltaic solar panels, electrical transmission lines, and an onsite power substation. Cat Creek sought to build the project on approximately 23,000 acres of land that it had leased near Anderson Ranch Reservoir. In 2019, the district court issued a Memorandum Decision and Order, affirming the Board’s decisions with respect to the CUPs. The district court found that S Bar only had standing to challenge the CUPs relating to wind turbines, electric transmission lines, and the on-site substation. The district court also reiterated its prior oral ruling that a 2017 CUP Order was a final agency action and that S Bar’s petition for judicial review of that order was untimely. With regard to the development agreement and a 2018 CUP Amendment, the district court concluded that the Board did not err in a manner specified by Idaho Code section 67-5279 and that S Bar had not shown that its substantial rights had been prejudiced. S Bar appealed, but finding no reversible error in the district court's judgment, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed judgment in favor of Cat Creek. View "S Bar Ranch v. Elmore County" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the decision of the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico dismissing without prejudice this collection and foreclosure action that VS PR, a limited liability corporation, brought against several defendants, holding that the district court did not err in denying Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.In a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, Defendants argued that VS PR had not established that complete diversity between the parties existed as required by 28 U.S.C. 1332(a)(1). The district court denied the motion to dismiss without prejudice. VS PR later filed a motion to dismiss the complaint voluntarily pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). The district court granted the motion for voluntary dismissal and dismissed the action without prejudice. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Rule 41(a) requires that an action must be dismissed with prejudice following a voluntary dismissal pursuant to a court order only when the court order so provides. View "VS PR, LLC v. ORC Miramar Corp." on Justia Law

The owners purchased the property in a wooded area of Los Gatos to build a home. They sought to remove some trees, including a large eucalyptus tree that straddled the property line, not realizing that the eucalyptus was partially on the neighbor’s property and that they needed her permission to remove it. They assumed they could remove the eucalyptus because they had received permits from the county. The owners’ general contractor, TWA, hired a subcontractor for tree trimming. The subcontractor damaged the eucalyptus tree.The neighbor sued. The owners filed a cross-complaint against TWA for comparative negligence, breach of contract, express contractual indemnity, equitable indemnity, and other claims. TWA filed a cross-complaint against the owners, alleging breach of contract and other claims. At trial, the owners and TWA settled the suit with the neighbor. The suits involving their cross-complaints continued. TWA presented no evidence that the subcontractor who worked on the eucalyptus was licensed for tree trimming work.The court of appeal affirmed that TWA was 100 percent at fault for the neighbor’s damages and had been paid $10,000 for the tree trimming services performed by the subcontractor. The court rejected arguments that the trial court erred in interpreting the licensing statute, Business and Professions Code section 7031.3, and misinterpreted the construction agreement. View "Kim v. TWA Construction, Inc." on Justia Law