Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court ruling that pursuant to the doctrine of merger, the parties in this case held certain property as joint tenants with rights of survivorship, holding that the district court reached the correct result.Julie Ann Bell and her longterm romantic partner, Patrick Dominick, owned property together. After Bell died, the executor for her estate brought this action claiming that the parties held the property as tenants in common. Dominick answered, alleging that he and Bell took title as joint tenants with rights of survivorship. The district court granted judgment in favor of Dominick. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court correctly held that Bell and Dominick held the property as joint tenants with rights of survivorship. View "CIBC National Trust Co. v. Dominick" on Justia Law

The Town of Albany, Vermont, appealed an order granting summary judgment to a surviving relative of the grantors who had quitclaimed undeveloped property to the Town subject to certain conditions. The civil division found that the deed was ambiguous, considered extrinsic evidence to discern the grantors’ intent, and concluded that a logging operation overseen by the Town violated the deed. The Vermont Supreme Court concluded that the deed was unambiguous, and the logging was not a violation. Accordingly, judgment was reversed and the matter remanded for further proceedings. View "Sanville v. Town of Albany" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming the trial court's grant of summary judgment for the current owners of certain property, holding that Elizabeth Mitchell's due process rights were violated in a 1999 suit in which the court entered a default judgment foreclosing a tax lien on Elizabeth's interest.After Elizabeth died in 2009, her heirs (Petitioners) brought suit to declare void the 1999 default judgment, alleging the judgment violated Elizabeth's constitutional right to procedural due process because Elizabeth was not properly served with notice of the underlying foreclosure suit. Respondents, the current owners of the property who purchased it at a tax sale or later acquired an interest in it, argued that the publicly recorded warranty deeds and county tax records could not be considered in this collateral attack. The trial court agreed and granted summary judgment for Respondents. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) information available in relevant public records can be considered in a collateral attack on a judgment that alleges constitutional due process violations; and (2) Petitioners established that Elizabeth was not properly served in the 1999 suit, and therefore, the court in the tax foreclosure suit did not acquire personal jurisdiction over Elizabeth. View "Mitchell v. MAP Resources, Inc." on Justia Law

In this dispute over a family ranch the Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the court of appeals reversing in part the district court's rejection of Plaintiffs' claims on summary judgment, holding that Kenneth Berry's claims were properly rejected by the district court but that Chelsea Berry's claims should have been allowed to proceed.Kenneth and his daughter Chelsea filed this suit alleging that Defendants did not pay for the use of the ranch and that a lease between the parties was impermissibly long. The district court granted summary judgment for Defendants on all claims. The court of appeals affirmed the dismissal of Chelsea's claims and some of Kenneth's claims but reversed as to Kenneth on a statute of limitations issue. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the district court (1) properly disposed of all of Kenneth's claims; but (2) erred in dismissing Chelsea's claims. View "Berry v. Berry" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals reversing the judgment of the trial court against Landlord and in favor of the City of Baytown in this dispute over unpaid utility bills, holding that Landlord's challenge to the City's enforcement action failed to show the intentional taking or damage for public use necessary to establish a constitutional right to compensation.In this action, Landlord alleging that the City's withholding of utility service to collect payment resulted in the loss of a tenant and the disrepair of his property and was a taking in violation of the state or federal constitution. The trial court concluded that Landlord did not establish an intentional taking of private property for public use. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the City's utility enforcement actions did not establish a regulatory taking of private property as a matter of law. View "City of Baytown v. Schrock" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court finding that Plaintiff did not qualify for an extended redemption period under Neb. Rev. Stat. 77-1827 and that the tax certificate sale process at issue in this case did not violate Plaintiff's constitutional rights, holding that there was no error.Because Plaintiff did not pay her 2013 property taxes the Lancaster County treasurer to a private party. Three years later, the tax certificate holder applied for and obtained a tax deed to the property. Plaintiff subsequently brought this action seeking to quiet title to the property in her name, arguing that the issuance of the tax deed had violated her rights under the state and federal constitutions and that she had a statutory right to a five-year redemption period under Neb. Rev. Stat. 77-1827. The district court dismissed all claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err when it determined that Plaintiff was not entitled to the statutory extended redemption period or when it dismissed her constitutional claims. View "Nieveen v. TAX 106" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court reversed the judgments denying Defendant's motion to file an appeal bond late and allowing Plaintiff's motion to dismiss Defendant's appeal from a summary process judgment, holding that the decision to allow Plaintiff's motion to dismiss on the basis that Defendant had not filed the bond was erroneous.Plaintiff and Defendant were the two children of the decedent and each had an interest in property that the decedent owned, where Defendant resided with the decedent at the time of the decedent's death. Plaintiff, the personal representative of the decedent's estate, commenced this summary process action to have Defendant removed. The housing court judge granted Plaintiff judgment for possession and set an appeal bond. Defendant filed a motion to pay the appeal bond late, which the judge denied. The judge then allowed Plaintiff's motion to dismiss the appeal. The Supreme Judicial Court reversed, holding that the judge was mistaken about his lack of authority allow Defendant's motion to file the appeal bond late, requiring remand for further proceedings. View "McNeff v. Cerretani" on Justia Law

Martha owns the largest undeveloped parcel of property in the vicinity of Tiburon, 110 acres on top of a mountain, overlooking much of the town and commanding a stunning view of San Francisco Bay. For decades, Martha has sought approval from the County of Marin to develop the property. Local opposition has been intense, including federal court litigation, starting in 1975 and resulting in stipulated judgments in 1976 and 2007. The county twice publicly agreed to approve Martha building no fewer than 43 units on the property. In 2017, the county certified an environmental impact report and conditionally approved Martha’s master plan for 43 single-family residences. The county believed its actions were compelled by the stipulated judgments.The town and residents sued, claiming that the county effectively agreed it would not follow or enforce state law, specifically, the California Environmental Quality Act, to prevent the development of an anticipated project. The court of appeal upheld the approvals. Governmental powers are indefeasible and inalienable; they cannot be surrendered, suspended, contracted away, waived, or otherwise divested. Government cannot bind the hands of its successors. In this case, the county did not abdicate its authority or otherwise undertake not to comply with CEQA. “With its eyes wide open,” the county complied with a binding, final judgment; that judgment in no way anticipated or legitimated ignoring CEQA. View "Tiburon Open Space Committee v. County of Marin" on Justia Law

In this appeal concerning the interpretation of a right of first refusal entered into by Dennis Powers and his father, Jerome Powers, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the circuit court granting summary judgment and dismissing all claims brought against Dennis and Prevailing Wind Park, LLC, holding that there was no error.After Dennis entered into a wind energy lease and easement agreement with Prevailing Wind, Jerome brought this lawsuit alleging breach of contract and seeking declaratory relief and specific performance. Dennis joined Prevailing Wind's motion for summary judgment asserting that the right of first refusal at issue was not triggered and, alternatively, that it was void as an unreasonable restraint on alienation. The circuit court granted the summary judgment motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court (1) properly entered summary judgment in favor of Dennis even when he did not join Prevailing Wind's statement of undisputed material facts or file his own; and (2) correctly granted Prevailing Wind's motion for summary judgment on all claims. View "Powers v. Powers" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court upholding the decision of the White Township Board of Supervisors denying approval of the drainage project of Steven McLean and Matthew McLean, holding that the circuit court properly granted the Township summary judgment.After the Marshal County Drainage Board granted the McLeans a drainage permit they sought approval from the Township because their project could impact roads or rights-of-way in the Township. The Township denied the McLeans' drainage project. The circuit court upheld the Township's decision. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court erred in determining that the McLaens' appeal was untimely; (2) the circuit court properly determined that the Township can regulate the aspects of the McLaens' project that would impact Township roads and rights-of-way; (3) the McLeans' estoppel claim was without merit; and (4) the circuit court did not err in granting summary judgment upholding the Township's decision. View "McLaen v. White Township" on Justia Law