Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

In this case involving two separate deeds to property in which successive grantors conveyed the surface rights and part of the mineral interest while retaining part of the oil and gas rights the Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the court of appeals, holding that the court of appeals erred in part.Both deeds at osier were executed before 1925 and did not contain words of inheritance. The lower courts concluded that the conveyances created reservations of the oil and gas rights that retained life estates in those rights expiring on the respective deaths of the grantors. The court of appeals affirmed summary judgments in favor of Appellees - Peppertree Farms, LLC and Jay and Amy Moore - and quieting title to the oil and gas rights claimed by Appellants - KOAG, Inc., Richard Reinholtz, and Sylvia Ann Miller. The court further concluded that Miller's and Reinholtz's interests - but not KOAG's - would have been extinguished by operation of the Marketable Title Act, Ohio Rev. Code 5301.47 et seq. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding words of inheritance were not required to retain more than a life estate in excepted interests in the oil and gas; and (2) summary judgment against KOAG was erroneous. View "Peppertree Farms, L.L.C. v. Thonen" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals concluding that a recorded will that does not affect title to an interest in land is not a recorded title transaction under Ohio Rev. Code 5301.47(F) and cannot be an exception to the Marketable Title Act under Ohio Rev. Code 5301.49, holding that the court of appeals did not err.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the trial court and the appellate court incorrectly concluded that the interest H.J. Jones retained in the oil and gas was a life estate that expired upon Jones's death in 1932; but (2) the lower courts did not err in determining that a recorded will that does not distribute the decedent's oil and gas rights does not affect title and is not a recorded title transaction preventing those rights from being extinguished. View "Peppertree Farms, L.L.C. v. Thonen" on Justia Law

Kelly owns 160 acres within compulsory oil and gas drilling and production units established by the Louisiana Commissioner of Conservation. Aethon is the designated operator of the units which include 16 producing wells. Kelly’s land is not subject to a valid oil, gas or mineral lease to Aethon or to anyone else. Louisiana’s oil and gas conservation law provides that the Commissioner may establish a drilling unit even if all owners of oil and gas interests have not agreed to pool their interests. When the operator proposes to drill a well in a unit, owners may participate in the risk by contributing to the drilling costs. If an owner does not participate and the well produces, the operator may recover out of production the nonparticipating owner’s share of expenditures and, in certain cases, a “risk charge” of 200 percent of that expenditure share. Louisiana law requires operators to report information to unleased owners if requested.Kelly sought a declaration that Aethon failed to comply with disclosure and reporting obligations and had forfeited its right to demand contribution from Kelly. In two certified mail letters to Aethon, Kelly had informed Aethon that it was an unleased owner within the Units and requested information regarding the wells, and subsequently, cited Aethon’s failure to provide that information. The district court granted Aethon summary judgment. The Fifth Circuit vacated in part. The district court impermissibly imposed requirements on Kelly that are not present in the statutes. Kelly’s letters complied with the statute. View "B A Kelly Land Co., L.L.C. v. Aethon Energy Operating, L.L.C." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court denying Movants' motions to intervene in an action commenced by Verizon New England Inc. by way of appeal from a decision of the Tax Administrator for the State of Rhode Island, holding that the trial judge did not err.This appeal arose from Verizon's challenge to a final decision of the tax administrator that upheld an assessment of Verizon's tangible personal property (TPP) tax and denied Verizon's request for a lower assessment and a partial refund. Verizon appealed to the district court. The City of Pawtucket and the City of Cranston (collectively, Movants) moved to intervene as of right, claiming an interest in the TPP tax. The district court denied the motions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial judge did not err or abuse his discretion in concluding that Movants failed to demonstrate that their interests were not adequately represented. View "Verizon New England Inc. v. Savage" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Richard Duncan's complaint against American Transmission Systems, Inc. and FirstEnergy Corp. (collectively, ATSI), and the city of Aurora and its mayor, holding that there was no error.Duncan brought this action alleging that if a project proposed by ATSI for installing transmission towers had not been approved, he likely would have acquired an easement from Aurora allowing him to use an abandoned right-of-way to access a public road from his lot. Duncuan's complaint sought a declaration that the power lines were a public and private nuisance resulting in a taking of his property, a preliminary and permanent injunction halting the project's construction, and a writ of mandamus. The court of appeals granted ATSI's motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals did not err in dismissing the action. View "State ex rel. Duncan v. American Transmission Systems, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the appellate court affirming the judgment in favor of Defendant Theresa Virgulak in this action brought by Plaintiff, Manufacturers and Traders Trust Company, holding that there was no error.The trial court found in favor of Defendant on Plaintiff's foreclosure, reformation, and unjust enrichment claims. The appellate court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court properly declined Plaintiff’s request to reform the mortgage deed to reference that the mortgage deed executed by Defendant was given to secure a note executed by her husband; and (2) the trial court correctly determined that Plaintiff was not entitled to foreclose the mortgage executed by Defendant because Defendant was not a borrower on the note. View "JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Ass'n v. Virgulak" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the appellate court reversing the judgment of the trial court granting Plaintiffs' request for a permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants, Madison Beach Hotel, LLC and Madison Beach Hotel of Florida, LLC, from hosting a summer concert series at a public park adjacent to the Madison Beach Hotel, holding that there was no error.On appeal, the appellate court concluded that the trial court had abused its discretion in granting Plaintiffs' request for an injunction because the concerts did not violate the Madison zoning regulations. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Plaintiffs' interpretation of the zoning regulations was untenable and that Plaintiffs were not entitled to relief on their allegations of error. View "Pfister v. Madison Beach Hotel, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant's private citizen affidavit seeking the arrest of Appellee, Beth Diefendorf, an Akron municipal employee, holding that the court of appeals correctly dismissed the affidavit for lack of jurisdiction.Appellant filed an affidavit complaint in the court of appeals accusing Diefendorf of grand theft arising from a condemnation proceeding against Appellant's real property. The court of appeals sua sponte dismissed the affidavit on the grounds that it was not a court of record under Ohio Rev. Code 2935.09. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals correctly construed the statute. View "In re Affidavit of Helms" on Justia Law

The City of Gautier granted David Vindich a permit to build a 1,410 square foot garage/workshop on his .76 acre lot. When the building was almost completed, Vindich’s neighbor, Martin Wheelan, filed a lawsuit arguing the City’s decision was unlawful because Vindich actually sought a variance, which required a public hearing rather than a building permit. Thus, Wheelan said he was denied due process. Wheelan also claimed the City’s decision was arbitrary and capricious and that the workshop “completely overwhelm[ed]” the neighborhood and created a nuisance. After a trial, the chancellor dismissed Wheelan’s claims, finding that the City’s interpretation of the applicable ordinance was not manifestly unreasonable. The chancellor also found that the building was not a nuisance. Wheelan appealed, but the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Mississippi Supreme Court agreed with the appellate court's dissenting opinion, finding the City erred in its interpretation of the ordinance at issue here. The Court therefore reversed the Court of appeals and the chancery court, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Wheelan v. City of Gautier, et al." on Justia Law

Before a creditor with a money judgment may force the sale of a debtor's dwelling to satisfy that judgment, the creditor must, in addition to other procedures, obtain a court order authorizing the sale. To obtain that court order, the creditor must file an application that includes, among other things, a statement of the amount of any liens or encumbrances on the dwelling.The Court of Appeal held that this requires the creditor to list liens on the property for unpaid real property taxes, even though those liens need not be recorded because they come into being by operation of law. In this case, the trial court properly denied the creditor's application as deficient, because the creditor's application did not list the delinquent property taxes against the debtor's dwelling and went so far as to represent, under oath, that "there are no actual or purported liens or encumbrances" on the property. Accordingly, the court affirmed the trial court's denial of the creditor's application as deficient. View "Meyer v. Sheh" on Justia Law