Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

Robert Johnson and Beverly Edwin were married for twenty-two years, and together had three children. During their marriage, Johnson signed and recorded an “Affidavit of Usufruct” in favor of Edwin “for the remainder of [Ms. Edwin’s] life even if she remarries.” This lifetime usufruct covered Johnson’s separate property in Walker, Louisiana. During their marriage, Johnson and Edwin lived in a house on the subject property and also rebuilt the house together following a fire. The couple separated in 2002 or 2003, at which time Edwin moved off of the premises, while Johnson continued to live there. The couple divorced in 2006. Johnson died intestate on August 13, 2010. In June 2014, Edwin petitioned to be named administratrix of Johnson’s succession and was initially appointed as such. However, the trial court removed her as administratrix and appointed three of Johnson’s fourteen children to serve as co-administrators, namely: Lorie Parker, Aveis Parker, and Robert Johnson, Jr. In 2018, after a family conflict arose regarding who had a right to use the property, Edwin filed a “Motion to Enforce Conventional Usufruct and Spousal Reimbursement Claim,” contending the house on the property was vacant, the value of the property was depreciating, and it needed repair. Edwin further alleged Johnson’s estate owed her $21,600.00, representing the amount of money she claimed to have expended to clean, maintain, and improve the property due to the alleged neglect of the co-administrators. The co-administrators countered, filing a peremptory exception of prescription in which they argued that Edwin’s usufruct was extinguished by the ten-year prescription of nonuse. In opposition to the exception, Edwin contended that the prescription of nonuse did not apply to a lifetime usufruct. Alternatively, she asserted that she had used the property during the pertinent ten-year period so as to interrupt the accrual of prescription for nonuse. Certiorari was granted in this matter to determine whether a usufruct “granted for life” was subject to the ten-year prescription of nonuse set forth in La. C.C. art. 621; and, if so, whether the lifetime usufruct established in this case was prescribed pursuant to that article. After review of the record and consideration of the provisions of the Louisiana Civil Code, the Louisiana Supreme Court held that while a lifetime usufruct may prescribe due to nonuse, the usufruct at issue did not prescribe as there was no ten-year period of continued nonuse. The lower courts’ judgments were reversed. View "In re: Succession of the Estate of Robert Johnson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed in part the judgment of the appellate court reversing in part the trial court's judgment granting injunctive relief against Defendant and enforcing several restrictions against the property at issue in this case, holding that the appellate court incorrectly concluded that Plaintiffs lacked standing to enforce the residential use restriction.The trial court granted injunctive relief against Defendant that (1) enforced one restrictive covenant limiting the use of the subject property to residential use, which was contained in a deed that had been executed by the original grantors of the parties' real properties; and (2) enforced two other use restrictions that appeared in a separate declaration that applied to the properties. The appellate court reversed in part the lower court's judgment, concluding that Plaintiffs lacked standing to enforce the restrictive covenant in the deed that limited the use of Defendant's property to residential purposes. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Plaintiffs had standing to enforce the restrictive covenant limiting the use of the properties to residential purposes only. View "Abel v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Brett Deslonde appealed the grant of summary judgment entered in favor of Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, doing business as Mr. Cooper ("Nationstar"), and The Bank of New York Mellon, as trustee for Nationstar Home Equity Loan Trust 2007-C ("BNYM"), on Deslonde's claim seeking reformation of a loan-modification agreement on the ground of mutual mistake. In December 2006, Deslonde purchased real property in Fairhope, Alabama with a loan from Nationstar. Deslonde subsequently defaulted on his mortgage payments and applied for a loan modification through Nationstar's loss-mitigation program. By letter dated February 2014, Nationstar notified Deslonde that he had been approved for a "trial period plan" under the federal Home Affordable Modification Program ("the federal program"). Under the federal program, Deslonde was required to make three monthly trial payments in the amount of $1,767.38 and to submit all required documentation for participation in the program, including an executed loan-modification agreement. In July 2014, Nationstar informed Deslonde that his request for a loan modification under the federal program had been denied because he had not returned an executed loan-modification agreement or made the trial payments. That letter informed Deslonde that there were other possible alternatives that might be available to him if he was unable to make his regular loan payments. Deslonde submitted a second application package for loss mitigation in October 2014. Under the executed modification agreement from the second application, Deslonde made monthly payments sufficient to cover only interest and escrow charges on the loan. The loan-modification period, however, expired in November 2016, at which time the monthly payments reverted to the premodification amount so as to include principal on the loan. After the loan-modification period expired, Deslonde made three additional monthly payments, but he then ceased making payments altogether. In an attempt to avoid foreclosure, Deslonde filed a complaint against Nationstar and BNYM in the Baldwin Circuit Court ("the trial court"), requesting a temporary restraining order enjoining foreclosure of the mortgage, a judgment declaring the parties' rights under the executed modification agreement, and reformation of the executed modification agreement on the ground of mutual mistake. Finding that the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of Nationstar and BNYM, the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed. View "Deslonde v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, d/b/a Mr. Cooper et al." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court determining that Defendant, a municipal corporation that provided water to towns and boroughs in southeastern Connecticut, was not liable for the losses of Plaintiff, a hotel owner, when an explosion at Defendant's pumping station caused an interruption in the hotel's water service, holding that there was no error.On appeal, Plaintiff argued that the trial court erred in determining that Defendant could not be held liable for Plaintiff's losses because public policy did not support the imposition of a duty on Defendant under the circumstances of this case. The Supreme Court disagreed and affirmed, holding that the trial court properly determined that public policy did not support the imposition of a duty on Defendant under the facts and circumstances of this case. View "Raspberry Junction Holding, LLC v. Southeastern Connecticut Water Authority" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court concluding that Boardwalk Realty Associates, LLC (Boardwalk), the court-appointed receiver of rents, lacked authority under Conn. Gen. Stat. 12-163a to impose and collect rent or use and occupancy payments in the place of the subject property's owner, Cadle Properties of Connecticut, Inc., holding that there was no error.This case centered on the Town of Canton's efforts to collect unpaid property taxes on a parcel of real property that was effectively abandoned Cadle and on which M&S Gateway Associates, LLC and Mitchell Volkswagen, LLC (together, Defendants) operated an automobile dealership. Boardwalk brought a complaint seeking rent and use and occupancy payments from Defendants. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants, holding that section 12-163a does not permit a receiver of rents to collect rent or use and occupancy payments if the tax delinquent property owner is absent and nor pursuing those payments. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a receiver appointed under section 12-163a is not statutorily authorized to impose and collect rent or use and occupancy payments under the facts and circumstances of this case. View "Boardwalk Realty Associates, LLC v. M & S Gateway Associates, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed two actions against their landlord, MAA, alleging that it charged unreasonable late fees in violation of the Texas Property Code and seeking to certify a class under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The district court certified in both cases and MAA sought interlocutory review of class certification.The Fifth Circuit concluded that, under section 92.019 of the Texas Property Code, there is no requirement that a landlord engage in a process to arrive at its late fee so long as the fee is a reasonable estimate at the time of contracting of damages that are incapable of precise calculation. Therefore, the district court erred in interpreting section 92.019 and the court remanded to the district court to determine if class certification is appropriate. View "Cleven v. Mid-America Apartment Communities, Inc." on Justia Law

Foley Investments, LP (Owner) asserted inverse condemnation and tort claims against Alisal Water Corporation dba Alco Water Service (Alco) after an Alco-owned water main that ran through a portion of Owner’s apartment complex repeatedly ruptured. In the first phase of a bifurcated bench trial, the court ruled against Owner on its inverse condemnation claim, finding the water main did not serve a “public use” for inverse condemnation purposes because Alco installed the main under a private contract with Owner’s predecessor for the sole benefit of the subject property. In the second phase, the court found the tort claims were barred by “fire protection” immunity because Alco constructed and maintained the main on the subject property in a particular way to meet the property’s particular fire protection needs. The court therefore entered judgment in Alco’s favor. On appeal, Owner contended the trial court erred by finding the water main did not serve a public use for purposes of the inverse condemnation claim, and by finding fire protection immunity barred the tort claims. Finding no reversible error, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment. View "Foley Investments v. Alisal Water Corp." on Justia Law

MAPS Hotel and Resorts One LLC (the “Buyer”) agreed to purchase fifteen hotel properties from AB Stable VIII LLC (the “Seller”) for $5.8 billion. In response to the pandemic and without securing the Buyer’s consent, the Seller made drastic changes to its hotel operations, due in part to the damage the pandemic inflicted on the hospitality industry. The transaction was also plagued by problems with fraudulent deeds covering some of the hotel properties. The Buyer eventually called off the deal, relying on the Seller’s failure to comply with the sale agreement. The Seller sued in the Delaware Court of Chancery to require the Buyer to complete the transaction. The Court of Chancery concluded that the Buyer could terminate the sale agreement because the Seller breached a covenant and a condition in the sale agreement. According to the court, the Seller violated the ordinary course covenant by failing to operate in the ordinary course of its business - closing hotels, laying off or furloughing thousands of employees, and implementing other drastic changes to its business - without the Buyer’s consent. Additionally, a condition requiring title insurance for the hotel properties failed because the title insurers’ commitment letters had a broad exception covering the fraudulent deeds, and the Buyer did not cause the failure. On appeal, the Seller argued it satisfied the Ordinary Course Covenant because the covenant did not preclude it from taking reasonable, industry-standard steps in response to the pandemic; the court’s ruling negated the parties’ allocation of pandemic risk to the Buyer through the Material Adverse Effect provision; and its breach of the notice requirement in the covenant was immaterial. The Seller also claimed the Court of Chancery gave too expansive a reading to the exception in the title insurance condition, or, alternatively, that the court incorrectly found that the Buyer did not contribute materially to its breach. The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Chancery’s judgment, finding the court concluded correctly that the Seller’s drastic changes to its hotel operations in response to the COVID-19 pandemic without first obtaining the Buyer’s consent breached the ordinary course covenant and excused the Buyer from closing. Because the Seller’s failure to comply with the ordinary course covenant was dispositive of the appeal, the Supreme Court did not reach whether the Seller also breached the title insurance condition. View "AB Stable VIII LLC v. Maps Hotels and Resorts One LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and dismissed as moot in part the order of the circuit court that disposed of Appellant's motion for the return of seized property, holding that the circuit court correctly held that Appellant's available remedy was a separate action in the civil division of the circuit court or some other remedy.The county sheriff seized thirty-one dogs belonging to Appellant. Appellant was subsequently found guilty of thirty-one misdemeanor counts of animal cruelty. After the circuit court dismissed the charges on speedy-trial grounds Appellant filed a motion to have the dogs returned to her. The circuit court did not order the return of the seized dogs or that Appellant be compensated for the property. The Supreme Court held (1) the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to provide the requested relief; and (2) Appellant's constitutional arguments were moot. View "Siegel v. State" on Justia Law

In consolidated appeals filed by Greenville County, South Carolina, the issue central to the cases involved a zoning dispute between the County and Greenville Bistro, LLC, d/b/a Bucks Racks & Ribs. Greenville Bistro filed suit against the County to enjoin the County from enforcing an ordinance to deny Greenville Bistro's desired method of operating Bucks Racks & Ribs. Citing other ordinances, the County counterclaimed and moved to enjoin Greenville Bistro from operating Bucks as a sexually oriented business. Both appeals concerned the legality of Greenville Bistro operating Bucks as a restaurant with the added feature of scantily clad exotic dancers. The circuit court granted Greenville Bistro's motion for a temporary injunction, and the County appealed. While the County's appeal was pending, another circuit court denied the County's motion for temporary injunctive relief, ruling that in light of the County's appeal it did not have jurisdiction to consider the County's motion. The South Carolina Supreme Court reversed both rulings, dissolved the injunction granted to Greenville Bistro, and held the County was entitled to injunctive relief. The case was remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings. View "Greenville Bistro, LLC. v. Greenville County" on Justia Law