Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the appellate court concluding that the assessor for Defendant, the town of Wilton, improperly imposed late filing penalties on Plaintiffs after taking and subscribing to the oath on the grand list for that assessment year, holding that there was no error.This dispute arose because the assessor signed the grand list without imposing penalties on Plaintiffs and instead delayed imposing penalties until when the assessor issued certificates of change pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. 12-60 for the properties that were the subjects of the penalties. The Board of Assessment Appeals of the Town of Wilton denied Plaintiffs' appeals. The trial court affirmed. The appellate court reversed, holding that tax penalties imposed without statutory authority are invalid. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the penalties imposed were assessments required by law within the meaning of Conn. Gen. Stat. 12-60; and (2) because penalties imposed without statutory authority are invalid, the Town may not collect the penalties at issue in this case. View "Wilton Campus 1691, LLC v. Wilton" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeal reversed in part and vacated in part in a dispute over ownership of two parcels of real property between wife, her husband, and the husband's mother. The court concluded that the trial court abused its discretion when it amended husband's mother's complaint to include a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty. Therefore, the court reversed the judgment on the third cause of action. The court also concluded that the trial court erroneously determined that conditional delivery of the deed was valid. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment on the causes of action for slander of title, quiet title, declaratory relief, and cancellation of deeds. Finally, the court concluded that the trial court's findings and orders interfered with issues under the jurisdiction of the family law court; the trial court did not err when it admitted impeachment evidence about wife's financial circumstances in 2009; and the trial court did not deprive wife of a fair trial by cutting off her trial time unexpectedly. The court remanded with instructions to the trial court to amend the language of the judgment to provide that its orders do not preclude wife from raising proper claims for community property interests, Epstein credits, Watts charges, or other similar claims in the family law court. View "McMillin v. Eare" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that wrongful foreclosures in violation of the power of sale are voidable, rather than void, and to the extent Silva v. Lopez, 5 Haw. 262 (1884), is to the contrary, it is overruled.Plaintiffs' property was foreclosed by nonjudicial foreclosure. Several years later, Plaintiffs sued for wrongful foreclosure and quiet title against various defendants. The circuit court granted Defendants' motion for dismissal of all claims. The intermediate court of appeals (ICA) affirmed as to one defendant and otherwise reversed. Plaintiffs subsequently filed an application for a writ of certiorari. The Supreme Court vacated the ICA's judgment as to the one defendant, holding (1) the "tender rule" was inapplicable on the facts, and as to the defendant who sought to assert the tender rule was not Plaintiffs' mortgagee, Plaintiffs did not need to plead tender to establish superior title as to that defendant; and (2) wrongful foreclosures in violation of the power of sale are voidable, not void. View "Delapinia v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Bellevue Properties, Inc. (Bellevue) appealed a superior court order dismissing its petition to quiet title and for declaratory judgment brought against the defendants, 13 Green Street Properties, LLC and 1675 W.M.H., LLC (collectively, 13 Green Street). Bellevue owned and operated the North Conway Grand Hotel, which abutted Settlers’ Green, an outlet shopping center owned by 13 Green Street. Common Court, a road that encircled the hotel and much of Settlers’ Green, provided access to the properties. Half of the road is private, and half is public. A recorded easement allowed hotel guests to travel over a private road and the private section of Common Court. 13 Green Street planned to construct a mixed-use development in Settlers’ Green, including a supermarket and parking lot, on an undeveloped parcel of land (Lot 92) and an abutting lot (Lot 85). McMillan Lane ran through Lots 92 and 85. To construct a single, continuous development across both lots, 13 Green Street sought to replace McMillan Lane with a new private road that, like McMillan Lane, would run from Barnes Road to the public section of Common Court. In November 2019, Bellevue filed this petition to “[q]uiet title to the land” underneath McMillan Lane “by declaring that [Bellevue] has an easement in the form of a private right of access over same” pursuant to RSA 231:43, III. 13 Green Street moved to dismiss, arguing that Bellevue could not assert a statutory right of access under RSA 231:43, III because its property did not directly abut McMillan Lane. The trial court agreed with 13 Green Street and dismissed Bellevue’s petition. Finding no reversible error in the trial court's judgment of dismissal, the New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed. View "Bellevue Properties, Inc. v. 13 Green Street Properties, LLC et al." on Justia Law

Eighteen petitioners (the Taxpayers) appealed a New Hampshire Board of Tax and Land Appeals (BTLA) order issued following the New Hampshire Supreme Court's decision in Appeal of Keith R. Mader 2000 Revocable Trust, 173 N.H. 362 (2020). In that decision, the Supreme Court vacated the BTLA’s prior dismissal of the Taxpayers’ property tax abatement appeals and remanded for the BTLA to further consider whether the Taxpayers omitted their personal signatures and certifications on their tax abatement applications to respondent Town of Bartlett (Town), “due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect.” On remand, the BTLA found that “based on the facts presented, the Taxpayers [had] not met their burden of proving the omission of their signatures and certifications was due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect,” and again dismissed their appeals. Finding no reversible error in that judgment, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Appeal of Keith R. Mader 2000 Revocable Trust, et al." on Justia Law

Wynlake Residential Association, Inc. ("the homeowners' association"), Wynlake Development, LLC, SERMA Holdings, LLC, Builder1.com, LLC, J. Michael White, Shandi Nickell, and Mary P. White ("the defendants") appealed a circuit court's judgment on an arbitration award entered against them. Because the defendants' appeal was untimely, the Alabama Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. View "Wynlake Residential Association, Inc, et al. v. Hulsey et al." on Justia Law

Mary Eich appealed a district court judgment ordering her to vacate property owned by the trustees of the Wilbur Eich and Henrietta Eich Revocable Trust (the “Trust”). In 2015, Mary filed an action seeking to quiet title to 2.5 acres of an 80-acre tract of real property owned by her father, who held title to the property as trustee of his Trust. Mary alleged that her parents had gifted her the 2.5 acres with the intent that she build a home and reside there for the rest of her life. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court ruled that there was no valid transfer between Mary and her parents, but permitted Mary to pursue an equitable claim of promissory estoppel. After a bench trial, the district court ruled in favor of Mary and that she had a year to obtain Teton County’s approval to partition the 2.5 acres from the remaining Trust property. If she could not do so within the time prescribed, the Trust would have to pay Mary $107,400 for the value of improvements she had made on the land plus her reasonable relocation costs, and Mary would have to vacate the property. Mary worked for several years to separate the 2.5 acres from the remaining Trust property to no avail. In August 2019, the Trust moved to compel enforcement of the district court’s alternative remedy and for entry of final judgment. In January 2020, a newly assigned district court judge granted the Trust’s motion and entered a declaratory judgment ordering the Trust to pay Mary $107,400, plus reasonable relocation expenses, and for Mary to vacate the property. Mary appealed, arguing that the newly assigned district court judge abused his discretion by deviating from the original judge’s equitable remedy. Finding no reversible error, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decision ordering Mary to vacate the property and for the Trustees to pay Mary $107,400. View "Eich v. Revocable Trust" on Justia Law

Defendant Town of Windham (Town) appealed a superior court order denying its motion to dismiss the tax abatement appeal of plaintiff Shaw’s Supermarkets, Inc. (Shaw’s), for lack of standing. The Town also appealed the superior court's order granting Shaw’s requested tax abatement. The owner of the property at issue leased 1.5 acres of a 34.21-acre parcel in Windham established as Current Use. The lease, in relevant part, required Shaw’s to pay the Owner its pro rata share of the real estate taxes assessed on the entire parcel, and the Owner was required to pay the taxes to the Town. If the Owner received a tax abatement, Shaw’s was entitled to its pro rata share of the abatement. In 2017, Shaw’s was directed by the Owner to pay the property taxes directly to the Town, and it did. Shaw’s unsuccessfully applied to the Town’s selectboard for a tax abatement and subsequently appealed to the superior court. The Town moved to dismiss, arguing that Shaw’s lacked standing to request a tax abatement on property it did not own. Finding the superior court did not err in finding Shaw's had standing to seek the abatement, or err in granting the abatement, the New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed the superior court's orders. View "Shaw's Supermarkets, Inc. v. Town of Windham" on Justia Law

In 2015, Pittsburgh City Council passed Ordinance 2015-2062. The Ordinance supplemented Section 659.03 of the Pittsburgh Code of Ordinances, which already barred various forms of discrimination in housing. In early 2016, the Apartment Association of Metropolitan Pittsburgh (“the Association”), a nonprofit corporation comprising over 200 residential property owners, managers, and landlords, filed in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas a Complaint for Equitable Relief and Request for Declaratory Judgment against the City, alleging that the Nondiscrimination Ordinance violated the Home Rule Charter ("HRC") and the Pennsylvania Constitution. The Association also sought a temporary stay of enforcement of the Ordinance, which the court granted. The parties submitted Stipulations of Fact and submitted the case for judgment on the pleadings (the City) or summary judgment (the Association). The trial court heard argument, and ultimately ruled in favor of the Association, declaring the Ordinance invalid. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that the HRC’s Business Exclusion precluded the Pittsburgh ordinance that proscribed source-of-income discrimination in various housing-related contexts. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the Commonwealth Court’s entry of judgment in favor of Apartment Association. View "Apt. Assoc. of Metro Pittsburgh v. City of Pittsburgh" on Justia Law

In 1981, a Georgia federal district court concluded that Atlanta’s zoning regulations for adult businesses were constitutionally overbroad in their entirety and permanently enjoined their enforcement. Atlanta did not appeal. Cheshire operates an Atlanta adult novelty and video store, Tokyo Valentino, and sued, asserting that the definitions of “adult bookstore,” “adult motion picture theater,” “adult mini motion picture theater,” “adult cabaret,” and “adult entertainment establishment” in the current Atlanta City Code are facially overbroad in violation of the First Amendment.On remand, the district court granted Atlanta summary judgment. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed. The district court did not err in providing a narrowing construction of certain terms (the term “patron” in the definitions of “adult motion picture theater” and “adult mini-motion picture theater”) in the challenged provisions. The phrase “intended, designed, or arranged” suggests that the challenged provisions do not apply to isolated or intermittent uses of the property. Cheshire failed to show that any overbreadth in the provisions is “substantial” as required by Supreme Court precedent. The challenged provisions do not purport to ban the activities or conduct they define or describe but are part of a zoning scheme regulating where covered establishments can locate or operate. View "Cheshire Bridge Holdings, LLC, v. City of Atlanta," on Justia Law