Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

A company constructed and operated a large interstate natural gas pipeline running through Ohio, which was completed in late 2018. The project’s actual construction costs significantly exceeded initial estimates due to unusually heavy rainfall causing delays and an environmental incident that led to regulatory actions and further delays. During construction, an investment firm acquired a substantial indirect ownership interest in the pipeline’s parent company, paying a price that implied a high valuation for the pipeline.For the 2019 tax year, the Ohio Tax Commissioner assessed the taxable value of the Ohio portion of the pipeline using a statutory cost-based method, resulting in a valuation that the company believed was excessive. The company challenged the assessment, arguing that the pipeline’s true value was much lower, citing alternative appraisal methods and the impact of construction delays and overruns. The Tax Commissioner rejected these arguments, maintaining that the statutory method produced the correct value.The company appealed to the Ohio Board of Tax Appeals, where both parties presented expert appraisals. The company’s appraiser used a unit appraisal approach and arrived at a lower value, while the Tax Commissioner’s appraiser, using both cost and income approaches, opined a higher value. The Board found the Tax Commissioner’s appraisal more credible, especially in light of the investment firm’s transaction and the actual construction costs, and ordered the pipeline to be valued according to that appraisal.On further appeal, the Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed whether the Board’s decision was reasonable and lawful. The court held that the Board has broad discretion in weighing competing appraisals and evidence, and that its adoption of the Tax Commissioner’s appraisal was supported by the record. The court affirmed the Board’s decision, upholding the higher valuation for tax purposes. View "Rover Pipeline, L.L.C. v. Harris" on Justia Law

After Hurricane Harvey caused significant flooding at the Arbor Court apartment complex in Houston in 2017, the property’s owner, DM Arbor Court, Limited (DMAC), sought permits from the City of Houston to repair the damage. The City denied these permits, invoking a provision of its flood control ordinance that had not previously been used for such denials. The City determined that a majority of the complex’s buildings had sustained “substantial damage,” requiring costly elevation before repairs could proceed. As a result, DMAC was unable to repair or redevelop the property, which led to the loss of tenants and the property sitting idle.DMAC filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, alleging that the City’s denial of repair permits constituted an unconstitutional taking under the Fifth Amendment. The district court dismissed the case as unripe, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed, finding the case ripe once the City’s Director of Public Works formally denied the permit application. On remand, after a bench trial, the district court rejected DMAC’s takings claim, concluding that the property retained some economic value and that DMAC was not deprived of all economically beneficial use. The court also found that the City’s actions were justified under the Penn Central framework, emphasizing the public interest in flood management.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the City’s denial of the repair permit deprived DMAC of all economically viable use of Arbor Court, constituting a categorical taking under Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992). The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that the City’s regulatory action amounted to a per se taking requiring just compensation. View "DM Arbor Court v. City of Houston" on Justia Law

Twelve days before filing for bankruptcy, the debtors purchased a new property in New Hampton, Iowa, but did not list this property in their bankruptcy schedules. Instead, they listed their Waucoma property, consisting of three contiguous parcels totaling just under 30 acres, as their residence and claimed it as fully exempt under Iowa’s homestead laws. No objections were filed to this exemption. The debtors later sold two of the three Waucoma parcels, retaining only a vacant lot (Parcel A). After their bankruptcy discharge, a creditor, AgVantage, sought to execute a pre-petition judgment lien against Parcel A, ultimately acquiring it at a sheriff’s sale.The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Iowa denied the debtors’ motion to avoid AgVantage’s judicial lien, finding that the debtors had abandoned the Waucoma property as their homestead by purchasing and using the New Hampton property. The court also dismissed the debtors’ adversary complaint seeking contempt sanctions against AgVantage for violating the discharge injunction, concluding that AgVantage held a valid lien and was enforcing in rem rights, not collecting a discharged debt. The bankruptcy court further denied the debtors’ motion to amend the judgment.On appeal, the United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Eighth Circuit found that the bankruptcy court’s factual findings regarding the debtors’ homestead status on the petition date were not supported by the record. The panel held that the debtors’ exemption claim was presumptively valid and that AgVantage had not met its burden to rebut this presumption. The panel also determined that the bankruptcy court erred in granting a motion to dismiss the adversary proceeding without affording the debtors the procedural presumptions required at that stage. The panel reversed the bankruptcy court’s decision and remanded for further proceedings, including an evidentiary hearing. View "Jencks v. AgVantage FS" on Justia Law

A dispute arose after a rare vehicle, originally owned by a Wisconsin man, was stolen and shipped to Europe. Richard Mueller inherited the vehicle and sold part of his interest to Joseph Ford. Years later, TL90108 LLC (“TL”) purchased the vehicle overseas and, upon attempting to register it in the United States, was notified that Ford and Mueller were the owners of record. Ford and Mueller sued TL in Wisconsin state court for a declaratory judgment and replevin. The trial court dismissed the case on statute-of-repose grounds, but the Wisconsin Court of Appeals reversed, and the Wisconsin Supreme Court granted review. While the appeal was pending, Ford filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy but did not list TL as a creditor or provide it with formal notice of the bankruptcy proceedings or relevant deadlines.The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida set a deadline under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 4007(c) for creditors to file complaints objecting to the discharge of debts. TL did not file a complaint before this deadline, as it was unaware of the relevant facts supporting a fraud claim until later discovery in the Wisconsin litigation. After learning of Ford’s alleged fraud, TL moved to extend the deadline and file a complaint under 11 U.S.C. § 523(c), arguing for equitable tolling and asserting a due process violation due to inadequate notice. The bankruptcy court denied the motion, relying on the Eleventh Circuit’s precedent in In re Alton, which held that equitable tolling does not apply to Rule 4007(c) deadlines.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the bankruptcy court’s decision. The court held that its prior decision in In re Alton remains binding and precludes equitable tolling of Rule 4007(c)’s deadline, even in light of subsequent Supreme Court decisions. The court also held that TL’s actual notice of the bankruptcy proceeding satisfied due process, and thus, the deadline could not be extended on that basis. View "TL90108 LLC v. Ford" on Justia Law

The dispute arose when a property owner, after selling his San Diego County home and purchasing property in Trinity County, sought to transfer the base year value of his former property to his new one. In 2009, he sued the Trinity County Board of Supervisors to compel such a transfer under California law. The parties settled in 2012, agreeing that if the County later adopted an ordinance or if a change in law required it, the owner would be entitled to retroactively transfer the base year value. In 2020, after the passage of Proposition 19, which expanded the ability to transfer base year values between counties, the owner requested the transfer from the county assessor, who denied the request.The Superior Court of Trinity County held a bench trial and found in favor of the property owner on his breach of contract claims, ordering the County to specifically perform the settlement agreement and awarding damages. The court rejected the County’s arguments that the agreement was limited to intra-county transfers and that the Board lacked authority to bind the assessor. The court also found that the new law triggered the County’s obligations under the agreement.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, concluded that the Board of Supervisors did not have the authority to direct the county assessor in setting or transferring base year values, as this is a duty assigned by law to the assessor, an elected official independent of the Board’s control. The court held that the 2012 settlement agreement was void and unenforceable because it exceeded the Board’s legal authority. As a result, the judgment on the breach of contract claims was reversed, while the remainder of the judgment was affirmed. The County was awarded its costs on appeal. View "Sceper v. County of Trinity" on Justia Law

A dispute arose over mining rights to a parcel of land near Nome, Alaska. After the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) deemed certain mining claims abandoned, two individuals, Foster and Baker, relocated and recorded new claims in 2017. However, another miner, Klutchnikov, also recorded claims on the same land, asserting an earlier staking date, which would give his claims priority. DNR notified the parties of the overlap and advised them to resolve the conflict through legal means. Klutchnikov later transferred his claims to Amerigold Holdings, LLC, which invested in developing the site. Baker and Silverbow Mining, LLC, whose claims were closed by DNR due to the unresolved conflict, filed suit seeking a declaration that Klutchnikov’s claims were invalid because he had not physically staked the land, but had instead “paper staked” the claims.The Superior Court of the State of Alaska, Second Judicial District, Nome, held a bench trial. The court admitted testimony from other miners about Klutchnikov’s alleged pattern of paper staking, over Amerigold’s objection. The court found that Klutchnikov had not physically staked the disputed claims and that Baker and Silverbow’s claims were valid. The court rejected Amerigold’s laches defense, concluding that Amerigold had not shown it was prejudiced by the delay in filing suit, and that any harm suffered by Amerigold’s manager, Hice, was not relevant because he was not a party.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Alaska held that laches can apply to both quiet title and declaratory judgment actions when they are equitable in nature. The court further held that prejudice to a nonparty closely connected to the defendant, such as an investor with a contractual relationship, may be considered in the laches analysis. The court vacated the Superior Court’s rejection of the laches defense and remanded for further proceedings on that issue, but affirmed the admission of testimony regarding Klutchnikov’s prior acts as relevant to the absence of accident. View "Amerigold Holdings LLC v. Baker" on Justia Law

A property owner challenged the tax assessment of its facility in Salisbury, Vermont, for the 2023-2024 tax year. After a grievance hearing attended by both the property owner and its attorney, the town listers denied the grievance and mailed the decision by certified mail to the property owner’s address of record. The property owner received the notice twelve days before the deadline to appeal but did not forward it to its attorney until after the appeal period had expired. The attorney then filed an appeal to the Board of Civil Authority (BCA), which was rejected as untimely.The property owner appealed to the Vermont Superior Court, Addison Unit, Civil Division, arguing that the town violated its procedural due process rights by failing to send notice of the listers’ decision to both the property owner and its attorney. The Superior Court allowed the property owner to amend its complaint and ultimately granted summary judgment in its favor, relying on Perry v. Department of Employment & Training, which required notice to both a claimant and their attorney in the context of unemployment benefits. The court ordered the BCA to hear the untimely appeal.The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that, in the context of property tax grievances, procedural due process does not require notice to be mailed to both the taxpayer and the taxpayer’s counsel. The Court distinguished Perry as limited to unemployment-benefit proceedings and found that the statutory scheme for property tax appeals only requires notice to the taxpayer. Because the property owner received actual notice and had sufficient time to appeal, the Court concluded that due process was satisfied. The Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court’s decision and instructed that summary judgment be entered for the Town of Salisbury. View "Salisbury AD 1, LLC v. Town of Salisbury" on Justia Law

Costco sought to operate a gas station adjacent to its retail store in Colchester, Vermont, near a busy highway interchange. The company obtained both municipal and Act 250 permits, which included conditions requiring traffic mitigation measures—specifically, improvements at a nearby intersection (the MVD Improvements) or, alternatively, implementation of modified traffic signal timings if a larger state highway project (the DDI Project) was not yet under construction. Two neighboring businesses, who also operated gas stations nearby, actively participated in the permitting process and subsequent litigation, arguing that Costco’s gas station would exacerbate traffic congestion and that Costco should not be allowed to operate the station at full-time hours until the DDI Project was complete.After initial permits were issued, the neighbors appealed to the Vermont Superior Court, Environmental Division, which upheld the permits with the mitigation conditions. The neighbors then appealed the Act 250 permit to the Vermont Supreme Court, which affirmed the sufficiency of the mitigation measures. As the DDI Project faced delays, Costco sought and received permit amendments allowing limited-hours operation of the gas station, subject to the same traffic mitigation conditions. The neighbors continued to challenge these amendments and argued that the Vermont Agency of Transportation (AOT) should have been joined as a co-applicant, and that Costco needed further permit amendments to operate at full-time hours.The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the Environmental Division had jurisdiction to consider whether Costco could operate the gas station at full-time hours. The Court concluded that Costco was not required to seek further amendments to its Act 250 or municipal permits before commencing full-time operation, as the permit conditions were satisfied either by the commencement of the DDI Project or by implementation of the signal timing modifications. The Court affirmed the Environmental Division’s decision and found the neighbors’ remaining arguments moot. View "In re Costco Wholesale Administrative Decision" on Justia Law

In 2006, Brenda Merle White executed a $250,000 promissory note secured by a mortgage with Countrywide Home Loans, which was later assigned to The Bank of New York Mellon (BNYM). White stopped making payments in 2008, and BNYM initiated, then rescinded, a non-judicial foreclosure. In 2012, the Association of Apartment Owners of Kumelewai Court foreclosed on the property for unpaid fees, and Gabi Collins acquired an interest in the property in 2015 via quitclaim deed. Collins was not a party to the original mortgage. In 2017, BNYM sent White a notice of default and filed a foreclosure action in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit. White did not respond, but Collins contested the action, arguing, among other things, that the statute of limitations had expired.The Circuit Court of the First Circuit granted summary judgment to BNYM, finding the foreclosure action timely. Collins appealed, and the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) affirmed, holding that the statute of limitations for a foreclosure action is twenty years under Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes (HRS) § 657-31.The Supreme Court of the State of Hawaiʻi reviewed whether the ICA erred in applying a twenty-year statute of limitations to mortgage foreclosure actions. The court held that such actions are more analogous to real property actions than to debt recovery actions, and thus the twenty-year limitations period under HRS § 657-31 applies. The court rejected Collins’ arguments that recent precedent required a different result and found that neither DW Aina Lea Development, LLC v. State Land Use Commission nor Adair v. Kona Corporation conflicted with this approach. The Supreme Court of Hawaiʻi affirmed the ICA’s judgment, holding that the statute of limitations for mortgage foreclosure actions is twenty years. View "The Bank of New York Mellon v. White" on Justia Law

A group of farmers in Marion County, Oregon, formed an irrigation district to secure water for agricultural use by constructing a reservoir on Drift Creek. In 2013, the district applied to the Oregon Water Resources Department for a permit to store water by building a dam, which would inundate land owned by local farmers and impact an existing in-stream water right held in trust for fish habitat. The proposed project faced opposition from affected landowners and an environmental organization, who argued that the reservoir would harm both their property and the ecological purpose of the in-stream water right.The Oregon Water Resources Department initially recommended approval of the application, finding that the project would not injure existing water rights, as the prior appropriation system would ensure senior rights were satisfied first. After a contested case hearing, an administrative law judge also recommended approval. However, the Oregon Water Resources Commission, upon review of exceptions filed by the protestants, reversed the Department’s decision and denied the application. The Commission concluded that the proposed reservoir would frustrate the beneficial purpose of the in-stream water right—namely, supporting fish habitat—even if the required water quantity was maintained at the measurement point. The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed the Commission’s order.The Supreme Court of the State of Oregon reviewed the case. It held that the public interest protected by Oregon water law includes not only the quantity of water guaranteed to a senior right holder but also the beneficial use for which the right was granted. The Commission was correct to consider whether the proposed use would frustrate the beneficial purpose of the in-stream right. However, the Court further held that, after finding the presumption of public interest was overcome, the Commission was required to consider all statutory public interest factors before making its final determination. Because the Commission failed to do so, the Supreme Court reversed its order and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "East Valley Water v. Water Resources Commission" on Justia Law