Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

Rajiv Sangha (landlord) rented a house to Jeremy Keen and Racheal Lomas (tenant) in 2021. In November 2023, the tenant stopped paying rent. In April 2024, the landlord served a 14-day notice to pay rent or vacate, but the tenant did not respond. In May 2024, the landlord commenced an unlawful detainer action, serving the tenant with a summons and complaint. The tenant faxed a written notice of appearance to the landlord, indicating their intention to be present at any court case or appearance. Despite this, the landlord moved for a default judgment due to the tenant's failure to file an answer by the specified date. The trial court granted the default judgment and issued a writ of restitution.The tenant received the motion for default and notice of hearing but was allegedly informed by the King County Superior Court Clerk’s Office that they did not need to attend the hearing. In July 2024, the trial court found the tenant in default for lack of answer and issued the default judgment and writ of restitution. The tenant retained counsel and moved to vacate the default judgment and quash the writ, arguing that default for an appearing tenant violated their statutory right to counsel and contradicted the statutory summons language requiring a show cause hearing. The trial court denied the motion, agreeing with the landlord that the Civil Rules required an answer and that the landlord had complied with statutory notice requirements.The Supreme Court of the State of Washington reviewed the case. The court held that RCW 59.18.365(3) precludes a default judgment against a tenant who appears but does not submit a written answer in an unlawful detainer action. The tenant’s written notice of appearance constituted a response to the summons, and the trial court erred in entering a default judgment based on the tenant’s failure to answer. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s entry of default and remanded the case for further proceedings. The landlord's request for appellate attorney fees was denied. View "Sangha v. Keen" on Justia Law

Sokunthim Nou appeals from a divorce judgment entered by the District Court in which the court allocated property between her and Rotanak Huot and awarded shared parental rights and responsibilities and shared residency of their children. Sokunthim challenges the court’s property determinations on multiple grounds, but does not contest the custody determination. The court found that all the parties’ assets were marital because they were acquired during the marriage and through significant effort by both parties. The court allocated just over half of the net value of the parties’ properties to Sokunthim and the remainder to Rotanak. The court also found Sokunthim’s income to be $435,598, based largely on Rotanak’s testimony about Punky’s LLC’s daily sales.The District Court held a trial with both parties represented by counsel and interpreters present. The court heard testimony from the parties, a real estate broker, Sokunthim’s accountant, and her father. The court entered a comprehensive divorce judgment, determining that all the parties’ assets were marital and allocating them accordingly. The court’s judgment awarded Panyah LLC to Rotanak and implicitly awarded Punky’s LLC to Sokunthim. Sokunthim filed motions for additional findings of fact and conclusions of law and for a new trial, which the court denied.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the case and found that the trial court’s determination of Sokunthim’s income was unsupported by the evidence. The court’s finding as to her income may have influenced other financial aspects of the judgment. Therefore, the Supreme Judicial Court vacated the division of property and child support award and remanded for further proceedings. The judgment was affirmed in all other respects. View "Nou v. Huot" on Justia Law

Peter Farina has lived at the Victor Howell House, a group home for low-income individuals, since 1989. In 2000, the Janet Keenan Housing Corporation (JKHC), a non-profit, purchased the property to maintain it as affordable housing. Recently, JKHC attempted to sell the house to a private third party, leading to two tracks of litigation. The District of Columbia sued JKHC to halt the sale, arguing it violated JKHC’s charitable purposes. As the District and JKHC neared a settlement allowing the sale, Farina sought to intervene but was denied. Farina then filed his own lawsuit, claiming his rights under the Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act (TOPA) and the Uniform Trust Code (UTC) were being violated.The Superior Court of the District of Columbia denied Farina’s motion to intervene in the District’s case, citing untimeliness and lack of standing. The court approved the settlement between the District and JKHC, which allowed the sale to proceed. In Farina’s separate lawsuit, the court ruled against him, stating his TOPA rights were extinguished by the court-approved settlement and that he lacked standing to bring his UTC claim.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the case. The court held that Farina’s TOPA rights were not extinguished by the settlement, as the sale was an arm’s-length transaction and not exempt under TOPA. Farina must be given the opportunity to purchase the property under TOPA. However, the court agreed with the lower court that Farina lacked standing to bring his UTC claim, as he was neither a settlor nor a special interest beneficiary of JKHC. The court affirmed the judgment in the District’s case but vacated the judgment in Farina’s case, remanding it for further proceedings to afford Farina his TOPA rights. View "Farina v. Janet Keenan Housing Corporation" on Justia Law

Norfolk Southern Railway Company challenged the constitutionality of Code § 56-16.3, which allows broadband service providers to install fiber optic cables across railroad property. The statute, enacted in 2023, aims to promote broadband expansion in Virginia. Cox Communications filed applications to install fiber optic cables under Norfolk Southern’s tracks, which Norfolk Southern did not initially oppose. However, a dispute arose over the license fees, leading Cox to proceed without a licensing agreement, prompting Norfolk Southern to seek relief from the State Corporation Commission (the “Commission”).The Commission rejected Norfolk Southern’s arguments without a hearing, finding the claims insufficient to establish undue hardship. Norfolk Southern appealed to the Supreme Court of Virginia, which stayed the Commission’s judgment during the appeal.The Supreme Court of Virginia reviewed the case de novo, focusing on whether Code § 56-16.3 violated Article I, Section 11 of the Virginia Constitution. The court emphasized that eminent domain statutes must be strictly construed and that the burden of proving public use lies with the condemnor. The court found that Code § 56-16.3 did not reference public use and allowed a private company to take property for financial gain, which is not a public use under the Virginia Constitution.The court held that the application of Code § 56-16.3 in this case constituted a taking of Norfolk Southern’s property for a nonpublic use, violating the Virginia Constitution. Consequently, the court reversed the Commission’s judgment and remanded the case for entry of judgment in favor of Norfolk Southern. View "Norfolk Southern Railway Co. v. SCC" on Justia Law

The case involves the City of Lava Hot Springs, which regulates short-term rentals based on whether they are occupied by an owner or manager. Non-owner-occupied short-term rentals are prohibited in residential zones and only allowed in commercial zones. John and Michelle Taylor applied for a business license to operate a non-owner-occupied short-term rental in a residential zone, but the City denied their application. The Taylors, along with the Idaho Association of Realtors, sued the City, claiming that its regulations violated the Short-term Rental and Vacation Rental Act, which limits municipal regulations on short-term rentals.The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the City, finding that the City's regulations did not have the express or practical effect of prohibiting short-term rentals and were permissible under the health, safety, and welfare exception in the Act. The court concluded that because at least one type of short-term rental (owner-occupied) was allowed in residential zones, the City had not violated the Act. The Taylors and the Realtors appealed this decision.The Supreme Court of Idaho reviewed the case and reversed the district court's decision. The Court held that the City's ordinance, which prohibited non-owner-occupied short-term rentals in residential zones, violated the Short-term Rental and Vacation Rental Act. The Act prohibits any city ordinance that has the express or practical effect of prohibiting short-term rentals. The Court found that the City's ordinance amounted to a prohibition rather than a regulation and thus invalidated the ordinance. The Court awarded costs on appeal to the Petitioners but did not grant attorney fees to either party. View "Idaho Association of Realtors, Inc. v. City of Lava Hot Springs" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, Boyang Song and Travis McCune, own a unit at The 903 condominium complex in Providence, Rhode Island. They filed a lawsuit against Evan Lemoine and Stephen Rodio, the president and secretary of The 903 Condominium Owner’s Association, respectively. The dispute arose when the defendants failed to include the plaintiffs' specific agenda items in a special-meeting petition regarding gas metering and billing issues at the complex. The plaintiffs sought to address the malfunctioning gas timers and the board's decision to switch to a ratio utility billing system, which they argued conflicted with the complex’s governing documents and the Rhode Island Condominium Act.The Superior Court consolidated the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction with a trial on the merits. After a three-day nonjury trial, the Superior Court found in favor of the defendants. The trial justice determined that the notice of the special meeting sent by the board was insufficient but concluded that the plaintiffs' proposed meeting notice was improper because it did not set forth valid transactable business within the association’s authority. The court found for the defendants on count I of the verified complaint and later entered judgment in favor of the defendants on all counts of the plaintiffs' complaint, while dismissing the defendants' counterclaims.The Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed the case and vacated the part of the Superior Court's judgment finding in favor of the defendants. The Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs had satisfied their obligation to obtain the requisite number of signatures for the special meeting and that their proposed notice complied with the statutory requirements. The court found that the trial justice overstepped by evaluating the merits of the plaintiffs' motions individually and granting relief not sought by the parties. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion. View "Song v. Lemoine" on Justia Law

Saul Arellano, a roofer, was injured while working on a construction project for Sunrise Homes, Inc. He fell from a roof without fall protection equipment and sustained multiple injuries. Arellano received worker’s compensation benefits through Sunrise Homes after it was discovered that his direct employer did not carry worker’s compensation insurance. Subsequently, Arellano filed negligence and negligence per se claims against Sunrise Homes, arguing that his injuries fell under the “unprovoked physical aggression” exception to Idaho’s worker’s compensation exclusive remedy rule.The District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, Madison County, granted summary judgment in favor of Sunrise Homes. The court concluded that Arellano failed to provide clear and convincing evidence that his claims fell within the statutory exception to the exclusive remedy rule. Specifically, the court found no genuine issues of material fact that Sunrise Homes knew injury or death was substantially likely to occur due to the lack of fall protection equipment.The Supreme Court of the State of Idaho reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The Supreme Court held that the district court erred in applying the “clear and convincing” evidentiary standard at the summary judgment stage. However, upon de novo review, the Supreme Court found that Arellano did not raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding Sunrise Homes’ knowledge that injury was substantially likely to occur. The court also rejected Arellano’s arguments that the 2020 amendments to Idaho Code section 72-209(3) codified a more lenient standard or reduced the burden of proof for plaintiffs. Consequently, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Sunrise Homes and awarded costs on appeal to Sunrise Homes. View "Arellano v. Sunrise Homes, Inc." on Justia Law

Landowners Anne and Mark Guillemette appealed an Environmental Division order denying their motion to dismiss neighbor Michael Casey’s appeal and remanding the matter to the Monkton Development Review Board (DRB) for consideration on the merits. Casey had challenged the zoning administrator’s decision that the Guillemettes’ wood-processing facility was exempt from enforcement due to the fifteen-year limitations period. Casey filed his appeal late, relying on incorrect instructions from the zoning administrator.The Environmental Division concluded that 10 V.S.A. § 8504(b)(2)(C) allowed Casey’s appeal to proceed despite the untimely filing, as disallowing the appeal would result in manifest injustice. The court remanded the matter to the DRB for consideration on the merits.The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed the case and reversed the Environmental Division’s decision. The Supreme Court held that 10 V.S.A. § 8504(b)(2)(C) does not apply to appeals from the decisions of municipal administrative officers, such as zoning administrators. Instead, it applies only to appeals from municipal regulatory proceedings to the Environmental Division. Therefore, the finality provision at 24 V.S.A. § 4472 barred Casey’s untimely appeal, and the Environmental Division lacked jurisdiction to permit the appeal to proceed. View "In re Guillemette ZA Determination Appeal" on Justia Law

Myers-Woodward, LLC (Myers) owns 160 acres in Matagorda County, Texas. In 1947, Myers’s predecessors retained the surface estate but transferred the mineral estate to the predecessor of Underground Services Markham, LLC and United Brine Pipeline Company, LLC (collectively, USM). The mineral deed granted USM’s predecessor an interest in all oil, gas, and other minerals on the land, along with rights necessary for mining and transporting these minerals. In 2008, USM acquired all of Texas Brine Company’s interest in the salt on the property. Disputes arose over the ownership of caverns created by salt mining and the calculation of royalties owed to Myers.The district court ruled that USM owned the subsurface caverns created by its salt mining activities but denied USM’s request to use the caverns for storing hydrocarbons produced off-site. The court agreed with Myers that USM could only use the land for purposes specified in the 1947 deed. Regarding royalties, the district court ruled that Myers was entitled to a one-eighth royalty based on the market value of the salt at the point of production, which amounted to $258,850.41. Myers appealed, challenging the royalty calculation and the ownership of the caverns. USM cross-appealed, contesting the limitation on its use of the caverns.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case. The court affirmed the lower court’s decision that Myers, as the surface estate owner, retains ownership of the empty spaces within the salt formations. The court held that the mineral estate does not include ownership of the empty spaces created by salt mining. However, the court reversed the lower courts’ calculation of Myers’s royalty payments, ruling that Myers is entitled to an in-kind royalty of one-eighth of the net proceeds from the sale of the salt. The case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "MYERS-WOODWARD, LLC v. UNDERGROUND SERVICES MARKHAM, LLC" on Justia Law

A dispute arose over the authority of the Red Lake Watershed District (the District) to conduct improvement proceedings for Polk County Ditch 39, which lies within the District but under the drainage authority of the Polk County Board of Commissioners. In 2017, landowners filed a petition with the District to improve Ditch 39, aiming to increase its capacity and length to capture overflow from another ditch, Ditch 66. The District accepted the petition and initiated proceedings, but Keystone Township and several landowners challenged the District's order, arguing that the District lacked authority as the ditch was not transferred from the county.The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Keystone, ruling that the District did not have the authority to order the improvement because it had not taken over the ditch from the county. The court of appeals reversed this decision, concluding that the District had the authority to conduct the improvement proceedings and that the proceedings substantially conformed to statutory requirements.The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the court of appeals' decision. The court held that under Minn. Stat. § 103D.625, subd. 4, the District was authorized to conduct improvement proceedings for Ditch 39 without first taking over the ditch from the county. The court also concluded that the District's proceedings conformed to the statutory requirements, despite the involvement of county officials being inconsistent with the Watershed Law. The court rejected Keystone's procedural challenges, including the timeliness of the property owners' report and the final hearing notice, affirming that these did not affect the District's authority to establish the improvement project. View "In the Matter of Keystone Township vs. Red Lake Watershed District," on Justia Law