Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

Several property owners upstream of the Addicks and Barker Dams in Houston, Texas, experienced flooding on their land during Hurricane Harvey in 2017. The Army Corps of Engineers, responsible for the design and operation of these dams, had long maintained a protocol to protect downtown Houston from flooding, which involved allowing reservoir water to inundate upstream private property under extraordinary storm conditions. The Corps had previously considered purchasing all land that would flood during such events but ultimately acquired only a portion, leaving other private lands at risk. When Hurricane Harvey produced record rainfall, water exceeded government-owned land and flooded privately owned properties, resulting in significant damage.The property owners brought suit against the United States in the United States Court of Federal Claims, alleging that the government’s operation of the dams constituted an uncompensated taking of their property under the Fifth Amendment. The court consolidated and subdivided the cases, held a liability trial for thirteen bellwether properties, and found the government liable for taking flowage easements. The court later denied a motion for class certification on grounds of untimeliness and selected six bellwether properties for a damages trial, awarding a total of $454,535.03 plus interest.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Court of Federal Claims’ findings of liability and its denial of class certification. With respect to damages, the Federal Circuit affirmed the awards for leasehold advantage, damaged personal property, and the offsetting of FEMA relief, but vacated the awards for lost rent, displacement, and the valuation of the flowage easement for one property owner, remanding those issues for further proceedings. The main holdings are that the government’s operation of the dams constituted a permanent physical taking of flowage easements, and that certain categories of damages were compensable while others were not. View "ABLAN v. US " on Justia Law

A plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the owner of a restaurant, alleging violations of accessibility laws and seeking damages as well as attorney fees and costs. The defendant requested an early evaluation conference under the Construction-Related Accessibility Standards Compliance Act, which allows certain defendants to obtain a stay of proceedings and mandates that the plaintiff provide a statement disclosing, among other things, the amount of claimed attorney fees and costs. The plaintiff objected to disclosing this information, arguing that it was protected by attorney-client privilege, and did not include it in the required statement.The Superior Court of Santa Clara County ordered the plaintiff to comply with the statutory disclosure and, after the plaintiff’s continued refusal, imposed sanctions. The court offered the plaintiff a choice between a ruling that would bar recovery of attorney fees or dismissal of the case with prejudice; the plaintiff chose dismissal. On appeal, the plaintiff argued that the requested disclosure was privileged and that the trial court’s process violated due process rights.The California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, reviewed the case. It held that the statutory requirement to disclose claimed attorney fees and costs for the purposes of an early evaluation conference does not violate the attorney-client privilege. The court found that the statutory scheme does not provide for a privilege exception, and that requiring disclosure does not frustrate the legislative purpose of promoting early settlement. The appellate court also found no due process violation in the trial court’s sanction process, noting that the plaintiff had the opportunity to be heard on the privilege issue. Accordingly, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s order dismissing the plaintiff’s case with prejudice. View "Johnson v. Rubylin, Inc." on Justia Law

A property owner claimed an easement for driveway access across his neighbor’s land, based on an alleged oral agreement with a prior owner of the neighboring property. He asserted that this permission influenced where he built his house and that the driveway was essential for fuel deliveries and transporting heavy items. After the neighboring property changed ownership several times, the new owners denied any such easement existed. The property owner continued to use the driveway sporadically for fuel deliveries, but his overall use declined over the years, especially after an alternate easement was arranged on another lot.The Superior Court of the State of Alaska, Fourth Judicial District, reviewed the dispute after the property owner filed a complaint seeking to establish his right to use the driveway. The current landowners opposed the claim, arguing that there was no legally recognized easement and that the property owner had alternative access routes. The superior court denied both parties’ motions for summary judgment, finding genuine disputes of material fact, and the case proceeded to trial. After hearing testimony from the parties and witnesses, the court determined that the property owner had not met his burden to prove either an easement by estoppel or a prescriptive easement.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Alaska affirmed the superior court’s judgment. The Supreme Court held that the property owner failed to prove an easement by estoppel because he did not provide clear and convincing evidence of an oral grant of permission. The Court also concluded that, while the property owner’s use may have been continuous and hostile, it was not open and notorious, as a reasonably diligent owner would not have been aware of the driveway due to its lack of visibility. Thus, the claim for a prescriptive easement also failed. The Court affirmed the superior court’s decision. View "Koponen v. Romanov" on Justia Law

A veteran and his spouse obtained a VA-guaranteed loan to purchase a home. After the veteran’s employment was disrupted due to the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, the couple experienced financial hardship and defaulted on their mortgage. The lender, a bank, initiated foreclosure proceedings. The couple attempted to reinstate their mortgage by tendering the full amount to bring the loan current, as provided by the mortgage contract, but allege that the bank and its foreclosure law firm failed to accept their payment or provide a means for payment. The property was sold to third-party purchasers at a foreclosure sale for more than the outstanding loan balance. The couple claims they did not receive adequate notice or an opportunity to exercise their statutory right of redemption.The third-party purchasers filed an ejectment action in Madison Circuit Court. The couple defended against the action and brought counterclaims against both the purchasers and the bank, alleging breach of good faith and fair dealing, breach of contract, wrongful foreclosure, unjust enrichment, and seeking declaratory relief. The trial court dismissed all claims against the bank and the third-party purchasers and granted summary judgment on the ejectment. The couple amended their pleadings, but the trial court again dismissed all claims. They appealed to the Supreme Court of Alabama. During the appeal, they settled with the third-party purchasers, leaving only their claims against the bank.The Supreme Court of Alabama held that Alabama law does not recognize an independent cause of action for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing and affirmed dismissal of that claim. However, the Court found that the couple adequately pleaded claims for breach of contract (due to the bank’s alleged refusal to allow reinstatement), wrongful foreclosure, and unjust enrichment. The Court reversed dismissal of those claims and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Laborde v. Citizens Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

A group of property owners and their subdivision’s architectural committee initiated a lawsuit against two individuals and their investment company, alleging that the defendants began residential construction on two lots within a Guntersville subdivision without necessary building permits, failed to follow approved construction plans, and violated local building codes. The subdivision was governed by recorded restrictive covenants requiring written approval from the architectural committee for all construction. The defendants, who are experienced in homebuilding and acknowledged their awareness of the covenants, submitted plans and received approval but later built structures that did not conform to the approved plans and did not seek further approval for significant changes.The Marshall Circuit Court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs on the defendants’ counterclaims and conducted a bench trial. The trial court found that the defendants knowingly violated the restrictive covenants by constructing unapproved structures and rejected the argument that initial approval allowed them to build anything they chose. The court ordered the defendants to either bring the construction into compliance with previously approved plans, seek new approval within 30 days, or submit a removal plan for the unapproved structures if approval was not obtained. The defendants’ motions to alter the judgment or extend time for approval were denied.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Alabama examined whether the trial court erred by not applying the relative-hardship test, which can prevent enforcement of covenants if the hardship to the violator greatly outweighs the benefit to those enforcing them. The Supreme Court held that, although the defendants did not waive the hardship defense, the trial court properly declined to apply it because the defendants’ willful and intentional misconduct—knowingly constructing non-conforming structures—barred them from equitable relief under the clean-hands doctrine. The Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed the trial court’s judgment. View "Dendy v. Ryan" on Justia Law

A joint drainage district, managed by the boards of supervisors for Floyd and Cerro Gordo Counties, sought to require a railroad company to install a new, larger drainage culvert through a railroad embankment to improve water flow and address aging infrastructure. The existing culvert, over a century old, was deteriorating and positioned too high to drain water effectively. The proposed construction involved a trenchless “jack and bore” method designed to avoid any interruption to rail service. The railroad company objected, arguing that federal law preempted state drainage law and that the construction would jeopardize railroad operations.After a remand from the Surface Transportation Board, the Iowa District Court for Floyd County conducted a bench trial and concluded that federal law—the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act—preempted the drainage district’s authority. The district court found that the proposed installation posed risks to rail operations and issued a writ of mandamus preventing the project. The Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed this decision.On further review, the Iowa Supreme Court held that the federal statute did not categorically preempt state drainage law in this context and that preemption would only apply if the project imposed more than incidental interference with rail operations. After a de novo review of the evidence, the court determined that the proposed culvert installation would have only incidental effects on rail transportation and that the railroad had not met its burden of showing unreasonable interference. The Iowa Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals’ decision, reversed the district court’s judgment, and remanded the case for entry of judgment in favor of the drainage district, dissolving the writ of mandamus. View "Iowa Northern Railway Company v. Floyd County Board of Supervisors" on Justia Law

In 2022, voters in a California city approved an initiative known as Measure H, which amended the city charter to establish rent control, just cause eviction protections, and an independent Rental Housing Board with significant regulatory authority over rental housing, rent increases, and evictions. The measure limited annual rent increases for certain multifamily units, prohibited evictions without just cause, and required the city council to appoint a supermajority of tenants to the Rental Housing Board. It also contained provisions for mandatory landlord-paid relocation assistance in certain circumstances and additional notice requirements prior to eviction for nonpayment of rent.After certification of the election results, a group of landlords and a rental housing trade association challenged the validity of Measure H in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. They alleged the measure constituted an impermissible revision of the city charter under the California Constitution, imposed unconstitutional property qualifications for public office, violated equal protection, and was preempted by various state laws. The superior court rejected most of these claims, holding that Measure H was a lawful charter amendment, did not violate constitutional protections regarding property qualifications or equal protection, and did not conflict with state law except in one respect: it partially severed language in the measure that imposed greater notice requirements than those mandated by state statutes for termination of tenancy.Upon review, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Seven, reversed in part. The court held that Measure H was a permissible charter amendment, not an impermissible revision; that restricting certain board seats to tenants with a leasehold interest did not violate the constitutional prohibition on property qualifications for office; and that the tenant-majority requirement did not violate equal protection under rational basis review. However, the court found that the relocation assistance provision for tenants displaced by lawful rent increases was preempted by the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, and that the additional notice requirement for evictions due to nonpayment of rent was preempted by the Unlawful Detainer Act. The preempted provisions were declared void, and the matter was remanded for the superior court to enter judgment consistent with these findings. View "California Apartment Assn. v. City of Pasadena" on Justia Law

A property owner sought to develop a parcel of land in a town, which required rezoning and environmental review. In 2017, while preparing its zoning petition, the owner and the town entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) that purported to bind the town and its successors to continue reviewing the zoning petition until a final determination was reached, based on empirical data. The owner submitted its petition and participated in the environmental review process, investing significant resources. After local elections in 2019, a new town supervisor and board, who opposed the project, voted to terminate review of the zoning petition and the related environmental process.The property owner filed suit against the town, its board, and the supervisor, alleging breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, based on the town’s termination of the review process. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the MOU was unenforceable under the term limits doctrine and contract zoning doctrine. The Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dismissed the complaint, holding the MOU invalid. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed that decision.The New York Court of Appeals reviewed the case after granting leave to appeal. The Court held that the MOU was invalid and unenforceable under the term limits doctrine because it impermissibly bound successor town boards in the exercise of their legislative discretion over zoning matters. The Court found that such an agreement was not specifically authorized by statute or charter, and did not fall within an exception for proprietary acts. As a result, the property owner’s contractual claims failed as a matter of law. The Court affirmed the Appellate Division’s order. View "Hudson View Park Co. v Town of Fishkill" on Justia Law

The case involves an individual who left his Florida residence in August 2018 to care for his terminally ill brother, a tenant in a New York City Mitchell-Lama apartment. After the brother’s death in March 2020, the petitioner sought succession rights to the apartment, which required him to prove that the apartment was his primary residence for at least one year prior to his brother’s death. The petitioner submitted various documents, including income certifications, power of attorney forms, and certain public assistance records. However, some materials listed his Florida address, and much of his supporting documentation either fell outside the relevant one-year period or was not addressed to the apartment in question.The housing company denied his application, concluding that he failed to establish primary residency during the required time. The New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) upheld this decision after an administrative appeal, finding the evidence insufficient. The petitioner then challenged the agency’s determination through a CPLR article 78 proceeding. The Supreme Court annulled the agency’s decision and granted succession rights, ruling the denial irrational. On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed, holding that the agency’s denial had a rational basis, especially given the petitioner’s failure to supply certain key documents such as New York State tax returns or proof of exemption.The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision. The Court held that, under the applicable regulations, the agency’s determination that the petitioner failed to prove the apartment was his primary residence for the required period was supported by a rational basis. The Court emphasized that the agency’s decision was neither arbitrary nor capricious, and the evidence provided by the petitioner did not meet the burden required to establish primary residency for succession rights. The order dismissing the petition was affirmed. View "Matter of Mantilla v New York City Dept. of Hous. Preserv. & Dev." on Justia Law

A carpenter employed by a subcontractor was injured after falling from a ladder owned by another subcontractor, DAL Electrical Corporation, while working on a renovation project at an office building. The injured worker was using his own employer’s equipment in the morning but, after lunch, returned to the worksite without his equipment and used an unattended DAL ladder, which was defective and marked with blue tape. He was injured when the ladder wobbled and he fell, impaling himself on a tool in his belt. The worker brought claims under New York Labor Law and for common-law negligence against the project’s general contractor, premises owner, and DAL, asserting the defective ladder caused his injuries. The general contractor and owner sought indemnification from DAL under their subcontract.The Supreme Court of Bronx County granted the worker’s motion for partial summary judgment on one Labor Law claim and denied DAL’s motion to dismiss other claims and cross-claims by the general contractor and owner. The court also granted the general contractor and owner summary judgment on their contractual indemnification claim against DAL. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified this order by denying summary judgment on contractual indemnification and granting summary judgment for DAL on all claims and cross-claims against it. The general contractor and owner appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision. The Court held that none of the indemnification provisions in the subcontract required DAL to indemnify the general contractor or owner for the worker’s injuries because the injuries did not arise from DAL’s performance of its contractually defined work. The Court also found that DAL did not owe a duty of care in tort to the injured worker, as the facts did not fit within any recognized exception to the general rule against extending contractual duties to non-contracting third parties. The certified question was answered in the affirmative. View "Dibrino v Rockefeller Ctr. N., Inc." on Justia Law