Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

A woman against whom a default judgment had been entered later married and, after her marriage, her husband opened a bank account solely in his name. Some months later, both spouses executed new signature cards for the account, designating ownership as “tenancy by the entireties” and checking the relevant box. The husband’s wages were the only funds deposited into the account. When the creditor holding the judgment against the wife sought to garnish the account, she asserted that the account was exempt from garnishment as an entireties account, since the debt was her individual obligation.The Circuit Court rejected her claim of exemption, holding that because the account was originally opened by only one spouse, the common law “unities” of time and title were not present, and the account could not be a tenancy by the entireties. The petitioner did not dispute the absence of these unities but argued that the express designation on the signature card and section 655.79(1), Florida Statutes, made the account an entireties account regardless. The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s decision, holding that neither the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Beal Bank, SSB v. Almand & Associates nor section 655.79(1) eliminated the common law requirements for an entireties account. The Second District certified conflict with the Fourth District’s decision in Versace v. Uruven, LLC, which had found a similar account exempt.The Supreme Court of Florida reviewed the case to resolve the conflict. It held that while Beal Bank did not address or eliminate the common law unities for entireties accounts, the 2008 amendment to section 655.79(1) did. The Court concluded that under the statute, a joint spousal account may be held as a tenancy by the entireties even if originally opened by only one spouse. The Court quashed the Second District’s decision and approved Versace to the extent it was consistent. View "Loumpos v. Bank One" on Justia Law

A property owner participated in Georgia’s Conservation Use Value Assessment (CUVA) program, which allows for reduced property tax assessments in exchange for maintaining the land for conservation purposes under a ten-year covenant. The property was subsequently sold in part to a new owner, who failed to apply to continue the CUVA covenant by the statutory deadline. As a result, the Hall County Board of Tax Assessors determined that this failure constituted a breach of the covenant, imposed penalties for the breach, and sent tax statements reflecting the penalty to both the original and new property owners.The original owner appealed the Board’s determination to the Hall County Board of Equalization, which denied the appeal. The owner then filed a petition for review in the Superior Court of Hall County, arguing that the Board had not completed required statutory steps before imposing the penalty, that the relevant statutory provision was unconstitutionally vague, and that the wrong penalty provision had been applied. The Superior Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Board on all issues.On further appeal, the Supreme Court of Georgia considered whether the trial court had jurisdiction to rule on the owner’s constitutional claim challenging the statute’s validity. The Supreme Court concluded that, due to a 2022 amendment to OCGA § 9-4-7(c), any constitutional challenge to a statute—even as part of a non-declaratory judgment action—requires service of the proceeding on the Attorney General so the State may defend the statute. Because the owner had not served the Attorney General prior to the trial court’s ruling, the Supreme Court held that the lower court lacked jurisdiction over the constitutional claim. The Court vacated the portion of the trial court’s order addressing the constitutional question and remanded the case to allow proper service on the Attorney General. The Court did not address the owner’s non-constitutional arguments. View "CHESTNUT RIDGE, LLC v. HALL COUNTY BOARD OF TAX ASSESSORS" on Justia Law

Two neighbors in a residential community disagreed about a tree branch that obstructed one neighbor’s view. Jinshu Zhang, the owner seeking the view, used his homeowners association’s dispute resolution process, which included mediation and arbitration services provided by Charles Peterson, an independent mediator. When the association dismissed Zhang’s application, Zhang sued Peterson for breach of fiduciary duty, claiming Peterson was a director or officer of the association and thus owed him such a duty. However, Peterson was neither a director nor an officer, but an independent contractor. Zhang lost his lawsuit against Peterson following a nonsuit at trial, and did not appeal.After that case concluded, Peterson filed a malicious prosecution action against Zhang, alleging Zhang’s earlier suit was baseless and continued without probable cause once Zhang had evidence Peterson was not an officer or director. In response, Zhang filed a special motion to strike under California’s anti-SLAPP statute (Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16), seeking to dismiss Peterson’s malicious prosecution claim. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County denied Zhang’s anti-SLAPP motion, finding Peterson’s case had at least minimal merit based on evidence showing Zhang lacked probable cause and may have acted with malice in pursuing the prior suit.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, reviewed Zhang’s appeal. The court affirmed the denial of Zhang’s anti-SLAPP motion, holding that the denial of a discretionary sanctions motion in the underlying suit did not establish probable cause under the “interim adverse judgment rule,” and did not bar the malicious prosecution claim. The court concluded that Peterson’s evidence on lack of probable cause and malice was sufficient to allow his case to proceed, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Peterson v. Zhang" on Justia Law

In 2016, the City of Los Angeles established new tiered water rates for residential customers of its Department of Water and Power (LADWP). These rates included a charge that funded a low-income subsidy, which was paid by customers who did not qualify for the subsidy, and utilized progressively increasing charges based on water usage tiers. Stephen and Melinda Dreher, LADWP customers, challenged the constitutionality of two aspects of these rates under article XIII D, section 6 of the California Constitution: (1) the inclusion of a low-income subsidy charge in the rates of non-subsidized customers, and (2) the structure of the tiered rates themselves, arguing they exceeded the proportional cost of water service to each parcel.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County ruled in favor of the Drehers regarding the low-income subsidy charge, finding it unconstitutional and issuing a writ to prevent the City from including this charge in future rates. However, the court denied the Drehers’ request for a refund of previously paid charges, concluding that such a claim was barred because the Drehers had not paid under protest, as required by Health and Safety Code section 5472. The court also found that, aside from the invalid low-income subsidy, the City’s tiered rates complied with constitutional proportionality requirements.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One, affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The appellate court held that the payment under protest requirement of Health and Safety Code section 5472 applies to claims seeking refunds of water delivery charges fixed by city ordinance, and that the Drehers’ failure to comply with this requirement barred their retrospective refund claim. The court further held that the City met its burden to demonstrate that its tiered water rates (excluding the invalid subsidy) did not exceed the proportional cost of service attributable to each parcel, as required by article XIII D, section 6(b)(3). Thus, the judgment was affirmed. View "Dreher v. City of Los Angeles" on Justia Law

The case centers on a bakery and deli operator, Bagelmania Holdings, LLC, which leased property from Somerset Property, LLC. Together, they renovated the building for Bagelmania’s restaurant, hiring RDH Interests, Inc. as architect, JEM Associates West, Inc. as contractor, and Turpin & Rattan Engineering, Inc. for HVAC mechanical engineering. Following the renovation, Bagelmania and Somerset alleged construction defects and sued these entities for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and negligence, with both plaintiffs represented by the same attorney.Prior attempts to initiate litigation were dismissed for failing to comply with Nevada’s NRS 11.258 requirements, which mandate an attorney affidavit of merit and supporting expert reports in nonresidential construction defect cases. The plaintiffs then filed a joint complaint supported by one affidavit and a set of expert reports. The defendants argued that each plaintiff was required to file separate affidavits and expert reports, and the Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County, agreed, dismissing the case with prejudice for failure to comply with NRS 11.258, also awarding attorney fees, costs, and interest to the defendants.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Nevada considered whether a single affidavit and set of expert reports sufficed under NRS 11.258 when coplaintiffs, represented by the same attorney, jointly brought identical claims arising from the same alleged defects. The Supreme Court held that, under such circumstances, separate affidavits and expert reports are not required. The Court found that the plaintiffs complied with the statute’s plain language and purpose and that the affidavit and reports met the statutory requirements. The Supreme Court reversed the district court’s dismissal, vacated the post-judgment award of fees, costs, and interest, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Bagelmania Holdings, LLC v. RDH Interests, Inc." on Justia Law

A dispute arose from the design and installation of cabinetry in a luxury home in Charleston, South Carolina. Design Gaps, Inc., owned by David and Eva Glover, had a longstanding business relationship with Shelter, LLC, a general contractor operated by Ryan and Jenny Butler. After being dissatisfied with Design Gaps’ performance, the homeowners, Dr. Jason and Kacie Highsmith, and Shelter terminated their contract with Design Gaps and hired Distinctive Design & Construction LLC, owned by Bryan and Wendy Reiss, to complete the work. The Highsmiths and Shelter initiated arbitration against Design Gaps, which led to the arbitrator ruling in favor of the homeowners and Shelter on their claims, and against Design Gaps on its counterclaims, including those for copyright infringement, tortious interference, and unfair trade practices.After the arbitration, Design Gaps sought to vacate the arbitration award in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, but the court instead confirmed the award. Concurrently, Design Gaps filed a separate federal lawsuit against several parties, including some who were not part of the arbitration. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that res judicata and collateral estoppel barred the new claims, or alternatively, that the claims failed on other grounds such as the statute of limitations and laches. The district court agreed, dismissing most claims based on preclusion or other legal bars, and granted summary judgment on the remaining claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decisions. The court held that res judicata and collateral estoppel applied to bar most of Design Gaps’ claims, even against parties not directly involved in the arbitration but in privity with those who were. For the remaining claims, the court found they were properly dismissed on grounds such as the statute of limitations, waiver, or laches. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment in full. View "Design Gaps, Inc. v. Distinctive Design & Construction LLC" on Justia Law

A company sought approval to construct a 500 kW solar-energy project in Randolph, Vermont. The proposed project required a certificate of public good (CPG) from the Vermont Public Utility Commission (PUC). A portion of the project's infrastructure, such as its access road and interconnection line, would be located on land with slopes exceeding 25%. Local and regional planning commissions, as well as the Town of Randolph Selectboard, initially supported the project and jointly requested the site be designated as a “preferred site.” After neighbors raised concerns that some panels would be located on steep slopes in conflict with the Town Plan, the applicant agreed to revise the project so that no panels would be built on slopes over 25%. The Town conditioned its continued support on this revision and on receiving the final site plan.The PUC’s hearing officer initially recommended denying the CPG due to uncertainty about whether the Town’s conditions regarding slope measurement had been met. The PUC rejected this recommendation, refocusing on whether the Town itself was satisfied with the conditions. The applicant subsequently provided a letter from the Town confirming its support and satisfaction with the conditions. The PUC found the project's compliance with soil-erosion control measures sufficient, particularly in light of a stormwater permit issued by the Agency of Natural Resources (ANR), and ruled that the project would not unduly interfere with the region’s orderly development. The PUC granted the CPG; the neighbors’ motion for reconsideration was denied, and they appealed.The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed the case, giving deference to the PUC’s expertise and factual findings. The Court affirmed the PUC’s grant of the CPG, holding that the PUC correctly applied the legal standards under 30 V.S.A. § 248, properly considered the Town Plan’s land-conservation measures, reasonably relied on the Town’s assurances and ANR’s permit, and did not misapply its own rules regarding “preferred site” status. View "In re Petition of Randolph Davis Solar LLC" on Justia Law

Villa Zinfandel, LLC purchased real property in Napa County from a party that acquired it at a foreclosure sale. Christopher Bearman was occupying the property at the time. Villa Zinfandel filed an unlawful detainer complaint against Bearman as a limited civil action, seeking possession and holdover damages, as required by law after purchasing foreclosed property. Meanwhile, a third party, Edward Sanchez, filed a separate unlimited civil action to set aside the trustee’s deed upon sale, alleging violations in the foreclosure process. Bearman moved to consolidate the two actions, arguing that the issues overlapped. The trial court ultimately consolidated both cases for all purposes.Following consolidation, the trial court granted summary adjudication against Sanchez on his claim to unwind the foreclosure, while Villa Zinfandel’s unlawful detainer claim proceeded to trial. At trial, Villa Zinfandel introduced recorded foreclosure documents and the trustee’s deed upon sale. Bearman objected to the admission of these documents, arguing lack of foundation and hearsay, and contended that Villa Zinfandel needed to prove the truth of the recorded statements, not just their existence. The trial court overruled these objections, took judicial notice of the documents’ existence (but not their truth), and found in favor of Villa Zinfandel, awarding damages exceeding the then-applicable $35,000 cap for limited civil actions.On appeal, Bearman argued to the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division One, that the trial court erred by admitting the recorded documents and by awarding damages above the jurisdictional limit. The appellate court held that the trial court properly took judicial notice of the existence and facial contents of the recorded foreclosure documents and correctly applied legal presumptions regarding the regularity of the trustee’s sale. The court also held that, after consolidation for all purposes with an unlimited civil action, the case was no longer subject to the damages cap for limited civil actions. The judgment in favor of Villa Zinfandel was affirmed. View "Villa Zinfandel v. Bearman" on Justia Law

Jerome and Shaun Cohen operated a Ponzi scheme through their companies, EquityBuild, Inc. and EquityBuild Finance, LLC, from 2010 to 2018. They solicited funds from individual investors and institutional lenders, promising high returns secured by real estate, primarily in Chicago. In reality, the Cohens used new investors’ funds to pay earlier investors and overvalued properties to retain excess capital. By 2018, the scheme collapsed, leaving over $75 million in unpaid obligations. The Securities and Exchange Commission intervened, obtaining a temporary restraining order and having a receiver appointed to liquidate assets and distribute proceeds to victims.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois oversaw the receivership and determined how proceeds from the sale of two properties—7749 South Yates and 5450 South Indiana—should be distributed. Both a group of individual investors and Shatar Capital Partners claimed priority to the proceeds, with Shatar arguing its mortgages were recorded before those of the individual investors. The district court found that Shatar was on inquiry notice of the individual investors’ preexisting interests and thus not entitled to priority, limiting all claimants’ recoveries to their contributed principal, minus any amounts previously received.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s distribution order. The appellate court affirmed, holding that under Illinois law, Shatar was on inquiry notice of the individual investors’ interests in both properties at the time it invested, given multiple red flags about the properties’ financing and EquityBuild’s business model. As a result, the individual investors were entitled to priority in the distribution of proceeds. The court also found Shatar’s challenge to the distribution plan moot, as there were insufficient funds to benefit Shatar after satisfying the investors’ claims. View "Securities and Exchange Commission v. Duff" on Justia Law

A group of homeowners, all over the age of 65, entered into contracts for energy efficiency improvements to their homes under California's Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) program. This program allows local governments to offer financing for such improvements, with repayment made through voluntary special assessments added to the homeowners’ property tax bills. Most local governments contracted private companies to administer these PACE loans. The homeowners alleged that these private administrators failed to comply with consumer protection and lending laws applicable to consumer lenders, such as providing required warnings and avoiding prohibited security interests. They filed suit under the Unfair Competition Law, seeking injunctive relief and restitution, including the return of assessment monies paid and prohibitions on future collection of delinquent assessments unless the assessments were removed from their properties.The San Diego County Superior Court sustained the defendants’ demurrers, concluding that the plaintiffs were required to exhaust administrative tax remedies before pursuing their claims in court. The California Court of Appeal affirmed, reasoning that because PACE assessments are collected as part of property taxes and the relief sought would invalidate those assessments, plaintiffs first needed to pay the assessments and seek administrative relief through the established tax refund procedures.The Supreme Court of California reviewed the case to determine whether plaintiffs were required to follow statutory procedures for challenging taxes. The court held that when plaintiffs’ claims effectively seek to invalidate PACE assessments or prevent their future collection, they must first pay the assessments and pursue administrative tax remedies. However, the court also held that plaintiffs are not required to use tax challenge procedures for claims that do not directly or indirectly challenge a tax, such as those solely addressing the administration of the PACE program. The judgment was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and the case remanded to consider whether plaintiffs should be allowed to amend their complaints to state only non-tax-related claims. View "Morgan v. Ygrene Energy Fund, Inc." on Justia Law