Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

In 2023, the Florida Legislature enacted Senate Bill 264, which, among other provisions, imposed restrictions on real property transactions involving persons domiciled in China who are not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents. The law included three key requirements: a purchase restriction barring certain Chinese domiciliaries from acquiring Florida real estate, a registration requirement mandating such individuals to register their existing property interests, and an affidavit requirement obligating all purchasers of Florida real estate to attest compliance with the law. Four Chinese citizens residing in Florida on various nonimmigrant visas and a real estate brokerage firm serving Chinese-speaking clients challenged these provisions, alleging violations of the Equal Protection Clause, the Fair Housing Act, the Due Process Clause, and federal preemption.The plaintiffs filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida against several state officials responsible for enforcing SB 264. They sought a preliminary injunction to halt enforcement of the purchase restriction, registration requirement, and affidavit requirement. The district court found that the plaintiffs had standing to challenge all three provisions but denied the preliminary injunction, concluding that the plaintiffs were not substantially likely to succeed on the merits of their claims.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision. The Eleventh Circuit held that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the purchase restriction because none had shown an imminent injury from that provision. However, at least one plaintiff had standing to challenge the registration and affidavit requirements. The court affirmed the denial of the preliminary injunction as to the registration and affidavit requirements, finding no substantial likelihood of success on the merits of the constitutional, statutory, or preemption claims. The court reversed and remanded the denial of the preliminary injunction as to the purchase restriction, instructing the district court to deny it without prejudice for lack of standing. View "Shen v. Commissioner, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services" on Justia Law

Cocoa AJ Holdings, LLC is the developer of a mixed-use condominium project in San Francisco known as GS Heritage Place, which includes both timeshare and whole residential units. Stephen Schneider owns a timeshare interest in one of the fractional units and has voting rights in the homeowners association. In 2018, Schneider filed a class action lawsuit against Cocoa and others, alleging improper management practices, including the use of fractional units as hotel rooms and misallocation of expenses. The parties settled that lawsuit in 2020, with Schneider agreeing not to disparage Cocoa or solicit further claims against it, and to cooperate constructively in future dealings.In 2022, Schneider initiated another lawsuit against Cocoa. In response, Cocoa filed a cross-complaint against Schneider, alleging intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, breach of contract (the settlement agreement), unjust enrichment, and defamation. Cocoa claimed Schneider engaged in a campaign to prevent the sale of unsold units as whole units, formed unofficial owner groups, made disparaging statements, and threatened litigation, all of which allegedly violated the prior settlement agreement and harmed Cocoa’s economic interests.Schneider moved to strike the cross-complaint under California’s anti-SLAPP statute (Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16), arguing that Cocoa’s claims arose from his protected activities—namely, petitioning the courts and speaking on matters of public interest related to association management. The Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco granted Schneider’s motion, finding that all claims in the cross-complaint arose from protected activity and that Cocoa failed to show a probability of prevailing on the merits.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Three, affirmed the trial court’s order. The court held that Cocoa’s claims were based on Schneider’s protected litigation and association management activities, and that Cocoa did not establish a likelihood of success on any of its claims. View "Cocoa AJ Holdings, LLC v. Schneider" on Justia Law

After a series of chemical explosions at an industrial plant in Crosby, Texas, following Hurricane Harvey, property owners and lessees in the affected area experienced contamination and property damage. These individuals, including the appellants, initially participated in a federal class action seeking both injunctive and monetary relief for the harm caused by the explosions. The federal district court certified a class for injunctive relief but declined to certify a class for monetary damages. Subsequently, a class settlement addressed only injunctive relief, leaving monetary claims unresolved.Following the settlement, nearly 800 class members, including the appellants, filed individual lawsuits in Texas state court seeking monetary damages for their property-related claims. The appellants acknowledged that their claims accrued in September 2017 and were subject to a two-year statute of limitations, but argued that the pendency of the federal class action tolled the limitations period under Texas law. Arkema, the defendant, removed the cases to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas and moved to dismiss, asserting that Texas does not recognize cross-jurisdictional tolling—meaning a federal class action does not toll the state statute of limitations. The district court consolidated the cases and dismissed the claims as untimely, relying on Fifth Circuit precedent.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo. The court held that, under its binding precedent, Texas law does not permit cross-jurisdictional tolling of statutes of limitations based on the pendency of a federal class action. The court rejected the appellants’ arguments for exceptions to this rule and found no intervening Texas authority to the contrary. Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the appellants’ claims as time-barred. View "Ackerman v. Arkema" on Justia Law

Legacy Housing Corporation purchased several hundred vacant lots in Horseshoe Bay, Texas, intending to develop manufactured housing. The lots were subject to zoning restrictions, including a cap on speculative housing permits, contractor requirements, utility hookup fees, and setback rules. Legacy also acquired adjacent land in the city’s extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) to build a road connecting the lots to a nearby highway, but this land was restricted to agricultural and residential use. Despite these limitations, Legacy constructed a road over the ETJ property, a greenbelt strip, and some development lots, advertising it as a shortcut and access to planned amenities. The City and other defendants opposed the road, citing violations of existing restrictions. Legacy alleged a conspiracy among the City, the property owners’ association (POA), and developers to prevent its development.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas addressed multiple claims and counterclaims. It denied Legacy’s motion to dismiss the City’s counterclaims, granted the City’s motion to dismiss most claims against it, and granted summary judgment to all defendants on the remaining claims, including regulatory takings, Section 1983 violations, civil conspiracy, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, and a strips and gores claim. Legacy’s own motion for partial summary judgment was denied, and final judgment was entered.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s rulings, with one modification. The appellate court held that Legacy’s regulatory takings claim regarding the two-permit cap was not prudentially ripe and should be dismissed without prejudice. The court otherwise affirmed summary judgment for the defendants, finding no genuine dispute of material fact and concluding that Legacy did not have property rights to build the road, nor did the defendants breach any legal duties or restrictive covenants. View "Legacy Hsing v. City of Horseshoe Bay" on Justia Law

Talisker Finance, LLC and its affiliates defaulted on a $150 million loan secured by real property in Utah. The lenders, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and Midtown Acquisitions L.P., foreclosed on the collateral and purchased it at two sheriff’s sales, but the sale proceeds did not satisfy the debt. Talisker later discovered that the lenders had entered into a Common Interest Agreement with the court-appointed receiver, allegedly colluded to depress the sale price, and deterred potential bidders. Talisker claimed that the lenders bundled properties in a way that made them less attractive and that the receiver stalled a third party’s interest in purchasing some of the collateral.The Third District Court, Summit County, reviewed Talisker’s complaint seeking equitable relief from the deficiency judgments, arguing that the lenders’ conduct violated Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 69B(d) and common law principles. The district court accepted Talisker’s factual allegations as true for the purpose of the motion to dismiss but found that Talisker had broadly waived its rights related to the foreclosure process in the loan documents. The court concluded that the lenders’ actions, while possibly unfair, were not unlawful under the terms of the agreements and dismissed the complaint.On direct appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Utah affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The court held that Talisker’s waivers in the loan documents were broad and explicit enough to encompass all rights under Rule 69B(d), including the requirement that property be sold in parcels likely to bring the highest price. The court further held that Talisker had also waived any equitable or common law claims related to the foreclosure sales. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s ruling, finding no error in its conclusion that Talisker’s waivers precluded relief. View "TALISKER PARTNERSHIP v. MIDTOWN ACQUISITIONS" on Justia Law

A husband and wife, both real estate professionals, were married for 31 years and jointly owned several properties, including two farms, residential homes, and business assets acquired during the marriage. The couple had no children together but each had adult children from prior marriages. During the marriage, they operated a real estate business and were equal shareholders in a grain company that was dissolved before the divorce proceedings. The husband claimed certain assets as nonmarital property, including proceeds from a premarital business and an inheritance, and also sought to have debts incurred during the marriage, such as a COVID-related loan and loans taken to pay temporary spousal support, treated as marital debts. Additionally, a third party, J.E.M. Farms, LLC, intervened, claiming a one-half interest in one of the farms based on a prior agreement and financial contributions.The District Court for Antelope County conducted a bifurcated trial, first addressing the intervenor’s claim and then the dissolution action. The court entered a consent decree quieting title to half of one farm in favor of J.E.M. Farms, with all parties agreeing to pay their own attorney fees and costs. In the dissolution proceedings, the court found that the husband failed to adequately trace most of his claimed nonmarital assets, except for $260,000 from his inheritance that was used to purchase one farm. The court also found insufficient evidence to treat the COVID loan as an outstanding marital debt or to find dissipation by the wife. The court ordered both farms to be sold, with the proceeds divided equally after accounting for the nonmarital inheritance, and denied the husband’s request for attorney fees related to the intervention.On appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo for abuse of discretion. The court affirmed the district court’s rulings, holding that the husband did not meet his burden to trace additional nonmarital property, that the consent decree barred his claim for attorney fees related to the intervention, and that the order to sell the farms was reasonable under the circumstances. The court also found no error in the treatment of debts or in the division of property. View "White v. White" on Justia Law

Casa Express Corp. obtained a $40 million judgment in the Southern District of New York against the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela for unpaid bonds and a global note. After Venezuela failed to pay, Casa sought to enforce the judgment in Florida by targeting eight Miami properties owned by corporate entities allegedly controlled by Raul Gorrin Belisario. Casa claimed that Gorrin, through a bribery and currency-exchange scheme involving Venezuelan officials, used misappropriated Venezuelan funds to purchase these properties, and argued that the properties should be subject to a constructive trust in favor of Venezuela.Casa registered the New York judgment in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida and initiated supplementary proceedings under Florida law, seeking to execute the judgment against the properties. Casa impleaded Gorrin, several individuals, and six corporate entities as third-party defendants. The defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing, among other things, that the district court lacked ancillary jurisdiction over Casa’s claims. The magistrate judge recommended dismissal for lack of ancillary jurisdiction, and the district court adopted this recommendation, also finding a lack of personal jurisdiction over Gorrin. Casa appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that the district court lacked ancillary jurisdiction over Casa’s supplementary proceedings. The court reasoned that Casa’s action sought to impose liability on third parties not previously found liable for the New York judgment and was based on new facts and legal theories unrelated to the original breach of contract claims against Venezuela. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s jurisdictional ruling, vacated its alternative merits rulings, and remanded with instructions to dismiss the case without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. View "Casa Express Corp v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela" on Justia Law

Gulfstream Café, Inc. owns a restaurant within the Marlin Quay Planned Development (PD) in Georgetown County, South Carolina. The PD includes a shared parking lot, with Gulfstream holding a nonexclusive easement for sixty-two spaces and owning seventeen additional spaces. In 2016, Palmetto Industrial Development, LLC purchased the marina and parking lot, demolished the existing structures, and sought approval from the Georgetown County Council to build a new restaurant. After several iterations and legal challenges, the Council approved a final plan (Ordinance 2018-40) for the new restaurant, which increased evening parking demand and allegedly harmed Gulfstream’s business.Previously, Gulfstream challenged the approval process and the impact on its easement rights in the Circuit Court for Georgetown County. The court held a bench trial and ruled in favor of the County, the County Council, and Councilmember Steve Goggans on all claims, including substantive and procedural due process, takings, inverse condemnation, and alleged impropriety in the approval process. Gulfstream appealed the decision.The Supreme Court of South Carolina reviewed the case, applying a limited scope of review for factual findings and de novo review for legal and constitutional issues. The Court held that Gulfstream’s easement was nonexclusive and had not been deprived by the ordinance, that the County’s actions had a rational basis, and that the ordinance did not constitute a per se or regulatory taking under the Penn Central test. The Court also found no procedural due process violation, as Gulfstream received notice and an opportunity to be heard, and determined that Councilmember Goggans’ prior involvement did not invalidate the ordinance. The Supreme Court of South Carolina affirmed the circuit court’s judgment in all respects. View "The Gulfstream Café v. Georgetown County" on Justia Law

The case centers on a long-standing dispute involving three churches over ownership and sale of real property in Los Angeles. Attorney Steven C. Kim represented one of the churches, Central Korean Evangelical Church, which granted him a deed of trust on the property to secure payment of attorney fees. Central Korean had contracted to sell the property to New Life Oasis Church but later reneged, leading to litigation. The trial court ordered Central Korean to honor the sale and expunged Kim’s deed of trust, which was obstructing the transaction. Kim’s client appealed, but the appeal was dismissed for lack of standing, and Kim did not pursue his own appeal. The judgment became final in 2018.Following the final judgment, Kim filed a new lawsuit against New Life Oasis Church and Bank of Hope, seeking a declaration that his deed of trust was still valid and challenging the prior expungement order. New Life and Bank of Hope moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that issue preclusion barred Kim from relitigating the validity of his lien. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County agreed and entered judgment against Kim. Additionally, New Life filed a cross-complaint alleging that Kim’s recording of a lis pendens constituted slander of title and abuse of process. After a bench trial, the court ruled in favor of New Life, awarding damages and not addressing Kim’s defense based on the litigation privilege.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, reviewed the case. It affirmed the trial court’s application of issue preclusion, holding that Kim could not relitigate the validity of his deed of trust. However, it reversed the judgment on the cross-complaint, holding that the litigation privilege protected Kim’s recording of the lis pendens from claims of slander of title and abuse of process. The case was remanded for entry of judgment consistent with these holdings. View "Kim v. New Life Oasis Church" on Justia Law

A group of plaintiffs leased a 2,400-acre parcel of undeveloped land in San Luis Obispo County, California, from the predecessor of the defendant, Eureka Energy Company. The lease, originally executed in 1968 and later novated, provided for a 99-year term with an option to renew for another 99 years. The property, known as Wild Cherry Canyon, was historically used for cattle grazing, but the lease itself stated that the premises could be used for “any lawful purpose.” The parties understood that cattle grazing would continue, primarily to reduce wildfire risk rather than for commercial livestock production. In 2018, the plaintiffs exercised their option to renew the lease, but Eureka asserted that the lease was limited to 51 years under California Civil Code section 717, which restricts leases for agricultural purposes.The Superior Court of San Luis Obispo County held a court trial and issued a detailed statement of decision. It found that the lease was for agricultural purposes, specifically cattle grazing, and concluded that section 717 applied, limiting the lease to 51 years. The court entered judgment for Eureka, declaring that the lease expired in 2019 and that the plaintiffs had no further interest in the property. The plaintiffs appealed, arguing that the lease was not for agricultural purposes within the meaning of section 717, given the fire prevention intent.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Six, reviewed the case. It held that, although cattle grazing generally constitutes an agricultural purpose under section 717, the particular circumstances here—where grazing was intended for fire prevention and not for commercial agriculture—meant the lease was not for agricultural purposes as defined by the statute. The court reversed the trial court’s judgment, finding that the lease was valid beyond the 51-year limit and that the plaintiffs’ leasehold interest should not be forfeited. View "Pacho Limited Partnership v. Eureka Energy Co." on Justia Law