Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

Landowners Stephen and Sharon Wille Padnos appealed two Environmental Division decisions that granted summary judgment to landowner Jason Struthers. The court ruled that the City of Essex Junction could not regulate Struthers' duck-raising and cannabis-cultivation operations. The court found that the duck-raising operation was exempt from municipal regulation under 24 V.S.A. § 4413(d)(1)(A) as it constituted a commercial farming operation subject to the Required Agricultural Practices (RAPs) Rule. Additionally, the court concluded that the City could not enforce its zoning regulations on Struthers' cannabis-cultivation operations under 7 V.S.A. § 869(f)(2).The City’s zoning regulations do not permit agricultural, farming, or cannabis-cultivation establishments in the Residential-1 Zoning District. The City’s zoning officer initially declined to enforce these regulations against Struthers. The City’s Development Review Board (DRB) reversed the zoning officer’s decision regarding the duck-raising operation but upheld it for the cannabis-cultivation operation. The Environmental Division later granted summary judgment in favor of Struthers in both cases, concluding that the City could not regulate the duck-raising and cannabis-cultivation operations.The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that neither 24 V.S.A. § 4413(d)(1)(A) nor 7 V.S.A. § 869(f)(2) exempts Struthers' operations from all municipal regulation. The court clarified that § 4413(d)(1)(A) prohibits municipal regulation of the specific agricultural practices required by the RAPs Rule, not all farming activities subject to the RAPs Rule. Similarly, § 869(f)(2) prevents municipal regulation of licensed outdoor cannabis cultivators only concerning the water-quality standards established by the RAPs Rule, not all aspects of cannabis cultivation. Consequently, the Vermont Supreme Court reversed the Environmental Division’s decisions and remanded the cases for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "In re 8 Taft Street DRB & NOV Appeals" on Justia Law

In 1908, the Bradford County Commissioners sold an unseated tract of land, known as the Haines Warrant, to Calvin H. McCauley, Jr. at a tax sale. Over a century later, the Pennsylvania Game Commission, a successor in interest to McCauley, initiated litigation to determine ownership of various tracts of land in central Pennsylvania. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals asked the Pennsylvania Supreme Court whether the 1908 tax sale constituted a title wash, thereby divesting the owners of the Haines Warrant’s subsurface estate of their interest.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania found that McCauley was acting as an agent for Central Pennsylvania Lumber Company (CPLC) when he purchased the Haines Warrant at the tax sale. The District Court determined that CPLC had a duty to pay the delinquent 1907 taxes, which led to the 1908 tax sale, and thus was barred under the Powell Rule from purchasing more than its prior interest in the Haines Warrant’s surface estate. The court concluded that McCauley’s purchase acted only as a redemption of CPLC’s prior surface interest, leaving the Proctor heirs’ interest in the subsurface estate intact.The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the 1908 tax sale did not constitute a title wash. The Court determined that owners of unseated land had a duty to pay taxes levied on their property, and McCauley’s purchase, as an agent of CPLC, operated merely as a payment of the taxes owed, not as a title wash. Therefore, the purchase did not divest the Proctor heirs of their interest in the Haines Warrant’s subsurface estate. The Court answered the certified question in the negative, affirming that the Proctor heirs retained their subsurface rights. View "Commonwealth v. Proctor" on Justia Law

A contractor, Flintco, LLC, entered into a subcontract with Total Installation Management Specialists, Inc. (Total) for flooring work on a construction project at Oklahoma State University. Total was required to secure a performance bond from Oklahoma Surety Company (OSC). Flintco later supplemented Total's workforce due to delays and performance issues but did not notify OSC until five weeks after taking over the work.The Tulsa County District Court ruled in favor of Flintco, awarding damages against Total and OSC. OSC appealed, arguing that Flintco failed to meet the performance bond's conditions requiring a declaration of default and reasonable notice before assuming control of the work. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed the district court's judgment, finding that the notice requirement was a mandatory condition precedent, and Flintco's failure to provide timely notice relieved OSC of liability.The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma reviewed the case and agreed with the Court of Civil Appeals. The court held that the performance bond's notice requirement constituted a mandatory condition precedent. Flintco's failure to provide timely notice to OSC so it could exercise its performance options under the bond relieved OSC from liability. The court vacated the Court of Civil Appeals' opinion, reversed the district court's judgment, and remanded the case with instructions to enter judgment consistent with this decision. The trial court's judgments against Total were not affected by this decision. View "Flintco, LLC v Total Installation Management Specialists, Inc." on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between a railroad company and La Plata County over land use changes made by the railroad at its Rockwood Station. The railroad made several modifications to accommodate increased passenger traffic, including enlarging a parking lot and adding portable toilets and tents. The County claimed these changes violated its land use code and demanded compliance or corrective action.The railroad initially sought a declaratory judgment and an injunction in La Plata County District Court, arguing that the County lacked jurisdiction over its operations. While this case was pending, the County petitioned the Colorado Public Utilities Commission (PUC) for a declaratory ruling that the changes required compliance with the County's land use code. The PUC accepted the petition, and an administrative law judge (ALJ) concluded that the changes constituted "extensions, betterments, or additions" under the relevant statute, thus requiring compliance with the County's code. The PUC upheld the ALJ's decision, and the district court affirmed the PUC's ruling.The Colorado Supreme Court reviewed the case and addressed several issues raised by the railroad. The court concluded that the PUC had jurisdiction to interpret the relevant land use statute, the County had standing to petition the PUC, and the PUC did not violate the railroad's due process rights. The court also found that the PUC's determination that the changes constituted "extensions, betterments, or additions" was just and reasonable and supported by the evidence. Consequently, the Colorado Supreme Court affirmed the district court's judgment upholding the PUC's decision. View "Am. Heritage Ry.s v. Colo. Pub. Utils. Comm'n" on Justia Law

The Town of Firestone applied for conditional groundwater rights and an augmentation plan to support its growing water needs. The application included five well fields, but Firestone did not provide specific well locations for three of these fields, instead proposing to use the water court's retained jurisdiction to provide more specific details later. St. Vrain Sanitation District opposed the application, arguing that Firestone's lack of specific well locations made its depletion calculations unreliable and that relying on retained jurisdiction to prove non-injury later was legally impermissible.The District Court for Water Division 1 partially granted St. Vrain's motion to dismiss, finding that Firestone's evidence was insufficient to establish that the proposed well fields would not injure senior water rights holders. The court dismissed without prejudice the claims for the three well fields with unspecified locations and declined to retain jurisdiction, as it could not make a threshold finding of non-injury. The court also allowed St. Vrain to contest the non-injury issue at trial, despite a prior conditional stipulation.The Supreme Court of Colorado affirmed the water court's decision, holding that the water court correctly evaluated the application on a case-by-case basis and did not create a new bright-line rule requiring completed wells for conditional groundwater rights. The court also upheld the water court's refusal to retain jurisdiction without a non-injury finding and found no abuse of discretion in allowing St. Vrain to contest the non-injury issue. The Supreme Court concluded that the water court's factual findings were supported by the trial record and were not clearly erroneous. View "Town of Firestone v. BCL Colo., LP" on Justia Law

The case involves Billings County and its commissioners, who appealed a district court's decision to grant a preliminary injunction preventing them from entering the property of Sandra Short, David Short, Donald Short, and Sarah Sarbacker. The dispute centers on the County's attempt to use eminent domain to construct a bridge over the Little Missouri River, known as the Little Missouri River Crossing (LMRC). The Shorts had previously settled a lawsuit with the County in 2021, where the County agreed not to pursue eminent domain for the LMRC project. Despite this, a newly elected Board of Commissioners decided to proceed with the project in 2023, leading the Shorts to file a new lawsuit.The United States District Court for the District of North Dakota granted a preliminary injunction in favor of the Shorts, finding that they were likely to succeed on their breach-of-contract claim based on the Settlement Agreement. The court refrained from deciding on the validity of the Settlement Agreement, leaving that issue for the state court to address. The district court also stayed its proceedings, pending the outcome of the state court case, and denied the County's motion to dismiss without prejudice.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and vacated the preliminary injunction. The appellate court held that the County could not lawfully contract away its power of eminent domain, as it is an essential attribute of sovereignty. The court concluded that the Settlement Agreement was contrary to law and that the Shorts were not likely to succeed on their breach-of-contract claim. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Short v. Billings County" on Justia Law

Rick Holloway and John Hoskin entered into a Commercial Sales Agreement to purchase the UXU Resort Ranch from Hidden Creek Outfitters, LLC. The sale included a special use permit from the U.S.D.A. Forest Service, which required a bridge inspection and load test before transfer. Due to the inspection's delay, the parties postponed closing and placed $200,000 in escrow for bridge-related expenses. After inspections, Park County Title released the escrow funds to Hidden Creek without H&H's consent, despite unresolved bridge issues.The District Court of Park County found that Hidden Creek and H&H each breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and Park County Title breached the escrow agreement by releasing funds without H&H's approval. However, the court determined H&H failed to prove actual damages with sufficient certainty, awarding only nominal damages. The court also denied attorney’s fees to all parties.The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's findings. The court held that H&H did not prove actual damages because the inspections did not conclusively identify necessary or required repairs. The court also upheld the denial of attorney’s fees, finding no abuse of discretion, as both parties bore some fault in the litigation. The Supreme Court denied any attorney’s fees associated with the appeal. View "Holloway v. Hidden Creek Outfitters, LLC" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, a residential substance abuse treatment program operator, sought a special permit from the defendant, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Kent, to construct a greenhouse on its farm parcel. The plaintiff had been using the farm parcel for agricultural therapy as part of its treatment program, a use that became nonconforming after the town amended its zoning regulations in 2020 to prohibit privately operated clinics in rural residential districts. The commission denied the application, citing concerns that the greenhouse would impermissibly expand the nonconforming use by extending it from a seasonal to a year-round operation.The trial court upheld the commission's decision, dismissing the plaintiff's administrative appeal. The court found that the proposed greenhouse would indeed expand the nonconforming use, which was limited to the terms of the 2018 special permit and site plan approval. The court also noted that the commission's decision was consistent with the zoning regulations' intent to limit nonconforming uses.The Appellate Court reversed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the greenhouse was a permissible intensification of the nonconforming use. The court reasoned that the greenhouse would be located on land already used for agricultural therapy and would not change the nature, character, or kind of use involved. The court also found insufficient evidence to support the commission's concerns about adverse effects on the neighborhood.The Supreme Court of Connecticut reversed the Appellate Court's judgment, holding that the installation of the greenhouse would impermissibly expand the plaintiff's nonconforming use from seasonal to year-round. The court emphasized that extending a seasonal use into a year-round operation changes the character of the use, which is not permissible under zoning regulations. The case was remanded to the Appellate Court with direction to affirm the trial court's dismissal of the plaintiff's administrative appeal. View "High Watch Recovery Center, Inc. v. Planning & Zoning Commission" on Justia Law

Samuel Tilden filed a complaint against his neighbor, Linda Jackson, seeking a declaration of an implied easement over Jackson’s property or, alternatively, the establishment of a private road under Wyoming Statute § 24-9-101. Tilden had sold a portion of his property to Jackson in 2010 but retained a 2.64-acre parcel (Subject Property) that included a steep hillside and a flat meadow along the Southfork of the Shoshone River. Tilden and his family had historically accessed the lower portion of the Subject Property via a two-track road on Jackson’s property. After moving out of a cabin he rented from Jackson, Tilden sought legal access to the lower portion of his property.The District Court of Park County granted summary judgment in favor of Jackson on Tilden’s claim to establish a private road, finding that Tilden’s property was not landlocked as it had access to a county road. Following a bench trial, the district court also denied Tilden’s claim for an implied easement, concluding that Tilden’s use of the contested easement was not apparent, obvious, and continuous at the time of severance, and that the easement was not necessary for the enjoyment of his property.The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decisions. The court held that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment on the private road claim because Tilden’s property had legally enforceable access to a public road, and the necessity for a private road was not established. Additionally, the court upheld the denial of the implied easement, agreeing with the district court’s findings that Tilden’s use of the proposed easement was not apparent, obvious, and continuous at the time of severance, and that the easement was not necessary for the enjoyment of his property. The court emphasized that implied easements should only be recognized when strictly necessary for the use and enjoyment of the dominant estate. View "Tilden v. Jackson" on Justia Law

A group of neighbors appealed the Environmental Division’s decision affirming the District 4 Environmental Commission’s granting of an Act 250 permit amendment to JAM Golf, LLC for the construction of a housing development on a lot that was formerly part of the Wheeler Nature Park in South Burlington, Vermont. The neighbors argued that the landowner was required to show changed circumstances to amend the permit and that the development did not comply with Act 250 Criteria 8 and 10.The Environmental Division held six days of trial and conducted a site visit. In August 2024, the court affirmed the Act 250 permit amendment with conditions related to noise and safety during the construction period, concluding that the project complied with all relevant Act 250 criteria. The court also determined that the application should not be denied on the grounds of inequitable conduct because the neighbors failed to support assertions that the landowner made material misrepresentations in its application and on appeal.The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed the case and concluded that the permit-amendment argument was not preserved for appeal because it was not included in the statement of questions presented to the Environmental Division. The court also found that the Environmental Division did not err in allowing the landowner to elect to be assessed against the updated 2024 City Plan rather than the 2016 City Plan. The court determined that the evidence supported the Environmental Division’s findings that the project complied with Act 250 Criteria 8 and 10, including visual aesthetics, noise, and compliance with the local or regional plan. The court affirmed the Environmental Division’s decision. View "In re Wheeler Parcel Act 250 Determination" on Justia Law