Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

The case revolves around a dispute between Anthony Sam and Renee Kwan, who formed a limited liability company (LLC) and purchased a parking lot. Sam alleged that Kwan, without his knowledge, sold the lot for a significant profit, fabricated documents, and pocketed the money without giving him anything. Sam sued Kwan, her entities, the company providing title and escrow services for the sale, and the parking lot buyer. The trial court ruled against Sam, denying him any remedy.The trial court's decisions were largely unfavorable for Sam. It denied First American's motion for summary judgment but granted the Board's motion for summary judgment. The court also granted judgment on the pleadings to various defendants, including Fidelity, First American, Kwan, Vibrant, Asset, 600 LLC, and Holdings. The court sustained Fidelity's demurrer in part with leave to amend and in part without leave to amend. Sam appealed these decisions.The Court of Appeal of the State of California Second Appellate District Division Eight affirmed some of the trial court's rulings but reversed others. The appellate court reversed the denial of Sam's leave to amend his claims on behalf of 2013 LLC and remanded to permit Sam to bring these claims on behalf of the member entities. The court also reversed the remainder of the grants of judgment on the pleadings, except as to the breach of contract claims based on the operating agreements of 600 LLC and Holdings against 600 LLC and Holdings. The court affirmed the ruling that the breach of contract claims based on the operating agreements of 600 LLC and Holdings against 600 LLC and Holdings cannot be amended to state viable claims. The court reversed the sustaining of Fidelity's demurrer as to the civil conspiracy cause of action. Finally, the court reversed the grant of the Board's summary judgment motion. View "Sam v. Kwan" on Justia Law

The case involves Norton Outdoor Advertising, a company that operates billboards within the Village of St. Bernard, Ohio. The Village revoked one of Norton's permits after it constructed two variable-message signs. The Village's ordinance regulates signs based on whether what is being advertised is located on or off the premises of the sign. The ordinance also has an exemption that functions beyond this on- and off-premises dichotomy, which is content based.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio ruled in favor of the Village, finding that Norton lacked standing to challenge any provisions of the ordinances other than the ban on variable-message displays. The court found these provisions to be content-neutral regulations under the Supreme Court precedent and that the regulations satisfied intermediate scrutiny.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the district court's judgment. The appellate court found that the Village's ordinance, which included a content-based exemption, must satisfy strict scrutiny. The court concluded that the Village's ordinance was not narrowly tailored to fulfill a compelling interest and therefore could not stand as written. The court remanded the case back to the district court for further proceedings, including consideration of whether the unconstitutional provision is severable. View "Norton Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. Village of St. Bernard" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute over a parcel of land within the Rio Grande National Forest in Colorado, owned by Leavell-McCombs Joint Venture (LMJV). The land, obtained through a land exchange with the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) in 1987, was intended for development into a ski resort village. However, access to the parcel was hindered due to a gravel road managed by the USFS that was unusable by vehicles in the winter.In 2007, LMJV invoked the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), claiming it required the USFS to grant access to inholdings within USFS land. The USFS initially proposed a second land exchange with LMJV to secure access to Highway 160. However, this proposal was challenged by several conservation groups under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), alleging violations of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA). In 2017, the district court vacated the USFS decision and remanded to the agency.The USFS then considered a new alternative in the form of a right-of-way easement to LMJV across USFS land between the Parcel and Highway 160. The USFS consulted with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to secure a new biological opinion (BiOp) and incidental take statement (ITS) for the proposed action in 2018. The USFS then issued a final Record of Decision (ROD) in 2019, approving the easement.The conservation groups challenged this latest ROD under NEPA, the ESA, and ANILCA. The district court vacated and remanded under the law of the case doctrine, concluding that it was bound by the reasoning of the district court’s 2017 order. The Agencies appealed the district court’s decision vacating the 2018 BiOp and 2019 ROD.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit vacated the district court’s order and affirmed the Agencies’ decisions. The court concluded that it had jurisdiction over the matter under the practical finality rule, and that the Conservation Groups had standing. The court held that the district court incorrectly applied the law of the case doctrine because the Agencies considered a different alternative when issuing the 2019 ROD. The court also concluded that ANILCA requires the USFS to grant access to the LMJV Parcel. The court determined that even if the Conservation Groups could show error under NEPA, they had not shown that any alleged error was harmful. Finally, the court held that the Conservation Groups failed to successfully challenge the 2018 BiOp under the ESA, and that the Agencies correctly allowed the ITS to cover not only the proposed easement, but also LMJV’s proposed development. View "Rocky Mountain Wild v. Dallas" on Justia Law

This case involves a dispute between a homeowner and a citizens association over a parcel of undeveloped land. The parcel was divided into two sections by a stone wall. The homeowner claimed adverse possession over the entire parcel, but in an amended complaint, treated the two sections as distinct parcels acquired at different times and on different grounds. The homeowner moved for summary judgment on the claim to the smaller section, which the circuit court granted. A different judge presided over the bench trial on the homeowner’s claim to the larger section. When the homeowner finished his case-in-chief, the citizens association moved for judgment. The trial court granted the citizens association’s motion and entered judgment for it on the homeowner’s claims, including the claim to the smaller section that had been resolved in the homeowner’s favor on summary judgment.The trial court's decision was appealed to the Appellate Court of Maryland which affirmed the trial court’s disposition of the homeowner’s claims to both the smaller and larger sections. The homeowner then petitioned for certiorari to the Supreme Court of Maryland.The Supreme Court of Maryland held that the circuit court abused its discretion by implicitly vacating the summary judgment entered in the homeowner’s favor on his claim to the smaller section and then entering judgment for the citizens association on that claim. The court also held that the Appellate Court erred in conditionally reinstating the Association’s counterclaim for a prescriptive easement. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. View "Riley v. Venice Beach Citizens Ass'n" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a dispute between Sharon Ann Koch, a member of the Buffalo Trail Ranch subdivision, and Melissa R. Gray, who was purchasing a tract in the subdivision. Koch, along with other members and the developer of the subdivision, Rocky Mountain Timberlands, Inc. (RMT), sued Gray for allegedly violating the subdivision's restrictive covenants by placing garbage, junk, and other prohibited items on her property. The covenants, filed by RMT in 2008, also required the formation of a road maintenance association, which was never established.The District Court of Albany County dismissed all claims against Gray, applying the contractual "first to breach" doctrine. The court reasoned that RMT, by failing to form the road maintenance association, was the first to breach the covenants. Therefore, it was impossible to hold Gray to the covenants. Koch appealed this decision, arguing that she had no contractual relationship with Gray, and thus the "first to breach" doctrine should not apply to her claim.The Supreme Court of Wyoming agreed with Koch. It found that the "first to breach" doctrine, which is based on a contractual relationship, could not be applied as there was no contract between Koch and Gray. The court also rejected the lower court's conclusion that RMT's breach of the covenants rendered them inapplicable to Gray. The court found no legal basis for applying the "first to breach" doctrine to a third party's enforcement of covenants. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Koch v. Gray" on Justia Law

Forrest “Timber” Tuckness filed a quiet title action against the Town of Meeteetse, claiming adverse possession of Lot 5, a property adjacent to his own. Tuckness had been storing personal items on Lot 5 without permission since 1999. The property was purchased by Vision Quest Estates in 2003, and its president, Steve Christiansen, testified that he gave Tuckness permission to continue using the lot between 2005 and 2007. Tuckness denied this claim. In 2013, Vision Quest sold the lot to the Town of Meeteetse, despite Tuckness's claim of adverse possession. The Town erected a fence and gate on the lot and initiated a forcible entry and detainer action when Tuckness did not remove his property.The district court ruled in favor of the Town, finding that Tuckness had not met his burden of proof for adverse possession. The court found that Tuckness's use of the lot was actual, exclusive, open, notorious, and continuous from 1999 to 2013. However, the court also found that Christiansen's testimony that he had given Tuckness permission to use the lot was credible, which undermined the 'hostile' element of the adverse possession claim.In the Supreme Court of Wyoming, the court affirmed the district court's decision. The Supreme Court found that the district court did not err in concluding that Tuckness's adverse possession claim must fail because his use of Lot 5 was not hostile. The court found Christiansen's account of granting Tuckness permission to use Lot 5 credible, and therefore dismissed Tuckness's adverse possession claim with prejudice. View "Tuckness v. The Town of Meeteetse" on Justia Law

The case involves siblings Kim J. Washington and Katrina J. Williams who filed a lawsuit against their brother Elrick Earl Johnson seeking to partition a jointly owned real property. The property in question is "heirs property" under the Alabama Uniform Partition of Heirs Property Act ("the Heirs Act"). The plaintiffs proposed to sell the property, a plan Johnson disagreed with, arguing that the property could be partitioned in kind.The Baldwin Circuit Court conducted a bench trial on the matter. The plaintiffs argued that the property was incapable of being equally and equitably partitioned in kind, hence their request for the property to be sold and the proceeds divided among the parties according to their respective ownership interests. Johnson, on the other hand, disputed this claim, suggesting that the property could be partitioned in kind.The trial court granted Johnson's motion for a judgment as a matter of law, finding that the plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of proof that the property could not be equitably divided. The court did not order that the property be partitioned in kind or otherwise equitably divided.The Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed in part and reversed in part. The court agreed with the trial court's finding that the property could be partitioned in kind. However, it reversed the trial court's judgment to the extent that it failed to order that the property be partitioned in kind, as required by the Heirs Act. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Washington v. Johnson" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between the City of Las Vegas and 180 Land Co., LLC over a 35-acre parcel of land. 180 Land Co. purchased the land, which was part of a larger 250-acre golf course, with the intention of developing it for residential use. The land was zoned for residential development, but was also designated as "Parks/Schools/Recreation/Open Space" in the city's General Plan. The City of Las Vegas denied 180 Land Co.'s applications to develop the property, citing public opposition and concerns about piecemeal development.In response, 180 Land Co. sued the City for inverse condemnation, arguing that the City's actions had deprived it of all economically beneficial use of the property. The district court agreed, finding that the City's handling of 180 Land Co.'s development efforts rendered any future attempts to develop the property futile. The court also ruled that the residential zoning of the property took precedence over the open space designation in the General Plan. The court awarded 180 Land Co. $48 million in compensation, including the value of the property, property taxes, prejudgment interest, and attorney fees.The City appealed the decision, arguing that the lower court erred in determining that a regulatory taking had occurred and in its calculation of the compensation award. 180 Land Co. also appealed, challenging the amount of prejudgment interest awarded by the district court.The Supreme Court of the State of Nevada affirmed the district court's decision in its entirety. The court agreed that the City's actions constituted a per se regulatory taking and that 180 Land Co. was entitled to just compensation. The court also upheld the district court's calculation of the compensation award, including the amount of prejudgment interest. View "City of Las Vegas v. 180 Land Co., LLC" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a personal injury claim filed by Laura Graham against International Property Holdings, LLC (IPH) and its sole member, Ovidiu Ene. Graham sustained injuries when she tripped and fell over a sprinkler box on IPH's property. During the trial, Graham moved to assert that Ene was the alter ego of IPH, meaning he should be held personally liable for the injuries she sustained on the company's property.The district court found that Ene, as the sole member and manager of IPH, was indeed the alter ego of the company. The court based its decision on several factors: Ene had his own personal gate code to the property and used it for personal reasons without paying IPH or the property management company; Ene's father maintained a garden and a chicken coop on the property; the property's insurance was in Ene's name; and Ene remained the guarantor on the mortgage loan for the property.The Supreme Court of Nevada, however, disagreed with the district court's findings. The court clarified that the alter ego analysis for a limited liability company is the same as the analysis applied to a corporation. The court found that substantial evidence did not support the district court's determination that Ene was the alter ego of IPH. The court concluded that while Ene did influence and govern IPH, there was not a unity of interest and ownership such that Ene and IPH were inseparable. Furthermore, the court found no evidence that recognizing IPH as a separate entity from Ene would sanction fraud or promote injustice. As a result, the Supreme Court of Nevada reversed the district court's judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "Ene v. Graham" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a property dispute between two neighboring parties, Bo and Dan Jones (appellants), and Hamed Ghadiri (respondent). A block wall, erected before either party owned their respective properties, did not follow the property line, resulting in Ghadiri being denied use of a portion of his property. When Ghadiri sought to remove the wall and build a new one on the property line, the Joneses filed a complaint in the district court for a prescriptive easement or adverse possession.The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Ghadiri. It found that the Joneses could not claim adverse possession as they had not paid property taxes on the disputed property. It also ruled that a prescriptive easement was unavailable as it would result in Ghadiri's complete exclusion from the subject property. The Joneses appealed this decision.The Supreme Court of the State of Nevada affirmed the district court's decision. The court clarified the distinction between adverse possession and prescriptive easements, noting that the former results in the acquisition of title and the right to exclusively control the subject property, while the latter results in the right to a limited use of the subject property. The court acknowledged that comprehensive prescriptive easements, which result in the owner of the servient estate being completely excluded from the subject property, may be warranted in exceptional circumstances. However, it found that the Joneses had not demonstrated such exceptional circumstances. Therefore, the court upheld the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Ghadiri. View "Jones v. Ghadiri" on Justia Law