Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

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

Hurricane Harvey caused significant flooding in Texas in 2017. Homeowners in Matagorda County sued Tenaris Bay City Inc., a nearby pipeline manufacturing company, alleging that design defects at its facility caused flood damage to their homes. The plaintiffs claimed negligence, gross negligence, negligence per se, and negligent nuisance. The district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, and the court of appeals affirmed the decision.The district court directed a verdict on gross negligence in favor of Tenaris but submitted the other negligence theories to the jury. The jury found Tenaris liable on all three negligence theories, and the district court rendered judgment for $2.8 million plus interest. Tenaris appealed, and the court of appeals affirmed the judgment.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case, focusing on whether the plaintiffs proved that Tenaris's negligence was the cause of the flooding. The court concluded that there was legally insufficient evidence to show that the plaintiffs' homes would not have flooded but for Tenaris's actions. The plaintiffs' expert witness admitted he had not conducted the necessary scientific analysis to determine the cause of the flooding at the specific properties. The court emphasized that in cases of catastrophic rainfall, proving causation requires reliable evidence that the defendant's actions were the but-for cause of the damage.The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the judgments of the lower courts and rendered judgment for Tenaris, holding that the plaintiffs failed to prove that their flood damage would not have occurred without Tenaris's alleged negligence. View "TENARIS BAY CITY INC. v. ELLISOR" on Justia Law

The appellants, Jeffery A. Olson and Dianne M. Dowding, challenged the orders of the district court for Otoe County, which established a prescriptive easement in favor of the appellees, Barbara Fey and L. Gail Wurtele, across the appellants’ property for agricultural farming and recreational use. The order also granted injunctive relief regarding inaccessible crops. The appellants acquired their property in 2016 and locked the gate to the access road, leading to the appellees' action for a declaratory judgment seeking a prescriptive easement and injunctive relief.The district court found that the appellees' use of the access road had been exclusive, adverse, under a claim of right, continuous and uninterrupted, and open and notorious for beyond the full 10-year prescriptive period. The court declared and ordered that the appellees, and their successors in interest, have the right of ingress and egress to their property utilizing the access road across the appellants' property. The court also granted injunctive relief, enjoining the appellants from interfering with the appellees' use of the access road.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court's decision. The Supreme Court held that the appellees had established the elements of entitlement to a prescriptive easement, and the appellants did not rebut such evidence. The court found that the prescriptive easement for both agricultural and recreational use was supported by the record and did not err in the scope of the relief awarded. The court also agreed with the district court that it was not necessary to address the appellants' theory of an easement by necessity, as the matter was resolved by the prescriptive easement order. View "Fey v. Olson" on Justia Law

Christopher Doby was shot on August 23, 2019, at South Park Village Apartments in Laurel, Mississippi. Christopher and Cheyveon Doby filed a lawsuit against South Park Village Apartments, its management company, Millennia Housing Management, and its owners, South Park MS, LLC, and South Park MS Investment, LLC. The complaint alleged that South Park failed to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition, provide adequate security, repair or maintain fences, gates, and locks, and warn tenants and guests of dangerous conditions. It also claimed that South Park knew or should have known of prior criminal acts on the property and failed to take reasonable measures to prevent future criminal activity.The Jones County Circuit Court dismissed the complaint under Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), finding that the complaint alleged only general negligence and did not contain allegations that South Park affirmatively impelled the third party’s conduct. The court also dismissed Cheyveon Doby’s claims, noting that the complaint made no specific allegations concerning him. The Dobys filed a motion for reconsideration, which the trial court denied, leading to the current appeal.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the case de novo and held that the allegations in the complaint, taken as true, were sufficient to state a claim for relief under Mississippi’s notice pleading standard. The court found that the complaint provided reasonable notice of the claims against South Park and demonstrated a recognized cause of action upon which Christopher Doby might prevail. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of Cheyveon Doby’s claims due to the lack of specific allegations pertaining to him. Consequently, the Supreme Court of Mississippi affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings regarding Christopher Doby’s claims. View "Doby v. South Park Village Apartments" on Justia Law

William H. Tatum Jr. was convicted of bank fraud and had a $15,284,348 restitution judgment against him. He owned a 50% membership interest in Tatum Land and Cattle Company, LLC (TLCC). Upon his death in 2018, his estate, including his TLCC interest, was left to his wife, Betsy Gay Roberts-Tatum. Betsy died in 2020, and her son, Zachary I. Haynie, became the executor of her estate. Darrell Tatum, William’s grandson, was appointed executor of William’s estate. The United States, Peoples Bank, and John Deere Financial filed claims against William’s estate.The Tippah County Chancery Court admitted William’s will to probate and appointed Gay as executrix. After Gay’s death, Darrell was appointed as successor executor. Darrell petitioned for the public sale of William’s TLCC interest to satisfy estate debts. Zach opposed, seeking to enforce the TLCC operating agreement’s buyout provision. The chancellor ordered the public sale, which resulted in Joe Tatum purchasing the interest for $675,000. Zach objected, arguing the sale price was inadequate and sought relief, including assignment of the promissory note and deed of trust from Peoples Bank.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the case. The court found that any additional funds recovered from the estate would go to the United States due to the restitution judgment, rendering Zach’s claims moot. The court dismissed the appeal as moot, noting that a decision would not benefit Zach practically since the United States would claim any additional funds. The court affirmed the chancellor’s decisions, including the public sale and denial of Zach’s motions. View "In The Matter of The Estate Tatum" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute over a parcel of land situated at the border of adjoining properties in Owings Mills, Maryland. Dr. Sharon Saunders owns one property, while Steven and Ellen Gilman own the neighboring property. The Gilmans claimed ownership of the disputed land through adverse possession, having maintained and used the land for several decades. In 2018, the Gilmans constructed a fence on the disputed property, prompting Dr. Saunders to commission a property survey and subsequently file a lawsuit to establish the boundary line and seek damages for trespass and other tort claims.The Circuit Court for Baltimore County ruled in favor of the Gilmans, declaring them the absolute owners of the disputed property by adverse possession. The court ordered the Gilmans to prepare and file an amended deed and plat reflecting their ownership. Dr. Saunders appealed the decision, but the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal, stating that the order was not a final judgment and did not fall under any exceptions allowing for an interlocutory appeal.The Supreme Court of Maryland reviewed the case to determine whether the Appellate Court erred in its decision. The Supreme Court held that the Circuit Court's order declaring the Gilmans as owners by adverse possession and directing the preparation of a deed was immediately appealable under Maryland Code, Courts & Judicial Proceedings Article §§ 12-303(1) and 12-303(3)(v). The Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Court's dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings to address the merits of Dr. Saunders's appeal. View "Saunders v. Gilman" on Justia Law

New Star General Contractors, Inc. (New Star) filed a lawsuit to enforce its construction lien on twelve condo units in a large development in Grand County after the developer, Sage Creek at Moab, LLC (Sage Creek), failed to pay for New Star’s construction work. The units’ owners, Dumar, LLC, and Duane Shaw (collectively, Dumar), challenged the lien on multiple grounds. The district court ruled in favor of New Star, allowing it to enforce its lien. Dumar appealed the decision.The Seventh District Court, Grand County, initially heard the case and ruled that New Star could enforce its lien. The court found that New Star’s preliminary notices were sufficient and that the lien was valid despite New Star’s failure to allocate expenses between the units and the common areas. The court also concluded that Dumar was responsible for the full amount of the lien, which included the costs of constructing Building C and its common areas. Dumar’s excessive lien claim was dismissed, and the court awarded attorney fees to New Star.The Supreme Court of the State of Utah reviewed the case. The court held that New Star’s second preliminary notices, which were specific to Building C, substantially complied with the Construction Lien Statute despite not listing the correct parcel numbers. The court declined to analyze the first preliminary notices. The court also held that New Star’s failure to allocate expenses between the units and the common areas did not invalidate the lien. However, the court found that the district court erred in calculating the amount owed under the lien by treating Dumar as owning all the common areas of Building C, rather than only its ownership share in the development. The court remanded the case for the district court to determine the correct amount Dumar owes based on its ownership share.Additionally, the Supreme Court vacated the district court’s order dismissing Dumar’s excessive lien claim and the attorney fee award for New Star. The court directed the district court to reconsider both issues on remand. View "New Star General Contractors, Inc. v. Dumar" on Justia Law

Rajiv Sangha (landlord) rented a house to Jeremy Keen and Racheal Lomas (tenant) in 2021. In November 2023, the tenant stopped paying rent. In April 2024, the landlord served a 14-day notice to pay rent or vacate, but the tenant did not respond. In May 2024, the landlord commenced an unlawful detainer action, serving the tenant with a summons and complaint. The tenant faxed a written notice of appearance to the landlord, indicating their intention to be present at any court case or appearance. Despite this, the landlord moved for a default judgment due to the tenant's failure to file an answer by the specified date. The trial court granted the default judgment and issued a writ of restitution.The tenant received the motion for default and notice of hearing but was allegedly informed by the King County Superior Court Clerk’s Office that they did not need to attend the hearing. In July 2024, the trial court found the tenant in default for lack of answer and issued the default judgment and writ of restitution. The tenant retained counsel and moved to vacate the default judgment and quash the writ, arguing that default for an appearing tenant violated their statutory right to counsel and contradicted the statutory summons language requiring a show cause hearing. The trial court denied the motion, agreeing with the landlord that the Civil Rules required an answer and that the landlord had complied with statutory notice requirements.The Supreme Court of the State of Washington reviewed the case. The court held that RCW 59.18.365(3) precludes a default judgment against a tenant who appears but does not submit a written answer in an unlawful detainer action. The tenant’s written notice of appearance constituted a response to the summons, and the trial court erred in entering a default judgment based on the tenant’s failure to answer. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s entry of default and remanded the case for further proceedings. The landlord's request for appellate attorney fees was denied. View "Sangha v. Keen" on Justia Law

Sokunthim Nou appeals from a divorce judgment entered by the District Court in which the court allocated property between her and Rotanak Huot and awarded shared parental rights and responsibilities and shared residency of their children. Sokunthim challenges the court’s property determinations on multiple grounds, but does not contest the custody determination. The court found that all the parties’ assets were marital because they were acquired during the marriage and through significant effort by both parties. The court allocated just over half of the net value of the parties’ properties to Sokunthim and the remainder to Rotanak. The court also found Sokunthim’s income to be $435,598, based largely on Rotanak’s testimony about Punky’s LLC’s daily sales.The District Court held a trial with both parties represented by counsel and interpreters present. The court heard testimony from the parties, a real estate broker, Sokunthim’s accountant, and her father. The court entered a comprehensive divorce judgment, determining that all the parties’ assets were marital and allocating them accordingly. The court’s judgment awarded Panyah LLC to Rotanak and implicitly awarded Punky’s LLC to Sokunthim. Sokunthim filed motions for additional findings of fact and conclusions of law and for a new trial, which the court denied.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the case and found that the trial court’s determination of Sokunthim’s income was unsupported by the evidence. The court’s finding as to her income may have influenced other financial aspects of the judgment. Therefore, the Supreme Judicial Court vacated the division of property and child support award and remanded for further proceedings. The judgment was affirmed in all other respects. View "Nou v. Huot" on Justia Law