Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

This case revolves around a real estate Ponzi scheme run by Jerome and Shaun Cohen through their companies, EquityBuild, Inc. and EquityBuild Finance, LLC (EBF), from 2010 to 2018. The Cohens sold promissory notes to investors, each note representing a fractional interest in a specific real estate property. The properties were mostly located in underdeveloped areas of Chicago and were secured by mortgages. As the scheme became unsustainable, the Cohens began offering opportunities to invest in real estate funds. BC57, LLC, a private lender and investor, lent approximately $5.3 million to EquityBuild, allegedly in exchange for a first mortgage on five properties already owned by EquityBuild and subject to preexisting liens from individual investors.The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed suit against the Cohens, EquityBuild, and EBF after the scheme collapsed in 2018. A court-appointed receiver developed a plan for the recovery and liquidation of all remaining, recoverable receivership assets. The receiver sold the five properties and now holds the proceeds, over $3 million, pending the resolution of the claims process. The individual investors whose loans BC57’s investment purportedly paid off claim priority to those proceeds, arguing that they never received payment or released their interests, despite the releases signed by Shaun Cohen. BC57 disagrees and asserts that it has priority. The district court awarded priority to the individual investors, finding that the mortgage releases were facially defective and that EBF lacked the authority to execute them.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that under the Illinois Mortgage Act, payment alone does not extinguish any pre-existing interest absent a valid release. The court also found that the releases purportedly executed by EBF were facially invalid. The court concluded that the individual investors maintain their interests in these five properties. View "SEC v. BC57, LLC" on Justia Law

The case revolves around the ownership of mineral rights beneath a dedicated street in Greeley, Colorado. The dispute arose between Great Northern Properties, LLLP (GNP) and Extraction Oil and Gas, Inc., Richmark Energy Partners, LLC, and Richmark Royalties, LLC (collectively, Extraction) over who is entitled to receive certain oil and gas royalty payments. The issue at hand was how to determine who holds title to the mineral estate under a dedicated right-of-way when a grantor, who has an interest in the mineral rights under that right-of-way, executes a conveyance of the land abutting the right-of-way that is silent as to those rights.The district court agreed with Extraction, concluding that the centerline presumption could be applied to a conveyance of the mineral estate beneath a right-of-way. The court of appeals affirmed the district court’s determination of law. However, the court of appeals also concluded that the centerline presumption should not apply if the grantor retains ownership of any property abutting the right-of-way.The Supreme Court of the State of Colorado affirmed the court of appeals' decision that a conveyance of land abutting a right-of-way is presumed to carry title to the centerline of both the surface and mineral estates beneath a dedicated right-of-way to the owners of land abutting that right-of-way. However, the Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals' conclusion that the centerline presumption cannot apply if a grantor retains ownership of any property abutting the subject right-of-way. The Supreme Court held that the centerline presumption applies if the party claiming ownership to land abutting a dedicated right-of-way establishes that the grantor conveyed ownership of land abutting a right-of-way, the grantor owned the fee to both the surface estate and the mineral rights underlying the right-of-way at the time of conveyance, and no contrary intent appears on the face of the conveyance document. View "Great Northern Properties v. Extraction Oil and Gas" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a dispute over oil and gas interests between Spottie, Inc., a Nevada corporation, and several other Nevada corporations and a limited liability company. Spottie alleged that the defendants had wrongfully claimed title to these interests, which were once owned by Edward Davis, who had formed Spottie as a holding company. The defendants countered that they had entered into an agreement with Davis to acquire these interests, and that Davis and Spottie had transferred the disputed interests to one of the defendants via an assignment in 2016.The district court dismissed several of Spottie's claims, leaving only a quiet title claim and a claim for unjust enrichment. After a three-day bench trial, the court ruled in favor of the defendants, finding that the assignment from Davis and Spottie to one of the defendants was valid. The court also found that Spottie had erroneously received revenue from the disputed interests and awarded damages to the defendants.Spottie appealed the decision, arguing that the district court had erred in its ownership determination, its rejection of Spottie's laches defense, its binding of a non-party to the judgment, and its award of attorney fees and costs. The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed in part, concluding that the district court did not err in its ownership determination and its award of attorney fees. However, it reversed in part, finding that the court had erred in awarding costs for non-legal expenses. The case was remanded for the court to recalculate its cost award and to consider the defendants' request for additional attorney fees and legal costs. View "SPOTTIE v. BAIUL-FARINA" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a construction dispute where several homeowners in the San Marcial neighborhood sued Oscar Renda Contracting, Inc., for negligence and gross negligence. The homeowners alleged that the company's misuse of heavy equipment and faulty construction techniques caused damage to their homes during the construction of a drainage pipeline. They sought actual damages to restore their properties and exemplary damages based on gross negligence.The trial court found Renda Contracting negligent and grossly negligent. However, the jury was not unanimous in deciding the amount of exemplary damages, with ten out of twelve jurors agreeing. Consequently, the trial court omitted exemplary damages from the judgment. The homeowners appealed, and the court of appeals reversed the decision, arguing that unanimity as to exemplary damages could be implied despite a divided verdict.The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the court of appeals' judgment and reinstated the trial court's judgment. The court held that under Section 41.003 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code, a court may not imply a unanimous jury finding in imposing exemplary damages. The burden to secure a unanimous verdict is on the plaintiff and "may not be shifted." The court concluded that the plaintiff bears the burden to obtain the findings necessary to impose exemplary damages, including that the jury is unanimous as to any amount of exemplary damages awarded. It is the plaintiff who must challenge a divided verdict as infirm or in need of clarification. View "OSCAR RENDA CONTRACTING, INC. v. BRUCE" on Justia Law

The case revolves around Lori Randolph, who was injured after falling down stairs in a rental property owned by Aidan, LLC. Randolph sued Aidan, alleging negligence in failing to provide safe stairs. Aidan, in turn, filed a third-party claim against Sioux City, asserting that a city employee had inspected the property and declared it compliant with the municipal code. Aidan claimed that the city was negligent in hiring, retaining, or supervising the unqualified inspector, and thus, should indemnify Aidan for any damages owed to Randolph. Sioux City moved to dismiss Aidan’s claim, arguing it was immune under Iowa Code section 670.4(1)(j).The district court denied Sioux City's motion to dismiss Aidan's claim. Sioux City and Randolph requested interlocutory review, which was granted. The Supreme Court of Iowa was tasked with reviewing the denial of Sioux City's motion for the correction of errors at law.The Supreme Court of Iowa reversed the district court's decision. The court held that Sioux City was immune from Aidan's claim under Iowa Code section 670.4(1)(j). The court reasoned that Aidan's claim for negligent hiring was "based upon" the negligence of Sioux City's employee in inspecting the stairs. Therefore, the claim fell within the scope of the immunity provided by section 670.4(1)(j). The court remanded the case for further proceedings, including the dismissal of Aidan's claim against Sioux City. View "Randolph v. Aidan, LLC" on Justia Law

The City of Pawtucket petitioned the Supreme Court of Rhode Island to review a judgment in favor of the Rhode Island Department of Revenue (DOR) and other defendants. The case revolved around two properties owned by The Memorial Hospital, which were deemed ineligible for state aid under the Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) Act for fiscal years 2021 and 2022. The City argued that the hearing justice erred in upholding the DOR’s interpretation of the PILOT Act, which stated that the properties were not eligible for PILOT funds.Previously, the Superior Court had ruled in favor of the defendants, stating that the DOR's interpretation of the PILOT Act was not arbitrary or capricious, unsupported in the record, or an abuse of discretion. The court concluded that the properties were not owned by a licensed hospital and were therefore ineligible for consideration under the PILOT statute. The City appealed this decision, arguing that the properties should be eligible for PILOT funds because they were still being used for medical care and treatment, even though they were not owned and licensed by the same entity.The Supreme Court of Rhode Island affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court. The court found that the PILOT Act's definition of a "nonprofit hospital facility" required that the hospital-owner of the property also be the holder of a state-issued license. Since Memorial Hospital's license was deactivated in 2018, the properties were deemed ineligible for PILOT funds. The court concluded that the City's argument conflating tax-exempt status with PILOT fund eligibility was unpersuasive, and that the DOR's decision to deny the disbursement of PILOT funds for the properties was not erroneous. View "City of Pawtucket v. Department of Revenue" on Justia Law

This case involves a dispute over a contract zone agreement that would have allowed development on a property in Saco, Maine. The property owners, Amarjit Singh Dhillon and Ajinder Kaur, appealed from a lower court's grant of partial summary judgment to Michael Dahlem, who owns neighboring property and challenged the contract zone agreement. Dahlem cross-appealed from the court's dismissal of his Rule 80B appeal and denial of his motion to reconsider that dismissal, and from the court's denial of summary judgment on two counts in his complaint.The lower court had granted summary judgment to Dahlem on several counts, declaring that the 2017 agreement became null and void in 2019 and thereafter could not be amended, was invalid and unlawful for noncompliance with the City’s contract zoning ordinance, and was inconsistent with Maine’s Mandatory Shoreland Zoning statute and therefore preempted and invalid. The court denied summary judgment to all parties on the count of whether the 2021 agreement was compatible with the City’s comprehensive plan.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the lower court's decision in all respects and dismissed Dahlem’s cross-appeal as moot. The court held that Dahlem properly challenged the 2021 agreement by asserting claims for declaratory relief, that the 2017 agreement became null and void on November 20, 2019, and could not thereafter be amended, that the 2021 agreement was invalid and unlawful under the City’s contract zoning ordinance, and that the 2021 agreement was preempted by the Mandatory Shoreland Zoning provisions. View "Dahlem v. City of Saco" on Justia Law

The case involves Juan Angel Rubalcaba, a homeowner, who filed a wrongful foreclosure lawsuit against the Association of Apartment Owners of Makakilo Cliffs. The central issue was whether the mortgage debt of the homeowner to a third-party lender, which was discharged by the third-party lender's subsequent foreclosure, should be considered in determining the plaintiff's damages.The Circuit Court of the First Circuit sought guidance on this issue and forwarded a reserved question to the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai'i. The Supreme Court accepted the question, indicating that it would provide an answer through a related case, Wong v. Ass'n of Apartment Owners of Harbor Square, which was then pending before the court.The Supreme Court of the State of Hawai'i, after deciding the Wong case, provided guidance on how a plaintiff may calculate damages in a lawsuit against a condominium association for wrongful foreclosure. The court then remanded the case back to the Circuit Court of the First Circuit for further proceedings consistent with the Wong decision. The court did not provide a specific ruling on the reserved question but indicated that the lower court should follow the precedent set in the Wong case. View "Rubalcaba v. Association of Apartment Owners of Makakilo Cliffs " on Justia Law

In September 2016, Sanford Sachtleben and Luciann Hruza (the Buyers) purchased a property in Missouri from Perry and Joanie Sullivan (the Sellers). Prior to the sale, the city of New Melle had sued the Sellers over a barn they had built on the property, alleging it violated city zoning ordinances. The Buyers were added as defendants to this lawsuit after they purchased the property. The Buyers demanded coverage from their title insurance company, Alliant National Title Insurance Co. (Alliant), but Alliant refused. The Buyers then sued Alliant, claiming it had breached the title insurance policy by refusing to defend them in the New Melle lawsuit.The case was first heard in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, where Alliant moved for summary judgment. The circuit court granted Alliant's motion, concluding that the unambiguous language of the title insurance policy provided no coverage for the Buyers. The Buyers appealed this decision.The Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed the lower court's decision. The court found that the title insurance policy was unambiguous and did not provide coverage for the Buyers. The court noted that the policy provided coverage only if a notice, describing any part of the land, was recorded in the public records setting forth the violation or intention to enforce. Since no such notice was recorded, the court concluded that the policy did not provide coverage. The court also rejected the Buyers' arguments that other provisions of the policy provided coverage, finding that these arguments were precluded by an exclusion in the policy. View "Sachtleben vs. Alliant National Title Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The case revolves around a dispute over a real estate commission. Andrew Waldo, a broker in charge of a realty company, represented buyers in the purchase of thirteen golf courses from National Golf Management, LLC (NGM). Michael Cousins, another broker, who had previously represented NGM in an earlier transaction, claimed a commission for the golf course deal despite not having a written representation agreement. Cousins, Waldo, and Waldo's agent agreed to arbitrate their dispute. The arbitration panel ruled in favor of Cousins, awarding him half of the commission earned on the golf course sale.The circuit court initially dismissed the lawsuit, ruling that oral agreements for a commission were unenforceable under South Carolina law. However, the arbitration panel later ruled in favor of Cousins. Waldo petitioned the circuit court to vacate the award, which was referred to the Master-in-Equity. The Master-in-Equity vacated the award, stating that the arbitration panel ignored statutory law regarding real-estate agency. The court of appeals reversed this decision, ruling that there was a "barely colorable" ground for the arbitration award based on a line of cases upholding oral and implied contracts for real estate commissions.The Supreme Court of South Carolina reversed the court of appeals' decision and vacated the award. The court held that the arbitration panel had manifestly disregarded several statutes governing real-estate agency law in awarding Cousins half of the commission. The court noted that the Act, which governs real-estate licensing, requires written agreements for real estate agency and forbids oral or implied ones. The court also rejected Cousins' argument that he was entitled to a commission based on a series of cases that recognized a realtor's right to a commission through an oral or implied contract, as these cases were decided before the Act became law. View "Waldo v. Cousins" on Justia Law