Property Law & Real Estate
[11/19]
Hoffman v. Smithwoods RV Park, LLC
In plaintiff's suit against the defendant-Mobile Park for refusing to permit the installation of a new mobile home in its mobile home park to replace an older one that plaintiff had inherited, trial court's dismissal of plaintiff's suit is affirmed where: 1) the complaint fails to state a cause of action for statutory violation; 2) the complaint fails to state a tort cause of action for interference with contract; 3) the complaint fails to state a contract cause of action; and 4) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend.
[11/19]
Kelly v. CB&I Constructors, Inc.
In plaintiff's suit against the defendant for sparking a brush fire that caused a significant damage to his ranch, judgment of the trial court is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) defendant forfeited any error in the jury's verdict form; 2) jury's award of restoration damages in excess of the property's value was supported by substantial evidence and was not excessive as a matter of law; 3) the undisputed evidence established that plaintiff did not reside on the property at the time of the trespass, and his storage of personal property there was not the type of "occupancy" that would justify his recovery of annoyance and discomfort damages; 4) tree damage caused by a negligently spread fire is wrongful injury to trees caused by a trespass subject to mandatory doubling pursuant to Civil Code section 3346, notwithstanding the general provision governing fire damage in Health and Safety Code section 13007; and 5) substantial evidence supported trial court's finding that plaintiff intended to use the property for raising livestock, entitling him to an award of attorney's fees under Code of Civ. Proc. section 1021.9.
[11/18]
US ex rel Ondis v. City of Woonsocket
In plaintiff's qui tam action against a city under the False Claims Act claiming that the city had defrauded the federal government by making false statements to the Department of Housing and Urban Development when applying for federal grants, dismissal of the case is affirmed where the was no error in a conclusion that the FCA's public disclosure bar applied to divest the district court of subject matter jurisdiction over the action as: 1) the city's alleged misrepresentation and what the plaintiff alleges was the city's true plan were sufficiently in the public domain to ground an inference of fraud; 2) the public disclosure occurred in the manner specified in the statute; 3) plaintiff's suit is based upon those publicly disclosed allegations or transactions; 4) plaintiff does not qualify for the original source exception; and 5) district court did not err in precluding certain testimony during an evidentiary hearing.
[11/13]
Artisan/Am. Corp. v. City of Alvin
In an action alleging that defendant-city's denial of a permit for plaintiff to construct a low-income housing project was motivated by racial animus and that it had a discriminatory impact on racial minorities, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) there was no evidence that the resolutions passed by the city council constituted departures from the city's normal policy and procedure; 2) the city's interpretation of its own ordinance was not unreasonable; and 3) plaintiffs failed to raise a fact question as to whether the city's actions caused a significant discriminatory effect.
[11/13]
Bloch v. Frischholz
In plaintiffs' Fair Housing Act (FHA) suit against their condo association for being required to remove a mezuzah from their doorpost under a new rule requiring that common hallways and outside of the doors be kept free of any objects, summary judgment in favor the condo association and its president is reversed for the most part where: 1) the judgment of the district court with respect to plaintiffs' claims under sections 3604(b), 3617 and 1982 is reversed as a trier of fact could conclude that the condo association's reinterpretation of the hallway rule and clearing of all objects from doorposts was intended to target only groups of residents for which the prohibited practice was religiously required; 2) plaintiffs can therefore proceed on an intentional discrimination theory under sections 3604(b), 3617 and 1982; and 3) district court's judgment granting summary judgment against the plaintiffs on their section 3604(a) claim is affirmed.
[11/12]
In re: Madera
In debtors' bankruptcy proceedings for defaulting on their loan, ruling upholding the bankruptcy court's grant of summary judgment to the creditors and its denial of debtors' motion to amend is affirmed where: 1) the Rooker-Feldman doctrine precluded the bankruptcy court's jurisdiction over debtors' rescission claim because that claim was inextricably intertwined with a Court of Common Pleas' foreclosure judgment; 2) there was an adequate basis for summary judgment on the Truth in Lending Act damages claim, specifically, that debtors failed to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether they had prior title insurance in connection with the loan; and 3) the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying debtor's motion to amend as it was untimely.
[11/10]
National Parks & Conservation Ass'n. v. Bureau of Land Mgmt.
In a Federal Land and Policy Management Act challenge to the exchange of certain private lands for several parcels of land surrounding a mine site and owned by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), summary judgment for plaintiffs is affirmed in part where: 1) the BLM should have taken the reasonably probable use of public lands for a landfill into consideration as part of the highest and best use analysis; and 2) as a result of its unreasonably narrow purpose and need statement, the BLM necessarily considered an unreasonably narrow range of alternatives. However, the order is reversed in part where: 1) the BLM's Record of Decision never became effective, and could not serve as the agency's final action; and 2) the record as a whole established that the BLM's interpretation of "full consideration," as evinced by the analyses in the environmental impact statement at issue, was permissible under 43 U.S.C. section 1716(a).
[11/09]
Kunelius v. Town of Stow
In plaintiff's breach of contract action against defendants involving a town's exercise of its statutory right of first refusal (ROFR) to purchase plaintiff's forest land and subsequent assignment of its right to a nonprofit conservation organization, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) the liquidated damages provision applies to defendants, as the holder of an ROFR must meet all of the terms and conditions of the offer, including subsidiary terms such as the liquidated damages clause at issue; 2) the liquidated damages provision is enforceable; 3) district court's summary judgment with respect to a Chapter 93A claim, the business-to-business provisions of the consumer protection statute, was properly granted to defendants as Chapter 93A is not applicable where a nonprofit defendant is acting in furtherance of its core mission; 4) plaintiff's challenge to the district court's conclusion that she did not plead a violation of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing in her complaint is rejected; and 5) plaintiff's remaining claims are rejected as meritless.
[11/09]
Playa Marel, P.M., S.A. v. LKS Acquisitions, Inc.
In plaintiffs' declaratory judgment action claiming that defendants were not entitled to compensation under an alleged contract involving real estate development, summary judgment for plaintiffs is vacated and remanded as there is no federal subject matter jurisdiction over the case because the only federal issue in the case arises as a possible defense to a state law claim. Furthermore, this conclusion is not altered by the fact that the statute at issue is the Securities Exchange Act, nor is this a case where a state law claim necessarily raises a stated federal issue, actually disputed and substantial, which a federal forum may entertain without disturbing any congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities.
[11/04]
Simandle v. Vista de Santa Barbara
Trial court's judgment in favor of defendant-Mobilehome Park that it could remove a mobilehome owned by plaintiffs' deceased parents at plaintiffs' expense is affirmed as the plaintiffs forfeited their statutory right under the Mobilehome Residency Law to sell their parents' mobilehouse at the Park.
[11/03]
Omnipoint Holdings, Inc. v. City of Cranston
In plaintiff-wireless carrier's case against a city, the city's zoning board, and some of its members for denying a variance and special use permit to build a wireless communications tower in the city, judgment in favor of plaintiff is affirmed as the zoning board's decision was a final action for purposes of section 332(c)(7)(B) of the Telecommunications Act, and as such, the court did not err in finding that the zoning board's decision had the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services.
[11/03]
T Street Dev., LLC v. Dereje & Dereje
In an appeal from the denial of plaintiff's action to enforce a settlement agreement it claimed the parties reached during the pendency of its suit for specific performance of a real estate transaction, the district court's order is affirmed where the parties had failed to reach agreement on a material element of the case.
[11/02]
Robinson v. US
In an action against the U.S. for encroachment onto plaintiffs' easement, the dismissal of the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Quiet Title Act is vacated where the district court needed to determine whether plaintiffs could assert jurisdiction under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
[10/28]
Alston v. Countrywide Fin. Corp.
In plaintiffs-homebuyers' putative class action against Countrywide and its affiliated reinsurer to recover statutory treble damages pursuant to section 8(d)(2) of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974 (RESPA), dismissal of the complaint for lack of jurisdiction is reversed as the plain language of RESPA section 8 indicates that Congress created a private right of action without requiring an overcharge allegation. Finally, plaintiffs are not barred by the filed rate doctrine as it simply does not apply in this case.
[10/28]
Save the Pine Bush, Inc. v. Albany
In an action challenging a city's State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) determination regarding a proposed municipal project, the Appellate Division's order annulling the determination is reversed where: 1) a person who can prove that he or she uses and enjoys a natural resource more than most other members of the public has standing under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) to challenge government actions that threaten that resource; and 2) the government was not required to scrutinize every possible environmental issue, and the failure of the city's environmental impact statement to discuss the possible impact of rezoning on certain rare species was therefore not a fatal flaw.
[10/27]
Trans-Western Petroleum, Inc. v. US Gypsum Co.
In an action seeking a declaration that plaintiff held a lease on certain oil-producing land, judgment for plaintiff is affirmed where the production allocation scheme of the unit failed to meet the unambiguous requirements of defendant's lease, and that lease had expired by its terms.
[10/27]
River of Life Kingdom Ministries v. Village of Hazel Crest
In plaintiff-church's suit against defendant-village under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act to allow it to relocate to the business district, district court's denial of plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction to allow it to relocate to the property in the interim is affirmed as the church has only a slim chance of success on the merits and any irreparable harm it may suffer does not significantly outweigh the potential harm to the village.
[10/27]
Pettrey v. Enter. Title Agency, Inc.
In plaintiffs' case against defendants alleging fraudulent scheme of charging customers for services not performed and using that money to give kickbacks to real estate agents, district court's order denying class certification is affirmed and the appeal dismissed as the case is moot because plaintiffs have settled and released all of their claims against defendants. Present case is distinguishable from previous cases where the Supreme Court has allowed named plaintiffs to appeal denials of class certification even after the named plaintiffs' individual claims had become moot where plaintiffs retained a personal stake in the case because they would be able to shift part of the costs of litigation to the class members if they prevailed in their attempt at class certification.
[10/26]
People ex rel. Dep't of Transp. v. Acosta
In an eminent domain proceeding, judgment against Caltrans on defendants' goodwill claim and an order awarding litigation expenses to defendants are affirmed as the claim for goodwill damages is not preempted by the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act, and the award of litigation expense is supported by substantial evidence.
[10/23]
Roberts v. Tishman Speyer Props., L.P.
In an action by tenants claiming that their landlords were not entitled to take advantage of the luxury decontrol provisions of the Rent Stabilization Law (RSL) while simultaneously receiving tax incentive benefits under the City of New York's J-51 program, the Appellate Division's order reversing dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where the RSL did not permit defendants to receive both types of benefits.
Back to Main Menu
