Property Law & Real Estate
In an action in contract and quasi-contract for services that an architectural and consulting firm rendered to a school district, a judgment on remand finding that plaintiff was not entitled to recover on the quasi-contract claim is affirmed where the district court did not err in finding that plaintiff was not entitled to recover because the court could not determine with any reasonable certainty what "extra services" it rendered or what their reasonable value was.
[01/10] Raborn v. Menotte
Under section 689.07(1), Florida Statutes (2001), the deed in question, which conveys real property to a grantee as trustee of a private express trust identified by name and date and which also bears numerous references to the trust agreement, settlors, and beneficiaries, conveys mere legal title to that grantee.
[01/09] Environmental Defense Project of Sierra County v. County of Sierra
Defendant county's "streamlined zoning process" -- in which the county gives notice of the legislative body's hearing before the planning commission has made its recommendation on the proposed zoning ordinance or amendment to the zoning ordinance -- does not comport with the Planning and Zoning Law.
[01/09] Lee-Barnes v. Puerto Ven Quarry Corp.
In a suit to recover investments after failed business dealings, an appeal of an order nullifying a prejudgment surety bond after the poster declared bankruptcy is dismissed where: 1) the district court's Rule 54(b) certification of the order constituted an abuse of discretion since the order failed to meet either Rule 54(b)'s "party" or "claim" requirement; and 2) the bond issue did not rise to the level of importance needed for recognition under the collateral-order doctrine.
[01/09] St. Christopher Assocs., L.P. v. US
In a suit against HUD for breach of contract and Fifth Amendment takings claims, arising from HUD's failure to consider plaintiff's request for a rent increase, summary judgment for HUD is affirmed where: 1) a Regulatory Agreement does not expressly, nor by implication, require HUD to consider a rent increase request and, thus, HUD did not breach the agreement by not considering the request; and 2) there was no Fifth Amendment taking by HUD's failure to consider the request.
[01/08] John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. US
The special statute of limitations governing the Court of Federal Claims requires sua sponte consideration of the timeliness of a lawsuit filed in that court, despite the government's waiver of the issue.
[01/08] The Pierre Condo. Ass'n v. Lincoln Park West Assocs.
In a suit for property damage allegedly caused during the construction of a high-rise condominium building on an adjacent property, order finding the settlement agreement between plaintiff The Pierre Condominium Association and counterdefendant Case Foundation Company to be in good faith and dismissing Baker/LPWA's counterclaim against Case is affirmed where trial court properly concluded that Baker/LPWA failed to satisfy their burden of proof in showing how the settlement was made through wrongful conduct.
[01/04] Ridgely v. Fed. Emergency Mgmt. Agency
In a class action against FEMA brought by individuals who received rental assistance payments from the federal government after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, alleging various constitutional and statutory deficiencies in the process by which the rental assistance program is administered, a preliminary injunction against FEMA requiring it to make payments to class members until certain notice, hearing, and appeal procedures have been provided is vacated and remanded where, at this time, plaintiffs have not established a substantial likelihood of successfully showing the property interest needed to support their due process claims.
[01/04] In the matter of: Rogers
The newly enacted homestead exemption cap found in the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 does not apply to a homestead interest established within the 1,215-day period preceding the filing of the bankruptcy petition if the debtor acquired title to the property before that statutory period. The statutory text and legislative history indicate that the term "interest" refers to vested economic interests in the property that were acquired by the debtor within the 1,215-day period preceding the filing of the petition.
[12/28] Parm v. Shumate
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action alleging that plaintiffs were falsely arrested for trespass when they refused to cease fishing on waters covering ordinarily dry, private property, summary judgment for defendant-sheriff is affirmed over plaintiff's claim that the sheriff lacked probable cause to arrest them for fishing on the property because the public has a federal and state right to fish on the property when it is submerged under the Mississippi River.
[12/28] Circle Management, LLC. v. Olivier
In a forcible entry and detainer action brought under the Illinois Forcible Entry and Detainer Act, order granting possession of defendant's apartment to plaintiff as a sanction for her failure to pay use and occupancy charges during the pendency of the underlying action is reversed where the trial court's order defied the procedural framework and due process guarantees of the Act and cannot be upheld as a valid exercise of a court's inherent authority to sanction.
[12/28] In re Application of the County Treasurer
In the matter of a house purchased as a result of a tax sale, ruling that respondent-appellee is entitled to equitable redemption, although her payment fell short by $22.48 on the date that the period of redemption expired, is affirmed where the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that respondent-appellee was entitled to an extension of time for redemption of her property.
[12/27] Powell v. TPI Petroleum, Inc.
In a breach of contract case arising from defendant's removal of four underground storage tanks from realty it leased from plaintiff, a judgment against defendant is affirmed in part with respect to the issue of breach, but reversed in part and remanded for a new trial on damages pursuant to defendant's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting claims for compensatory and consequential damages.
[12/26] Heriford v. Moore
In a suit for violation of the Residential Real Property Disclosure Act seeking the costs of repairs as damages, granting of defendant's motion for a directed verdict is reversed and the matter remanded where the trial court's decision to bar evidence of damages without engaging in the application of its discretionary authority and thereafter award a directed verdict in favor of defendant is in error.
[12/21] San Diego Metro. Transit Dev. Bd. v. RV Communities
In eminent domain case involving partial condemnation of defendant's land, trial court's decision changing the date of valuation of the condemned property from the date the plaintiff deposited probable compensation to the date of trial is affirmed. Mt. San Jacinto Cmty. Coll. Dist. v. Superior Ct.(2007) 40 Cal.4th 648 rests on facts that are distinguishable from those in this case where plaintiff's deposit was substantially less than the probable amount of defendant's just compensation for the condemned property. (On remand from Supreme Court).
[12/21] LaSalle Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. White
In the context of the Texas Constitution's prohibition on homestead property designated for agricultural use from being pledged to secure a home-equity loan, and its mandated forfeiture of all principal and interest for loans so secured, the Texas Supreme Court holds that the forfeiture penalty does not preclude a lender's recovery of the refinance portion of loan proceeds that were used to pay a debtor's constitutionally permissible pre-existing debt because the lender was equitably subrogated to the prior lienholders' interests.
[12/21] Levy v. Pappas
In an action brought by plaintiff and his defunct company against a county and officials involving defendants' handling of plaintiff's efforts, as his company's agent, to obtain real estate tax refunds for county residents, dismissal of plaintiffs' claims is affirmed primarily because they are barred by the Tax Injunction Act and comity.
[12/19] Stafford-Smith, Inc. v. Intercontinental River East, LLC
In a complaint to foreclose a mechanic's lien against property now owned by defendant, granting of defendant's motion to dismiss count I of the complaint is affirmed over claim that the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint against because defendant is an "owner" and not a "purchaser" of the premises in question within the meaning of section 7 of the Mechanics Lien Act, therefore, plaintiff could record its lien more than four months after the date it completed work on the premises.
[11/29] Richeson v. Helal
In action seeking to compel the closure of Fair Market, a neighborhood market in Santa Monica built in the 1920's, permanent injunction against use permit extended to defendants by city without a durational limitation is reversed where: 1) the trial court erroneously construed an Agreement Imposing Restrictions on Real Property and CC&R's as compelling the Fair Market's closure regardless of intervening changes in city zoning and permits for the market; and 2) were it otherwise, the AIR and CC&R's would constitute an invalid attempt by the City to surrender its police power.
[10/25] N. Am. Specialty Ins. Co. v. Debis Fin. Servs. Inc.
In an insurer's action to recover monies paid to defendant as an additional payee under a Hull Insurance Policy issued by plaintiff to an insured, dismissal of the action is affirmed where, adopting the district court's waiver analysis, the insurer waived the defense of unseaworthiness.
Return to Main Screen
© 2008 by Mugg & Tang, LLP. All rights reserved. Disclaimer | Site Map
Firm Site ® designed and hosted by Tritiger Media Inc.