Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Pagoudis owns and is the sole member of both Sead LLC and Kearns LLC. During negotiations to purchase property from the Keidls, Pagoudis received a real estate condition report (RECR) signed by Amy Keidl. Pagoudis then signed the offer to purchase, which states that the contract is between the Keidls and Pagoudis "or assigns." Sead LLC then executed the negotiated contract and took title. Months later, Sead LLC assigned the property to Kearns LLC. After the purchase, defects were discovered that Keidl failed to disclose in the RECR, ranging from water and mildew in the basement, to insect infestations, to an unwanted piano.Pagoudis, Sead, and Kearns sued the Keidls for breach of contract, common law misrepresentation, and statutory misrepresentation. The circuit court dismissed the case, deciding that each of the parties lacked standing to pursue their stated claims; Pagoudis and Kearns were not parties to the original transaction and Sead transferred the property before filing the action and no longer has an interest in the property.The Wisconsin Supreme Court concluded that Pagoudis's and Kearns's claims against Keidl were properly dismissed. Sead's claims, however, were remanded, it was a party to the contract, received representations from the Keidls, and purchased the property. View "Pagoudis v. Keidl" on Justia Law

Petitioners acquired their properties along the road in 1991 and 2004; in 1962, their predecessors in interest had granted the government an easement for the road. The government moved to dismiss the petitioners' suit under the Quiet Title Act, citing the 12-year limitations period, 28 U.S.C. 2409a(g). The Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.The Supreme Court reversed, characterizing section 2409a(g) as a non-jurisdictional claim-processing rule, intended to promote the orderly progress of litigation. Limits on subject-matter jurisdiction have a unique potential to disrupt the orderly course of litigation, so courts should not lightly apply that label to procedures Congress enacted to keep things running smoothly unless traditional tools of statutory construction plainly show that Congress imbued a procedural bar with jurisdictional consequences. Congress’s separation of a filing deadline from a jurisdictional grant indicates that the time bar is not jurisdictional. The Quiet Title Act’s jurisdictional grant is in section 1346(f ), far from 2409a(g), with nothing linking those separate provisions. Section 2409a(g) speaks only to a claim’s timeliness.The Court characterized a case cited by the government as a “textbook drive-by jurisdictional” ruling that “should be accorded no precedential effect” as to whether a limit is jurisdictional. Rejecting other cited cases, the Court stated that it has never definitively interpreted section 2409a(g) as jurisdictional. View "Wilkins v. United States" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-appellant Mack Stirling lived in Leelanau County, Michigan since 1990. Petitioner’s wife, Dixie, owned two rental properties in Utah. The Stirlings filed joint tax returns for the pertinent tax years of 2016 to 2019. Neither Mack nor Dixie ever resided at the Utah properties. Instead, Dixie rented the properties to tenants who used the properties as their primary residences. Dixie claimed an applicable Utah tax exemption during the relevant tax years. Plaintiff applied for a principal residence exemption (PRE) on his Michigan home. Leelanau County denied the application because it concluded the Utah exemption rendered the Stirlings ineligible for the PRE. The Michigan Supreme Court disagreed: the Utah tax exemption at issue, which was available to landowners who rented their property to tenants, was not substantially similar to Michigan’s PRE, which was available only for a landowner’s principal residence. Accordingly, Plaintiff was eligible to claim the Michigan PRE. View "Stirling v. County of Leelanau" on Justia Law

This case concerned a partition action: the district court determined that a physical partition of the property would result in great prejudice and ordered the parties to sell the property and split the proceeds equally. Kay Kiebert appealed the district court’s order, arguing that the district court utilized the wrong standard for determining whether “great prejudice” would result from a physical partition and that it also relied on inappropriate considerations in determining that great prejudice would result. Finding no reversible error, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s order. View "Nordgaarden v. Kiebert" on Justia Law

Appellants Brett and Jenny Terrell appealed a district court’s decision to grant Respondent Paradis de Golf Holding, LLC attorney fees under Idaho Code section 12-120(3). In February 2020, the “Terrells”) sued Paradis for an alleged violation of a recreational easement. In early 2004, Prairie Golf, LLC conveyed to BRMC, LLC a “perpetual, nonexclusive ‘recreational easement’ upon, over, through and across [Prairie Golf’s] property[.]” The easement was appurtenant to and ran with BRMC’s property, which was to be subdivided into 52 single-family residential lots (“the Grayling Estates subdivision”). The easement instrument stated that “each purchaser/owner of a Lot shall be entitled to the benefit of this easement,” which included the ability to play golf for free at a nearby golf course owned at the time by Prairie Golf. In early 2006, the Terrells purchased a home in the Grayling Estates subdivision, which benefitted from the recreational easement. In April 2014, Paradis acquired the golf course subject to the recreational easement. In 2019, Paradis began developing property within the golf course boundary area, which included converting a par five hole to a par three hole and removing a driving range. Paradis then developed residential lots on the excess property where the driving range and part of the par five golf hole used to be. Believing that these developments infringed upon their easement rights, the Terrells sued Paradis. The parties proceeded to arbitration for resolution of their dispute. The arbitrator rendered a decision in Paradis’ favor, finding that none of Paradis’ alterations to the golf course infringed upon the Terrells’ easement rights. Following the arbitration proceedings, Paradis moved for attorney fees under Idaho Code section 12-120(3). The Idaho Supreme Court found the district court erred in concluding that an award of fees was appropriate under section 12-120(3): "Our caselaw is clear that transactions for personal or household purposes do not constitute a commercial transaction for purposes of section 12-120(3)." View "Terrell v. Paradis de Golf Holding, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs were owners of different lots in a subdivision. They sought an injunction to prevent Trevor Cole from subdividing his lot. The circuit court entered a summary judgment in favor of the lot owners and issued the injunction. On appeal, Cole argued: (1) the restrictive covenants should not have been enforced for various equitable reasons (because of the "relative hardship" enforcing the covenants would allegedly impose upon him; because the "character of the neighborhood" has allegedly changed "radically" since the covenants were adopted; and because a majority of the other property owners in the subdivision, including some of the lot owners, have waived enforcement of the covenants); (2) that he should have been provided certain discovery before the entry of the summary judgment; and (3) that necessary or indispensable parties to the action were absent. The Alabama Supreme Court rejected each of these arguments and affirmed. View "Cole v. Davis, et al." on Justia Law

Defendants Levorn and Levern Davis appealed a circuit court's judgment in favor of the estate of Henry Brim. In 2006, Brim sold property to Levern, executing a promissory note and mortgage for a principal of $56,000. The interest rate was 7% per year, and payments were to be made monthly. The final installment was scheduled to be August 2045. On April 16, 2015, Levern executed a quitclaim deed in which he transferred his interest in the property to his brother, Levorn. In 2017, Brim filed suit, alleging defendants were in default on the promissory note and mortgage. Defendants denied they were in default and disputed the balance owed on the note. Brim asked the trial court to enter a judgment declaring that defendants were in default; to determine the amount still owed on the promissory note; and to authorize Brim to foreclose the mortgage. Brim died in 2019; Darryl Hamilton, as the personal representative to Brim's estate, was substituted as plaintiff. Defendants unsuccessfully challenged Hamilton's substitution into the promissory note action. The circuit court thereafter found defendants were in default on the promissory note and mortgage, the amount owed was $26,125.50; and that Hamilton could proceed with foreclosure proceedings. Defendants argued on appeal to the Alabama Supreme Court that the trial court erroneously denied their motion to reconsider the order substituting Hamilton as the plaintiff and to dismiss the action pursuant to Rule 25(a)(1), Ala. R. Civ. P., because the motion for substitution was not filed until nearly 31 months after the filing of the suggestion of death. The Supreme Court found after review of the trial court record that the trial court exceeded its discretion when it denied defendants' motion to reconsider and dismiss the action pursuant to Rule 25(a)(1), Ala. R. Civ. P. The trial court's judgment was reversed and the matter remanded for the trial court to set aside its order substituting Hamilton as plaintiff, set aside its order finding defendants in default of the note and mortgage, and to dismiss the action pursuant to Rule 25(a)(1). View "Davis v. Hamilton" on Justia Law

The Pueblo of Jemez filed a quiet title action against the United States relating to lands comprising the Valles Caldera National Preserve (“Valles Caldera”), which the United States purchased from private landowners in 2000. In an earlier appeal, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the district court’s ruling dismissing the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Court reversed and remanded, finding that an 1860 federal grant of title to private landowners would not extinguish the Jemez Pueblo’s claimed aboriginal title. Upon remand, the Jemez Pueblo could establish that it once and still had aboriginal title to the lands at issue. After a twenty-one-day trial, the district court ruled that the Jemez Pueblo failed to establish ever having aboriginal title to the entire lands of the Valles Caldera, failing to show that it ever used the entire claimed land to the exclusion of other Indian groups. The Jemez Pueblo moved for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). But rather than seek reconsideration of its complaint’s QTA claim to the entire Valles Caldera, the Jemez Pueblo shrunk its QTA claim into claims of title to four discrete subareas within the Valles Caldera: (1) Banco Bonito, (2) the Paramount Shrine Lands, (3) Valle San Antonio, and (4) the Redondo Meadows. The district court declined to reconsider all but Banco Bonito, on grounds that the Jemez Pueblo hadn’t earlier provided the government notice of these claims. Even so, being thorough, the court later considered and rejected those three claims on the merits. Of the issues raised by the Jemez Pueblo on appeal, we primarily address its challenge to the district court’s ruling that the Jemez Pueblo lost aboriginal title to Banco Bonito. The Tenth Circuit concluded the district court erroneously interpreted "Jemez I" in ruling that the Jemez Pueblo lost aboriginal title to Banco Bonito. So in accordance with longstanding Supreme Court precedent, and by the district court’s findings, the Court held the Jemez Pueblo still had aboriginal title to Banco Bonito. The Court reversed in part the denial of the Jemez Pueblo’s motion for reconsideration, and vacated in part and remanded with instructions to the district court. The Court affirmed in all other respects. View "Pueblo of Jemez v. United States, et al." on Justia Law

This appeal concerned the existence of an easement across a lot (“Lot 20”) in the Greenbriar Estates subdivision. In 2004, John Esposito acquired two adjacent parcels of land. The northern parcel contained a mini storage unit for use by the residents of the Greenbriar Estates (the “Mini Storage Lot”), while Esposito planned to develop the southern parcel into a recreational vehicle storage lot1 (the “RV Lot”) and to additionally build several more homes. The only access to the planned RV Lot at the time of severance was through the northern parcel. However, no access easement either existed or was created at the time that the northern and southern parcels were severed from the Greenbriar subdivision. Once he completed the development of the subdivision, Esposito quitclaimed the common areas within the subdivision to the Greenbriar Estates Homeowners’ Association (the “HOA”). The HOA subsequently contested Esposito’s use of Lot 20 to access the RV Lot. After Esposito and the HOA began litigating this dispute, the parties entered into two partial settlement agreements: one in 2012 and the second in 2014. In 2013, during the ongoing litigation, Esposito defaulted on his payments for the RV Lot and mortgage-holder D.L. Evans Bank foreclosed. In 2014, Esposito, who no longer owned the RV Lot, settled all existing claims with the HOA in the 2014 total settlement agreement; however, the 2014 agreement did not refer to the RV Lot. Several years later after executing the 2014 settlement agreement, Esposito reacquired the RV Lot from the Bank and resumed his efforts to transform the parcel into RV storage and additional homesites. Once Esposito began developing the RV Lot and using Lot 20 to access it, the HOA again filed suit in district court, alleging Esposito had no right to use Lot 20. The district court granted the HOA’s request to quiet title to Lot 20 but denied the HOA’s request for attorney fees. Esposito and the HOA both appealed the district court’s decisions. Finding no reversible error in the district court's decision, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed. View "Greenbriar Estates Homeowners' Association, Inc. v. Esposito" on Justia Law

Brothers Newton and Jason Wells (plaintiffs) and their mother Beverly Wells, filed suit in September 2017 seeking to partition real property they held as tenants in common with defendant Pall Spera in Stowe, Vermont. The court granted plaintiffs’ summary-judgment motion on the question of whether they were entitled to partition as a matter of law, and issued an order of appointment of commissioners and order of reference by consent of the parties. The order appointed three commissioners and directed them to determine whether the property could be divided, assigned to one of the parties, or sold. They were ordered to determine the fair market value of the property and each person’s equitable share. Neither party reserved the right to object to the commissioners’ report. Ultimately, the commissioners concluded that physical division would cause great inconvenience to the parties. Finding division inequitable, the commissioners awarded defendant first right of assignment due to his ability to buy out plaintiffs’ interest immediately, while plaintiffs required a loan to do so, and because partition would constitute the dissolution of the partnership agreement, which defendant had wished to continue. Plaintiffs filed a motion objecting to the report, citing Vermont Rule of Civil Procedure 53(e)(2)(iii). Plaintiffs’ main argument was that the commissioners exceeded their mandate as provided by the order of reference in concluding that partition would result in zoning violations, and the commissioners erred on that question as a matter of law. In the alternative, they argued the equities favored assigning the property to them. The court denied the motion, including plaintiffs’ request for a hearing, and adopted the report without qualification. It reasoned that plaintiffs had not reserved their right to object to the report as required by the plain language of Civil Rule 53(e)(2)(iii). Finding no reversible error in this decision, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed. View "Wells et al. v. Spera" on Justia Law