Dear House Judiciary Committee: In Questioning William Barr, Employ the Ethics Complaint That 27 Distinguished DC Lawyers Filed Wednesday

FREDERICK BARON, DENNIS AFTERGUT, AUSTIN SARAT

Frederick Baron, former associate deputy attorney general and director of the Executive Office for National Security in the Department of Justice, Dennis Aftergut, a former federal prosecutor, and Austin Sarat, Associate Provost and Associate Dean of the Faculty and William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence & Political Science at Amherst College, call upon the House Judiciary Committee to carefully read the ethics complaint by 27 distinguished DC lawyers against William Barr before questioning him today, July 28, 2020.

Read More

Elbar Investments, Inc. v. Prins

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Docket: 19-20358

Opinion Date: July 30, 2020

Judge: Jennifer Walker Elrod

Areas of Law: Bankruptcy, Real Estate & Property Law

This case involved an investor, Elbar, that wired money to Defendant Todd Prins, a former attorney, after the owner of a foreclosed property had declared bankruptcy. In this case, United hired Prins to conduct a foreclosure sale; Elbar wired funds to Prins; Prins stole those funds and used them to reimburse other clients. The Fifth Circuit held that the bankruptcy court properly found that Elbar violated the automatic stay thrice, and twice willfully. Furthermore, the court agreed with the bankruptcy court that Elbar is an extremely knowledgeable and sophisticated litigant that understands perfectly that its actions were a direct violation of the Bankruptcy Code. Therefore, the bankruptcy court was correct to weigh those violations against Elbar in its decision. The court also agreed with the bankruptcy court that neither Elbar's claim for equitable subrogation nor its claim for fraud in a real estate transaction warrant relief. Finally, the court rejected Elbar's claims against TransWorld and Industry including money had and received, unjust enrichment, and conversion. Because the district court failed to explain the exceptional circumstances justifying its denial of prejudgment interest, the court remanded with instructions to explain the exceptional circumstances, if any, that justify denial of prejudgment interest or to order prejudgment interest.

Northern Oil and Gas, Inc. v. EOG Resources, Inc.

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Docket: 19-1326

Opinion Date: July 27, 2020

Judge: Lavenski R. Smith

Areas of Law: Energy, Oil & Gas Law, Real Estate & Property Law

Northern filed a quiet-title action in federal court against EOG over a dispute regarding the parties' competing interests in mineral rights in North Dakota. Northern and EOG both lease oil and gas rights, and their lessors litigated a similar matter in state court. The district court found that Northern was in privity with its lessor, holding that the lessors' case barred Northern's claims. The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of EOG's motion to dismiss under principles of res judicata, holding that no privity exists between Northern and its lessor because Northern acquired its lease before the lessors' case. The court applied Gerrity Bakken, LLC v. Oasis Petroleum N. Am., LLC, 915 N.W.2d 677 (N.D. 2018), and held that the privity doctrine cannot be applied if the rights to property were acquired by the person sought to be bound before the adjudication.

Alleva v. Municipality of Anchorage

Court: Alaska Supreme Court

Docket: S-17302

Opinion Date: July 24, 2020

Judge: Peter J. Maassen

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Government & Administrative Law, Real Estate & Property Law

Landowners Ronald and Annette Alleva settled a lawsuit against a the Municipality of Anchorage and organizations that operated a homeless shelter and a soup kitchen; the settlement agreement recited that the landowners accepted a sum of money in exchange for a release of present and future trespass and nuisance claims involving the organizations’ clients. Six years later the landowners filed this lawsuit asserting similar claims. Their complaint referred to the prior settlement, but they did not file the settlement agreement with the complaint. The defendants moved to dismiss, relying on the settlement agreement. The landowners argued that because the settlement agreement had not been filed with the complaint, it could not be used as a basis for dismissal under Alaska Civil Rule 12(b)(6). The superior court rejected the landowners’ argument, granted the motion to dismiss, and ruled in the alternative that the defendants were entitled to summary judgment. The landowners appealed. After review, the Alaska Supreme Court agreed with the superior court that the settlement agreement was properly considered on the motion to dismiss because it was addressed in the complaint and its authenticity was not questioned. The Supreme Court also agreed that the settlement barred the landowners’ current lawsuit.

West v. Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority

Court: Alaska Supreme Court

Docket: S-17407

Opinion Date: July 24, 2020

Judge: Craig F. Stowers

Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law, Real Estate & Property Law

In October 2017 the Alaska Trust Land Office (Land Office) issued a best interest decision in favor of selling five lots of land owned by the Alaska Mental Health Trust to Louis and Stacy Oliva. The Olivas' neighbors, Jeffrey and Bonnie West, submitted late comments opposing the sale. The Land Office accepted those comments as a request for reconsideration, but it ultimately denied the Wests' request and proceeded with the sale. The Wests appealed to the superior court, which affirmed the best interest decision. On appeal, the Wests argued the sale was not in the Trust’s best interest, the Land Office violated a number of statutes and regulations, and the agency’s public notice regulation was invalid. After review, the Alaska Supreme Court concluded the Wests' first argument lacked merit, and the remaining issues were waived for various reasons. The Court therefore affirmed the best interest decision.

Golden Door Properties, LLC v. Super. Ct.

Court: California Courts of Appeal

Docket: D076605(Fourth Appellate District)

Opinion Date: July 30, 2020

Judge: Judith McConnell

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Environmental Law, Government & Administrative Law, Real Estate & Property Law, Zoning, Planning & Land Use

Under California Public Resources Code section 21167.6, documents "shall" be in the record in a CEQA challenge to an environmental impact report (EIR). The County of San Diego (County), as lead agency for the Newland Sierra project, no longer had "all" such correspondence, nor all "internal agency communications" related to the project. If those communications were by e-mail and not flagged as "official records," the County's computers automatically deleted them after 60 days. When project opponents propounded discovery to obtain copies of the destroyed e-mails and related documents to prepare the record of proceedings, the County refused to comply. After referring the discovery disputes to a referee, the superior court adopted the referee's recommendations to deny the motions to compel. The referee concluded that although section 21167.6 specified the contents of the record of proceedings, that statute did not require that such writings be retained. In effect, the referee interpreted section 21167.6 to provide that e-mails encompassed within that statute were mandated parts of the record - unless the County destroyed them first. The Court of Appeal disagreed with that interpretation, "[a] thorough record is fundamental to meaningful judicial review." The Court held the County should not have destroyed such e-mails, even under its own policies. The referee's erroneous interpretation of section 21167.6 was central to the appeals before the Court of Appeal. The Court issued a writ of mandate to direct the superior court to vacate its orders denying the motions to compel, and after receiving input from the parties, reconsider those motions.

Reeder v. Specialized Loan Servicing LLC

Court: California Courts of Appeal

Docket: B296148(Second Appellate District)

Opinion Date: July 29, 2020

Judge: Elizabeth A. Grimes

Areas of Law: Contracts, Real Estate & Property Law

After plaintiff lost an investment property to foreclosure, he filed suit against the lender and its assignee, as well as the loan servicer, alleging breach of contract, wrongful foreclosure and three fraud claims. Plaintiff's claims were based on his assertion that, before the parties executed the credit agreement and deed of trust securing it in 2005, the lender made a verbal commitment that, at the end of the 10-year term, plaintiff could refinance or re-amortize the loan with a new 20-year repayment period. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the verbal agreement to refinance or reamortize plaintiff's loan is subject to the statute of frauds and is unenforceable on that ground. Furthermore, the oral agreement is too indefinite to be enforceable. Therefore, plaintiff's allegations are insufficient to state a breach of contract claim. The court also held that plaintiff's allegations are the very sort of general and conclusory allegations that are insufficient to support a fraud claim, promissory or otherwise; because the alleged oral agreement is not an enforceable contract, its breach cannot support a claim of wrongful foreclosure; and plaintiff has not shown how he can amend to cure the defects in the complaint.

Rutgard v. City of Los Angeles

Court: California Courts of Appeal

Docket: B297655(Second Appellate District)

Opinion Date: July 30, 2020

Judge: Brian M. Hoffstadt

Areas of Law: Real Estate & Property Law, Zoning, Planning & Land Use

A public entity desiring to retain condemned property under Code of Civil Procedure section 1245.245 has to "adopt" its initial and reauthorization resolutions within 10 years of each other; section 1245.245 uses the date of "final adoption;" the local law fixes when a resolution is "finally adopted;" and a resolution is "finally adopted" once the city council has enacted the resolution and it has either been (1) approved by the mayor, or (2) vetoed by the mayor, but overridden by the city council. In this case, plaintiff filed a petition for writ of mandate alleging that the city had a present legal duty to offer him a right of first refusal to purchase the property at issue. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's grant of the petition, holding that the city finally adopted its initial and reauthorization resolutions 19 days past the 10-year deadline, and thus section 1245.245 requires the city to offer to sell the property back to its original owner.

Roberts v. Jensen

Court: Idaho Supreme Court - Civil

Docket: 46675

Opinion Date: July 30, 2020

Judge: Stegner

Areas of Law: Real Estate & Property Law

The issue this case presented for the Idaho Supreme Court's review centered on a waste ditch that drained surface water from property owned by Lora Roberts through property owned by Thomas and Deanna Jensen (the Jensens). The ditch itself passed through a man-made culvert under a county road between the properties. The Jensens filled in the portion of the waste ditch located on their property in 2013. In February 2017, Roberts’ property experienced significant flooding. The flooding damaged her home as well as horse feed stored in the barn. It also forced her to relocate her horses from her property. Roberts filed an action against the Jensens, alleging trespass and nuisance, as well as seeking a declaratory judgment to establish that Roberts had an interest in the waste ditch on the Jensens’ property as an easement on the basis that the ditch was an established natural servitude. The district court ultimately granted the Jensens’ motion for summary judgment against Roberts, and denied Roberts’ motion for summary judgment. The district court also dismissed the nuisance claim because the flooding was not caused by a natural servitude, and therefore a nuisance action was not applicable. The district court then denied Roberts’ request for a declaratory judgment. Roberts moved unsuccessfully for reconsideration, and her appeal followed. After review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s order granting summary judgment against Roberts.

Steamfitter's Local Union No. 602 v. Erie Insurance Exchange

Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

Docket: 40/19

Opinion Date: July 27, 2020

Judge: Booth

Areas of Law: Real Estate & Property Law

The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals affirming the judgment of the trial court in favor of Plaintiffs - a property owner, its insurers, and the subrogee of another property owner - and against Steamfitters Local Union No. 602 after a fire started on Steamfitters' property caused damage to neighboring properties, holding the the trial court did not err. The fire started on a mulched strip of common area where Steamfitters' apprentices regularly congregated and discarded hundreds of cigarette butts. Plaintiffs filed a negligence complaint against Steamfitters. Steamfitters filed a third-party complaint against the Heating, Piping and Refrigeration Training Fund (Training Fund) alleging contractual indemnification, common law indemnification, and contribution. As to the issue of contractual indemnification, the circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of the Training Fund. As to the case against Steamfitters, the jury returned verdicts in favor of Plaintiffs. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) Steamfitters had a duty to exercise reasonable care to maintain its property in a manner that would not cause an unreasonable risk of the spread of fire from cigarette butts habitually discarded in combustible material; and (2) Steamfitters was not entitled to relief on its remaining allegations of error.

State ex rel. Woodco, Inc. v. Honorable Jennifer Phillips

Court: Supreme Court of Missouri

Docket: SC98227

Opinion Date: July 28, 2020

Judge: Mary R. Russell

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Contracts, Real Estate & Property Law

The Supreme Court made permanent its preliminary writ of prohibition prohibiting the circuit court from ordering certain defendants to be joined as necessary parties, holding that Mo. R. Civ. P. 52.04(a) did not mandate that the added defendants be joined. After deficiencies in the construction of an independent senior living facility (the Project) were discovered, Plaintiff brought contract and tort claims against the architect, the structural engineer, the construction company, the framer, and the supplier, alleging construction defects. The masonry company hired to perform brick masonry work was not included as a defendant. Certain defendants moved to add the masonry company, arguing that the company must be added pursuant to Rule 52.04. The circuit court ordered the masonry company be joined. Plaintiff filed a petition for a writ of prohibition seeking to direct the circuit court to dismiss and remove the masonry company. The court of appeals denied the petition. The Supreme Court granted the petition, holding that the masonry company was not a "necessary" defendant, and therefore, the circuit court did not have the authority to require joinder.

Russell v. Franklin County

Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

Citation: 306 Neb. 546

Opinion Date: July 24, 2020

Judge: Papik

Areas of Law: Real Estate & Property Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the district court determining that Landowners were entitled to receive an amount equal to the diminution in value of private property as a result of a county's action in felling trees on the property to improve visibility for a nearby road. Franklin County, without permission, cut down and uprooted trees on property owned by Thomas and Pamela Russell. The Russells filed an inverse condemnation proceeding. At issue before the district court was the extent of the damages sustained. The district court granted summary judgment for the County, concluding that the Russells were entitled to receive the fair market value of the property taken and any decrease in the fair market value of remaining property caused by the taking. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Russells were entitled to recover the diminution in value of their land as a result of the removal of the trees.

Sorum, et al. v. North Dakota, et al.

Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

Citation: 2020 ND 175

Opinion Date: July 30, 2020

Judge: Jerod E. Tufte

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law, Energy, Oil & Gas Law, Real Estate & Property Law

The Plaintiffs, in their individual capacities and on behalf of similarly situated taxpayers, sought declaratory relief regarding chapter 61-33.1, N.D.C.C., relating to the ownership of mineral rights in lands subject to inundation by the Garrison Dam, was unconstitutional. The district court concluded that N.D.C.C. 61-33.1-04(1)(b) was on its face unconstitutional under the “gift clause,” and enjoined the State from issuing any payments under that statute. The court rejected Plaintiffs’ constitutional challenges to the rest of chapter 61-33.1. The Defendants appealed and the Plaintiffs cross-appealed the trial court’s orders, judgment, and amended judgment. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court reversed that portion of the judgment concluding N.D.C.C. 61- 33.1-04(1)(b) violated the gift clause and the court’s injunction enjoining those payments. The Supreme Court also reversed the court’s award of attorney’s fees and costs and service award to the Plaintiffs because they were no longer prevailing parties. The Court affirmed the remainder of the orders and judgment, concluding the Plaintiffs did not establish that chapter 61-33.1 on its face violated the North Dakota Constitution.

Moeckly v. Hanson

Court: South Dakota Supreme Court

Citation: 2020 S.D. 45

Opinion Date: July 29, 2020

Judge: David Gilbertson

Areas of Law: Real Estate & Property Law, Trusts & Estates

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court holding that property owned by Sharon Orr-Hanson and her husband, Bennet Hanson, was owned as tenants in common and ordering partition of the property after Sharon's death, holding that the circuit court properly found that the property was owned as tenants in common. The personal representatives of Sharon's estate brought this action to have the property sold and the proceeds split evenly. The circuit court determined that a corrective deed terminated what was previously a joint tenancy and created a tenancy in common. On appeal, Bennet argued that the property was held as joint tenants and should go to him alone as the surviving joint tenant. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding (1) the circuit court did not err in concluding that the corrective deed severed Bennet's and Sharon's joint tenancy and created a tenancy in common; and (2) Bennet's remaining allegations of error were unavailing.

In re Mountain Top Inn & Resort, JO 1-391 (Hall, Appellant)

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Citation: 2020 VT 57

Opinion Date: July 24, 2020

Judge: Carroll

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Environmental Law, Government & Administrative Law, Real Estate & Property Law

Katherine Hall appealed an Environmental Division decision granting summary judgment to Chittenden Resorts, LLC and RMT Associates, d/b/a Mountain Top Inn & Resort (the Resort). The Environmental Division concluded the Resort did not need an amended Act 250 permit to run a rental program where, pursuant to a contractual agreement, the Resort rented out private homes near the Resort. On appeal, Hall argued that the Environmental Division erred in determining that the Resort did not need an amended Act 250 permit. Specifically, she argued the Resort needed an amended Act 250 permit because under 10 V.S.A. 6001(14)(A), the Resort and owners of the homes involved in the rental program were a collective "person." Alternatively, she argued the Resort exercised "control" over the rental homes within the meaning of section 6001(3)(A)(i). The Vermont Supreme Court disagreed with Hall's characterization of the Resort and home owners as a collective "person." Further, the Court found the Resort did not control the rented homes contemplated by section 6001(3)(i). Therefore, the Supreme Court affirmed the Environmental Division's judgment.