Latest 7 Cases This Week: In Re: 650 Fifth Avenue Co. & Related Properties (2d Cir.), Alig v. Quicken Loans Inc. (4th Cir.), Husain v. California ...

The Oprah Interview as a Truth Commission

LESLEY WEXLER

Illinois Law professor Lesley Wexler explains how Oprah’s interview with Prince Harry and Meghan Markle might illuminate how a formal truth commission to deal with legacies of racism and colonialism might function in the British empire. Professor Wexler describes the purpose and function of state-operated truth commissions and notes the similarities and differences between those and the interview.

Read More

In Re: 650 Fifth Avenue Co. & Related Properties

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Docket: 20-1212

Opinion Date: March 9, 2021

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Real Estate & Property Law

The Government seeks forfeiture of the Building, as well as other assets owned by claimants. The parties subsequently cross-appeal the district court's order determining that the Government had probable cause to forfeit the Building and granting the motion of claimants to modify a protective order by releasing to them a portion of the rental income generated from the Building. The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's finding of probable cause where the district court described at length the non-tainted evidence on which it relied to find probable cause, and the district court did not refuse to consider claimants' statute-of-limitations defense. The district court also did not commit reversible error by concluding that, at this stage, claimants' statute of limitations defense did not defeat a probable cause finding. Finally, the court found no abuse of discretion where the district court declined to draw an adverse inference against the Government for failing to produce statute-of-limitations discovery following the court's 2016 and 2019 opinions requiring it to do so. However, the court concluded that the return-of-rents remedy is appropriate here and modified the district court's order releasing the rental income to cover rental income generated from January 5, 2018, until October 13, 2020.

Alig v. Quicken Loans Inc.

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Docket: 19-1059

Opinion Date: March 10, 2021

Judge: James Andrew Wynn, Jr.

Areas of Law: Banking, Consumer Law, Contracts, Real Estate & Property Law

Plaintiffs filed suit alleging that pressure tactics used by Quicken Loans and TSI to influence home appraisers to raise appraisal values to obtain higher loan values on their homes constituted a breach of contract and unconscionable inducement under the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act. The district court granted summary judgment to plaintiffs. The Fourth Circuit concluded that class certification is appropriate and that plaintiffs are entitled to summary judgment on their claims for conspiracy and unconscionable inducement. However, the court concluded that the district court erred in its analysis of the breach-of-contract claim. The court explained that the district court will need to address defendants' contention that there were no damages suffered by those class members whose appraisals would have been the same whether or not the appraisers were aware of the borrowers' estimates of value—which one might expect, for example, if a borrower's estimate of value was accurate. The court agreed with plaintiffs that the covenant of good faith and fair dealing applies to the parties' contract, but concluded that it cannot by itself sustain the district court's decision at this stage. The district court may consider the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing to the extent that it is relevant for evaluating Quicken Loans' performance of the contracts. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part and vacated and remanded in part.

Husain v. California Pacific Bank

Court: California Courts of Appeal

Docket: A159067(First Appellate District)

Opinion Date: March 9, 2021

Judge: Richman

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

The Willow property, south of the Apartments, contains a duplex, a concrete parking area, and a large undeveloped area in the rear. In 1964 the then-owners of both properties obtained a variance from Burlingame that allowed four off-site parking spaces for the Apartments to be located on the Willow property. They never expanded the Apartments as planned. The variance became void. The properties changed hands several times, remaining jointly owned. In 2005, both properties were acquired by Shiheiber, who allowed tenants of the Apartments to use the Willow property for access, parking, storage of garbage, and recreational purposes. In 2011, the properties ceased to be under common ownership. The Bank took title to the Apartments; Husain took title to Willow, aware that the Bank claimed a prescriptive easement. Tenants in the Apartments continued to use the Willow property. Husain sued the Bank to quiet title. The Bank cross-complained for a prescriptive easement. The trial court entered judgment for the Bank. The court of appeal affirmed, rejecting an argument that the use of the Willow property was permissive. The Bank never requested or received permission to use the Willow property, and simply used the property in a manner that was open, notorious, continuous, and hostile for more than five years.

Monzo v. Nationwide Property & Casualty Insurance Co.

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Docket: 199, 2020

Opinion Date: March 11, 2021

Judge: Montgomery-Reeves

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

In 2011, Appellants Eric Monzo and Dana Spring Monzo purchased a homeowners insurance policy issued by Appellee Nationwide Property & Casualty Co. (“Nationwide”). The policy contained standard exclusions for water damage and earth movement, along with optional water backup coverage. In July 2017, a heavy thunderstorm destroyed a pedestrian bridge and retaining wall located at the Monzos’ residence. A pair of engineering reports prepared after the storm indicated that a combination of water backups from drainage systems, scouring of supporting earth embankments, heavy rain, and tree debris caused the damage. The Monzos filed a claim with Nationwide, seeking coverage under the homeowners insurance policy. Nationwide denied coverage, and the Monzos sued. The court granted summary judgment for Nationwide, holding that the policy’s earth movement and water damage exclusions applied. The Monzos appealed, arguing the Superior Court erred by granting summary judgment too early in the discovery process, misinterpreting the policy, and denying a motion for post-judgment relief. Having reviewed the briefs and record on appeal, the Delaware Supreme Court: (1) affirmed the Superior Court’s holding that Nationwide was entitled to summary judgment regarding the collapsed bridge; (2) reversed the Superior Court’s holding that Nationwide was entitled to summary judgment regarding the retaining wall; and (3) affirmed the Superior Court’s denial of the Monzos’ post-judgment motion.

Bragdon v. Bayshore Property Owners Association, Inc.

Court: Delaware Court of Chancery

Docket: C.A. No. 2018-0159-JTL

Opinion Date: March 11, 2021

Judge: Laster

Areas of Law: Real Estate & Property Law

The Court of Chancery held that this dispute with Defendant, a Delaware member corporation that governed the townhome and condominium development in which Plaintiff owned several properties, was an appropriate case for awarding expenses and that Plaintiff was entitled to $12,697, the amount he identified in his opening brief. Defendant fined Plaintiff for failing to remove a mounting bracket left on the roof after a satellite dish ordered by one of Plaintiff's tenants was left on the roof. Plaintiff filed this lawsuit to invalidate the charges and sought to recover his expenses. Defendant mooted the underlying dispute by clearing Plaintiff's account of the charges. The Court of Chancery held that Defendant was entitled to his expenses under the enforcement provision of the Delaware Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act.

Linardon v. Boston Housing Authority

Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Docket: SJC-13037

Opinion Date: March 10, 2021

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Real Estate & Property Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of a single justice of the court denying Petitioner's petition filed pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3 seeking an order keeping her approved federal rental voucher under the Massachusetts rental voucher program in active status, holding that, under the circumstances, the single justice was within his authority in declining to grant relief. In her petition, Petitioner contested an order transferring her case against the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development to the Housing Court and then appealed that order. Petitioner also sought to restore her federal housing benefits pending her appeal. After the superior court denied relief Petitioner filed this petition seeking the same relief. A single justice denied the petition. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the single justice did not err in denying relief.

In re Estate of French

Court: South Dakota Supreme Court

Citation: 2021 S.D. 20

Opinion Date: March 10, 2021

Judge: Salter

Areas of Law: Real Estate & Property Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court applying the doctrine of equitable tolling, thus allowing Noreen French to bring an action against the Estate of Norman D. French to enforce a contract for deed relating to the sale of two quarter sections of farmland, holding that the circuit court erred in applying the doctrine of equitable tolling. Norman French, who farmed two quarters of land in Beadle County, entered into a contract for deed with Alan and Noreen French, his son and daughter-in-law, to sell them the land for $10,000. Noreen continued to farm the two quarters after both Norman and Alan passed away. When Noreen learned that Norman had never conveyed the two quarters, the Estate commenced an action to discharge the contract for deed. The circuit court denied the Estate's petition. Noreen then filed this action alleging that she satisfied her obligations under the contract for deed and requesting that the court order the Estate to deliver a deed conveying legal title to the two quarters of farmland. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the court's decision to apply the doctrine of equitable tolling was not sustainable.