Democracy Is on the Ballot: One Party Defends It, The Other Would Let It Die

AUSTIN SARAT

Austin Sarat—Associate Provost, Associate Dean of the Faculty, and William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence and Political Science at Amherst College—explains why the 2020 Democratic National Convention was unlike any other political gathering in American history for reasons beyond its virtual platform. Sarat argues that the future of American democracy lies in the balance, and when we vote in November, it will be up to us whether democracy lives or dies.

Read More

Ladd v. Marchbanks

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Docket: 19-4136

Opinion Date: August 20, 2020

Judge: Nalbandian

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

In 2016, the Ohio Department of Transportation began a construction project on a portion of Interstate Highway 75 near the Plaintiffs’ Hancock County properties. As a result of this construction, storm and groundwater flooded those properties three times and caused significant damage. The Plaintiffs filed suit, including a claim brought directly under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 19 of the Ohio Constitution, seeking a declaratory judgment that the flooding caused a “change in topography [that] constitutes a taking of private property without just compensation,” and compensation for the same, and a claim under 42 U.S.C. 1983 seeking damages for the alleged taking. The district court dismissed, finding that Ohio’s Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity deprived it of subject matter jurisdiction. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. States’ sovereign immunity predates the Constitution; unless the Constitution itself, or Congress acting under a constitutional grant of authority, abrogates that immunity, it remains in place. The Sixth Circuit has previously held that the states’ sovereign immunity protects them from takings claims for damages in federal court and that Ohio’s statutory mechanism for obtaining compensation to remedy a Takings Clause violation does provide reasonable, certain, and adequate procedures.

Duncan v. Long

Court: Idaho Supreme Court - Civil

Docket: 46930

Opinion Date: August 17, 2020

Judge: Bevan

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Landlord - Tenant, Personal Injury, Real Estate & Property Law

Appellant Sky Duncan’s daughter, K.R., attended a daycare Anna McCowin ran out of a residence she leased from Respondent Scott Long. In 2014, McCowin left K.R. unattended in the backyard, which allowed K.R. to allegedly escape through a broken gate to a nearby canal where she drowned. Duncan sued McCowin and Long for negligence. Long moved for summary judgment, arguing that he did not owe Duncan or her daughter a duty to repair the broken gate. The district court granted Long’s motion for summary judgment after declining to extend premises liability to an injury that occurred on property adjacent to Long’s property. Duncan filed a motion for reconsideration, which the district court denied. After review, the Idaho Supreme Court found the district court correctly held that Long did not owe K.R. a duty of care to protect against an injury that occurred on adjacent property. Therefore, the Court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in Long's favor.

Tallage Lincoln, LLC v. Williams

Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Docket: SJC-12847

Opinion Date: August 19, 2020

Judge: Ralph D. Gants

Areas of Law: Real Estate & Property Law, Tax Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the decision of the Land Court judge ruling that the statutory scheme set forth in Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 60, 52 did not permit assignees of tax title accounts to include their own subsequent tax payments in the amount required for redemption, holding that the judge did not err. In 2011, City took tax title to Owners' property. Owners did not pay their real estate taxes in 2012 through 2015. In 2016, City assigned Appellant its tax title to the property. Appellant initiated proceedings to foreclose Owners' right to redeem the property. Owners exercised their right of redemption. In 2018, Appellant asked the Land Court to find that the redemption amount include the taxes owed to City at the time Appellant was assigned the tax title account, the taxes that Appellant had paid on the property from 2016 through 2018, and statutory interest on the unpaid real estate taxes and the taxes paid by Appellant. The judge concluded that tax payments made by section 52 assignees subsequent to the assignment of the tax title account could not be included in the redemption amount. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that section 52 assignees of tax title accounts may not include their own subsequent tax payments, and interest thereon, in their redemption demands.

First National Properties, LLC v. Hilstead Trust

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Citation: 2020 MT 211

Opinion Date: August 18, 2020

Judge: Shea

Areas of Law: Contracts, Real Estate & Property Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the orders of the district court holding Plaintiff liable for additional taxes Defendants owed as a result of Plaintiff's prepayment on the contract, holding that Plaintiff was obligated to pay additional taxes that were incurred by Defendants over the term of the contract. Plaintiff entered into an agreement with Defendants for the purchase of real property. Plaintiff later sued, alleging that its obligations under the agreement were satisfied and seeking an order requiring Defendants to reconvey the property to Plaintiff. Defendants counterclaimed for breach of contract. After a trial, the district court held that Plaintiff had not fulfilled all obligations under the contract. The court awarded Defendants damages and denied Defendants' request for prejudgment interest on the damage award. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the district court (1) correctly found that Plaintiff did not extinguish its obligations under the contract; (2) correctly denied Defendants' motion for prejudgment interest; but (3) erred when it interpreted the relevant documents to obligate Plaintiff to pay the additional taxes that were incurred by Defendants in the year the prepayment was made instead of the total additional taxes Defendants incurred over the term of the contract.

Johnson v. Phelan Hallinan & Schmieg

Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Docket: 26 WAP 2019

Opinion Date: August 18, 2020

Judge: Wecht

Areas of Law: Banking, Real Estate & Property Law

In 2002, Edella and Eric Johnson executed a $74,000 mortgage and associated promissory note, secured by property in Pittsburgh. The instrument was recorded and later assigned to the Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company (“Mellon”). Six years later, the Johnsons defaulted on their mortgage. In March 2009, Mellon, through its debt-collection counsel Phelan Hallinan & Schmieg, LLP (“Phelan”), filed a complaint in mortgage foreclosure. In that complaint, Phelan included a claim for attorneys’ fees of $1,300. Following a non-jury trial, the court entered judgment for Mellon. In March 2012, while the underlying mortgage foreclosure case was still ongoing, the Johnsons filed the instant class action against Phelan. When the Pennsylvania Loan Interest and Protection Law ("Act 6") was enacted in 1974, a “residential mortgage” was defined as “an obligation to pay a sum of money in an original bona fide principal amount of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) or less.” In 2008, however, the General Assembly amended Act 6’s definition of a “residential mortgage” to increase the principal-amount ceiling to $217,873 - a base figure that automatically was adjusted for inflation annually. This appeal centered on whether that increased principal-amount ceiling should apply to mortgages that were executed before the 2008 amendment to Act 6. Specifically, the question presented was whether the $74,000 mortgage the Johnsons executed should have been considered a "residential mortgage" under Act 6, given that when Appellants' lender initiated foreclosure proceedings in 2009, the increased principal-amount ceiling had gone into effect. Because the Pennsylvania Supreme Court concluded that nothing in the 2008 legislation amending Act 6 demonstrated that the revised figure should have applied retroactively, the Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court's order.

Utah Department of Transportation v. Coalt, Inc.

Court: Utah Supreme Court

Citation: 2020 UT 58

Opinion Date: August 17, 2020

Judge: Peterson

Areas of Law: Real Estate & Property Law

The Supreme Court reversed the portion of the court of appeals' opinion reversing the district court's valuation decision regarding the just compensation as to a certain parcel of land, holding that Appellant did not provide a plausible basis for reversal of the district court. The Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) condemned property owned by Coalt, Inc. (Parcel 84) in connection with the Legacy Parkway Project. UDOT later entered into a settlement agreement with public interest litigants agreeing to acquire additional mitigation property in connection with the Legacy Nature Preserve. This property included Parcel 84. Coalt argued that UDOT did not take Parcel 84 for the Legacy Parkway and therefore did not have the authority to condemn the property. In the alternative, Coalt argued that Coalt's compensation for the taking should include any increased market value caused by Parcel 84's proximity to the Legacy Parkway. The court of appeals concluded that UDOT had the authority to condemn Coalt's land but that just compensation should include any enhanced value caused by the Legacy Parkway. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) UDOT had authority to condemn Parcel 84 as mitigation for the Legacy Parkway Project; and (2) Coalt did not provide a plausible basis for reversal of the district court's valuation decision.

Agency of Transportation v. Timberlake Associates et al.

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Citation: 2020 VT 73

Opinion Date: August 14, 2020

Judge: Paul L. Reiber

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

R.L. Vallee, Inc. appealed the superior court’s denial of its motion to intervene in a state condemnation action seeking property rights for a highway project. Vallee argued: (1) it had a right to intervene under Vermont Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(1) because Vermont’s highway condemnation statute conferred an unconditional right to intervene; and (2) it had a right to intervene under Vermont Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) because it had an interest relating to property that was subject to the condemnation action and intervention was necessary to protect that interest. After review, the Vermont Supreme Court held that Vallee had an unconditional statutory right to intervene under Rule 24(a)(1), and accordingly, reversed.

Berry v. Fitzhugh

Court: Supreme Court of Virginia

Docket: 190331

Opinion Date: August 20, 2020

Judge: Cleo E. Powell

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

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court denying Plaintiff's request for attorneys' fees from the unrepresented parties in her partition suit under Va. Code 8.01-92 and denying Plaintiff's requests to share the costs for bringing the action and for an award of the rental value of the subject property from the parties who occupied it, holding that the trial court did not err. Plaintiff and her four siblings inherited real property from their mother. Plaintiff later brought suit to partition the property and requested that the trial court compel its sale and divide the proceeds according to the parties' respective rights and interests after subtracting the expenses of Plaintiff's suit. Two siblings appeared at trial pro se. The trial court ordered that the property be sold and the proceeds be split equally among all five siblings and denied Plaintiff's request for fair rental value. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court (1) did not err in refusing to award Plaintiff reasonable attorney's fees out of the shares of the unrepresented siblings in the proceeds of the sale of the property; (2) did not err in failing to divide the costs of the partition suit equally among the siblings; and (3) did not err in failing to award fair rental value.

Smith v. B&G Royalties

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Citation: 2020 WY 106

Opinion Date: August 18, 2020

Judge: Gray

Areas of Law: Real Estate & Property Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment and issuing a declaratory judgment and judgment quieting title to real property in favor of Defendants after concluding that Plaintiffs' predecessors in title conveyed a 1/8 mineral interest to Roy Barton in 1989, holding that a 1989 deed conveyed an unrestricted 1/8 mineral interest. Plaintiffs brought this suit, asserting ownership of a royalty interest in the property at issue. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of B&G followed by a declaratory judgment and judgment quieting title to Defendants to a 1/8 mineral interest, including all royalty interests in the 1/8 mineral interest. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the 1989 deed conveyed an unrestricted mineral interest without reserving a separate royalty interest; and (2) Defendants were not entitled to attorneys' fees and costs.