South Carolina prohibits transfer fee covenants
South Carolina joins the growing list of jurisdictions that bans transfer fee covenants. 2012 S.C. Acts 106, codified at S.C. Code §27-1-70.
Section 3 of DOMA struck down
Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), 1 U.S.C. §7, Pub. L. No. 104-199, §3, 110 Stat. 2419, passed in 1996, denied federal recognition to same-sex marriages. This meant, for example, that for such purposes as calculating federal income tax, same-sex couples were not recognized as married and entitled to the tax advantages (and disadvantages) of marriage even if they were validly married under state law. A same-sex couple validly married in Massachusetts under Massachusetts law would file state tax returns as a married couple but would then have to file federal tax returns as two unrelated individuals. However, Section 3 was struck down as an unconstitutional violation of the due process and equal protection clauses on June 26, 2013 in the case of United States v. Windsor, — U.S. —, 2013 WL 3196928 (2013). Windsor found that marriages have traditionally been governed by state, rather than federal law, and held that no …
Same-sex marriages resume in California
In 2008, by a 4-3 vote, the Supreme Court of California held that its state constitutional right to equal protection of the laws grants same-sex couples the same right to marry as is enjoyed by opposite-sex couples, using strict scrutiny to come to this conclusion. In re Marriage Cases, 183 P.2d 384 (Cal. 2008). The court held that the right to marry is a basic civil right whose denial impinges upon same-sex couples’ fundamental privacy interests in having official family relationships accorded equal respect and dignity and that no compelling state interest justified the differential treatment of same-sex and opposite-sex couples. It also ruled that existing statutory provisions recognizing civil union or domestic partnership arrangements for same-sex couples were not equivalent to laws recognizing opposite-sex civil marriages. The California decision was overturned on November 4, 2008, when California voters approved Proposition 8 amending the California Constitution to provide that “[o]nly marriage between …
More states recognize same-sex marriage
Within the last month or so, new states have recognized same-sex marriage. They are Delaware, Rhode Island, and Minnesota. All did so legislatively. Del. Code, tit. 13, §§101 to 122, as amended by 2013 Del. HB 75 (May 8, 2013); R.I. Gen. Laws §§15-1-1 to 15-1-5, as amended by 2013 R.I. Pub. Laws 4 (2013 R.I. HB 5015); Minn. Stat. §§517.01 to 517.09, as amended by 2013 Minn. Sess. Law Serv., ch. 74 (H.F. 1054) (May 14, 2013). Internationally, recent additions to the list include France, New Zealand, and Uruguay. As of May 17, 2013, there are now thirteen jurisdictions (12 states and the District of Columbia) that recognize same -sex marriage in the U.S. They include Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington. Three American Indian nations also recognize same-sex marriage, including the Coquille Indian Tribe, the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, and …
Court holds that beach rights can be lost through erosion
The Supreme Judicial Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has reaffirmed the old rule that property rights can be expanded by slow accretion or diminished through slow erosion when property is located on a stream or the ocean. In White v. Hartigan, 982 N.E.2d 1115 (Mass. 2013), beachfront owners claimed a right to use the beach behind their neighbors house because their deed had given them rights to the beach in 1841. The court disagreed, noting that changing boundaries had placed the plaintiffs’ beach under water and that they had no right to “moveable” boundaries ensuring access to the beach behind their neighbor’s house.
No nuisance claim without physical invasion or harm
The Maryland Court of Appeals ruled in Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Albright, 67 A.3d 1061 (Md. 2013) that property owners near a gas station where 26,000 gallons of gasoline spilled from an underground tank could not sue for nuisance when their wells have not yet been contaminated. The neighbors were not allowed to sue for emotional damages, for reduction of the fair market value of their property or for future costs of medical monitoring. Most courts reach the same result although a few courts have allowed damages in such cases for nearby properties when the reduction in fair market value is substantial.
First Circuit allows MERS to assign mortgages to the mortgage holder
State courts have disagreed about whether MERS (Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems) has standing to foreclose on property or to assign whatever interest it has in the mortgage to the bank that holds the mortgage currently so that that bank can bring foreclosure proceedings. Some courts have held that MERS has no property interest in the mortgage but is a mere agent for the mortgage owner so it cannot bring foreclosure proceedings itself or assign the mortgage to anyone else. Bain v. Metropolitan Mortgage Group, Inc., 285 P.3d 34, 36–37 (Wash. 2012) (because MERS does not hold the note, it can neither initiate nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings not assign an interest in the note to a trustee who can do so). But others have held that MERS may initiate foreclosure proceedings in its own name and/or assign the mortgage to someone else. Gomes v. Countrywide Home Loans Inc., 121 Cal. Rptr. 3d …
First Circuit allows MERS to assign mortgages to the mortgage holder Read More »
HUD issues final regulations defining disparate impact claims under the Fair Housing Act
The Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD) has issued final regulations defining the standards to make a claim that a neutral policy has a disparate impact on a protected group in a manner that constitutes unlawful discrimination under the federal Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §3601 et seq. The regulations are at 24 C.F.R. 100.500 and can be found here. The rule affirms that disparate impact claims are available under the Fair Housing Act and identifies an approach to proving them to respond to the variation that exists among Circuits on what the legal test is for disparate impact in this area. Here is the test: 1. Plaintiff must show a discriminatory effect either because defendant’s policies or actions result in a disparate impact on a protected group or because those policies or actions promote segregation. 2. Defendant then has the burden to showthat its practice is necessary to achieve …
HUD issues final regulations defining disparate impact claims under the Fair Housing Act Read More »
Homeowners’ Association dues lost because the property was taken by eminent domain are held not to be compensable under the takings clause
When a government took 14 units from a homeowners association by eminent domain, the remaining owners lost the dues and assessments that those owners would have contributed to the homeowners association. However, the Fifth Circuit has ruled that those lost assessments represent mere “contractual rights” that are not compensable under the takings clause as lost property rights even though they ran with the land. United States v. 0.073 Acres of Land, — F.3d —, 2013 WL 322242 (5th Cir. 2013). The court looked to Louisiana law to determine whether the assessments should be considered to be “property” rights and found that they were. However, it interpreted the case of United States v. General Motors Corp., 323 U.S. 373 (1945) to mean that loss of future profits from land is not compensable. The court acknowledged that it was adopting a minority view and that most courts have held that covenants are property …
Maine, Maryland, and Washington pass same-sex marriage referenda
Maine, Maryland and Washington states all passed referenda legalizing same-sex marriage on Nov. 6, 2012.