Author name: jsinger

Another state abolishes transfer fee obligations

/ Estates and Future Interests, Real Estate Transactions

The New Jersey legislature joined an increasing number of states that have passed statutes prohibiting enforcement of transfer fee obligations. 2010 N.J. Laws 102, codified at  N.J. Stat. 46:3-28 to -33. read article The act applies prospectively only. Transfer fee obligations are duties to pay moneys to a prior seller of the land every time it is sold. Such fees restrain alienation of land and were held to constitute illegal vestiges of feudalism in the mid-nineteenth century. See DePeyster v. Michael, 6 N.Y. 467 (1852).

Delaware recognizes civil unions

/ Marital Property, Sexual Orientation

Governor Jack Markell has signed a bill adding Delaware to the list of states that authorize the creation of civil unions for same-sex couples that have the same rights as married couples under state law. read article The list of states that recognizes civil unions now includes California, Delaware, Hawai`i, Illinois, Nevada,New Jersey, Oregon, and Washington. States that recognize domestic partnership arrangements that have more limited rights include Colorado, Maine, Maryland, and Wisconsin. read article Jurisdictions that authorize same-sex marriage are Connecticut, District of Columbia, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont. In California, 18,000 couples were married before the constitutional amendment was approved abolishing same-sex marriage. New York and Maryland recognize marriages celebrated in states that recognize them. Rhode Island recognizes out-of-state same-sex marriages for some purposes, while California, Illinois, New Jersey, and New Mexico recognizes such marriages as civil unions. read article

No presumption of hostility when a family member claims a prescriptive easement

/ Adverse Possession

The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine has created an exception to the presumption that prescriptive use of another’s property is non-permissive when the servient estate is owned by a family member. Androkites v. White, 10 A.3d 677 (Me. 2010). The court held that, in such cases, it is more likely that the use is permissive and thus the usual presumption is overcome. A few states presume use to be permissive in all cases while most states retain the same presumption of nonpermissiveness for both adverse possession claims and prescriptive easement claims.

Supreme Court holds that Congress did not authorize damages judgments against state or municipal officials for violations of RLUIPA

/ Fair Housing Act, Zoning

The Supreme Court ruled in Sossamon v. Texas, 2011 U.S. LEXIS 3187 (U.S. 2011), that Congress did not waive the sovereign immunity of the United States when it passed the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). This means that the only relief available against federal officials for violating the statutorily protected religious freedom rights of federal prisoners is prospective injunctive relief; no damages can be awarded for federal violations of the act. A similar result would apply to land owners whose land use rights are violated by federal officials. The case, however, was not against federal office but state prison officials in a state that accepted federal money to fund its prisons. The precise holding in the case was that prisoners cannot sue such states for damages when those states deprive inmates in state prisons of religious free exercise rights. A similar result could be expected for claims for …

Supreme Court holds that Congress did not authorize damages judgments against state or municipal officials for violations of RLUIPA Read More »

Texas courts allow fraud claims in real estate transactions despite a non-reliance clause

/ Leaseholds, Real Estate Transactions, Statute of Frauds

The states disagree about whether parties to real estate transactions can sue each other for fraud when the contract of sale contains a “non-reliance clause” stating that neither party is relying on any representations made by the other party that are not included in the written contract. Some states allow such claims on the ground that “fraud vitiates consent” and such clauses do not amount to agreements to be defrauded. But other states hold that such clauses immunize the contracting parties from claims of fraud based on oral statements made prior to the deal. The Texas Supreme Court has waffled on this issue, first holding that contracts can be avoided on the ground of fraudulent inducement, Williams v. Glash, 789 S.W.2d 261, 264 (Tex. 1990), and then ruling that the sophisticated parties are free to bargain around this rule by non-reliance clauses, Schlumberger Technology Corp. v. Swanson, 959 S.W.2d 171 …

Texas courts allow fraud claims in real estate transactions despite a non-reliance clause Read More »

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court requires lawyers for the lender to be present and active at real estate closings

/ Mortgages

In answer to two certified questions from the First Circuit the Massachusetts high court has ruled that Massachusetts law requires the presence and substantive participation by a lawyer on behalf of the mortgage lender but that routine title examination does not constitute the unauthorized practice of law. The case is Real Estate Bar Assn for Mass. Inc. (REBA) v. National Real Estate Information Services (NREIS), 2011 Mass. LEXIS 244 (Mass. 2011).

Tenant allowed to keep emotional support dog

/ Fair Housing Act, Leaseholds

A tenant with AIDS and related illnesses won $25,000 in emotional distress damages from his landlord for refusing to make an exception to a no-pets policy to allow the tenant to live with his emotional support dog. The Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination made the award and ordered the landlord to allow the dog as a reasonable accommodation to his disability which included depression and anxiety. The landlord was also fined $5,000. read article

No foreclosure if notice does not include the name of the lender

/ Mortgages, Statute of Frauds

A New Jersey trial court has interpreted a state statute, N.J. Stat.. §2A:50-56,  to require mortgage foreclosure notices to include the name of the lender (the current holder of the mortgage) as well as contact information. Because a notice included only the name of the mortgage servicer, the court dismissed the foreclosure complaint. read article

Banks charged with failing to maintain foreclosed properties

/ Leaseholds, Mortgages, Nuisance

When banks foreclose on property and then purchase the property at the foreclosure sale, they become the new owners of the property. They would like to resell the property as soon as possible. But in a recession, that is not always possible and when banks retain title to those foreclosed properties, they are subject to local law regulations to maintain the property and ensure that it does not become dilapidated. But many banks have been failing in that regard. They are in the business of financing the sale of property not in managing it. That has prompted the City of Boston to impose more than $80,000 in fines on Wells Fargo & Co and Bank of America for allowing many vacant properties in their possession ‘to fall into disrepair and blight neighborhoods.” Megan Woolhouse, Banks high on list of delinquent property owners, Boston Globe, Apr. 15, 2011. Bank officials deny they own some …

Banks charged with failing to maintain foreclosed properties Read More »

Alabama judge denies foreclosure of securitized mortgage for failure to comply with the formalities of loan transfers

/ Mortgages, Real Estate Transactions

An Alabama judge refused to allow a trustee to foreclose on a mortgage that had been made part of a securitized package of loans because there was no signed endorsement on the note (the contract creating the original loan) when the mortgage was transferred to the trust that held the securitized mortgages. Because the parties did not strictly adhere to the writing requirement in the state version of the UCC (Uniform Commercial Code) — a particularized version of the statute of frauds — the transfer of the mortgage never occurred and the trustee has no power to foreclose. Nor did the trustee have the rights of a “holder” of the note under the UCC because it did not acquire the note in a manner that complied with the rules in its foundational documents. In effect the party bringing the foreclosure action could not show that it had acquired the right …

Alabama judge denies foreclosure of securitized mortgage for failure to comply with the formalities of loan transfers Read More »

Scroll to Top