California has joined the increasing number of states that have passed statutes prohibiting transfer fee covenants that require payments to the original seller or covenantor each time the property is sold. Cal. Civ. Code §1098.6 (2018 Cal. Stats. ch. 306).
Delaware has passed a statute creating procedures to excise discriminatory or otherwise unlawful covenants in recorded deeds. The stricken portions in the chain of title are deleted and can only be revealed by the recording office in response to a subpoena. Del. Code tit. 9, §§9605, 9628 (81 Del. Laws 409).
Affirming a longstanding rule of law, the Massachusetts Land Court ruled that a forged deed has no effect. McNeff v. Cerretani, 2018 WL 4370147 (Mass. Land Ct. 2018).
Massachusetts courts have several times ruled that access easements may be recognized even though language creating an express easement may be missing or ambiguous in the deeds to the servient estate. Hickey v. Pathways Ass’n, 37 N.E.3d 1003 (Mass. 2015) (access easement recognized over registered land even though it is not in the certificate of title to servient estates when mention of it appears in titles to the dominant estates and maps indicating the easement were recorded at the registry and available to the servient estate owners before purchase); Reagan v. Brissey, 844 N.E.2d 672 (Mass. 2006) (right to use lots as parks found from recorded map). See also Loiselle v. Hickey, 107 N.E.3d 1205 (Mass. App. Ct. 2018); Leahy v. Graveline, 971 N.E.2d 307 (Mass App. Ct. 2012) (both interpreting ambiguous recorded maps and deeds to determine if neighboring owners have access easements).
Although cities enjoy sovereign immunity from suit when they act in a sovereign capacity, they can be sued by tenants of land they have leased when they act in a “proprietary” capacity. Wasson Interests, Ltd. V. City of Jacksonville, 2018 Tex. LEXIS 999 (Tex. 2018). Cities act in a governmental capacity (and are immune from suit) when they perform traditional government functions for the benefit of the public or when they act at the direction of the state. Here the court found that the leases were made in a proprietary fashion (a) when they engage in acts solely for the benefit of those in the cities; and (b) when it had no obligation to lease the lots to private parties; and (c) it was not acting as a branch of the state when it leased the property.
Massachusetts law sets a thirty year limit to possibilities of reverter following a fee simple determinable or rights of entry following a free simple subject to condition subsequent. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 184A, §7. This contrasts with the 90 year limit for executory interests. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 190B, § 2-901. The 30 year limitation was recently applied in Town of Winchendon v. Brandywine Farms, Inc.,2018 Mass. LCR LEXIS 91, 2018 WL 2297177, 26 Land Ct. Reporter 253 (Mass. Land Ct. 2018).
The Third Circuit has ruled that the federal statute, 42 U.S.C. §1437f(t)(1)(B), that gives Section 8 (housing voucher) tenants the right to “remain in their housing developments, even after their landlord has opted out of the federal housing assistance program,” gives them the right to stay unless just cause can be shown to evict have the right to remain even if the lease term has expired. Hayes v. Harvey, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 24848 (3d Cir. 2018).
In a case involving a claim for a prescriptive easement, the Massachusetts Land Court has affirmed an old rule of law that denies a forged deed any validity whatsoever. Braxton v. City of Boston, 26 LCR 119, 2018 Mass. LCR LEXIS 30 (Mass. Land Ct. 2018). The court also noted that it was a crime to write and record a forged deed.
A court has held that e-mails are “writings” sufficient to satisfy the state statute of frauds, making a promise to sell specifically enforceable. Saint-Fort v. Sanon-Desir,2018 Mass. App. Unpub. LEXIS 301 (Mass. App. Ct. 2018).
New York City was the first city to guarantee lawyers to most low-income tenants facing eviction. Ashley Dejean, New York Becomes First City to Guarantee Lawyers to Tenants Facing Eviction, Mother Jones, Aug. 11, 2017.. When fully in force, the law will provide legal services to tenatns facing eviction who make below 200 percent of the federal poverty line. The program will be phased in over a five-year period. San Francisco voters passed Proposition F on June 5, 2018 that would require the city to establish, fund, and run a program to provide legal representation for all residential tenants in San Francisco facing eviction regardless of their income. Adam Brinklow, SF voters guarantee lawyers for evicted tenants: Proposition F passes with more than 55 percent of the vote, Curbed: San Francisco, Jun. 7, 2018.
