Landlord held not liable under Virginia law for negligently harming tenant when the harm resulted from a failure to correct a defect that the landlord knew about

/ Leaseholds

Applying Virginia law, the Fourth Circuit held that landlords are not liable to tenants for harm caused by an omission. In this case, although notified of a leaky skylight, the landlord failed to fix it. When the tenant slipped on water that entered the house through the defective skylight and sued the landlord for negligence, the landlord was held to be immune the landlord had not caused the defect by any affirmative action. Metz v. McCarthy, 167 F.4th 722 (4th Cir. 2026). Note that other jurisdictions reject that view. Hemmings v. Pelham Wood Ltd. Liability Ltd. P’ship, 826 A.2d 443 (Md. 2003); Childs v. Purll, 882 A.2d 227 (D.C. 2005); Goffe v. Pickard, 588 A.2d 265 (D.C. 1991); Gregory v. Fourthwest Invs., Ltd., 754 P.2d 89 (Utah 1988).

Landlord held not liable under Virginia law for negligently harming tenant when the harm resulted from a failure to correct a defect that the landlord knew about Read More »

Deeds are subject to reformation when there is a mutual mistake and they fail to accurately reflect the intent of the parties who created the easement

/ Easements, Real Estate Transactions, Title Issues

A deed created an easement in favor of the grantee to access a river from the dominant estate but it was mistakenly worded so that it did not extend all the way to the river. The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed that the easement language in the deed could be reformed to achieve the intent of both parties, especially when subsequent conduct had shown mutual agreement to allow access to the river. Fink v. Lawson, 30 N.W.3d 582 (Iowa 2026). The court explained that the key is to achieve the grantor’s intent although it also focused on the intent of both parties.

Deeds are subject to reformation when there is a mutual mistake and they fail to accurately reflect the intent of the parties who created the easement Read More »

Covenant prohibiting nightclub is reasonable, not against public policy, and enforceable.

/ Servitudes

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals has rejected a claim that a real covenant prohibiting operation of a nightclub was unreasonable or against public policy. DTLD, LLC v. Power Station Ltd. P’ship, 350 A.3d 1285 (D.C. 2026). The court explained its position that covenants are “disfavored” as “restrictions on the free use of property.” Id. at 1290. At the same time, they “give rise to reasonable expectations.” Id. Despite the conclusion of a city agency that a nightclub could be operated safely without any “undue impact” on the neighboring properties, the test for finding a covenant to be unreasonable requires courts to defer to the wishes of the covenant creators unless the covenant is irrational or causes harm to the public and neither was the case here.

Covenant prohibiting nightclub is reasonable, not against public policy, and enforceable. Read More »

Energy company ordered to remove pipeline when its easement over allotted tribal lands expires

/ Easements, Tribal Property

In a case that is both remarkable and routine, the Seventh Circuit has ordered an energy company to remove a pipeline that traverses lands allotted to tribal members once the easement expires. Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians of the Bad River Reservation, 184 F.4th 874 (7th Cir. 2026) In one sense, the case is a routine application of longstanding law that easements are limited uses of the property of another and when an easement has a time limit, the expiration of the allotted time automatically ends rights under the easement. Since the rights under the easement have terminated, further intrusion on the underlying land is a trespass that can be remedied by ejectment. In another sense, the case is notable for treating tribal allotments (which are generally subject to a restraint on alienation) as property that is equally entitled to protection from trespass as

Energy company ordered to remove pipeline when its easement over allotted tribal lands expires Read More »

No summary process for eviction when tenant holds an option to purchase under the lease

/ Leaseholds

The Nebraska Supreme Court has held that a tenant cannot be evicted using summary process procedure when the tenant holds an option to purchase under the terms of the lease and when the lease imposes a restraint on alienation of the property without giving the tenants an opportunity to exercise the option. Martens v. BB’s Childcare, LLC, 34 N.W.3d 393 (Neb. 2026). The court reasoned that the case involved a “title dispute” and that took it outside the ambit of cases governed by the summary process statute, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25–21,29 et seq. Such cases were governed by a different statute.

No summary process for eviction when tenant holds an option to purchase under the lease Read More »

Personal property can be partitioned

/ Concurrent or Common Ownership, Personal Property

The Supreme Court of Wyoming has held that under Wyoming law, partition is available as a remedy for joint owners of personal property (in this case, cars). Navarro v. Oros-Garcia, 589 P.3d 335 (Wyo. 2026). The court noted that the state partition statute governed partition of real property, not personal property, but that the common law allows partition of personal property. It does so in order to “avoid the inconvenience and dissension arising from the joint possession of property” and also “facilitates transmission of title, thereby avoiding unreasonable restraints on the use and enjoyment of property.” (¶ 15)

Personal property can be partitioned Read More »

Mowing grass & trimming bushes not sufficiently “open and notorious” to justify adverse possession

/ Adverse Possession

The Supreme Court of Ohio has held that mowing grass and trimming bushes is not sufficiently “open and notorious” to put a reasonable owner on notice that someone is taking possession of the land. NC Enters., LLC v. Norfolk & W. Ry., 2026 WL 1113731 (Ohio 2026). Some other courts agree. See Siedlik v. Nissen, 931 N.W.2d 439 (Neb. 2019); Warren v. Burnham, 573 P.3d 421 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). The holding is notable since some other courts have found to the contrary. See Union Cemetery Burial Soc’y of N. Smithfield v. Foisy, 292 A.3d 1205 (R.I. 2023); Jutting v. Hendrix, 606 N.W.2d 140, 142 (S.D. 2000). Cf. Ballard v. Harman, 737 N.E.2d 411 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (planting 50 trees sufficient to obtain adverse possession). The court justified its ruling by taking the possession that adverse possession is “disfavored” and the requirements to show its various elements “are stringent.”

Mowing grass & trimming bushes not sufficiently “open and notorious” to justify adverse possession Read More »

Washington Supreme Court prohibits private nonjudicial foreclosure when the mortgage note is not a negotiable instrument

/ Mortgages, Real Estate Transactions

After the subprime crisis, some courts became quite strict in their requirements for foreclosures, both nonjudicial and judicial, while other courts were far more lenient in forgiving banks who did not strictly comply with statutory requirements to prove a right to foreclose. A recent case by the Supreme Court of Washington held that the beneficiary of a deed of trust (similar to a mortgage arrangement) could not engage in a private, nonjudicial foreclosure because state law defined the beneficiary entitled to private foreclosure as one who was the “holder” of the promissory note which was the basis of the lien on the property. The Court interpreted the word “holder” in the state foreclosure statute to mean the holder of a negotiable instrument as defined by the Uniform Commercial Code. Since the note in this case was not a negotiable instrument, nonjudicial foreclosure was not available. Certification from the U.S. District.

Washington Supreme Court prohibits private nonjudicial foreclosure when the mortgage note is not a negotiable instrument Read More »

Rhode Island Supreme Court allows foreclosure even though the promissory note has been lost

/ Mortgages

While the ordinary way to foreclose on real estate is to produce the note or other evidence that one is a party entitled to enforce the note, foreclosure may be commenced even when the note cannot be produced even if the current mortgagee cannot produce the note and never possessed it. Porch Swing Holdings LLC v. Mallory, 345 A.3d 404 (R.I. 2025). Rhode Island had precedents which held that the holder of the mortgage has the right to foreclose. In this case, the mortgage was placed in the name of MERS (Mortgage Electronic Registration Service) and gave it the power to foreclose  (the “power of sale”) and to assign the power to foreclose to another. Not all courts agree and the confusion created by the subprime mortgage crisis led to conflicting court judgments about how a mortgagee can prove they have the right to foreclose. In general, the note holder

Rhode Island Supreme Court allows foreclosure even though the promissory note has been lost Read More »

Fee simple grant “to A and his heirs and assigns forever” does not convey any property rights to the “heirs” or “assigns”

/ Estates and Future Interests, Real Estate Transactions

In an elementary explanation of a doctrine familiar to almost all first year law students, the Fifth Circuit (applying Texas law) reaffirmed that the words “and his heirs” in a deed are “words of limitation” meant to define the estate as a fee simple absolute rather than “words of purchase” which would vest a future interest in the heirs. Brown v. Carrington, 2025 WL 3172647 (5th Cir. 2025). While the wording added “and assigns forever,” the court held that this is not sufficient to alter the rule based on the presumption against forfeitures that a conveyance does not create a future interest unless the language purporting to do so is clear and cannot be interpreted any other way. The wording here used the magic phrase “and his heirs” so the language that followed should be interpreted in the same vein as words of limitation, not words of purchase.

Fee simple grant “to A and his heirs and assigns forever” does not convey any property rights to the “heirs” or “assigns” Read More »

Scroll to Top