Engagement rings must be returned if the marriage does not happen

/ Personal Property

The Supreme Court of Viriginia held that engagement rings are conditional gifts given in contemplation of marriage and that, when the marriage is called off, the ring donor has a right to have the ring returned. McGrath v. Dockendorf, 2016 Va. LEXIS 187 (Va. 2016). The technical holding of the case was that such claims are not barred by the “heart balm” statute, Va. Code § 8.01-220, that precludes claims for breach of promise to marry. Older cases held that engagement ring gifts were permanent but the modern approach is to view them as conditional and this court follows the modern trend.

Engagement rings must be returned if the marriage does not happen Read More »

Sex offender cannot be evicted from state-subsidized housing because of regulatory limitation imposed after the lease began

/ Antidiscrimination Law, Consumer Protection, Due Process, Homelessness

The Connecticut Supreme Court has held that a registered sex offender cannot be evicted from housing subisidized by the state when he obtained the subsidy and the housing before passage of the state law banning such assistance. Shannon v. Comm’r of Housing, 140 A.3d 903 (Conn. 2016) (see dissenting opinion here). The court applied a state law that provides that any law that imposes “any new obligation on any person or corporation shall [not] be construed to have a retroactive effect.” Conn. Gen. Stat. §55-3. Under that law a new regulation that denies housing assistance to registered sex offenders could not be applied retroactively. The Court noted, however, that “although there is a property interest in the receipt of a public benefit so long as it is available, without statutory terms restricting its authority to do so, the legislature remains free to change or eliminate benefit entitlements by amending or repealing the

Sex offender cannot be evicted from state-subsidized housing because of regulatory limitation imposed after the lease began Read More »

Another court holds that sexual orientation discrimination is a form of sex discrimination

/ Antidiscrimination Law, Fair Housing Act, Sexual Orientation

A federal district court has held that discrimination because of sexual orientation is a form of sex discrimination. EEOC v. Scott Med. Health Ctr., P.C., 2016 U.S. DIst. LEXIS 153744 (W.D. Pa. 2016). Plaintiff complained of a sexually hostile work environment by deriding his sexual orientation. The court noted that “[t]here is no more obvious form of sex stereotyping than making a determination that a person should conform to heterosexuality.” The Supreme Court has never held that sexual orientation discrimination is a form of sex discrimination and a determination on this issue will have to wait until choice of the next Supreme Court Justice and an appropriate case.

Another court holds that sexual orientation discrimination is a form of sex discrimination Read More »

Town’s extension of an easement to the general public overburdens and exceeds the scope of the easement

/ Easements, Real Estate Transactions, Servitudes

The Massachusetts Appeals Court has held that opening an easement to the general public may overburden it when the easement had not previously been used in that manner, giving the owner of the servient estate the chance to prove that the increased use interfered with his retained property rights in the underlying land and exceeded the scope of the rights included in the easement. Goff v. Town of Randolph, 56 N.E.3d 893 (Table), 2016 WL 4258381 (Mass. App. Ct. 2016).

Town’s extension of an easement to the general public overburdens and exceeds the scope of the easement Read More »

An easement cannot be used to reach land to which it is not appurtenant

/ Easements, Real Estate Transactions, Servitudes

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has held that an easement cannot be extended even for a short way to access land to which it is not appurtenant. When an easement is created to enable access to a particular parcel of land, it can be used only for that purpose and not to access other parcels of land even if continguous. Taylor v. Martha’s Vineyard Land Bank Comm’n, 60 N.E>3d 319 (Mass. 2016).

An easement cannot be used to reach land to which it is not appurtenant Read More »

Why you should record your mortgage

/ Mortgages, Real Estate Transactions

In a straight-forward application of the relevant recording statute, the Massachusetts Land Court has held that a son who received a deed to the land without notice of a prior reverse mortgage is not subject to the mortgage since it was not recorded and he had no other means to achieve notice of it. https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/macourts/ 57 N.E.3d 1065 (Mass. App. Ct. 2016).

Why you should record your mortgage Read More »

An owner can obtain property by acquiescence even if the neighboring land is unoccupied

/ Adverse Possession, Title Issues, Trespass

The Utah Supreme Court has held that an owner can obtain property “by acquiescence” if the owner occupies a strip of the neighbor’s land in a visible manner without objection.  Anderson v. Fautin, 2016 UT 22, 379 P.3d 1186 (Utah 2016). Although “acquiescence” suggests that a neighbor is aware of the placement of the border and either agrees or does not object to it, the Court found that the same doctrine should apply even if the neighboring land was not occupied. Holding otherwise would reduce the security that comes from not having the neighbor object to placement of a fence. The doctrine in Utah requires a claimant to satisfy four elements:  (i) occupation up to a visible line marked by monuments, fences, or buildings; (ii) mutual acquiescence in the line as a boundary; (iii) for a period of at least 20 years; (iv) by adjoining landowners. The doctrine is distinguished from adverse

An owner can obtain property by acquiescence even if the neighboring land is unoccupied Read More »

Servitudes to be interpreted to promote the intent of the parties and not strictly construed

/ Real Estate Transactions, Servitudes

The Utah Supreme Court joined others in adopting the modern view that servitudes (restrictive covenants) should be interpreted to effectuate the intent of the parties, rather than interpreting them strictly so as to maximize the rights of the owner of the burdened property, as the traditional rule held. Fort Pierce Ind. Park Phases II, III & IV Owners Ass’n v. Shakespeare, (Utah 2016).

Servitudes to be interpreted to promote the intent of the parties and not strictly construed Read More »

Trespass claimant has the burden to prove lack of consent to the entry

/ Trespass

A trespass is a non-privileged entry onto land possessed by another. Privilege can come from several sources including consent of the owner and public policy. In a case of first impression, the Supreme Court of Texas held that the plaintiff in a trespass case bears the burden of proving that entry by the non-owner was non-permissive. Rather than simply proving that the defendant entered the plaintiff’s land, the plaintiff must prove that the entry was a trespass and to do that the plaintiff must show the entry was not done with the consent of the plaintiff owner. Envtl. Processing Systems, L.C. v FPL Farming Ltd., 457 S.W.3d 414 (Tex. 2015).

Trespass claimant has the burden to prove lack of consent to the entry Read More »

Courts wrestle with sexual orientation discrimination

/ Antidiscrimination Law, Fair Housing Act, Sexual Orientation

The law of sex discrimination has long suffered under the problem of distinguishing between discrimination based on sex and discrimination based on sexual orientation. Twenty-two states and the District of Columbia, as well as over one hundred municipalities, have laws prohibiting discrimination in the housing market on the basis of sexual orientation. Those jurisdictions include California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawai‘i, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin. Congress has so far refused to pass a statute prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination in housing, employment, and public accommodations.  Federal fair housing law does not facially prohibit sexual orientation discrimination but it does prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex. So far courts have not accepted the argument that sexual orientation discrimination is a form of sex discrimination. Christiansen v. Omnicom Group, Inc., 2016

Courts wrestle with sexual orientation discrimination Read More »

Scroll to Top