Easement can be narrowed by servient estate owner

/ Easements, Servitudes, Statute of Frauds, Title Issues

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in Martin v. Simmons Props., Inc., 2014 WL 128537 (Mass. 2014), that the servient estate owner is entitled to narrow an easement as long as this does not interfere with the uses for which the easement was initially created. The court applied the traditional rule that easements are encumbrances on land and to be construed narrowly. At the same time, the touchstone was the intention of the parties that created the easement, determined both by the language in the easement and the circumstances at the time of creation of the easement. Because the documents and plan creating the easement did not specify an exact width of the easement or require that it be kept open through its full extent, the easement owner was entitled only to such use as was needed to afford access to the dominant estate. The court also reaffirmed the traditional rule that […]

Easement can be narrowed by servient estate owner Read More »

Owners who lost title to their homes through nonjudicial foreclosure are entitled to raise defenses to eviction

/ Consumer Protection, Mortgages, Real Estate Transactions, Title Issues

The Supreme Judicial Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has ruled that owners may make affirmative defenses to eviction claims by banks that acquired title to their property through a private or nonjudicial foreclosure. Bank of America v. Rosa, 466 Mass. 613 (2013). Those defenses may challenge the way in which the bank acquired title to the property through the foreclosure process and and power of the bank to foreclose in the first place. They may also include any equitable defenses that would defeat the claim for a right to possession of the property (the right to evict).

Owners who lost title to their homes through nonjudicial foreclosure are entitled to raise defenses to eviction Read More »

Same-sex marriage in New Mexico

/ Antidiscrimination Law, Marital Property, Sexual Orientation

The Supreme Court of New Mexico opened the state to same-sex marriages in the case of Griego v. Oliver,  2013 WL 6670704 (N.M. 2013). It interpreted New Mexico statutes as denying the right of same-sex couples to marry and then held those statutes unconstitutional under the equal protection clause in Article 18 of Section II of the New Mexico Constitution. The court unanimously held that the statutes created a classification based on sexual orientation and that such statutes should be subject to intermediate scrutiny because the class of gay and lesbian persons has a history of being subject to discrimination and “deep-rooted prejudice against their integration into society.” Applying that standard of review, the court found the classification unconstitutional. The state justified denying same-sex couples the right to marry on the ground that male-female marriages promoted “responsible procreation and child-rearing.” Although this is a legitimate government interest, the court found no relation

Same-sex marriage in New Mexico Read More »

Same-sex marriage gets a foothold in Utah and Ohio

/ Antidiscrimination Law, Marital Property, Sexual Orientation

A federal district court judge in Utah struck down the state’s marriage laws to the extent they disallowed same-sex couples to marry. Kitchen v. Herbert, (D. Utah 2013). Holding the right to marry to be a fundamental constitutional right and denial of that right to same-sex couples a violation of the equal protection clause in the U.S. Constitution, the judge refused to stay his opinion. As a result hundreds of couples began applying for and receiving marriage licenses. The decision is being appealed by the state of Utah and may be overturned by the Tenth Circuit. In a related ruling, a federal district court judge in Ohio ruled it unconstitutional for Ohio to deny marriage status to same-sex couples married out of state when one dies in-state. Obergefell v. Wymyslo, 2013 WL 6726688 (S.D. Ohio 2013).  the judge ordered that the death certificates record the fact that the decedent was married. read article

Same-sex marriage gets a foothold in Utah and Ohio Read More »

Court finds sriracha hot sauce plant to be a nuisance

/ Nuisance

The city of Irwindale in the Los Angeles area brought suit to shut down a plant that manufacturers hot sauce made from sriracha chilis.  Neighbors complained that the hot sauce manufacturer  caused them great discomfort from the odors of the plant, that they suffered from headaches, and that the plant made their eyes water and their throats burn. read article  On the other hand some residents suffered no ill effects while others found the effects fleeting and inconsistent. The state superior court judge must have believed the complaints because he issued an injunction ordering the plant to cease the operations that were causing the offensive odors. read article The court did not order the plant closed, just to act to mitigate the problems it was causing.

Court finds sriracha hot sauce plant to be a nuisance Read More »

Housing discrimination by town officials still a problem

/ Antidiscrimination Law, Consumer Protection, Due Process, Fair Housing Act, Leaseholds, Real Estate Transactions

A number of recent cases has revealed the persistence of racial discrimination affecting municipal decisions about housing. The Sixth Circuit found, for example, in Hidden Village, LLC v. City of Lakewood, Ohio, 734 F.3d 519 (6th Cir. 2013), that town officials may have engaged in a campaign of harassment designed to induce African American residents to move out of town. The case involved a Lutheran religious organization that helped young people released from foster care or juvenile detention to enter society. The organization found a helpful landlord willing to rent apartments to the organization’s clients. At first the town officials argued that this amounted to an institutional use in violation of the zoning law but the town planning commission found otherwise. At that point, the complaint alleges that town officials began a campaign of police harassment that involved citations for minor offenses and unreasonable searches of apartments. The Sixth Circuit concluded that

Housing discrimination by town officials still a problem Read More »

Municipal attempt to induce residents to move because of race violates Fair Housing Act even if they do not move

/ Antidiscrimination Law, Consumer Protection, Fair Housing Act

The Sixth Circuit has held that §3617 of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §3601 et seq., prohibits conduct intended to encourage residents to move even if they are not denied housing or induced to move. Hidden Village, LLC v. City of Lakewood, 2013 WL 5811642 (6th Cir. 2013). The basic provisions of the FHA (embodied in §3604) prohibit denying housing for discriminatory reasons, providing unequal and discriminatory terms and conditions for housing, and expressing an invidious preference for buyers or renters of a particular race, sex, etc. Section 3617 prohibits coercion, intimidation, threats, or any interference with any person’s right to exercise the fair housing rights protected by 3604. Federal courts have been confused and divided over whether §3617 provides a remedy when there is no underlying §3604 violation. In Hidden Village, municipal officials were unhappy with a religious youth service that helps young people released from foster care or juvenile detention enter

Municipal attempt to induce residents to move because of race violates Fair Housing Act even if they do not move Read More »

No mandatory duty to record titles or mortgages so no evasion of law by MERS

/ Mortgages, Real Estate Transactions, Statute of Frauds, Title Issues

Several lawsuits have been in progress arguing that MERS violated state recording statutes by not recording mortgage assignments and thus cheating recording offices out of fees they otherwise would have earned. Interpreting Illinois law, the Seventh Circuit rejected that claim as have other courts that addressed the issue. Union County v. MERSCORP, Inc., 2013 WL 6017394 (7th Cir. 2013) (applying Ill. law). The court explained that Illinois law agrees with almost all other states in providing a voluntary recording system that is intended to protect those who record; that system does not require property transactions to be recorded for them to be valid. It merely protects bona fide purchasers from prior claims against which they had no notice

No mandatory duty to record titles or mortgages so no evasion of law by MERS Read More »

Settlement of Mount Holly case prevents Supreme Court from addressing disparate impact claims under the Fair Housing Act

/ Antidiscrimination Law, Consumer Protection, Fair Housing Act

The Supreme Court has twice in recent years accepted certiorari in cases to decide whether disparate impact claims are available under the Fair Housing Act. Both cases settled before the Supreme Court could determine the issue. The most recent was Mt. Holly Gardens Citizens in Action, Inc. v. Twp. of Mt. Holly, 658 F.3d 375 (3d Cir. 2011). The prior case was Gallagher v. Magner, 619 F.3d 823 (8th Cir. 2010). Another lawsuit is in process called Am. Ins. Ass’n v. U.S. Dep’t of Hous. & Urban Dev. (D.D.C., filed 06.26.13),  brought by the insurance industry to challenge the disparate impact regulations promulgated this year by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). read article Those regulations define when disparate impact claims are available and are consistent with the general outlines of the doctrine as it been developed by all the Circuit courts.  24 C.F.R. § 100.500(a)–(b).

Settlement of Mount Holly case prevents Supreme Court from addressing disparate impact claims under the Fair Housing Act Read More »

Scroll to Top