Justia Landlord - Tenant Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff, who leased commercial property from Defendant, filed a complaint with the Montana Human Rights Bureau, alleging that Defendant violated the Montana Human Rights Act (MHRA) by sexually harassing her. The Montana Human Rights Commission ruled that Plaintiff could proceed with her claim because the MHRA “prohibits unlawful discrimination in commercial property transactions, as well as all other real estate transactions.” The district court vacated the Commission’s decision and reinstated the hearing officer’s, ruling that the Commission violated Defendant’s right to due process by analyzing Plaintiff’s action under the MHRA’s real estate provisions. The Supreme Court remanded, directing the district court to resolve the issue that formed the alternate basis for Defendant’s challenge to the Commission’s decision - whether the MHRA’s real estate provisions applied to Plaintiff’s commercial lease. On remand, the district court ruled that the MHRA’s real estate provisions prohibit discrimination in commercial real estate transactions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the MHRA applies to Plaintiff’s commercial lease. View "Bates v. Neva" on Justia Law

Gail and Scott Helm filed a personal injury action against Gallo Realty, Inc., one of its real estate agents, and 206 Massachusetts Ave, LLC (owner of the property). The Helms rented a beach house at 206 Massachusetts Avenue in Lewes for a week in 2010. As Gail descended the stairs, she fell and sustained injuries. Gail sought to recover damages based on claims of negligence and breach of contract; Scott claimed loss of consortium. The Superior Court granted defendants' motions for summary judgment, dismissing the Helms' claims. The Helms appealed, arguing: (1) the Superior Court erred in granting defendants' motion for summary judgment on the issue of primary risk assumption and comparative negligence as a matter of law; (2) the Superior Court erred in holding that an indemnification clause provision in the lease protected defendants from liability; and (3) the Superior Court erred in granting summary judgment on the contract claims. After review, the Supreme Court concluded the Superior Court applied both the doctrine of primary assumption of risk and the doctrine of comparative negligence incorrectly. The record reflected that the Superior Court never specifically based its decision on the indemnification clause. The Superior Court's initial ruling in favor of defendants was only on the negligence claims. Furthermore, the Supreme Court found that the record reflected that the Superior Court's dismissive rulings on the Helms' contract claim was "cursory and inextricably intertwined" with its erroneous rulings on the negligence claims. As such, the Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court and remanded this case for further proceedings. View "Helm v. 206 Massachusetts Avenue,LLC" on Justia Law

SmartLease USA, LLC was a limited liability company with three principals, Kent Guthrie, Tony Marshall, and Steve Furst, which described itself in a business proposal as an entity seeking "to capitalize on the demand for quality housing [in the Williston Basin] by providing a high quality, exceptionally clean and professionally managed RV/mobile park" in partnership with a landowner. The Abelmanns owned farmland in the Williston Basin. They executed a written agreement to lease approximately 110 acres of their farmland to SmartLease for the stated purpose of "use as a short/long term RV (recreational vehicle), mobile home, cabin units, and truck parking." According to the Abelmanns, SmartLease agreed to develop the leased land into a high quality, clean, and professionally managed full service RV and mobile home park for housing and accommodations for the labor force in northwestern North Dakota. They claimed SmartLease started to develop the land, but thereafter neglected its obligations under the written lease. They claimed SmartLease failed to pay them rent or the security deposits required by the lease and failed to provide proper management for the land. According to them, a property manager hired by SmartLease, Aaron Smith, failed to provide proper on-sight management for the property and eventually quit, which resulted in no on-site management for the property. The Ablemanns claimed they provided SmartLease with written notice of termination of the lease in February 2013, and claimed SmartLease refused to vacate the premises and attempted to transfer the lease to a third party. In May 2013, the Abelmanns served SmartLease with a notice of intention to evict. The Abelmanns appealed the dismissal of their eviction action against SmartLease. The Abelmanns argued the district court erred as a matter of law in construing their written lease with SmartLease and in determining any breaches of the lease by SmartLease were immaterial and of nonessential terms. The Supreme Court agreed, reversed and remanded. The Court concluded the district court erred in interpreting the purpose of the parties' lease and failed to make adequate findings to understand the basis for its decision. View "Abelmann v. SmartLease USA, L.L.C." on Justia Law

Pro se appellant Cody Schmitt appealed a district court's eviction order, arguing service of an amended notice of eviction was insufficient. Schmitt and Lisa Stahlberg resided in a mobile home located on property owned by Rodney and Pamela Schmitt. Stahlberg resided on the property since April 25, 2013, and Schmitt resided on the property prior to that. There was no written lease between the parties. On March 19, 2014, Rodney and Pamela Schmitt sent Cody Schmitt and Stahlberg an amended notice of eviction, directing Cody Schmitt vacate by April 15, 2014, and Stahlberg vacate within three days. Cody Schmitt and Stahlberg did not vacate the property by April 15, 2014. On April 17, 2014, the Pierce County Sheriff's Office served Cody Schmitt and Stahlberg with the notice of intention to evict them from the property. According to the notice of intention to evict, Cody Schmitt and Stahlberg had three days to vacate the property. After three days elapsed, Cody Schmitt and Stahlberg remained on the property. Accordingly, Rodney and Pamela Schmitt started this eviction action requesting the district court order Cody Schmitt and Stahlberg to vacate the property. A hearing was held on the eviction action. On May 2, 2014, the district court issued an Eviction Order requiring Cody Schmitt and Stahlberg vacate the property by May 13, 2014. Cody Schmitt appealed the district court's decision. Having no transcript to review of the district court's evidentiary hearing, the Supreme Court concluded the district court's finding that service of the notice of termination was proper was not clearly erroneous, and affirmed. View "Schmitt v. Schmitt" on Justia Law

This appeal stemmed from a 1983 Ground Lease of property in Pocatello which Quail Ridge Medical Investors, LLC (Quail Ridge) leased from Pocatello Hospital, LLC d/b/a Portneuf Medical Centers, LLC (PMC). Previously, Quail Ridge appealed a declaratory judgment entered by the district court which found PMC was entitled to an adjustment in the annual rent owed by Quail Ridge from $9,562.50 annually to $148,500 annually, and that Quail Ridge was obligated to pay PMC $416,812.50 in rent for the period at issue. The Supreme Court affirmed the court’s declaratory judgment. While the first appeal was pending, PMC filed a new action seeking payment of the adjusted rents. In the second action, the district court found on summary judgment that Quail Ridge breached the Ground Lease by failing to pay the adjusted rents. Quail Ridge appealed, arguing the breach of contract and breach of guarantee claims are barred under res judicata. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Pocatello Hospital v. Quail Ridge Medical Investor" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a property owner, and Defendant, a tenant, entered into a one-year commercial rental lease agreement. Prior to the end of the one-year term, the parties extended the lease for a nine-year term. Several months after executing the lease extestion, Defendant vacated the premises and ceased paying rent. Plaintiff commenced this action for rent arrears and an amount equal to the future remaining rent owed on the lease. Supreme Court entered judgment for Plaintiff in the amount of $1,488,604, consisting of the rent remaining due under the lease, reduced by the amount of rent Plaintiff was able to collect by reletting the premises. Defendants appealed, arguing that Plaintiff was barred from collecting unpaid future rents pursuant to an acceleration clause in the leasehold agreement. The Court of Appeals affirmed as modified, holding that the court below erred by limiting the damages hearing to whether Plaintiff relet the premises without allowing Defendants the opportunity to present evidence that the undiscounted accelerated rent amount was disproportionate to Plaintiff’s actual losses, notwithstanding that Plaintiff had possession and no obligation to mitigate. View "172 Van Duzer Realty Corp. v Globe Alumni Student Assistance Ass’n, Inc." on Justia Law

From 2002 to 2012, Defendant leased from Plaintiff business premises located in Portland. In 2012, Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that Defendant had breached certain provisions in the written lease. Defendant counterclaimed, alleging that Plaintiff had failed to perform certain repairs required by the lease. The parties went to mediation on their dispute and reached a settlement agreement through that mediation. Defendant later moved to amend its original counterclaim to add a second count for breach of the settlement agreement. The superior court concluded that the counterclaim seeking to enforce the settlement was moot because Plaintiff signed an agreement reflecting all of the terms of the settlement reached through mediation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Plaintiff executed a general release that complied with the agreement reached through mediation, the superior court correctly determined that Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on its counterclaim seeking to enforce the settlement agreement was moot. View "2301 Congress Realty, LLC v. Wise Bus. Forms, Inc." on Justia Law

Marina Pacifica was built on Long Beach waterfront land owned by McGrath and leased to the limited partnership (LP) in the 1970s. The ground lease was subdivided into 570 leases, one for each condominium unit. When LP sold a unit, it assigned the unit lease to the purchaser. The leases required owners to pay monthly rent to McGrath and an “assignment fee” to LP. Both payments were nominal ($15) until 2006, when they would be recalculated so that together, they would equal 10 percent of the value of the underlying land. In 1999, the Homeowners Association purchased the underlying land from McGrath for $17 million. Each owner paid a pro rata share. Owners no longer pay rent. The HOA attempted to buy out the assignment fee before the 2006 adjustment. In 2000, it purchased the interests of two limited partners (56.25 percent) for $5 million. It was unable to reach agreement with Lansdale to buy his 43.75 percent interest. Litigation resulted in a finding that the land’s fair market value was $60,615,500. The HOA instructed owners not to pay and filed suit, alleging that the assignment fee is invalid or overstated, and that the purchase of the underlying land extinguished the lease. The court of appeal reversed a holding that the assignment fee was an invalid transfer fee after December 31, 2008, under Civil Code 1098 and 1098.5 and directed the court to enter judgment for the HOA on contract claims. View "Marina Pac. Homeowners Ass'n v. So. Cal. Fin. Corp." on Justia Law

In the 1950s and ’60s, to encourage private developers to construct, own, and manage housing projects for low- and moderate-income families, the government insured mortgages on those projects in exchange for provisions, such as a 40-year mortgage term, an agreement to maintain affordability restrictions for the duration of the mortgage, and prepayment limitations or prohibitions. The Emergency Low Income Housing Preservation Act of 1987 and the Low-Income Housing Preservation and Resident Homeownership Act of 1990 instituted a process to request the right to prepay mortgages. There were substantive restrictions on HUD granting prepayment requests, limiting its discretion, 12 U.S.C. 4108(a)). Prepayment is one step toward renting at market prices. The Acts permit HUD to grant incentives rather than permission to prepay. Owners claimed that the Acts constituted an as-applied taking. The Claims Court granted the government’s motions: for summary judgment that the takings claims for some properties were unripe for failure to exhaust administrative remedies; for summary judgment that no taking occurred for properties for which mortgages did not include a prepayment right; and for summary judgment of collateral estoppel as to one owner. The Federal Circuit affirmed as to ripeness and prepayment, but reversed as to collateral estoppel. View "Biafora v. United States" on Justia Law

Canal/Claiborne, Limited owned property located at 1661 Canal Street in New Orleans. In January 1995, Canal/Claiborne entered into a lease with Stonehedge Development, L.L.C. Stonehedge entered into a sublease in June 1995 with the State of Louisiana, Department of Children and Family Services. The Department occupied the premises, remitting monthly rent payments of about $53,000.00 to Stonehedge, which in turn remitted monthly payments of about $36,000.00 to Canal/Claiborne until Hurricane Katrina struck the city in 2005. Following Katrina, the Department failed to remove its partially damaged movable property from the premises of the plaintiff’s building. During this time, the Department also failed to remit rental payments to Stonehedge. Canal/Claiborne sought remuneration for lost rental income. The issue presented in this case was whether Canal/Claiborne's quasi-contractual claim of unjust enrichment, based on the lost rental income, fell within the scope of that waiver of sovereign immunity. The Supreme Court concluded that the unjust enrichment claim did not fall within the scope of the waiver of sovereign immunity in contract or tort. Furthermore, the Court also found Canal/Claiborne's suit asserting a claim of unjust enrichment had not been otherwise permitted by the legislature in a “measure authorizing … immunity from suit and liability.” View "Canal/Claiborne Ltd. v. Stonehedge Development, LLC" on Justia Law