Justia Landlord - Tenant Opinion Summaries

In 2010, Crystal Kaye Coan purchased a property in Lauderdale County, which was subject to a mortgage. Coan defaulted on the mortgage, leading to a foreclosure by Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC, the mortgage assignee. Carrington sold the property to Championship Property, LLC in an online auction in May 2018. Championship then filed an ejectment action against Coan, claiming it was the title owner and seeking possession of the property. Coan countered that the foreclosure sale was void, and therefore, Championship had not acquired the title. In January 2023, Championship requested the trial court to require Coan to deposit $2,000 per month with the court clerk pending a final ruling in the ejectment action. The trial court, over Coan's objection, ordered her to deposit $800 per month.Coan failed to deposit the court-ordered payments for March, April, and May 2023, leading Championship to move the trial court to hold her in contempt. The trial court found Coan in contempt and, as a sanction, ruled in favor of Championship on its ejectment claim, awarding it possession of the property. Coan appealed this decision.The Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed the trial court's decision to require Coan to deposit $800 per month with the court clerk, stating that the trial court had the authority to enter the escrow order. The court also affirmed the trial court's finding of contempt against Coan for failing to comply with the escrow order. However, the court reversed the trial court's sanction awarding Championship possession of the property, stating that the sanction was not appropriate given the current posture of the litigation. The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion. View "Coan v. Championship Property, LLC" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a residential eviction dispute between a landlord, MIMG LXXIV Colonial, LLC (Colonial), and a tenant, TajReAna Ellis. Colonial initiated eviction proceedings against Ellis for failing to pay rent, providing a seven-day notice as required by Nebraska’s Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act (URLTA). Ellis, however, argued that the federal Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) imposed a 30-day notice requirement, superseding the state law. The county court rejected Ellis' argument and ruled in favor of Colonial. Ellis appealed to the district court, which reversed the county court's decision, agreeing with Ellis that the CARES Act required a 30-day notice.The case was then brought before the Nebraska Supreme Court. However, by this time, Ellis' lease had expired, and she had vacated the property. The court found that the case was moot as the relief sought by Colonial, a judgment for restitution of the premises, would have no practical effect since Ellis no longer resided in the property. Colonial argued that the case was not moot due to its interest in knowing whether it violated the law and the financial interest related to the district court's taxing of costs. The court rejected these arguments, stating that claims for costs are generally insufficient to avoid mootness.The court also considered whether to reach the merits of the case under the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine. However, it declined to do so, noting that the primary question in the case was a matter of federal statutory interpretation, over which the U.S. Supreme Court has final authority. The court also declined to apply the collateral consequences exception, which is typically used in criminal cases. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. View "MIMG LXXIV Colonial v. Ellis" on Justia Law

Harold Wallace, a tenant of the Housing Authority of the City of Talladega, fell while descending the back-porch stairs of his apartment due to missing handrails. Wallace sued the Housing Authority for negligence and wantonness. The Housing Authority moved for a summary judgment, arguing that the lack of handrails was an "open and obvious" danger and that Wallace had conceded in his deposition that he was aware of this. The trial court granted the Housing Authority's motion for a summary judgment. Wallace appealed to the Court of Civil Appeals.The Court of Civil Appeals reversed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of the Housing Authority. The Housing Authority then petitioned the Supreme Court of Alabama for certiorari review, arguing that the Court of Civil Appeals' decision conflicts with a prior decision in Daniels v. Wiley, where the court affirmed a summary judgment for the defendant landlord after concluding that the landlord had no duty to the plaintiff tenant with respect to risks created by the muddy condition of a sidewalk within her apartment complex because the danger was "open and obvious."The Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed the decision of the Court of Civil Appeals, concluding that the decision does not conflict with Daniels. The court clarified that while the Daniels decision is sound, it should not be interpreted as rejecting a landlord's duties under the circumstances described in §§ 360 and 361 of the First Restatement and the Second Restatement. The court found that the Housing Authority failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the principles set forth in §§ 360 and 361 apply to the circumstances in this case, and therefore, the Housing Authority was not entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. View "Ex parte The Housing Authority of the City of Talladega" on Justia Law

Westwood Motorcars, LLC leased commercial property in Dallas to operate an automobile dealership. The lease was set to expire in 2013, but an addendum allowed Westwood to extend the lease for two additional 24-month terms. In 2015, ownership of the property changed hands and Virtuolotry, LLC became the new landlord. Westwood sought to exercise its option to extend the lease for the second additional term, but Virtuolotry’s lawyers refused, asserting that Westwood had breached the lease in numerous ways. Amidst this dispute, Westwood claimed that Virtuolotry and its manager, Richard Boyd, harassed Westwood at the premises, interfering with its business operations. Westwood sued Virtuolotry in district court, seeking a declaratory judgment that it had not breached the lease and that it had properly extended the lease for another two years. Virtuolotry sued in justice court to evict Westwood for unpaid rent, lease violations, and holding over unlawfully.The justice court ruled in favor of Virtuolotry, awarding it "possession only." Westwood appealed the judgment to the county court at law. However, a few weeks before the trial date, Westwood formally withdrew its appeal in county court, and the county court entered a “stipulate[d] and agree[d]” judgment ordering “that possession of the Premises is awarded” to Virtuolotry. Westwood fully vacated the property, but continued its pending suit in district court, adding claims for breach of contract (against Virtuolotry) and constructive eviction (against Virtuolotry and Boyd). The district court ruled in favor of Westwood, awarding damages and attorney’s fees.Virtuolotry and Boyd appealed, and the court of appeals reversed the district court's decision, ruling that by agreeing to the eviction-suit judgment in county court, Westwood “voluntarily abandoned the premises” and thus “extinguish[ed] any claim for damages.” Westwood then petitioned the Supreme Court of Texas for review.The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the court of appeals' decision, ruling that the court of appeals erred by giving a judgment of possession from a court of limited jurisdiction preclusive effect over Westwood’s claim for damages in district court. The Supreme Court of Texas held that Westwood’s agreement to entry of the county-court judgment cannot reflect assent to anything more than what that judgment resolves—i.e., who receives immediate possession of the property. The court remanded the case to the court of appeals for further proceedings. View "WESTWOOD MOTORCARS, LLC v. VIRTUOLOTRY, LLC" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between a landlord, Daniel Johnson, and his tenant, Tina Vosberg. Johnson filed a complaint under Nebraska’s Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act (URLTA) seeking restitution of the premises, unpaid rent, and statutory damages for willful holdover. The primary disagreement was over the duration of the lease agreement. Johnson presented a 90-day lease, while Vosberg claimed she had signed a 1-year lease. The county court held an expedited trial on the claim for possession and ruled in favor of Johnson. Vosberg appealed this decision.Vosberg's appeal was heard by the District Court for Douglas County, which affirmed the county court's decision. Vosberg then appealed to the Nebraska Supreme Court. During the pendency of the appeal, the alleged 1-year lease period passed, Vosberg vacated the premises, and she stopped paying monthly rent pursuant to the supersedeas bond.The Nebraska Supreme Court found that it had appellate jurisdiction over the case. However, it ruled that the appeal was moot because the term of the alleged 1-year lease had expired, Vosberg had vacated the premises, and she was no longer paying the monthly rent under the terms of the supersedeas bond. The court also rejected Vosberg's argument that she suffered collateral consequences from the writ because a judgment of eviction on her record made it harder for her to find landlords willing to rent to her. The court dismissed Vosberg's appeal as moot. View "Johnson v. Vosberg" on Justia Law

Weston Bennion was injured when his apartment deck collapsed and subsequently sued his landlord, Dale Stolrow, for negligence. The parties settled, with Bennion agreeing to release Stolrow and his insurer from all claims in exchange for $150,000. The settlement was subject to related subrogation claims and healthcare liens, and Bennion promised to indemnify Stolrow from liability for any such claims and liens. Before making the payment, Stolrow informed Bennion that he intended to distribute the payment in two checks: one payable to Bennion and the other payable to a collection agency that had a healthcare lien on the settlement funds. Bennion objected and filed a motion to enforce the parties’ agreement, arguing that its terms did not allow Stolrow to issue a portion of the settlement funds to a third party.The district court disagreed with Bennion and suggested that Stolrow issue two checks: one jointly to Bennion and the third party for the amount of the lien, and another to Bennion for the remainder of the funds. The court of appeals affirmed the district court’s decision. Bennion then petitioned for certiorari.The Supreme Court of the State of Utah granted certiorari to address whether the court of appeals erred in concluding that the parties’ agreement permitted Stolrow to issue a portion of the settlement funds jointly to Bennion and the third-party collection agency. The court agreed with Bennion, stating that the plain language of the release provides for payment to Bennion in exchange for his release of claims against Stolrow and his assumption of responsibility for third-party liens. Therefore, the court reversed the decision of the lower courts. View "Bennion v. Stolrow" on Justia Law

The case involves Northland Investment Corporation (N Co.), a landlord of multiunit residential buildings, and the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA). N Co. sought a declaratory ruling from PURA that it could use ratio utility billing (RUB) to recoup utility costs from tenants in buildings without individual meters. Under RUB, N Co. would bill tenants for their proportionate share of utility usage, calculated based on factors like unit square footage and number of occupants. PURA concluded that RUB violated the statute because it prohibited charging a tenant for utilities they did not exclusively use. However, PURA suggested N Co. could use the "building in" methodology, incorporating estimated utility costs into fixed rent.PURA's decision was appealed to the trial court, which remanded the case back to PURA for further consideration of whether its decision on RUB conflicted with its conclusion on the "building in" approach. PURA reaffirmed its prior ruling, and N Co. appealed again to the trial court, which dismissed the appeal. N Co. then appealed from the trial court's judgment.The Supreme Court of Connecticut upheld the trial court's decision, agreeing with PURA's determination that the statute prohibits N Co.'s proposed use of RUB to recoup building-wide utility costs by billing tenants for their estimated proportionate share of the total cost. The court concluded that the "building in" approach was acceptable as it allowed for consistent and predictable payments each month and placed the risk of higher-than-anticipated utility usage on the landlord. View "Northland Investment Corp. v. Public Utilities Regulatory Authority" on Justia Law

The case revolves around Lori Randolph, who was injured after falling down stairs in a rental property owned by Aidan, LLC. Randolph sued Aidan, alleging negligence in failing to provide safe stairs. Aidan, in turn, filed a third-party claim against Sioux City, asserting that a city employee had inspected the property and declared it compliant with the municipal code. Aidan claimed that the city was negligent in hiring, retaining, or supervising the unqualified inspector, and thus, should indemnify Aidan for any damages owed to Randolph. Sioux City moved to dismiss Aidan’s claim, arguing it was immune under Iowa Code section 670.4(1)(j).The district court denied Sioux City's motion to dismiss Aidan's claim. Sioux City and Randolph requested interlocutory review, which was granted. The Supreme Court of Iowa was tasked with reviewing the denial of Sioux City's motion for the correction of errors at law.The Supreme Court of Iowa reversed the district court's decision. The court held that Sioux City was immune from Aidan's claim under Iowa Code section 670.4(1)(j). The court reasoned that Aidan's claim for negligent hiring was "based upon" the negligence of Sioux City's employee in inspecting the stairs. Therefore, the claim fell within the scope of the immunity provided by section 670.4(1)(j). The court remanded the case for further proceedings, including the dismissal of Aidan's claim against Sioux City. View "Randolph v. Aidan, LLC" on Justia Law

The case involves T & C Construction Services and Theodore Miller (collectively, T & C), who operate a rental building in St. Albans, West Virginia. The City of St. Albans inspected the premises after a tenant reported a fire, revealing numerous fire hazards and building code violations. The City issued two citations for these violations, and the St. Albans Municipal Court fined T & C $81,250.00 for the fire code violations and $116,900.00 for the building code violations. After T & C failed to appeal these orders, the City sought enforcement in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County.The Circuit Court of Kanawha County issued a cease-and-desist order that enjoined T & C from operating its rental business on the premises, granted the City a money judgment for the criminal fines, and appointed a special commissioner to sell the property to satisfy the judgment. T & C appealed this enforcement order to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed the lower court's decision to grant injunctive relief, rejecting T & C’s challenges to the injunctive relief. The court found that the lower court had jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief and did not abuse its discretion in doing so. However, the court reversed the lower court's appointment of a special commissioner to sell the property. The court held that the issuance and return of a writ of fieri facias showing “no property found” is a precondition to a circuit court’s jurisdiction to order the sale of a debtor’s property to satisfy a judgment for a criminal fine. The case was remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "T & C Construction Services, LLC v. City of St. Albans" on Justia Law

This case involves a dispute over unpaid rent for a department store in an Illinois mall. The store was operated by CPS Partnership, which leased the retail space from WEC 98C-3 LLC. Saks Inc. guaranteed that it would pay the rent if CPS could not. However, when CPS stopped paying rent, Saks did not make any payments to WEC. This led to WEC defaulting on its mortgage, and the property was purchased by 4 Stratford Square Mall Holdings, LLC (“Stratford”) at a foreclosure auction. Initially, WEC sued Saks for damages. Later, Stratford intervened with its own claim for damages. The district court ruled only on Stratford’s claim for unpaid rent, finding that it was entitled to payment from Saks.The district court's decision was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Saks argued that Stratford lacked standing to sue, that the district court erred in certifying its judgment for immediate appeal, and that the district court erred in rejecting Saks’s affirmative defenses. The appellate court found that Stratford did have standing to sue Saks, and the district court properly certified its judgment for appeal. On the merits, the appellate court concluded that Saks could not mount any of its desired defenses as it had waived its right to present affirmative defenses to liability in the guaranty that it signed. Therefore, the appellate court affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "WEC 98C-3 LLC v. SFA Holdings Inc." on Justia Law