61 results for 'cat:"Property" AND cat:"Due Process"'.
Per curiam, the Alabama Supreme Court finds that the trial court properly ruled in favor of a city's ban on short-term rentals. The city did not violate due process and was not precluded by estoppel from enforcing the ordinance, as claimed by a city council member and homeowner who used his basement as a short-term rental. Affirmed.
Court: Alabama Supreme Court, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: October 27, 2023, Case #: SC-2022-0741, Categories: property, Zoning, due Process
J. Fujisaki finds the probate court improperly instructed the successor trustee to immediately sell properties that are assets of trusts whose beneficiaries are the museum and music conservatory and distribute the proceeds to the beneficiaries. A provision granting the trustee “sole discretion” to distribute trust property in cash or in kind was improperly interpreted by the probate court as requiring an immediate sale of the properties. Vacated and remanded.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Fujisaki, Filed On: October 12, 2023, Case #: A165397, Categories: property, Trusts, due Process
Per curiam, the circuit finds the government officials were not entitled to qualified immunity on due process claims filed by the individual whose property was liquidated after he failed to claim two checks issued by insurance companies. The individual was provided no hearing or any notice whatsoever and has a property right in the interest that accumulated on the checks. Reversed in part.
Court: 6th Circuit, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: October 6, 2023, Case #: 22-1780, Categories: Government, property, due Process
J. Westbrook finds the trial court improperly granted the ex-wife awards for alimony and attorney and expert fees in an unequal distribution of community property and debt in the divorce decree. The court improperly adopted the wife’s proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law in its entirety, without modification. Though this does not in itself constitute an abuse of discretion, portions contain numerous legal and factual deficiencies. On remand, the court must reevaluate the awards. Reversed and remanded.
Court: Nevada Court of Appeals, Judge: Westbrook, Filed On: October 5, 2023, Case #: 84427-COA, Categories: Family Law, property, due Process
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Boulware grants the income fund’s motion to dismiss this suit brought by the property owner whose mortgage ownership was reassigned multiple times without notice to her, and then recorded as defaulted on and sold. The income fund was not the original note or deed of trust holder and took no action to enforce the deed. The foreclosure was properly brought by the substitute trustee. The property owner has not pointed to any law that requires the district court to consider anything beyond the date and order of recording to determine when the documents became enforceable.
Court: USDC Nevada, Judge: Boulware, Filed On: September 30, 2023, Case #: 2:22cv199, NOS: All Other Real Property - Real Property, Categories: property, due Process, Foreclosure
[Consolidated.] J. Siler finds the lower court properly denied the property owners' motion for discovery because none of the documents or information requested had any bearing on due process claims regarding the notice given by the city before it demolished several properties deemed public nuisances. Affirmed.
Court: 6th Circuit, Judge: Siler, Filed On: September 28, 2023, Case #: 22-3216, Categories: property, due Process, Discovery
J. McLeese upholds the trial court's finding for the district on a property owner's due process claims related to the demolition of its building. The owner received adequate notice, as it was post at the property and sent through the mail. Affirmed.
Court: DC Court of Appeals, Judge: McLeese, Filed On: September 28, 2023, Case #: 20-CV-0556 , Categories: property, due Process
J. Chen enters judgment in favor of Brookhaven on a property owner’s due process, equal protection and takings claims alleging the town prevented it from using its property as a car dealership with outdoor storage for motor vehicles, finding his takings claim is not yet ripe for adjudication and his other claims have already been litigated in state court.
Court: USDC Eastern District of New York, Judge: Chen, Filed On: September 27, 2023, Case #: 2:20cv2548, NOS: Other Statutory Actions - Other Suits, Categories: property, due Process, Equal Protection
[Consolidated.] J. Kernodle affirms the judgment of the bankruptcy court relating to the sale of a property owned by the debtor entities. A trustee sought to set aside the sale order for lack of adequate notice, but it was not a creditor or party in interest entitled to actual notice. Also, the debtors' notice to sell the property that was published in a newspaper constituted constructive notice that satisfied due process.
Court: USDC Eastern District of Texas , Judge: Kernodle, Filed On: September 20, 2023, Case #: 4:22cv711, NOS: Bankruptcy Appeal 28 USC 158 - Bankruptcy, Categories: Bankruptcy, property, due Process
J. Rice finds in favor of the city against the minerals company's claim that the former violated the latter's right to due process when it authorized activities to surface owners on the land where the company owns mineral interests. The company does not present sufficient evidence to establish its per se physical taking claim, because the individual landowners and the city made surface-level improvements to the land, which is not the same as running underground interferences.
Court: USDC Eastern District of Washington, Judge: Rice, Filed On: September 19, 2023, Case #: 4:22cv5055, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: Civil Rights, property, due Process
J. Baker partially grants the city's and officials' motion to dismiss a civil rights action brought by the business arising after the city council denied its application for a proposed multi-use development in the city. The motion is granted with respect to the claims against the mayor and city council members in their official or individual capacities. The motion is also granted with respect to the business's Fifth Amendment substantive due process claim to the extent that it is based on the council's denials of the remainder site plan. However, the motion is denied with respect to the business's Fifth Amendment taking claim. The business sufficiently alleged that the regulation and government actions at issue caused it to suffer an economic impact and interfered with investment-backed expectations.
Court: USDC Southern District of Georgia, Judge: Baker, Filed On: September 18, 2023, Case #: 4:22cv176, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: property, due Process
J. Pirtle finds that the trial court properly dismissed the sibling's suit alleging civil conspiracy, tortious interference with contracts, and fraud against his other siblings regarding a dispute over stock purchase agreements and ownership interests in the family farm brought after the deaths of other siblings. Statements regarding the other siblings' notice of prior agreements, as well as general allegations of collusion and fraud, were issues addressed in the underlying litigation. There had been a prior opportunity to litigate the issue, and the elements for issue preclusion are met. There was no abuse of discretion in denying the sibling's motion for recusal as the judge was not assigned to the underlying litigation. Affirmed.
Court: Nebraska Court Of Appeals, Judge: Pirtle , Filed On: September 12, 2023, Case #: A-22-278, Categories: Family Law, property, due Process
J. Thomas finds the trial court improperly dismissed the complaint brought by the adjacent landowner seeking to recognize an easement through the other owner’s property and to enjoin the other owner from interfering with its use. The court’s order stated that it heard argument and testimony from the parties, specifically stating, “the record showed that the owner bringing suit is already in possession of a recorded easement” and “detailed testimony was also given as to the land in which the recorded access easement covered.” The court erred by not limiting itself strictly to the complaint. Reversed and remanded.
Court: Florida Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Thomas, Filed On: September 1, 2023, Case #: 1D22-2304, Categories: property, due Process
Per curiam, the First District finds the trial court properly dismissed the case. The investor group argues that the court incorrectly denied a second oral motion to amend. The group has not provided a transcript or a statement of evidence, which provides an inadequate record. It is presumed that the trial court had a good reason, based on what was presented at the hearing, to deny the second motion to amend. To the extent the group argues error in the court’s denying its motion for rehearing without first conducting a hearing, it invited any alleged error by agreeing that a hearing was not necessary under the circumstances. “Invited error” doctrine prevents a party’s taking advantage of an invited error on appeal. Affirmed.
Court: Florida Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: September 1, 2023, Case #: 1D22-163, Categories: property, Securities, due Process
J. Zilly dismisses the Korean restaurant's claims for violation of its substantive due process rights in its lawsuit alleging that the city did not answer the Korean restaurant's calls for help for the Capital Hill Occupying Protest's foreseeable issues involving property damage, loss of business revenue and violent crime. The Korean restaurant alleges that the city created a generalized danger for everyone in the protest area and the Capitol Hill neighborhood, but this argument fails because the city's response to the protest was not directed toward the Korean restaurant.
Court: USDC Western District of Washington, Judge: Zilly, Filed On: August 29, 2023, Case #: 2:23cv540, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: Civil Rights, property, due Process
Per curiam, the Ninth District conditionally grants the property owner’s petition for mandamus challenging the trial court’s authority to revoke a probation order, requiring him to serve a sentence on a judgment for criminal contempt. The trial court granted permanent injunctive relief, ruling that other owners were entitled to a non-exclusive ingress and egress easement, enjoining petitioner from impeding access. Petitioner was ordered to serve jail time for contempt by his “deliberate” failure to close and lock a particular gate. The court’s contempt judgment orders the petitioner to be confined for a definite period for violating the terms of a permanent injunction and is found to be an order of criminal contempt, not civil contempt. Such an order that violates the contemnor’s constitutional right to trial by jury is void.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: August 24, 2023, Case #: 09-23-00170-CV, Categories: due Process, Contempt, property
J. Ho finds the district court improperly dismissed the property owner’s civil rights claims as to takings and due process regarding work done by the city, which damaged the property and caused adjacent properties to flood. The owners allege that city officials violated their rights at the direction of Houston’s mayor and city council, which is enough to establish liability. State law claims were properly dismissed as barred by sovereign immunity. Affirmed in part. Reversed in part.
Court: 5th Circuit, Judge: Ho, Filed On: August 21, 2023, Case #: 22-20019, Categories: Civil Rights, property, due Process
J. Erickson finds a lower court properly dismissed a property owner's due process claims against a County concerning its solid waste ordinance. The civilian argued that the ordinance did not apply to him, and that he was entitled to a monetary recovery after the County filed a criminal complaint, which resulted in jail time. However, the County sufficiently showed in court that it did not establish the ordinance in order to prosecute land owners as part of a "continuing, widespread, persistent pattern." Affirmed.
Court: 8th Circuit, Judge: Erickson, Filed On: June 29, 2023, Case #: 22-1499, Categories: property, due Process
J. Dyk finds that the district court improperly ruled for the government in fifth amendment claims contending vehicles taken during a criminal investigation had not been returned to defendant because issues remain in dispute as to whether defendant abandoned the vehicles. Reversed.
Court: Federal Circuit, Judge: Dyk, Filed On: June 28, 2023, Case #: 22-1378, Categories: property, due Process
J. D’Agostino dismisses a rental property owner’s federal due process, takings and denial of process claims brought against the City of Kingston, which allegedly condemned his rental property, a two-story house located in the city’s historic waterfront district, due to various violations related to the deterioration of the property’s front sidewalk, which he argues was caused by the city’s failure to manage the nearby stormwater runoff and even caused damaged to the property’s foundation. While his allegations regarding the property damage could be brought under a separate tort claim, he fails to allege a city statute, regulation or ordinance restricting use of his property. The court remands his remaining claims to state court.
Court: USDC Northern District of New York, Judge: D’Agostino, Filed On: June 21, 2023, Case #: 1:22cv666, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: property, due Process
J. Oberto recommends denying, in part, a county, sheriff and deputy’s motion for summary judgment on a property owner’s trespass and due process claims. There are triable issues of fact regarding whether a deputy violated the owner's due process rights when he demanded access to his property through a locked gate without a warrant.
Court: USDC Eastern District of California, Judge: Oberto, Filed On: June 20, 2023, Case #: 1:17cv1260, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: Civil Rights, property, due Process
J. Crenshaw grants, in part, the law enforcement parties' motion for summary judgment in a case involving a hold that was placed on a crashed vehicle. The vehicle owner's due process claims against the sheriff and the deputy in their individual capacities fail to overcome their qualified immunity defense.
Court: USDC Middle District of Tennessee , Judge: Crenshaw, Filed On: June 16, 2023, Case #: 2:21cv33, NOS: Housing/Accommodations - Civil Rights, Categories: property, Immunity, due Process
J. Hicks denies Union Pacific’s motion for judgment as a matter of law, or for a new trial in this dispute regarding damages caused by storms and flooding, exacerbated by the ranch’s trespass. There were questions of fact needing decision by jury, and the jury needed to make the determinations of credibility relating to the witnesses. Other arguments do not have merit. All expert testimony was properly admitted. Evidence regarding a dam was properly excluded. There was no error in the court’s refusing to give a missing witness and documents instruction. No arguments raised to avoid waiver demonstrate any alleged error that would warrant a new trial.
Court: USDC Nevada, Judge: Hicks, Filed On: June 16, 2023, Case #: 3:17cv477, NOS: Torts to Land - Real Property, Categories: property, Tort, due Process
J. Frink Wolf recommends dismissing a former city employee’s claim that his firing, for allegedly slapping a subordinate’s buttocks, violated his due process rights. He failed to demonstrate that he was deprived of an established property interest through conscience-shocking government action. As an at-will employee, he could not reasonably consider his former job to be part of his protected property.
Court: USDC Maine, Judge: Frink Wolf, Filed On: June 7, 2023, Case #: 2:22cv317, NOS: Civil Rights - Habeas Corpus, Categories: Employment, property, due Process
J. Klappenbach finds the trial court improperly dismissed the counterclaim filed by the citizen seeking a declaration of rights to an implied easement of pedestrian ingress and egress over the property at question in this imminent domain action. The counterclaim was wrongly dismissed as untimely. Whether it existed at the time the citizens filed their answer or after, the relevant rule of civil procedure permits filing beyond the 30-day limit for filing an answer. Reversed and remanded.
Court: Arkansas Court Of Appeals, Judge: Klappenbach, Filed On: May 24, 2023, Case #: CV-22-166, Categories: property, due Process