Case Summaries
(mere non-use of easement insufficient to terminate easement; owner erected fence in middle of driveway easement, constructed barn at end of easement, never spread gravel to indicate driveway; neighbor planted trees and mowed grass up to fence of easement for period of more than 15 years; court held fence and barn construction established owners abandonment of easement and neighbor’s acquired their portion of easement by adverse possession through continued use of their side of easement; affirmed on appeal).
(lower court divided inherited land equally among three children and denied request by plaintiff for equitable lien on property for improvements he made; plaintiff appealed; plaintiff claimed parents made an offer to each of the children that if any agreed to indefinitely helped the father farm the land, the child would inherit the property; plaintiff claimed he accepted the offer; the property was deeded to plaintiff after the mother was in an automobile accident; plaintiff agreed to deed property back to his parents so they could reserve a life estate; a second deed was executed and delivered according to notary signature in March 1996 conveying land to plaintiff with a life estate reserved for parents; it was filed in chancery court on April 23, 1996; a third deed, however, was executed conveying land from plaintiff to his parents on April 22, 1996 with the same notice of delivery by the notary signature; the deed was filed in chancery court on April 22, 1996; both parents were now deceased; lower court held deed was delivered at time of notary signature, which was March 1996 for deed 2 and April 22, 1996 for deed 3, rather than the time deed actually filed; appellate court affirmed chancery court decision on delivery, which meant deed 2 had no affect; appellate court also held plaintiff unable to establish doctrine of after-acquired property defense because he was aware of ownership of property at time deed 3 was executed; denial of request for equitable lien also affirmed because expenses claimed by plaintiff were for farming expenses for which plaintiff received income from activities).
(based on language of written easement, easement limited in scope to ingress and egress; accordingly, installation of utility lines impermissible; easement width of 45 feet determined).
(action brought by children to set aside warranty deed transferring 39 acres of mountain land from 98-year-old uncle to his 85-year-old niece; trial court found no evidence of any incompetence on part of uncle or undue influence by niece; court found long-term affectionate relationship between uncle and niece and previously between uncle and niece’s mother; children never mentioned concerns of incompetence when told deed would be transferred, they wanted payment for land; uncle also continued to hold farm worth more than $1 million at time of transfer; trial court denied request to set aside deed; children appealed; trial court opinion affirmed because evidence sufficient to uphold order).
(farmland on which above-ground irrigation system present was transferred; land was subject to two mortgages at time of transfer with one mortgage secured by the real estate and “hereditaments and appurtenances thereto”; irrigation equipment had been acquired for the land, the purchase of which was financed by a bank with collateral for loan listed as “all equipment” which included the irrigation system, a bulldozer and a tractor; bank filed financing statement that incorrectly identified the debtor as “Deepwater Seed Farm” rather than “Deepwater Seed Farms” and search with Secretary of State’s office under debtor’s correct name did not reveal bank’s lien on irrigation equipment; no fixture filing made in real estate records as to irrigation equipment because bank didn’t think irrigation equipment was a fixture; land later sold at foreclosure and buyer had no knowledge of lien on irrigation system; plaintiff, as owner of irrigation equipment brought replevin action; trial court ruled for buyer at foreclosure sale largely because plaintiff present at foreclosure sale, bid on property and made no mention of any claim of ownership to irrigation system; appellate court affirmed on basis that buyer was purchaser for value and irrigation system was not personal property).
(three daughters inherited property from their father in equal shares; one daughter brought partition action; referee found partition in kind of real estate was not possible due to ill-will between sisters and recommended public sale; one daughter objected but court ordered sale; issue of sale timely appealed; court determined order of sale was a final, appealable order in probate due to substantial rights affected by sale and decided appeal; on appeal, court held party seeking partition must overcome presumption that in-kind partition was preferable; facts showed property as a whole did not have more value than separate parcels and two sisters wanted partition in kind to keep land in family, including proposed partition which could have been used; court disagreed with proposed partition plan and distributed tracts and equalized values through additional assets of estate; court also held referee was properly appointed, but probate court not able to award attorney fees once action appealed, and court erred because sister as personal representative was not required to post bond to perfect appeal).
(challenge of city board of adjustment decision that challenger’s neighbors have existing, nonconforming animal rights use to keep cattle on their property due to use since 1970; appellate court found challenger failed to meet his burden of proof and marshal evidence; sufficient evidence existed to support board’s decision; challenger also failed to preserve issues at board hearing, so not addressed at appellate level; court also upheld district court order allowing neighbors to intervene in challenger’s action against city; board decision affirmed).
(case involves right to use and maintenance of road; express easement; road could be used for vehicles and farm equipment to pass; road could be paved and/or graveled by holder of dominant estate; express agreement said that road was to be 16 feet wide; owners of servient estate to allow free and unrestricted use of road by owners of dominant estate).
(agricultural land owners were operating existing farm stand as a restaurant in violation of ordinance; property owners argued farm stand was pre-existing nonconforming use; zoning required that homemade or home grown products be sold at farm stand and not more than 40 percent of other items could be sold; court held facts undisputed that present use of farm stand as restaurant was not pre-existing nonconforming use and violated current township ordinance).
(neighbors sued for prescriptive easement over driveway; easement not recorded within deed; defendants argued they had obtained prescriptive easement for 20 years; trial court disagreed; on appeal, court agreed defendants had been given permissive use of driveway, so they could not establish hostile use or claim of right required for prescriptive easement).
(plaintiff bought three parcels of farmland in 1998 totaling 200 acres with intent to restore the land to wetlands and convert the land into a wetland mitigation bank; land preserved by permanent conservation easement and obtained approval to sell credits to developers; at time of purchase, land qualified under state law “current agricultural use valuation” (CAUV) statute for reduced tax valuation; county auditor initially approved CAUV classification for plaintiff, but reversed position nine years later; county board of revision upheld auditor’s determination; trial court reversed; on further review, court of appeals upheld trial court’s reversal on basis that statute classifies “land devoted exclusively to agricultural use” includes land “devoted to and qualified for payments or other compensation under a land…conservation program under an agreement with an agency of the federal government”; definition of “agriculture” constitutional).
Brown v. Summerfield Township, No. 304979, 2012 Mich. App. LEXIS 1664 (Mich. Ct. App. Aug. 23, 2012)
(plaintiff owned less than 1.5 acres and defendant's ordinance prohibited the keeping of horses on such small acreage; plaintiff claimed preemption of state Right-To-Farm Law; trial court determined that plaintiff not covered by Right-To-Farm Law due to not being engaged in commercial farming operation, and granted summary disposition for defendant; appellate court affirmed because plaintiff provided no evidence of keeping horses with profit intent).
(class action filed by county government to recover damages caused by defendants’ intentional failure to record all mortgage assignments and instruments as required by state law and sought damages for unjust enrichment for utilizing MERS System instead; defendants filed motion to dismiss, which was granted; court held state law (IA) does not require a mortgage assignment to be recorded and no unjust enrichment occurred, so there is no claim upon which relief could be granted.)
(defendant created LLC to buy tract of land that would be rezoned in attempt to incentivize corporation to build poultry processing facility; land purchased and tract rezoned to allow poultry processing and other beneficial economic uses; plaintiff challenged rezoning and claimed it had standing to sue based on fact that fields on which wastewater would flow located in watershed from which plaintiff (city) obtains half of its water supply; court held that plaintiff lacked standing to challenge rezoning because tracts on which wastewater to be disbursed not subject to rezoning and sprayfields could exist regardless of existence of processing facility; plaintiff did not suffer injury from rezoning).
(appellate court overturned summary judgment that held quit claim deeds were unambiguous and demonstrated ownership of property to defendant; plaintiff presented other documents from defendant’s loam transaction with bank that required plaintiff and decedent to sign deeds enabling defendant to secure loan on property he was buying on contract from plaintiff and decedent; lower court erred in failing to find question of fact regarding effect of quitclaim deed under these circumstances and remanded for further proceedings; appellate court dismissed defendant’s counter claim for slander-of-title due to evidence presented.)
(plaintiffs sued defendant neighbors for condemnation of easement over defendant's property; plaintiffs had initially owned entire tract but later sold portion of property to others and retained landlocked portion without reserving easement; appellate court granted easement but Supreme Court reversed; plaintiffs landlocked their own parcel and waited 35 years to bring condemnation action; accordingly, no reasonable fact-finder could find reasonable necessity to satisfy Wash. Rev. Code Sec. 8.24.010 and Art. I, Sec. 16 of state constitution; attorney fees granted to defendants).
(plaintiffs purchased property in residential/agricultural zoned municipal area to operate horse breeding and rescue operation; 10-acre property housed more than 40 horses at a time; after complaints, city issued notices to plaintiffs of violations of health and safety ordinances; plaintiffs brought suit alleging ordinances were zoning ordinances that could not dictate pre-existing uses and Kansas’ “right-to-farm” laws; district court held ordinances were not based on zoning, but municipality’s right to control health and safety issues and no nuisance lawsuit was at issue; on appeal, the court agreed; state law only presumes agricultural activities are not nuisances if conducted according to good agricultural practices and not a threat to health or safety and local governments could enact ordinances to protect health; also, ordinances were not zoning laws, but focused on health and safety; as such district court’s grant of summary judgment to the city dismissing plaintiffs’ claims was affirmed).
(defendant obtained an oil and gas lease from property owners; defendant had a title opinion done for a previous lease on the tract that showed a recorded release of the rights; defendant required a second release recorded; defendant assigned his rights to plaintiff; plaintiff appeared on the tract to commence drilling and was told by landowner there may be an adverse drilling lease; plaintiff was told by the prior lessee that the release was a mistake, so plaintiff abandoned its drilling and filed suit against defendant claiming a breach of warranty of title; defendant filed summary judgment which was denied; after a trial, the court ordered damages against defendant for expenses in commencement of drilling; defendant appealed the denial of his summary judgment; appellate court held that summary judgment should have been granted as plaintiff failed to respond with more than general denials of undisputed facts; specifically court held that state law requires actual lawful claims be brought against deed holder before any claim for breach of warranty applies; in this case, plaintiff merely stopped drilling and vacated without actual claim of superior right, plaintiff failed to present any specific facts to controvert recorded releases of prior lease or production history showing lack of continued production resulting in termination of lease regardless of release, so appellate court held trial court erred in failing to grant summary judgment and reverse and remanded).
(son offered to purchase one specific trust property from his parents for agreed upon price as stated within one of the trusts and retention of life estates for parents and a sibling; deed prepared by son included purchase of all trust property for purchase price and severely limited life estates; parents signed deed without recognizing they were selling all of their properties; son began to treat parents poorly and invoked severe restrictions on their use of the property; parents filed suit for rescission of deed and constructive fraud and for damages caused to tractor by son; son brought counter-claim seeking forfeiture of life estate by sibling for failure to pay property taxes or insurance, conditions contained within deed but not conveyed to sibling; after hearing, trial court ordered rescission of deed based on breach of trust; appellate court reversed because trust stated son could purchase one of the properties for the agreed upon price so there was no breach of trust and remanded for entry in favor of son on deed; on remand, court held no constructive fraud occurred, no damages for tractor because it was in parents’ possession and no credible evidence of damages presented, and ordered damages to be paid to son by sibling for taxes and insurance, but would not forfeit life estate; parents appealed and son cross-appealed; appellate court held law of case was that no constructive fraud occurred so no review of that claim; court upheld denial of damages for tractor; court determined forfeiture would not be equitable especially considering the lack of notice of conditions and the fact damages had already been awarded).
(rancher brought suit under federal Quiet Title Act seeking easement rights over county roads leading to Yosemite Valley floor by virtue of status as abutting landowner under state law; district court dismissed claim because county’s claim for ownership of road was dismissed in previous ruling, which was not appealed, so it became final judgment; because rancher’s claim was based solely on county’s ownership, rancher had no claim or easement to road; any damage from loss of easement must be sought against county; further Homestead Act did not save claim as rancher had no specific claim to easement and all common law implied easement claims were extinguished by public grant; appellate court affirmed dismissal with prejudice; concurrence argued no claim existed for rancher separate from public access rights, which are not sufficient to bring claim under Quiet Title Act).
(son offered to purchase one specific trust property from his parents for agreed upon price as stated within one of the trusts and retention of life estates for parents and a sibling; deed prepared by son included purchase of all trust property for purchase price and severely limited life estates; parents signed deed without recognizing they were selling all of their properties; son began to treat parents poorly and invoked severe restrictions on their use of the property; parents filed suit for rescission of deed and constructive fraud and for damages caused to tractor by son; son brought counter-claim seeking forfeiture of life estate by sibling for failure to pay property taxes or insurance, conditions contained within deed but not conveyed to sibling; after hearing, trial court ordered rescission of deed based on breach of trust; appellate court reversed because trust stated son could purchase one of the properties for the agreed upon price so there was no breach of trust and remanded for entry in favor of son on deed; on remand, court held no constructive fraud occurred, no damages for tractor because it was in parents’ possession and no credible evidence of damages presented, and ordered damages to be paid to son by sibling for taxes and insurance, but would not forfeit life estate; parents appealed and son cross-appealed; appellate court held law of case was that no constructive fraud occurred so no review of that claim; court upheld denial of damages for tractor; court determined forfeiture would not be equitable especially considering the lack of notice of conditions and the fact damages had already been awarded).
Robinson Township, et al. v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, et al., 52 A.3d 463 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2012)
(by a 4-3 majority, court overturned portions of new PA law that regulates Marcellus Shale development on basis the offending portions that gave the state decision-making authority over local drilling decisions violated constitutional due process requirements and impermissibly gave PA Dept. of Environmental Protection power to make legislative policy judgments; court noted that 150 unconventional wells had been drilled inside boundaries of several municipalities and portions of law prevented local governments from taking action to protect health and safety of citizens, and required localities to amend existing zoning laws; distinctions in law that treated oil and gas differently from other extraction industries constitutional because distinction based on legitimate differences that justified different zoning classifications).
(plaintiff brought post-judgment motion to enforce earlier ruling granting her easement over property of two individuals to access her 15 acre farm; motion contained rambling complaints against prior parties, including claims against the city, which had been dismissed previously, and non-parties; trial court had dismissed entire motion; on appeal, court held that claims against non-parties to earlier action were properly dismissed; claims against the city were properly dismissed; case remanded for a hearing on claims regarding improper signage and intimidation of plaintiff blocking access to easement; court advised plaintiff that claims against nonparties for damage to her car, abuse of process, and other threats could be brought in separate tort action).
(plaintiffs were successors in title to land with oil and gas rights that defendant also claimed rights to; mineral rights determined to be insulated from Federal Farm Loan Act of 1916 five-year limitation and U.S. Supreme Court had also construed 6 C.F.R. Sec. 10.64 as giving blanket permission to Federal Land Banks to hold mineral rights more than five years; defendant's motion to dismiss granted).
(law firm awarded state court judgment against debtor in 2000; non-party bank received federal court default judgment against same debtor in 2001; both judgments properly recorded; bank promptly sought sheriff’s sale of property; property sold and redeemed; ten years later law firm sought sheriff’s sale of same property; landowners who redeemed property in bank action sought stay of sheriff’s sale in district court in which law firm’s judgment was entered pending outcome of quiet title action in district court in which real property is located; district court denied stay of sheriff’s sale finding landowners lacked standing and denied their motion to intervene in law firm’s lawsuit; landowners appealed; appellate court held landowners did have standing because as owners of property they have a protectable interest in the property that must be heard before a judicial ruling clouds their title; appellate court also held district court abused its discretion by failing to stay proceedings until quiet title matter resolved; of particular concern to court was law firm’s unexplained ten year delay in seeking to execute).
(defendants attempted to sell property consisting of 314 acres, buildings, and a home in South Dakota through a two-step auction process; two highest bidders after closed bidding came to make final bids at attorney’s office; defendants sought to assign a high portion of purchase price to value of home to avoid capital gains taxes; plaintiffs objected to amount assigned in draft purchase agreement and were told it could be negotiated; after placing highest bid, agreement could not be reached on value of home and when negotiations fell apart plaintiffs canceled transfer of all earnest money; plaintiffs brought suit for specific performance of contract; defendants sought summary judgment; court held plaintiffs claim for partial performance was denied as no performance occurred by them when earnest money transaction canceled by plaintiffs; summary judgment denied as to whether sufficient terms were agreed to in auction setting to defeat statute of frauds; court also unable to determine whether allocation of price of home was essential term upon which to agree in order to establish binding contract for sale).
(80-acre parcel held in joint tenancy with rights of survivorship between two cousins; shortly before his death, cousin quitclaimed property to himself in attempt to sever joint tenancy; deed given to attorney for recordation; attorney mailed deed to county recorder’s office; cousin died one day before deed received and recorded; trial court decided on summary judgment that quitclaiming deed self sufficient to sever joint tenancy and delivery to attorney for recordation was valid delivery; appellate court affirmed holding effective delivery of quitclaim deed by joint tenant to himself, when there are only two joint tenants, severs survivorship and creates tenancy in common; deed was effective upon delivery to self, so actual recording after death did not bar conveyance).
(tenant-in-common to property partitioned was also owner of adjacent property; no legal filings were made in partition action other than estate; after buyer had survey done indicating fence was not located properly, adjacent owner filed action to quiet title to disputed strip through adverse possession and boundary by agreement; summary judgment filed and court held for buyer finding adjacent owner who did not bring direct appeal challenging property description could not bring collateral action to partition action for description of property; adjacent owner appealed; decision affirmed by court of appeals and Supreme Court).
(winery granted agricultural and agricultural sales permits; township passed new ordinance limiting outdoor events at wineries to fewer than 24 events and all events were required to end by 10 p.m.; winery had been holding more than 100 special events prior to enactment of ordinance and sought nonconforming use status for continuation of events outside new ordinance limits; zoning board held uses were not permitted under zoning classifications, so events were not legal at time they were held and not eligible for non-conforming use privileges; winery appealed zoning board decision holding prior special events were nonconforming uses; on appeal, court affirmed board’s opinion).
(plaintiff filed claim against defendant for title to undeveloped eight acres of land alleged to have been in her family since the 1800s; no chain of title could be located for disputed land, but defendant’s property had chain of title from conveyance in 1895 from plaintiff’s great-great-great grandmother; grandmother conveyed property adjacent to plot at issue; later a boundary agreement that incorporated the disputed land was found in defendant’s title; defendant filed motion for summary judgment asserting doctrine of laches applied due to extensive upkeep and development on disputed land over 100 years, and in the alternative, property acquired through adverse possession; trial court granted motion finding laches barred claim, title acquired by defendant through adverse possession and Marketable Record Title Act applied granting title to defendant; on appeal, court held it was “hard-pressed to conceive of a clearer example of the proper application of laches” than the plaintiff waiting more than a century to bring claim to defend title to land; trial court affirmed and case dismissed).
(appellate court upheld trial court’s denial of plaintiff’s claim for failing to establish an easement by prescription over a right-of-way owned by defendant; plaintiff also failed to establish right-of-way was public road; court held plaintiff did establish actual use of easement; plaintiff’s claim failed, however, because use was infrequent and permissive; plaintiff also submitted subdivision plans for his property that included building a new road parallel to right-of-way at issue demonstrating no objective manifestation of the right to use easement; court also held right-of-way was not public road; no evidence presented to establish public accepted road as “public” even if a dedication of road for such purposes may have exists; all use of right-of-way was by few neighbors and permissive).
(community association’s appeal from decision granting dairy and creamery a permit for farm market or farm stand as defined under county ordinance; preservation board holding easement over property approved plans for building; zoning commission granted special exemption; board of appeals approved granting of exemption and district court affirmed board’s opinion; on appeal association argued dairy products not permitted to be sold at farm market and market would create negative impacts to rural community; appellate court affirmed board’s opinion holding county ordinance specifically permits sale of dairy products at farm markets; approved use is not a “commercial use” prohibited under state law; and no evidence presented of any negative impacts of proposed market).
Porter v. Cathey, No. 2011-CA-000398-MR, 2012 Ky. App. Unpub. LEXIS 443 (Ky. Ct. App. Jun. 29, 2012)
(mother deeded 20 acres of land and house to her youngest daughter after she moved home to care for her mother; later mother deeded entire family farm to daughter reserving life estate; only consideration for both conveyances was “love and affection”; mother later brought action to set aside deeds due to undue influence, fraud, and elder abuse after son found out about transfers; court denied protective order and allowed attorneys who prepared deeds to testify at deposition regarding mother’s state of mind and intent in deeding property to daughter; mother’s own testimony established she deeded property to daughter because she “wanted to”; trial court granted summary judgment to daughter; on appeal court agreed no undue influence or fraud established; court also held no private action for “elder abuse”; trial court opinion affirmed).
(two property owners sought to establish ingress and egress easements promised at time parcels deeded to them after burdened property owners brought suit to quiet title; first property owner had access through private lane that owner improved upon over time; second owner argued easement existed over plaintiffs’ property because creating access from public road would require significant investment; appellate court affirmed trial court’s holding that no express easement reserved because deeds stated only that it was “subject to” easements, but none were reserved; court affirmed finding of implied easement by necessity for first property owner using private lane, but overturned for second property owner; as to second owner, court found no “great present necessity” because public road on property could be accessed despite cost; court held location of home not readily accessible by public road was owner’s choice and owners cannot create their own necessity; first property owner was also given additional fifteen foot easement for snow removal over private lane by trial court; court remanded this issue for lack of evidence establishing necessity of width of snow removal easement; court also remanded for ruling on second owner’s claims of implied easement by prior use and easement by prescription the trial court had not ruled on; court clarified that on remand, amended statutory period of 20 years rather than 5 years did not apply to easement by prescription acquired before amendment).
(after discovering dilapidated fence and that neighbor was growing crops on 14 acres of his property, landowner sent letter to neighbor in 1992 requiring lease and $10/year payment for neighbor’s continued use; landowner promptly followed up again in 2004 after neighbor informed potential buyers that landowner did not own 14 acres; landowner got around to filing suit in 2008 to quiet title in disputed property; court held without giving detailed findings that neighbor adversely possessed 14 acres; appellate court affirmed finding neighbor proved adverse possession of property for more than 15 years.)
(property owner’s appeal from change in property classification from agricultural to residential; 35-acre plot with perpetual conservation easement classified as residential after owners built single family home on parcel; court upheld classification change because conservation easement required 80-acres and forestry uses required 40-acres under statute to be classified as agricultural; board decision affirmed).
Rogers v. Roach, No. M2011-00794-COA-R3-CV, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 402 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jun. 19, 2012)
(property owner brought claim to determine width of gravel road that provides only ingress and egress to land and for interference with owner's right to use road; easement had been in place for eighty years and landowners’ right to easement by implication not at issue; defendant landowner installed posts next to road that restricted plaintiff’s use for pulling horse trailer down road; plaintiff sought to have easement widened to forty feet and damages for interference with use of road; trial court ruled on directed verdict that no evidence existed that easement should be forty feet or that defendants had interfered with plaintiff’s use of road by installing fence posts; court dismissed plaintiff’s suit; plaintiff appealed; appellate court affirmed holding that plaintiff not entitled to forty-foot easement for lack of evidence; court, however, overturned dismissal of plaintiff’s interference claim; court found plaintiff presented evidence that she had used her property for riding horses and had pulled trailers to and from her property for many years prior to the erection of the posts; plaintiff also presented evidence that posts were too close to road for her to continue to use the road in this manner and the posts do not actually enclose anything and were installed in retaliation for a previous legal suit against landowners, which established necessary elements of claim; case remanded to trial court for further proceedings regarding interference and other unresolved issues).
(widow stopped making payments on promissory note signed only by deceased husband that was secured by mortgage signed by both; note held by bank and mortgage held by Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS); bank sought to foreclose and MERS assigned mortgage to bank; widow filed summary judgment motion to dismiss foreclosure petition arguing Kansas law precluded recovery because bank failed to demand payment during statutory period after husband’s death and that note was irreparably severed from mortgage; district court ruled in favor of bank on both issues; widow appealed; appellate court held Kansas law relied on by widow does not apply to liens existing at time of husband’s death; court also held MERS was agent of bank, so note was not severed from mortgage).
(quiet title action involving multiple deeds; plaintiff deeded property to his daughter, but retained a life estate; daughter deeded property back to plaintiff, but deed was not recorded until September 2004; daughter subsequently deeded property to defendant in July 2004, which was recorded in July 2004; in August 2004, defendant executed promissory note to daughter for free and clear title; other subsequent deeds were executed, but were not part of the appeal; plaintiff filed suit against defendant to quiet title to property; defendant argued he was a subsequent purchaser in good faith who filed his deed first, so he was owner of property; district court found defendant failed to provide consideration for deed, so he was not good faith purchaser and plaintiff owned property; defendant appealed; appellate court affirmed district court’s factual finding that no consideration was given for deed recorded in July 2004 because promissory note was granted after deed and was for “free and clear title” rather than recorded deed).
(adjacent property owners disputed property lines after survey conducted; nuisance and trespass action against neighbors brought by plaintiffs; counter-claim to quiet title to property and trespass brought by defendant property owners; district court held metal pins established boundaries and ruled in favor of defendant property owners based on acquiescence in boundaries for more than 10 years; district court also dismissed plaintiffs nuisance and trespass claims; plaintiffs appealed; appellate court affirmed district court’s order quieting title as substantial evidence established pins were treated as boundary for 10 years; appellate court also upheld district court’s dismissal of plaintiffs’ claims because no specific factual findings were provided by district court on claim and plaintiffs failed to file a motion to enlarge findings to address dismissal now appealed).
(defendants, married couple, purchased farmland from plaintiff that was subject to conservation easement in favor of plaintiff specifying that land would remain undisturbed in its natural condition and barred any uses that significantly impaired or interfered with conservation values; farming permitted on part of premises along with residential use; grazing allowed on other part of farm; plaintiff’s representative made inspection and noted violations of easement restrictions; all violations remedied before trial except plaintiffs’ filling of sinkhole next to home with 6,269 cubic yards of fill material so as to make farming easier on farming portion of land and protect residence; trial court granted summary judgment for plaintiff and awarded fees and expenses on basis that plain language of easement violated; dissent pointed out that court ignored other language in easement that would allow conduct at issue).
(directed verdict granted when plaintiffs failed to affirmatively establish boundary line in adverse possession claim with clear and convincing evidence; witnesses at trial unable to agree from photograph to photograph where boundary actually existed during period claimed or whether irrigation pivot’s location established boundary; plaintiffs appealed; appellate court agreed boundary “moved” and plaintiffs failed to establish essential element of adverse possession claim; trial court’s opinion affirmed).
(property owner brought declaratory judgment action to determine boundary and trespass claim for cutting and removing timber from disputed area; neighbor filed counterclaim against seller for breach of warranty deed; court held that based on 1979 deed and established legal principles interpreting deed, plaintiff property owner owned disputed section of land and awarded damages for timber; trial court did not make any ruling regarding claim for breach of warranty deed against seller; neighbor appealed all issues; trial court’s opinion regarding ownership of disputed portion and award for cutting timber affirmed; appellate court found trial court held disputed land belonged to plaintiff so seller breached warranty deed by conveying property he did not own; appellate court held that trial court erred in denying neighbor’s breach of warranty claim and remanded for determination of damages).
(plaintiff landowner owner brought action that easement over estate had been extinguished when parcels affected came under common ownership for short period of time; servient land was briefly transferred to common owner in 1976 before parcels severed again shortly thereafter; plaintiff’s title did not include easement; defendants purchased property with expectation of easement still listed on their deed; after clearing trees and preparing land for cranberry bog, plaintiff brought suit; court agreed registration system did not abrogate common-law doctrine of merger and easement was extinguished; court held parties expecting use of easement have duty to ensure privilege still exists).
(coal ownership and oil, gas, and other mineral rights in property were separately conveyed in different deeds; coal bed methane (CBM) gas rights in property were not specifically enunciated in any conveyance; parties moved for summary judgment on stipulated facts that included deeds to determine ownership of CBM rights; district court held CBM was conveyed to gas owners who were entitled to royalties; coal owners appealed; appellate court held coal rights were narrowly granted in language of deed but rights conveyed to gas owners were broadly granted; appellate court held that minerals with no known commercial value at time of conveyance not factually relevant when language of deeds provided clear notice of grantor's intent; argument that mineral owners would destroy coal owners' rights to coal in effort to collect CBM was unpersuasive to defeat language of conveyance; gas owners had CBM rights; district court order affirmed).
(dispute regarding 1/4 interest in mineral rights to property acquired through series of deeds; trial court held Duhig v. Peavy-Moore Lumber Co., Inc., 144 S.W.2d 878 (Tex. 1940) doctrine applied, which requires that when there is a reservation in deed to one person and title is granted to another both the reservation and title grant cannot both be given effect; instead, the reservation fails; therefore 1/4 reserved interest ineffective, so interest failed to pass to plaintiff as subsequent owner; appellate court affirmed on appeal but for different reasons; held Duhig doctrine inapplicable; intent of parties clearly conveyed thorough all contracts relating to transfers which clearly made transfer subject to previous reservations and conveyances; further plaintiff’s deed clearly referenced reservation, so plaintiff had notice and could not procure greater interest than for which bargained and paid).
(petitioners owned 23-acre tract with one acre used to raise asparagus, 18 acres for horse pasture, one acre for hay storage, 2 acres for farm buildings and enclosed areas for horses and one acre for home and garage; property held to satisfy requirements for ag land classification for ad valorem property tax purposes under MN Stat. Sec. 273.13, sub. 23(e); tract devoted primarily to agricultural use).
(property owner located near land acquired by U.S. government on behalf of Indian tribe for location of casino brought suit to challenge government action; government and tribe argued Quiet Title Act (QTA) expressly excluded claim to quiet title to lands involving Indian tribes; Supreme Court disagreed and held because property owner did not make claim to disputed land, his claim was not quiet title action; QTA does not foreclose action when there is no quiet title claim, so lawsuit falls within general waiver of sovereign immunity; D.C. Circuit affirmed and case remanded for further proceedings; dissent stated QTA should be bar to suit as opinion allows property owners to circumvent statute by recruiting others to make claims to reach result landowner foreclosed to make under QTA, allows for plaintiffs to circumvent expeditious resolution of challenges by bringing claims under other statutes, and brings uncertainty to Administrative Procedure Act in conflict with previous jurisprudence).
(plaintiff entered into farm cash lease agreement with landlord; plaintiff planted fall wheat for harvest next spring/summer; tenant failed to pay rent and landlord hired defendant to harvest crop; crop sold to elevator for $3,293.74; plaintiff sued landlord for breach of contract and quantum meruit and sued defendant for conversion, and trial court awarded plaintiff $3,950 (amount received on sale of crop plus value of straw, less $2,000 for rent owed); trial court rejected conversion claim and did not award plaintiff amount of crop insurance allegedly owed; court affirmed on all points - no "total loss" of crop pursuant to crop insurance policy and no evidence provided of amount of partial loss; conversion claim fails because no proof of knowing or intentional exertion of unauthorized control over tenant's wheat crop - mens rea not proven).
(two-acre family cemetery reserved by original landowner when deeding land to his son in 1888; cemetery property landlocked by surrounding property; surrounding property conveyed to current owner in 1973; county assessed property taxes against cemetery property, which went unpaid; third party purchased cemetery property for hunting and petitioned court for easement; surrounding property owner cross-claimed against third party and county arguing sale of cemetery property void and against public policy; county counter-claimed to partition cemetery portion from remainder of cemetery property and acquire easement for public access to cemetery; surrounding property owner filed summary judgment for issues raised claiming easement to cemetery had been abandoned by original owners and whether cemetery land obtained by adverse possession; trial court determined tax foreclosure on cemetery void and set aside sale and found no adverse possession of property could be established; court ordered county to take control of cemetery and granted easement across surrounding property for public access to and from cemetery; surrounding property owner appealed whether an easement existed, scope of easement, and public visitation of cemetery; appellate court held no evidence of actual relinquishment of easement by original grantors, so easement still existed; appellate court remanded to trial court regarding scope of easement and whether cemetery required public access as these issues were not capable of resolution by summary judgment).