Easement can be narrowed by servant estate owner

Posted on February 17th, 2014 by Joseph William Singer.
Categories: Easements, Servitudes, Statute of frauds, Title issues.

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

Comments Off

Scotland recognizes same-sex marriage

Posted on February 5th, 2014 by Joseph William Singer.
Categories: Marital property, Sexual orientation.

The Scottish Parliament passed the Marriage and Civil Partnership Bill allowing and recognizing same-sex marriage. It is the 17th country to do so. read article The vote was an astonishing 105-18.

Comments Off

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

Posted on January 13th, 2014 by Joseph William Singer.
Categories: Consumer protection, Mortgages, Real estate transactions, Title issues.

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

Comments Off

Same-sex marriage gets a foothold in Utah and Ohio

Posted on December 24th, 2013 by Joseph William Singer.
Categories: Antidiscrimination law, Marital property, Sexual orientation.

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

Comments Off

Same-sex marriage in New Mexico

Posted on December 24th, 2013 by Joseph William Singer.
Categories: Antidiscrimination law, Marital property, Sexual orientation.

The Supreme Court of New Mexico opened the state to same-sex marriages in the case of Griego v. Oliver,  2013 WL 6670704 (N.M. 2013). It interpreted New Mexico statutes as denying the right of same-sex couples to marry and then held those statutes unconstitutional under the equal protection clause in Article 18 of Section II of the New Mexico Constitution. The court unanimously held that the statutes created a classification based on sexual orientation and that such statutes should be subject to intermediate scrutiny because the class of gay and lesbian persons has a history of being subject to discrimination and “deep-rooted prejudice against their integration into society.”

Applying that standard of review, the court found the classification unconstitutional. The state justified denying same-sex couples the right to marry on the ground that male-female marriages promoted “responsible procreation and child-rearing.” Although this is a legitimate government interest, the court found no relation between it and the decision to deny marriage to same-sex couples, partly because “fertility has never been a condition of marriage” and even if it was, same-sex couples can procreate and raise children responsibly. The court found that the “purpose of the New Mexico marriage laws is to bring stability and order to the legal relationships of committed couples by defining their rights and responsibilities as to one another, their property, and their children, if they choose to have children.” Given that purpose, the state could show no legitimate government interest in denying the civil status of marriage to same-sex couples.

Comments Off

Court finds sriracha hot sauce plant to be a nuisance

Posted on December 17th, 2013 by Joseph William Singer.
Categories: Nuisance.

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

Comments Off

Housing discrimination by town officials still a problem

Posted on December 8th, 2013 by Joseph William Singer.
Categories: Antidiscrimination law, Consumer protection, Due process, Fair Housing Act, Leaseholds, Real estate transactions.

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

The Sixth Circuit concluded that the landlord had standing to sue to claim violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. §§1981-1982 and the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §3601 et seq. The court also held that plaintiffs had presented a viable substantive due process claim. The court noted that the due process clause “protects landlords against irrational restrictions on how they use their property. Rationality may be a low bar. But the government flunks even that test when it tries to prevent a landlord of any race from renting to tenants based on their race.

The court also found a potential violation of §3617 of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §3617 which makes it illegal “to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any person in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of his having exercised or enjoyed, or on account of his having aided or encouraged any other person in the exercise or enjoyment of any right granted or protected [by the Fair Housing Act].” Although federal courts have been confused on the issue, the Sixth Circuit held that a §3617 violation could be shown even if there was no underlying violation of another section of the Fair Housing Act. In this case, for example, no one denied the youths housing or granted them discriminatory terms. Nonetheless, the facts sufficiently alleged that the town sought to interfere with their enjoyment of the right to obtain housing without regard to race.

In a second case, the Eastern District of New York held that a city violated the Fair Housing Act when it rezoned several parcels to prevent the building of low- and middle-income housing. The court found that the facts supported a finding of liability under both a discriminatory treatment and disparate impact theory. MHANY Mgmt Inc. v. Incorporated Village of Garden City, 2013 WL 6334107 (E.D.N.Y. 2013). read article The court found a discriminatory treatment claim (intentional racial discrimination) because there was sufficient evidence  to conclude that animus because of race was a significant factor in the denial of the housing opportunity. Evidence to that effect was shown by the fact that exclusion of low-income housing would impose a greater impact on African Americans than on whites, there was a history of racial bias in the city, and the sequence of events leading up to the denial of the housing opportunity that suggested a racially discriminatory motive. Although the city gave legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for the change in the zoning law, the plaintiffs undermined those justifications by showing that the proposed development would not significantly affect traffic and that other reasons given by the city were not supported by the available evidence. The court thus found that the proffered justifications were pretextual.

The court also found a disparate impact claim. Although the city gave legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for its decision (reducing traffic and providing for townhouse construction), it did not show that these goals could not be achieved in a less discriminatory manner or in a manner that did not perpetuate racial segregation.

Comments Off

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

Posted on November 27th, 2013 by Joseph William Singer.
Categories: Mortgages, Real estate transactions, Statute of frauds, Title issues.

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

Comments Off

Google library book project held to be a fair use under copyright law

Posted on November 21st, 2013 by Joseph William Singer.
Categories: Copyright, Intellectual property.

A federal district court has upheld Google’s library book project as an authorized fair use under the federal Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §101 et esq., Authors Guild, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 2013 WL 6017130 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). The court upheld the power of Google to scan copyrighted books held by libraries and to give those libraries digital copies of those scans. It also upheld Google’s power to make the text of those books searchable so that researchers could view snippets of those books and could search the books for particular phrases, words or concepts. The court ruled both practices to constitute a fair use, 17 U.S.C. §107. In determining that the ability to search the digital copies and to view snippets was a fair use, the court found that the use was transformative, did not supplant or supersede the originals, and was not designed to make a profit.

Comments Off

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

Posted on November 21st, 2013 by Joseph William Singer.
Categories: Antidiscrimination law, Consumer protection, Fair Housing Act.

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

Comments Off

Testers have standing to sue for violations of the public accommodation provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act

Posted on November 13th, 2013 by Joseph William Singer.
Categories: Antidiscrimination law, Consumer protection.

In Houston v. Marod Supermarkets, 2013 WL 5859575 (11th Cir. 2013), the Eleventh Circuit ruled that testers have standing to bring suits claiming violation of the public accommodation provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The mere fact that one enters property for the purpose of testing compliance with the ADA rather than to purchase products does not deprive the plaintiff of standing to sue for violation of the law. In an odd coda, however, the court noted that injunctive relief was only appropriate if the plaintiff could show injury from the store’s failure to comply with access requirements. The fact that he claimed he would return to the store in the future and that it was located 30 miles from his house was sufficient to show “injury in fact” and give him standing to seek injunctive relief.

Comments Off

Hawai`i, Illinois & New Jersey join the states that allow and recognize same-sex marriage

Posted on November 13th, 2013 by Joseph William Singer.
Categories: Antidiscrimination law, Marital property, Sexual orientation.

After passage of same-sex marriage laws in both Hawai`i and Illinois and constitutional litigation in New Jersey, seventeen (17) jurisdictions in the US recognize and allow same-sex marriage. The list includes: California, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawai`i, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington.

Comments Off

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

Posted on November 8th, 2013 by Joseph William Singer.
Categories: Antidiscrimination law, Consumer protection, Fair Housing Act.

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

In Hidden Village, municipal officials were unhappy with a religious youth service that helps young people released from foster care or juvenile detention enter society. It planned to house its clients in apartments leased from a private landlord. Following a zoning controversy over whether the use was a lawful “residential” use or a prohibited “institutional” use, municipal officials engaged in a campaign to make life difficult for the charity’s beneficiaries by issuing numerous citations for minor offenses and conducting a warrantless search of the housing premises.

The Sixth Circuit acknowledged that there had been uncertainty about the meaning of §3617 but held that it prohibits conduct intended to interfere with someone’s ability to obtain or enjoy housing whether or not there is an independent violation of one of the terms of §3604. The Court explained:

“[D]efendants argue that they may not be charged with violating § 3617 unless they separately violated at least one of the provisions in §§ 3603–3606. We disagree. Section 3617 nowhere says that it comes into play only when a violation of one of these other sections has also occurred. An example confirms the freestanding nature of some § 3617 claims. Suppose Alice says to Bob, a prospective home buyer, “If a seller ever discriminates against you because of your race, sue him!” Eve, a racist eavesdropper, becomes enraged upon hearing this conversation and threatens to assault Alice. At this point, Eve has violated § 3617, regardless of whether she discriminated against Bob or otherwise violated the fair housing rights secured by §§ 3603–3606. Eve has “threaten[ed] … [a] person,” namely Alice. And this threat was “on account of [Alice's] having aided or encouraged any other person in the exercise or enjoyment of [a fair housing right].” Eve threatened Alice because Alice had encouraged Bob to protect himself against discrimination relating to housing. The statute requires no more.”

Comments Off

Illinois is likely to become the 15th state to allow same-sex marriage

Posted on November 6th, 2013 by Joseph William Singer.
Categories: Antidiscrimination law, Marital property, Sexual orientation.

The Illinois House has passed a marriage equality bill that is virtually certain to become law in some form in the near future given the support in the Senate and by the Governor. Once that happens, 15 states will have same-sex marriage along with the District of Columbia. The outcome is more uncertain in Hawai`i but the legislature may vote in favor of a same-sex marriage bill in the next days.

Comments Off

First Circuit holds there is no federal remedy for discriminatory treatment by store personnel

Posted on November 5th, 2013 by Joseph William Singer.
Categories: Antidiscrimination law, Personal property.

Once again a federal court has held that the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (as amended in 1991) provides no relief to a store customer who was subjected to racial insults while trying to buy merchandise. The First Circuit held, in Hammond v. Kmart Corp., 2013 WL 5763267 (1st Cir. 2013), that the “right to contract” protected by 42 U.S.C. §1981 only protects the ability to enter a contract; it provides no relief for racially disparate treatment when one is in a store. Because the customer was able to complete the transaction (laying away merchandise), the store did not prevent her from “contracting.” Being subjected to “racial slurs and insults” as she was engaged in the transaction did not deter her from completing the transaction.

The ruling oddly protects those who are deterred from completing the sale but not those who insist on going through with it despite the discriminatory treatment. It also fails to consider the wording of §1982 which protects the “right to purchase personal property.” Nor does it comprehend that treatment while in the store is part of the contractual process; contracting does not happen at a discrete magic moment.

The federal public accommodations law, 42 U.S.C. § 2000a, does not cover retail stores so with no §1981 remedy, the plaintiff found herself wholly unprotected by federal statutes. The plaintiff did make a state common law claim of infliction of emotional distress, although it was not clear why she did not also make a claim under the state public accommodations statute, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, §98 which provides: “Whoever makes any distinction, discrimination, or restriction on account of race…relative to the admission of any person to, or his treatment in any place of public accommodation…shall be liable to any person aggrieved thereby…”

Comments Off

Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes authorize same sex marriages

Posted on November 1st, 2013 by Joseph William Singer.
Categories: Antidiscrimination law, Marital property, Religious freedom, Sexual orientation, Tribal property.

The Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes have allowed several same-sex couples to marry under tribal law. The tribal code is neutral with respect to the gender of persons who can get married and merely require one of the parties to be a tribal citizen. read article

Comments Off

Rent escrow law held constitutional

Posted on October 29th, 2013 by Joseph William Singer.
Categories: Consumer protection, Due process, Leaseholds.

The Ninth Circuit has upheld a city administrative program that regulated landlords whose buildings violated the housing code by allowing tenants to pay a reduced rent into a publicly administered escrow fund which is paid to the landlord once the violations are corrected.    Sylvia Landfield Trust v. City of Los Angeles, 2013 WL 4779664 (9th Cir. 2013). Four landlords challenged the program as a violation of their substantive rights under the due process clause. The court upheld the program because it was rationally related to the legitimate government goal of enforcing the housing code to protect tenants from unsafe conditions.The landlords had claimed that the tenants caused the problems, that their properties were not sufficiently substandard to warrant application of the law, and that the program was intended to enrich the government. The court rejected all these claims, noting that the law allowed landlords to prove that tenants were responsible for the conditions and that the program was designed to promote compliance with safety regulations, not to generate income for the government. The program therefore did not arbitrarily deprive the landlords of their liberty or property; nor was it taken ‘with deliberate indifference toward…constitutional rights.”

Comments Off

Same-sex marriage prevails in New Jersey

Posted on October 21st, 2013 by Joseph William Singer.
Categories: Antidiscrimination law, Marital property, Sexual orientation.

Given the clear statement by the Supreme Court of New Jersey on how it was likely to rule in the pending marriage equality case, (see Garden State Equality v. Dow (N.J. 2013). Governor Chris Christie decided to drop the appeal. read article. That leaves the lower court ruling (read opinion here) in place with its conclusion that civil unions are not equal to marriages now that the federal government provides same-sex married couples the same federal rights as male-female married couples but does not confer such rights on partners to a civil union. The New Jersey Supreme Court’s prior ruling in Lewis v. Harris, 908 A.2d 196 (N.J. 2005), had found it to be a violation of the state constitution not to grant same-sex couples the same rights as married couples but left it to the legislature whether to call the resulting unions “marriages” or “civil unions” or something else. While New Jersey conferred equal rights under state law to “civil union” couples, they could not grant them the federal benefits of married couples; that would have been true even if they had allowed “marriages.” But after United States v. Windsor, married same sex couples do have the same federal benefits and married male-female couples so that created an inequality between married New Jersey couples and civil union New Jersey couples that could not stand under the state constitution.

Comments Off

Same sex marriage to begin in New Jersey

Posted on October 19th, 2013 by Joseph William Singer.
Categories: Antidiscrimination law, Marital property, Sexual orientation.

The Supreme Court of New Jersey unanimously upheld the decision of a trial judge to allow same-sex marriage to proceed pending appeal of the trial judge’s ruling that the New Jersey civil union law violates equal protection by denying same-sex couples the same rights as granted to married couples under federal law. Garden State Equality v. Dow, (N.J. 2013). The court had previously held that same-sex couples were entitled under the state constitution to the same rights and privileges as married male-female couples but allowed the legislature to determine whether to accomplish this end by extending marriage rights to same-sex couples or adopting a civil union law. Because the legislature adopted a civil union law, such couples had the same rights under state law as did male-female couples; they had different rights under federal law but that was because federal law refused to recognize any same-sex couples as married for any federal purposes and the state could not change that situation.

However, after the Supreme Court decision in United States v. Windsor, 133 S.Ct. 2675 (2013), required the federal government to treat couples as married for federal purposes if they were married under state law, an inequality has now been introduced into New Jersey law. Before Windsor, civil union couples had the same rights as married male-female couples under state law but unequal rights with regard to federal law; that was something state law could not fix. But now that federal law gives married same-sex couples the same rights under state and federal law, it has been true that civil union couples in New Jersey are denied federal rights they would have if they were married under state law. The court determined that this likely violated the equal protection clause and that the state had no legitimate state interest to violate the constitution while the appeal proceeded. Same sex marriages will begin on Monday Oct 21 while the appeal in the NJ Supreme Court will take place in January 2014.

Comments Off

Trademark registration denied for a racial slur

Posted on October 6th, 2013 by Joseph William Singer.
Categories: Intellectual property.

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board refused to register “the Slants” as the name of an Asian-American band, despite its attempt to turn the name from an ethnic slur into a mark of pride. In re Tam, No. 85472044, 9/26/13. The federal trademark law prohibits registration of any mark that “may disparage or bring into contempt or disrepute persons, institutions, beliefs or national symbols.” 15 U.S.C. §1052(a). Even though the band sought to “take back” the ethnic slur by appropriating it (as happened with the term “queer” for gay people), the board refused registration because the derogatory meaning of the name was clear in context. The mere fact that the ones using the term were themselves East Asians did not automatically convert the term into one that was not disparaging. Note that the decision merely prohibits federal registration of the mark; it does not prevent the band from continuing to use the name and attempting to change views about its meaning.

Comments Off

Conditional permits subject to relaxed standard of review rather than the rigorous proofs required for variances

Posted on October 2nd, 2013 by Joseph William Singer.
Categories: Zoning.

New Jersey confusingly refers to conditional permits as “conditional use variances.” This language makes it easy to confuse conditional permits and variances. In TSI East Brunswick, LLC v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of Tp. of East Brunswick, 71 A.3d 762 (N.J. 2013), the Supreme Court of New Jersey reaffirmed the traditional rule that variances should be granted only in cases of unusual hardship (or other statutory requirements) because they allow something to be done that violates the intent of the zoning ordinance. Conditional permits, on the other hand, allow an activity to occur on land as long as the conditions are met and thus are subject to a lower standard of proof; they are presumptively permitted (as long as the conditions are established) rather than presumptively prohibited.

Comments Off

City ordinance intended to exclude a group home can constitute intentional discrimination even if there is no evidence of an impact on the group home

Posted on October 2nd, 2013 by Joseph William Singer.
Categories: Antidiscrimination law, Fair Housing Act.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed that an action intended to discriminate in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) creates a claim for which relief can be granted even if it has not had any other impact on the plaintiff. Pac. Shores Props., LLC v. City of Newport Beach, 2013 WL 5289100 (9th Cir. 2013). In this case, a city passed an ordinance intended to exclude group homes for recovering alcohol and drug users; it had terms that had the practical effect of prohibiting group homes from opening in most residential areas. The court held that a claim could be brought even if the plaintiff could not prove that the ordinance actually prevented it from acquiring property and operating. The ruling tracks prior case law which allow a damages claim for a prospective tenant denied housing because of her race even if she finds an apartment across the street five minutes later that is cheaper and better. Zoning practices that discriminate against individuals with disabilities can be discriminatory and violate the FHA if they contribute to making unavailable or denying housing to those persons.

Comments Off

Patron can sue for ADA violations by a diner even if he never went there

Posted on October 2nd, 2013 by Joseph William Singer.
Categories: Antidiscrimination law, Trespass.

A patron who knew he could not enter a diner because the diner did not have wheelchair access could sue the diner and its landlord for violating the Americans with Disabilities Act even though he never went to the diner and tried to get in. Kreisler v. Second Ave. Diner Corp., 2013 WL 5340465 (2d Cir. 2013). The mere fact that he was deterred from going to the diner is enough to give him standing to bring a claim for violating the public accommodation provisions of the ADA. Moreover, once he had standing to sue for one violation, he could sue the diner for other violations of the statute that relate to his particular disability even if he has never been inside.

Comments Off

Nevada allows domestic violence victims to escape lease obligations

Posted on September 28th, 2013 by Joseph William Singer.
Categories: Leaseholds.

A new Nevada statute allows domestic violence victims to move out and terminate any obligations under an existing lease. 2013 Nev. Stat. 301.

Comments Off

Right to farm law prevents nuisance suit

Posted on September 28th, 2013 by Joseph William Singer.
Categories: Nuisance.

In Toftoy v. Rosenwinkel, 983 N.E.2d 463 (Ill. 2012), the court enforced the state right to farm act to prevent a homeowner from suing a neighboring cattle farm for creating a nuisance. The home owner tried to get around the right to farm statute by arguing that the farm was established after the house had been present. But the court focused on the fact that the the tenant had moved out of the house before the farm was established and that only after the farm was in operation did the home owner demolish the house, build a new one, and move in. The court found that the plaintiff had come to the nuisance despite the fact that a house had been on the property before the farm was established and that the purpose of the right to farm law was to codify the “coming to the nuisance” defense to any nuisance claim.

Comments Off