News
[07/29]
Mack-Cali Realty Corporation Announces Second Quarter Results
[07/29]
AP survey: A bleaker outlook for economy into 2011
[07/29]
Foreclosure activity up across most US metro areas
[07/28]
Consolidated-Tomoka Land Co. Declares Dividend
[07/28]
Real Estate in Emerging Economies Outperforms Eurozone and UK; U.S. Outlook Improves
More...
Articles
Condominiums & Cooperatives
Condominiums and cooperatives are both a form of common-interest ownership of property; some statutes refer to them jointly as common-interest communities. The most frequently used form of common ownership is the condominium. A condominium is characterized by separate ownership of identified portions of the property (such as individual apartments in a multi-unit building) and undivided or joint ownership of the remainder (the common areas of that apartment building).
More...
Your Community's General Plan
Few of us are so lucky as to have input into our community's general plan. For most of us, the general plan was developed long before we moved to the area. In fact, most of us probably have never thought much about the general plan, if we even knew it existed. In most communities, the law affects more than individual property rights. Usually, there are laws describing the required and prohibited elements of the general plan.
More...
|
|
Case Summaries
[06/25]
Rathborne Land Co. v. Ascent Engy., Inc. In an action for breach of defendant's obligations to reasonably develop and explore a leased parcel of oil, gas, and mineral land, judgment for plaintiff is affirmed in part where: 1) plaintiff's letter to defendant met the La. Rev. Stat. Ann. section 31:136 demand requirement; and 2) district court did not clearly err in concluding that plaintiff would have been able to lease the disputed acreage more than once if it had been able to seismically survey the parcel prior to 2006. However, the judgment is vacated in part where neither the district court nor plaintiff could show an adequate ground -- indeed, any relevant precedent -- for awarding consequential damages for lost leasing and seismic revenues on the entire parcel.
[06/25]
Greenspan v. LADT, LLC In a trust's suit for breach of contract and other claims against two affiliated companies and individuals, trial court's confirmation of an arbitrator's award against defendants in the amount of $6.34 million is affirmed where: 1) per the JAMS rules, the arbitrator, not a court, determines what issues are arbitrable, and here, the arbitrator determined that the issue of joint and several liability was arbitrable; 2) arbitrator's finding of joint and several liability was rationally related to the parties' contract; 3) as to the timeliness of the final award under JAMS rules, the arbitrator's interpretation and application of the rules cannot be judicially reviewed on the merits; and 4) the suit against the arbitrator was barred by arbitral immunity and would not have caused a reasonable person to doubt the arbitrator's impartiality.
[06/25]
St. Marks Place Hous. Co. v. US Dept. of Hous. & Urb. Dev. In a challenge to the Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) decision, contending that HUD regulations prohibited HUD from requiring prepayment approval for a housing project's federally insured mortgage, dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where there was no basis for concluding that HUD's position was plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the operative regulation.
[06/25]
Flava Works, Inc. v. City of Miami In an action challenging the Miami Code Enforcement Board's final administrative ruling that plaintiffs were engaged in "adult entertainment" in an inappropriate zone and "illegally operating a business in a residential zone," judgment for plaintiffs is reversed where the activities taking place at the residence at issue were a clear violation of the prohibition against operating a business in a residential zone.
[06/24]
Kaur v. N.Y. State Urb. Dev. Corp. In a petition for review of the Empire State Development Corporation's (ESDC) taking of plaintiffs' property by eminent domain for the purposes of constructing a new Columbia University campus, a denial of the petition is affirmed where the condemnation of petitioners' property qualified as a "land use improvement project" was rationally based and entitled to deference.
More...
|