Recently in Property Law Category

Sports arenas often encounter a Velveteen Rabbit problem; eventually, the teams that love theses arenas want something newer, bigger, and flashier. The old arenas are abandoned, forgotten, and finally demolished.

The Pittsburgh Civic Arena, fondly known as the Igloo, suffered a similar Velveteen Rabbit fate. Workers began demolishing the Igloo on Monday after the Third Circuit Court of Appeals denied an emergency motion for injunction to delay demolition last Friday.

The Igloo, opened in 1961, was the retractable-roof marvel that served as the Pittsburgh Penguins home for 43 years. In August 2010, the Penguins moved across the street to their new arena, the Consul Energy Center. Last September, the Igloo’s owner, Sports and Exhibition Authority of Pittsburgh and Allegheny County (SEA), voted to demolish the structure.

In re: Cmty. Bank of N. Virginia & Guaranty Nat'l Bank of Tallahassee Second Mortgage Loan Litig., 08-3621, concerned a challenge to the district court's decisions certifying the "settlement only" nationwide class action and approving the class settlement, in a nationwide class action lawsuit alleging predatory home equity lending scheme involving two banks and a company that purchased second mortgage loans from them.

Betts v. New Castle Youth Dev. Ctr., 09-3753, concerned a challenge to the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants, in plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. section 1983 suit against a state-run juvenile detention center and several of its staff members, claiming various constitutional violations for sustaining a tragic spinal cord injury while attempting to make a tackle during a "pick-up" football at the center.

Massie v. U.S. Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., 09-1087, involved a class action lawsuit against the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), seeking to compel action that they claim was unlawfully withheld by HUD.  In reversing the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of HUD, the court held that section 311 did apply to HUD's management and disposition of the property at issue in this case.  The court also held that HUD failed to make a determination that the property was not feasible for continued assistance and therefore failed to comply with the terms of section 311.  Lastly, the grant of summary judgment on the issue of the cause of the displacement of the tenants is improper, and the matter is remanded for additional fact-finding on the issues of whether the tenants were displaced due to a federally financed project and, if so, whether the tenants who were entitled to relocation assistance at Uniform Relocation Act (URA) levels received such assistance.

In Jones v. ABN Ambro Mortgage Group, Inc., No. 08-2353, the Third Circuit dealt with a plaintiffs' suit against mortgage loan companies asserting claims for a declaratory judgment, negligence, and violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), arising from a mortgage loan-servicing Ponzi scheme.  First, the court held that the plaintiffs' negligence claim was properly dismissed as the duty imposed on the defendants in this case was by contract rather than by "law as a matter of social policy."  Second, the court ruled that the district court correctly held that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim under RESPA because the perpetrator of the Ponzi scheme was not a loan "servicer" under RESPA.  Lastly, the court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs' request for leave to amend. 

Unalachtigo Band of the Nanticoke Lenni Lenape Nation v. Corzine, No. 08-2775, concerned a challenge to the district court's dismissal sua sponte for lack of standing, of an Indian Tribe's suit under the Nonintercourse Act, 25 U.S.C. section 187, seeking possession of land in New Jersey, and denial of an intervenor's Rule 19 motion to dismiss.  The court held that because the district court issued an opinion on the intervenor's Rule 19 motion when it lacked jurisdiction because there was no longer a live case or controversy once the district court dismissed plaintiff's cause of action for lack of standing, the judgment dismissing the intervenor's Rule 19 motion is vacated.    

Lastly, in C.H. v. Cape Henlopen Sch. Dist., No. 08-3630, the court faced a challenge to the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of a school district and denial of plaintiff-parents' claim for reimbursement of private school tuition and other related costs for their disabled son under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). 

First, the court held that the school district's failure to have and Individualized Educational Program (IEP) in place on the first day of classes did not deprive the child of a "free appropriate public education" (FAPE), and thus, reimbursement on this basis was properly denied.  Second, the court held that the district court properly rejected the argument that any notice deficiencies rise to the level of substantive harm.  Third, the court also affirmed the district court's denial of parents' request for tuition reimbursement on equitable grounds as unreasonable parent conduct warrants equitable reduction of an award under the IDEA.  Finally, the court rejected the parents' claim that the district court erred in failing to separately address their claim that the conduct of the Hearing Panel violated their rights to procedural due process.

Related Resources:

• Full text of Jones v. ABN Ambro Mortgage Group, Inc.
• Full text of Unalachtigo Band of the Nanticoke Lenni Lenape Nation v. Corzine
• Full text of C.H. v. Cape Henlopen Sch. Dist.

In a First Amendment case against the city of Pittsburgh challenging the constitutionality of an ordinance establishing two types of zones limiting speech around health care facilities, district court's judgment is affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part, dismissed in part, and remanded where: 1) district court's denial of preliminary injunctive relief with respect to plaintiff's facial challenge is reversed; 2) the combination of the ordinance's "buffer" and "bubble" zones is invalid but either zone, individually, is valid on its face; 3) district court's denial of preliminary injunctive relief with respect to plaintiff's claim of selective enforcement is affirmed but vacated with respect to her claim that the ordinance is unconstitutional as applied to particular clinic locations; and 4) plaintiff's appeal from the district court's order partially dismissing her complaint is dismissed. 

Read Brown v. City of Pittsburgh, No. 08-1819

Appellate Information

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil No. 06-cv-0393)  

District Judge: Honorable Nora B. Fischer

Opinion Filed October 30, 2009

Judges

Before:  Scirica, Chief Judge, Ambro and Smith, Circuit Judges

Opinion by Scirica, Chief Judge 

Counsel

Counsel for Appellant: David A. Cortman, Joshua B. Bollinger, Benjamin W. Bull, Jeremy D. Tedesco, Lawrence G. Palladin, Jr.

Counsel for Appellee:  Yvonne S. Hilton, Michael E. Kennedy, George R. Specter. 

In plaintiffs-homebuyers' putative class action to recover statutory treble damages pursuant to section 8(d)(2) of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) of 1974, district court's dismissal of the complaint for lack of jurisdiction is reversed as the plain language of RESPA section 8 indicates that Congress created a private right of action without requiring an overarching allegation.  Finally, plaintiffs are not barred by the filed rate doctrine as it simply does not apply in this case.   

Read Alston v. Countrywide Fin. Corp., No. 08-4334

Appellate Information

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil No. 07-cv-03508)  

District Judge: Honorable James T. Giles

Opinion Filed October 28, 2009

Judges

Before:  Barry, Fisher, and Jordan, Circuit Judges

Opinion by Barry, Circuit Judge 

Counsel

Counsel for Appellant:  Edward W. Ciolko, Joseph H. Meltzer, Donna S. Moffa, Terrence S. Ziegler, Barroway, Topaz, Kessler, Meltzer & Check; Eric G. Calhoun, Travis & Calhoun

 Counsel for Appellee:  Christine N. Kohl, Michael J. Singer, United States Department of Justice, Civil Division. 

District court's judgment, involving land title insurance policy dispute, is reversed where: 1) the district court erred in granting Commonwealth's motion to dismiss as in order to except expressly from ALTA 9 Endorsement coverage a right of refusal or other restrictions noted in paragraph 1(b)(2) of the Endorsement, an insurer must list those restrictions specifically in Schedule B: and 2) Commonwealth bore the burden of detecting the restrictions stated in the Declaration, and had to list those restrictions explicitly as exceptions to avoid covering loss from them.  

Read Nationwide Life Ins. Co. v. Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co. , No. 06-2890

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil Action No. 05-cv-00281)
District Judge: Honorable Ronald L. Buckwalter

Argued January 28,  2009
Opinion Filed August 31, 2009

Judges
Before:  Scirica, Chief Judge, Ambro and Smith, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by Circuit Judge Ambro

Counsel

Counsel for Appellant.:  Justin K. Miller, C. Paul Scheuritzel.

Counsel for Appellee: Craig R. Blackman, Neal R. Troum.

In an appeal from the District Court's order finding the Government of the Virgin Islands in contempt for violating a consent decree relating the assessment of commercial real property taxes, the order is affirmed where the government failed to create a functioning Board of Tax Review that consistently held hearings and reached determinations on appeals.

Read the full decision in Berne Corp, et al. v. Government of the Virgin Islands, No. 08-3897.

Appellate Information:

On Appeal from the District Court of the Virgin Islands, Division of St. Thomas and St. John. Honorable Curtis V. Gomez.
D.C. Civil Action Nos. 3-00-cv-00141, 3-00-cv-00167, 3-01-cv-00151, 3-01-cv-00155, 3-01-cv-00181, 3-01-cv-00196, 3-01-cv-00197, 3-01-cv-00228, 3-02-cv-00057
Argued on January 29, 2009
Opinion filed on June 16, 2009

Judges:

Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, AMBRO and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by SCIRICA, Chief Judge.

Counsel:

Attorney for Appellants - TERRYLN M. SMOCK, Esq. (ARGUED)
Office of Attorney General of Virgin Islands
Department of Justice,

Attorney for Appellees - JAMES M. DERR, Esq. (ARGUED), DAVID A. BORNN, Esq. (ARGUED) of The Bornn Firm, SORAYA D. COFFELT, Esq.