In a straightforward application of the ruling in Martin v. City of Boise, 902 F.3d 1031 (9th Cir. 2018), the Ninth Circuit held that an Oregon city could not punish homeless people for “camping” on public property and using bedding supplies, such as blankets or pillows or sleeping bags, while doing so, when there were no available beds in city homeless shelters.... Read more about Eighth Amendment prohibits punishing homeless people for using bedding supplies like blankets, pillows, or sleeping bags while sleeping on public lands when there are no available shelter beds ..read more

In an important decision, the Arizona Supreme Court held that buyers of new homes have a nonwaivable right to a warranty of fitness. Zambrano v. M & RC II, LLC, 254 Ariz. 53, 517 P.3d 1168 (Ariz. 2022). The court explained that allowing waivability would mean the end of the implied warranty since all builders would include such... Read more about Arizona Supreme Court holds that the implied warranty in new home sales cannot be disclaimed ..read more

In an important case, the Supreme Court held in Tyler v. Hennepin County, 143 S.Ct. 1369 (2023), that it violates the takings clause for a municipality to foreclose on property for nonpayment of property taxes and to retain the value of the property that exceeds the unpaid taxes (with costs). The purpose of a tax foreclosure is to pay off the taxes owed.... Read more about Tax foreclosures violate the takings clause if they government entity retains proceeds beyond the unpaid taxes ..read more

Many courts say that prescriptive easements can only be acquired if the use is “exclusive” among other elements. This is a mechanical holdover from the requirements for adverse possession where courts simply keep the same requirements and substitute “use” for “possession.” But it make no sense for an easement to be “exclusive” since the dominant estate owner retains whatever rights of use are not inconsistent with the easement. It is simply not how... Read more about Prescriptive easements do not actually require “exclusive” use no matter what courts say ..read more

With continued disagreement among courts on this question, a trial court in New York has ruled that a covenant limiting property to "single family residential purposes" precludes an owner from renting to short term tenants, effectively preventing use of the property for Airnbnb (and similar) purposes. W... Read more about NY court holds short term rentals violate a covenant limiting property to "single family residential purposes ..read more

Applying New York law, the Second Circuit held that a business tenant was not excused from paying rent because of business closure order from the Governor of New York to protect the public from exposure to Covid-19 at the height of the pandemic crisis. In re NTS W. USA Corp... Read more about Covid-19 closure order does not excuse tenant from paying rent ..read more

When accused of sexual harassment, an employer or landlord sometimes tries to defend the claim by arguing that he treated male and female employees or tenants alike so no discrimination was involved, i.e., no one was treated differently “because of sex.” If this defense is a good one, then people could avoid liability under antidiscrimination laws by attempting to treat men in the same way they treat women and then argue that their sexual harassment of women was not... Read more about 9th Circuit rejects “equal opportunity harasser” defense ..read more

Two federal courts have held that municipal ordinances that prohibit or regulate the ability of owners to rent their properties to short-term tenants did not unconstitutionally take the owners' property rights without just compensation. Nekrilov v. City of Jersey City, 45 F.4th 662 (3d Cir. 2022);... Read more about Municipal prohibitions on short-term rental of property not a taking of property under the fourteenth amendment ..read more

Fracking involves injecting fluids under the earth through pores (openings in the earth) that may extend to neighboring property. Such physical invasions, the North Dakota Supreme Court held, are takings of property that cannot be statutorily-mandated without just compensation. Northwest Landowners Ass'n v. State, 978 N.W.2d 679 (N.D. 2022). Read more about North Dakota Supreme Court finds statutorily-authorized fracking to constitute a taking of property without just compensation ..read more

While owners can generally get an easement by necessity to obtain access to landlocked land over remaining lands of the grantor, most states also recognize easements implied from visible, continuous prior use before the parcels were separated if the access is helpful ("reasonably necessary") to the dominant estate. The prior use doctrine rests on the right to reform a deed because of mutual mistake.  ... Read more about Vermont Supreme Court denies reserved easements implied from prior use unless they are strictly necessary ..read more