Articles Posted in Real Estate Law

Most Texas landlords realize that when they rent to a tenant with a criminal history, the landlord may be held liable for criminal acts committed by that tenant. Texas Property Code Section 92.025 provides that a tenant cannot sue a landlord solely for leasing to a tenant convicted of, arrested for or placed on deferred adjudication for an offense. However, this law goes on to say that it does not preclude a suit for negligence against the landlord if: 1) the landlord leases to a tenant who has been convicted of murder, capital murder, indecency with a child, aggravated sexual assault and certain other listed offenses; and 2) the landlord knew or should have known of the conviction.

That’s pretty clear. However, now the federal government steps in. Even though a criminal record is not a protected status (like race, gender, religion, etc.) under the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Fair Housing Act, that has not prevented the Office of General Counsel for HUD from issuing “Guidance” on the application of the Fair Housing Act to prospective tenants with criminal records. The Guidance (what a misnomer) indicates that a landlord who conducts a background check of a prospective tenant and refuses to lease to that tenant on the basis of the prospective tenant’s criminal record may leave that landlord open to complaints of discrimination by prospective tenants with criminal records. Remember, HUD can institute enforcement proceedings on these complaints as well.

HUD’s position is a catch-22 for Texas landlords. On the one hand, if the landlord refuses to rent based on a prospective tenant’s criminal record, the landlord is open to complaints and possible enforcement proceedings by HUD. On the other hand, if the landlord rents to a tenant with a criminal record, the landlord can be liable to other tenants for the actions of the tenant with the criminal history. HUD recommends that landlords evaluate prospective tenants, including any criminal records, on a case-by-case basis. Now, what was a simple leasing decision, becomes a legal issue that should probably be reviewed by the landlord’s attorney. This increases the landlord’s costs, which will probably result in higher rents. Higher rents will push some of the poorest renters out of the price range for certain apartments.

Earlier this week, the Texas Senate State Affairs Committee approved the draft of a new statute entitled the Texas Real Property Transfer on Death Act (Senate Bill 462). You can review a draft of the bill here. This bill would create a procedure for a non-testamentary transfer of real property. In this case, non-testamentary means that it passes outside of someone’s will and avoids the entire probate process.

We don’t yet know if the bill will end up as a statute. If it does, it will go into effect on September 1, 2015. The potential statute contains a number of traps for the unwary. For example, the specialized deed authorized by the bill applies only to a person who owns real property as a joint tenant with right of survivorship. As currently written, the bill does not apply to an owner who is a tenant in common or an owner of community property with or without a right of survivorship. As currently written, Section 114.055 of the bill has some very specific requirements that must be complied with if this specialized deed is to be effective. It will also be important to be aware of the conditions that will revoke the deed, described in Section 114.057 of the bill. Interestingly, a contrary provision in a will does not revoke or supersede a transfer on death deed.

Continue reading →

The United States Supreme Court recently issued an opinion that effects many Texas property and mineral owners. Specifically, the Court decided the case of Marvin M. Brandt Revocable Trust v. United States in an 8 to 1 decision. The Court determined that certain rights-of-way for railroads revert to private property owners following the railroad’s abandonment of the right-of-way easement. The ownership of the easement may carry with it ownership of the mineral estate. Where it does, and when the easement covers many acres, the mineral interests could be very valuable.

This case is significant for Texans because there are many railroads and railroad rights-of-way throughout Texas. The decision, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, addressed this central question: what happens to the ownership of the right-of-way easement when a railroad abandons its right-of way. In this case, the right-of-way was granted to the railroad under the General Railroad Right-of-Way Act of 1875. This Act gives railroads the right-of-way through public lands in the United States. The land at issue in this case was a ten-mile strip in Wyoming, upon which the right-of-way was created in 1908. Subsequently, in 1976, the federal government conveyed the land to Marvin and Lulu Brandt. The railroad later abandoned the right-of-way, and by 2004 all the track had been removed. In 2006, the U.S. government requested a judicial declaration of their title. The Brandts’ deed (which was a land patent) didn’t specify what would happen if the railroad gave up the right-of-way. Mr. Brandt argued that the right-of-way had been an easement, and that once it was abandoned, it was terminated and the easement area belonged to him. The U.S. government argued that after abandonment, title to the right-of-way land reverts back to the government. The U.S. District Court awarded title to the U.S. government and the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.

Chief Justice Roberts reversed the lower courts’ rulings. The Supreme Court’s majority opinion found that the right-of-way was terminated at the time of the abandonment, and that the Brandts owned the property. The Court found that the language, legislative history, and subsequent administrative interpretation of the 1875 Act supported this decision. The Court cited Great Northern Railway Co. v. United States, decided in 1942, in support of its decision. In that case, also decided that under the 1875 Act, the U.S. government granted the railroad only an easement, not fee simple title in the easement property, and therefore, the easement disappeared once it was abandoned. The Court found that in the Brandts’ case that the railroad abandoned the easement in 2004 and the government did not have any interest in the land after. Title to the easement property reverted to the Brandt Revocable Trust as the current owners of the land.

There was an interesting decision issued last fall by the US Supreme Court regarding government land use control and regulation, an issue that is always significant in Texas. The case is Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District, and the opinion illustrates some important limitations on government land use regulations. The five to four decision, with the majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito, holds that in land use regulation, the government must show a nexus and proportionality between what the government demands of the landowner and the effects of the landowner’s proposed new use of the land. The decision underscores a landowner’s rights to challenge government decisions regarding land use on a constitutional basis.

In this case, Mr. Koontz bought 14.9 acres of undeveloped land in Florida in 1972. Later in 1972, Florida passed a law called the Water Resources Act which required landowners to obtain a permit and commit that what they want to build would not damage water resources. Then in 1984, Florida passed the Henderson Wetlands Protection Act which required that landowners obtain still additional government permits. Mr. Koontz wanted to develop part of his land in the 1990s. He wanted to fill part of the land to make a storm water pond, and offered to offset the environmental impact of this fill by creating a conservation easement on the rest of his land. His plan was rejected by the St. John’s River Management District, so Mr. Koontz turned to the court system and sued for monetary damages for an unconstitutional taking.

The Florida District Court and Court of Appeals held that Florida had overreached due to the nexus and proportionality requirements. Their decision was based on two prior US Supreme Court cases, Nollan v. California Coastal Commission and Dolan v. City of Tigard, both of which used the “nexus” and “rough proportionality” standards. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the two lower court decisions, and indicated that the Nollan and Dolan principles didn’t apply to Mr. Koontz’s case.

For mineral owners in the northern Texas Panhandle, there is an exciting new development: Apache Corporation is planning to conduct a seismic survey in the Pennsylvania Canyon Wash formation to see if it is suitable for horizontal drilling. At present, there are parts of the Panhandle that not been fully explored for oil. Apache intends to drill down for the 3D survey. At 9,200 feet deep, the company believes that Canyon Wash would be well suited to the type of drilling that it wants to do.

Apache, headquartered in Houston, Texas, has grown beyond its humble beginnings in Minnesota to become a successful multinational oil and gas company.Today, Apache has $30 billion in capital and offices in the United States, Canada, Australia, Argentina, Egypt, and the United Kingdom. Yet since the company moved its headquarters to Houston in 1992, it has kept an active interest in Texas projects.

Currently, Apache holds a 75% interest in 122,000 fields south of shallow production in the Panhandle field. The area remains mostly pristine, with just 23 penetrations. Apache hopes to start a multi-rig program in 2012 in the area known as the Cimarron Arch. The company’s Bivins Ranch acreage is situated in Oldham, Potter, and Hartley counties. Apache’s partner in the acreage, Gun Oil Company, already completed a vertical Canyon Wash discovery well in Oldham County in March 2010. The well produced 42,000 bbl within the first nine months. Apache officials believe that the latest exploration will lead to wells that could recover up to 343,000 bbl/well — or 87% oil. Each well would have an estimated price tag of $3 million. Apache may achieve up to 100 drillable locations from 2012 through 2015.