About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


Case Citations [1] (Spring 2025)

handle is hein.ali/retprtys0267 and id is 1 raw text is: THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE Spring 2025 Citations PROPERTY 3D (SERVITUDES) CHAPTER 1. DEFINITIONS § 1.1 Servitude Defined; Scope of Restatement D.C.App.2024. Subsec. (1) quot. in case quot. in sup. Owners of units in a condominium building sued owners of units in a neighboring building, seeking a declaration that certain amendments to the bylaws of plaintiffs' building made by its developers, in which the developers agreed to restrict the use of the plaintiffs' building's rooftop to protect the view from defendants' building, were void under the District of Columbia's Condominium Act, because they gave defendants veto power over changes to plaintiffs' bylaws. The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants. This court affirmed, holding, among other things, that the amendments did not violate the Act, because developer was authorized on plaintiffs' behalf to grant an easement in the rooftop to defendants. The court noted that inclusion of the easement in the bylaws satisfied the requirement under Restatement Third of Property: Servitudes § 1.1 that negative easements like the ones at issue run with the land. Unit Owners Association of 2337 Champlain Street Condominium v. 2337 Champlain Street, LLC, 314 A.3d 1198, 1217. § 1.2 Easement and Profit Defined Ariz.App.2023. Cit. and quot. in sup. Homeowners in a subdivision sued state department of transportation after it condemned two parcels of land owned as common areas by the subdivision's homeowners association in order to build a freeway, seeking compensation for a complete taking of their positive easement to use the land and their negative easement to preserve the open space, as well as proximity damages arising from the distance of their homes from the planned freeway. The trial court granted partial summary judgment for homeowners. This court reversed and remanded, holding, among other things, that homeowners were not entitled to proximity damages under the state's eminent-domain statute. The court explained that proximity damages compensated a property owner if a partial taking resulted in a loss of value in their remaining land, and that, under Restatement Third of Property: Servitudes §§ 1.2 and 1.3, homeowners' easements were not part of their parcels and only gave them a nonpossessory right to use or limit development of the common areas. State v. Foothills Reserve Master Owners Association, Inc., 540 P.3d 1236, 1239, 1240. COPYRIGHT 02025 By THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America For earlier citations, see the Appendices, Supplements, or Pocket Parts, if any, that correspond to the subject matter under examination.