#realestate, #cre, #commercialappraiser FW: Environmental Law Summaries Distributed January 31, 2014

#realestate, #cre, #commercialappraiser Thanks!
Curtis D. Harris, BS, CGREA, REB
Bachelor of Science in Real Estate, CSULA
State Certified General Appraiser
Real Estate Broker
ASTM E-2018 Commercial Real Estate Inspector
HUD 203k Consultant
HUD/FHA Real Estate Appraiser/Reviewer
FannieMae REO ConsultantCTAC LEED CertificationThe Harris Company, Forensic Appraisers and Real Estate Consultants
*PIRS/Harris Company and the Science of Real Estate-Partners*630 North Sepulveda Boulevard, Suite 9A, Number 702
El Segundo, CA. 90245
310-337-1973 Office
310-251-3959 Cell424-218-9580 Skype WebSite: http://www.harriscompanyrec.com ;Resume: http://www.harriscompanyrec.com/commercialappraiserresume2013locked.pdf ;Commercial Appraiser Blog: http://commercialappraiser.typepad.com/blog/ ; http://harriscompanyrec.com/blog/ ;The LOoP! a Google CSE: http://www.google.com/cse/home?cx=000747579154309164948%3Annakvu69iqy ; We Make a Simple Pledge to

Communicate, in a timely fashion, each appraisal, analysis, and opinion without bias or partiality

Abstain from behavior that is deleterious to our clients, the appraisal profession, and the public

Hold paramount the confidential nature of the appraiser/consultant - client relationship

and

Comply with the requirements of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice and the
Code of Professional Ethics of the National Society of Real Estate Appraisers
IT'S THE LAW- Statement 7: Prohibition Against Discrimination
State agencies should be aware that Title XI and the Agencies' regulations prohibit federally regulated financial institutions from excluding appraisers from consideration for an assignment by virtue of their membership, or lack of membership, in any appraisal organization. Federally regulated financial institutions should review the qualifications of appraisers to ensure that they are qualified for the assignment for which they are being considered. It is unacceptable to assume that an appraiser is qualified solely due to membership in, or designation from, an appraisal organization, or the lack thereof. The Agencies have determined that financial institutions' appraisal policies should not favor appraisers from one or more organizations or exclude individuals based on their lack of such membership. If a State agency learns that a certified or licensed appraiser allegedly has been a victim of such discrimination, the State agency should inform the Agency which has regulatory authority over the involved financial institution. INCLUDING THE APPRAISAL INSTITUTE-MAICONFIDENTIALITY/PRIVILEGE NOTICE: This transmission and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee. The information contained in this transmission is confidential in nature and protected from further use or disclosure under U.S. Pub. L. 106-102, 113 U.S. Stat. 1338 (1999), and may be subject to consultant/appraiser-client or other legal privilege. Your use or disclosure of this information for any purpose other than that intended by its transmittal is strictly prohibited and may subject you to fines and/or penalties under federal and state law. If you are not the intended recipient of this transmission, please destroy all copies received and confirm destruction to the sender via return transmittal From: Justia Practice Area Opinion Summaries [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Justia Practice Area Opinion Summaries
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2014 6:10 AM
To: Commercial Appraiser
Subject: Environmental Law Summaries Distributed January 31, 2014 If you are unable to see this message, click here to view it in a web browser.
To ensure delivery to your inbox, please add [email protected] to your address book.

Justia Daily Opinion Summaries is a FREE service.

Subscribe to summaries of US appellate court opinions at Daily.Justia.com

Practice area emails with summaries from all reviewed courts are sent weekly.

You May FREELY Redistribute This E-Mail in Whole.
Today on Verdict

The Ninth Circuit, in SmithKline v. Abbott Labs, Bars Lawyers From Removing Gay/Lesbian Jurors
Vikram David Amar & Alan E. Brownstein
In Part One of this two-part series of columns, Justia columnist Vikram David Amar and Justia guest columnist Alan Brownstein, both U.C., Davis law professors, discuss whether it violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause for a lawyer to “strike” (that is, remove) individuals from a jury panel on account of their sexual orientation. Read Article

Weekly Opinion SummariesEnvironmental Law
Weekly Summaries Distributed January 31, 2014 · Bitler Inv. Venture II v. Marathon Petroleum Co. LP
Contracts, Energy, Oil & Gas Law, Environmental Law, Real Estate & Property Law
U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals· Banks v. United States
Constitutional Law, Environmental Law, Real Estate & Property Law
U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals· Diamond v. Dobbin
Environmental Law, Government & Administrative Law, Real Estate & Property Law
Hawaii Supreme Court· Riverbend Utilities, Inc. v. Mississippi Environmental Quality Permit Board
Environmental Law, Government & Administrative Law
Mississippi Supreme Court

Receive this and other FREE daily opinion summaries from Justia

Bitler Inv. Venture II v. Marathon Petroleum Co. LPCourt: U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Docket: 12-3722Opinion Date: January 27, 2014Judge: Posner Areas of Law: Contracts, Energy, Oil & Gas Law, Environmental Law, Real Estate & Property Law In 1983 Bitler leased gas stations to Marathon. The Environmental Protection Agency adopted new regulations so that that underground petroleum tanks and pipes at the gas stations had to be removed, upgraded, or replaced, 40 C.F.R. 280.21(a). In 1992 the parties amended the leases to make Marathon “fully responsible for removing” the tanks and pipes, filling holes created by the removal, complying with all environmental laws, “leav[ing] the Premises in a condition reasonably useful for future commercial use,” and “replac[ing] any asphalt, concrete, or other surface, including landscaping.” Marathon agreed to return the Premises “as nearly as possible in the same condition as it was in prior to such remediation work,” and to be responsible “for any and all liability, losses, damages, costs and expenses,” and to continue paying rent. The properties can be restored as gas stations with above‐ground storage tanks, and may be suitable for other commercial outlets. After completion of the work Bitler sued Marathon, alleging breach of contract and “waste.” The Seventh Circuit vacated to waste regarding Michigan properties, with directions to double those damages. The court affirmed dismissal of some of the contract claims. It would not conform to the reasonable expectations of the parties to limit liability for waste or other misconduct by a tenant simply because a lease had to be extended for an indefinite period to allow a response to unforeseen changes. http://j.st/vPU View Case on: Justia Google Scholar
Banks v. United StatesCourt: U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals Docket: 12-5067Opinion Date: January 28, 2014Judge: Wallach Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Environmental Law, Real Estate & Property Law In the 1830s, the Army Corps of Engineers began constructing harbor jetties into Lake Michigan near the St. Joseph River. In 1950 the Corps began encasing the jetties in steel-sheet piling. The project was completed in 1989. Plaintiffs own land along the lake shore, south of the jetties. The shoreline is eroding naturally, but plaintiffs allege that the jetties block the flow of sand and sediment from the river and the lakeshore north of their properties, interrupting the natural littoral drift and leading to increased erosion on their properties. In 1958, the Corps released a study that documented increased erosion in certain areas. Following another study, a mitigation plan was implemented in 1976, using fine sand. After 15 years of beach nourishment, efforts shifted to using coarser sediment; in 1995, the Corps dumped large rocks into the lake. The Corps released reports in 1973, 1996, 1997, and 1999 on the erosive effects of the jetties and the progress of mitigation. There was also a 1998 newspaper article concerning the erosion. In 1999, plaintiffs filed suit, alleging takings, 28 U.S.C. 1491. The Claims Court dismissed the actions as time-barred. The Federal Circuit reversed, holding that the court clearly erred in finding that plaintiffs knew or should have known of their claims before 1952 and violated the mandate of a previous remand. http://j.st/vmb View Case on: Justia Google Scholar
Diamond v. DobbinCourt: Hawaii Supreme Court Docket: SCWC-30573Opinion Date: January 27, 2014Judge: Acoba Areas of Law: Environmental Law, Government & Administrative Law, Real Estate & Property Law The owner of certain property and surveying company filed a shoreline certification application with the Department of Land and Natural Resources for the property. Petitioners filed a notice of appeal of the proposed shoreline certification. In an amended decision, the Board of Land and Natural Resources (BLNR) concluded that Petitioners failed to establish that the proposed certified shoreline was not proper. The Supreme Court vacated the BLNR’s amended decision, holding (1) in making a shoreline determination pursuant to Haw. Rev. Stat. 205A-42, the BLNR must consider the historical evidence of the upper reaches of the wash of the waves; and (2) in this case, the BLNR’s amended decision establishing a certified shoreline for the subject property effectively failed to consider the historical evidence of the upper reaches of the wash of the waves and contained errors of law and erroneous findings of fact. Remanded. http://j.st/vPm View Case on: Justia Google Scholar
Riverbend Utilities, Inc. v. Mississippi Environmental Quality Permit BoardCourt: Mississippi Supreme Court Docket: 2012-SA-0699-SCTOpinion Date: January 30, 2014Judge: Lamar Areas of Law: Environmental Law, Government & Administrative Law Riverbend Utilities, Inc. challenged the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality Permit Board’s decision to grant tow groundwater withdrawal permits to the Harrison County Utility Authority. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the Department’s decision. http://j.st/v2g View Case on: Justia Google Scholar


Forward to a FriendHave friends who like law? Forward this email.

Find Us on FacebookLike Justia and enjoy legal discussions on Facebook.

Follow Us on TwitterFollow Justiacom for news and updates on Twitter.

 Justia.com Free Legal Information Portalwww.Justia.comFederal & State Case Law, Codes & RegsLaw.Justia.comUS Federal Case Filings & DocketsDockets.Justia.comDaily Opinion SummariesDaily.Justia.com
You received this email because you have subscribed to Justia Daily Opinion Summaries. You can subscribe to summaries for US Courts, including the US Supreme Court, all US Courts of Appeals and some US state courts.Visit the Justia Daily Opinion Summaries page to add, edit or remove subscriptions.If you are experiencing problems with this newsletter, please email our tech support team at [email protected] From This Newsletteror unsubscribe [email protected] immediately here."Justia" is a registered trademark of Justia Inc.
Justia • Justia, Inc. 1380 Pear Ave Suite 2B Mountain View, CA 94043 USAHave a Happy Day!Hug the Pug© 2011, Justia Inc.