THE ICON AT NORMAN APTS, LP V. DOUGLAS WARR, CLEVELAND CNTY. ASSRS. (OKLA SUP CT. JUNE 2025)
CLAIMS: The taxpayer, a limited partnership and owner of the Icon Apartments at 6432 36th Ave NW in Norman, OK, appealed a lower court decision that a transfer of partnership interests was legally the same as transferring title to the partnership’s real estate, and thereby lifting the 5% limitation on increasing the fair cash value of the property for ad valorem taxation.
EVIDENCE: This dispute arose over the Cleveland County Assessor's increase in value to the "fair cash value" of the Icon apartments, which is the value used to determine Icon's ad valorem tax. The Icon Apartments are owned by a limited partnership that owns the real estate. This tax assessment protest arose from the Assessor's 2023 change in the fair cash value of the subject property to $42,500,000 from the preceding year's fair cash value of $18,437,401, which amounted to an immediate 130.5% increase. Icon protested the decision, to no avail, then appealed to the Cleveland County Board of Equalization. Denied there, Icon appealed to the Okla. Court of Tax Review and was again denied. The Assessor had successfully argued that a transfer of all Icon partnership interests to unrelated new partners "constituted transfers of equitable title to Icon's assets.”
COURT RULING: The Court recited the law that the Assessor is not allowed to increase the "fair cash value" of non-homestead property by more than 5% a year unless there are improvements to the property or when the title is "transferred, changed, or conveyed to another person." The Court reviewed multiple sources, even Black’s Law Dictionary, and found that the word "conveyance” is the "transfer of title to land from one person, or class of persons, to another by deed.” The Court noted that the Assessor had offered no document manifesting a conveyance of the real estate. In Oklahoma, a limited partnership is considered an entity separate and distinct from its partners, and the transferable interest held by a partner is personal property, not real estate. The real estate of a partnership is owned by the partnership entity and not the individual partners. A partner has no right to demand title to any real property owned by the partnership. Icon was the owner prior to the transfer of partnership interests and remains the owner following the transfer. Thus, the change above the 5% cap is overturned. Icon wins.
MONDARA CONDOS. ASS'N V. STILLWATER ABBOTT DEV., LLC (TEXAS N. BANKR. CT., JUNE 2025)
CLAIMS: A condo assoc. sues the developer of a 40-unit luxury project in Highland Park, Texas, claiming that the developer committed negligence, deception, misrepresentation, and breached warranties.
EVIDENCE: Developer built the condo project as a luxury development and marketed it as such. As one example, he planned significant acoustic privacy between the living units. The acoustics and other features were heavily marketed in sales promotions. But during construction, inspectors often made the Developer aware of many defects that had arisen, such as missing weepholes, flashing defects, poorly installed acoustic materials, and more. Simultaneous with construction, sales of the Units were occurring, with representations being made to Buyers, with statements like, it’s built “way over and above the IBC” code, it has “Green Built” certification, and soundproofing quality. Once residents began moving in, severe problems arose. Sound easily transmitted between units, drainage problems were rampant, the garage flooded, and more. Developer engaged consultants, such as an acoustic testing expert, and the evidence uncovered that Developer told the acoustic expert that “it is important that we don't talk to homeowners” and hid the results. When the homeowners asked for the results, Developer lied to them and told them that the results “came out within specs” and that to see the report would cost them $25,000. With overwhelming evidence of defects, the parties each obtained estimates to fix all problems. Further illustrating the difference in position, the Developer presented an estimate of $190,000. The HOA presented an estimate of $10.8M.
COURT RULING: The Court looked closely at what was represented to the buyers. Statements like “luxurious finishes and amenities” were found to be non-liable puffery. But the outright false statements of green built certification, $25,000 costs to obtain the report, and active concealment of known defects during the sales process were all found to be culpable. The Court rules on serious liability on almost all counts, including breach of warranty, unconscionable acts and practices, and knowing deception and misrepresentation; and slaps the defendants with a damage award of two times the economic damages suffered. HOA wins, big.
PAMPALONE V. LONGORIA, INDIANA CT. APP. JUNE 2025
CLAIMS: Once friendly neighbors, Pampalone sues his abutting neighbor Longoria for an injunction to limit how Longoria can use their backyard.
EVIDENCE: In May 2022, Longoria began building a backyard pool, and from then on, the neighbors could not get along. The distance from the back of Pampalone's house to the back of the Longorias’ house is approximately 80 feet. Pampalone claimed the Longorias were interfering with the utility easement, trespassing on the Pampalone property, invading Pampalone’s privacy, intercepting his communications, and defaming him. Pampalone claimed the Longorias’ backyard activities, including lights and noise, were disrupting his sleep and enjoyment of his property. The disputes escalated with each party pointing lights and cameras at each other’s houses. At some point, the Longorias set up an igloo-like inflatable structure in their backyard that had lights on it, and Pampalone testified that the lights from the igloo illuminated his bedroom at night. Pampalone retaliated and replaced a light bulb on the outside of his house, and the Longorias called law enforcement because of how bright the new bulb was. When the responding officers did not take care of it that night, Longoria "made a tower and put a light on Pampalone because he was shining on us so bright that I just counteracted him." Pampalone claimed he could not “sleep at night because of the floodlights Longoria pointed into his bedroom from their backyard."
COURT RULING: Clearly aggravated with the pettiness of the matter, the Court finds that each party had “cast myriad aspersions upon the other” and had “sicced law and code enforcement authorities upon the other.” “Both have engaged in retaliatory conduct against the other, e.g., by way of casting unwanted and bright lights into the other's yard. Both have permitted objects from one side of the literal and figurative fence to invade or encroach upon the other side, whether overhanging tree branches or waving flags or otherwise. Both have had to relocate structures - a fence and a shed, respectively - from the contested easement area. Both have been subject to varying levels of law enforcement attention and intervention, and reprimand.” Pampalone is found to not have clean hands in seeking his injunction. The Court tersely finds Pampalone’s argument baseless and indicates that it will not “address arguments that are too poorly developed or improperly expressed to be understood.” Ouch! Nobody wins, as the Court rules for no one.
