McCulloch v. Town of Milan

In this easement violation case, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the land trust when landowner violated the easement’s notice requirement with regard to both the tree cutting and improvements.

In this landowner challenge to a conservation easement’s division restriction, the District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the federal holder, finding that the sale of one of the three parcels was a violation of the division restriction.

Neighbors sued to trim vegetation on Town owned land under a restrictive covenant. SC Supreme Court reversed summary judgment for the Town and remanded in 2020.

The appellate court affirmed in a very brief opinion, holding that the Town's zoning requirement of a conservation easement was arbitrary and capricious.

The trial court granted WLT's motion for summary judgment, finding that the proposed wolf habitat facility would violate the conservation easement.

The trial court granted summary judgment for the LLC and denied summary judgment to the Town and County. Following well-developed New York common law, the court ruled that the deed restriction did not include any language evidencing the requisite intent to run with the land.

This document summarizes NRCS policy on violations and enforcement, which is available in full in the Title 440 Conservation Programs Manual, Agricultural Conservation Easement Program, (CPM Part 528.92), as well as highlighting relevant Land Trust Standards and Practices.

July 24 Update: In the related eminent domain case, the court granted summary judgment in favor of Northeastern, finding that the Town’s eminent domain action was in bad faith and for an improper purpose.

This is a summary of a US Tax Court in which the IRS challenged a conservation easement on 141 acres of Alabama coastal land, part of which included a golf course. After trial and briefing, the IRS dropped its challenge of the easement’s conservation values and focused on valuation.

The appeal was held to be frivolous and the Gavas were ordered to pay the Town's attorney fees and costs and the court's costs in processing the appeal.This case is a prime example of a court's losing patience with a landowner who refuses to comply with the terms of an easement.