Back in 1968, the Kentucky Bar Association (“KBA”) released Unauthorized Practice of Law Opinion KBA U-6 (“U-6”), opining that bank officers and lending institutions could not draft loan documents such as mortgages, security agreements or financing statements without violating the provisions of Kentucky law that prohibit the unauthorized practice of law. It is entirely within the province of attorneys in the Commonwealth of Kentucky to draft legal documents, and this KBA opinion merely reinforced that idea. So far, so good, right? Opinion U-6 was not the last word on where the role of the lender can dovetail with the practice of law, however, and all lenders should take heed of where potential landmines of the unauthorized practice of law in violation of KRS §524.130 still exist.

It’s one of the larger mines in the minefield of renting out property as a landlord – what happens when the tenant breaches the lease? What happens when the tenant doesn’t pay? In and among the questions presented by such a scenario is whether a suit against the tenant would be cost-effective. The landlord’s decision may, in large part, depend on whether the landlord is entitled to recover its costs and attorney fees associated with prosecuting its claim against the tenant. And, in Kentucky, the landlord’s right to recover costs and attorney fees depends on the circumstances surrounding the tenant’s breach of the lease.

Zoning categories and the uses that are allowable in each of them are subject to the possibility of amendment by the legislative body. This means that a property can apply to the planning authority to change his zoning designation or to add uses within that designation that are otherwise prohibited. However, many citizens incorrectly believe that zoning designations are permanent and that uses within each zoning category never change. When a neighboring property owner files to rezone property, asking to amend the zoning ordinance to add a new use to a particular category that is prohibited, the neighbors become alarmed at the potential change to their area. Although neighboring property owners have a right to attend hearings and object to the proposed changes, they have no final say or authority as to whether the governmental body approves it. This can lead to zoning battles.

The American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) revised its Construction Industry Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures (“Rules”) as of July 1, 2015. Many of the changes are designed to streamline the arbitration process, making it more efficient and cost-effective. While there were many noteworthy changes in the rules, we summarize the most significant and far-reaching revised and new rules below. It is important to note that not all the revised or new rules will apply to contracts in effect before the rules took effect, so the following provisions may or may not apply to existing claims.

It’s not an uncommon sight, especially in light of the burst of the housing bubble in recent years: a debtor in bankruptcy has two mortgages on a property with a fair market value of less than the amount of the senior mortgage. The junior mortgage lien is then wholly underwater, so that creditor would receive nothing from the sale of the property. The question then becomes, can the debtor void those liens in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding? The Supreme Court, in an increasingly rare show of unanimity, said “No.”

While prior blog posts have discussed the basics of mechanics liens as they relate to private construction projects, this post addresses public improvement liens on property owned by the state, a subdivision or agency thereof, or by any city, county, urban-county, or charter county government (hereafter collectively “Government Entity”).[1] As one may imagine, while the principle purpose behind the filing of public improvement liens and private mechanics liens is the same (i.e. to ensure payment for labor, materials and/or supplies furnished on the project), perfection and enforcement of public improvement liens on property owned by a Government Entity differs significantly from the perfection and enforcement of mechanic’s liens against privately owned property.

The United States Supreme Court, in a five-to-four decision in June, brought housing discrimination law ever-so-slightly more in line with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) by holding that claims of disparate impact are cognizable under the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”). The court took great pains, however, to limit the impact of the holding as well as putting a substantial onus on a plaintiff to prove causal connections between challenged policies and alleged disparities.

Inverse condemnation is a far more complex subject than it may seem at the outset. While condemnation proceedings are initiated by the government to acquire property and pay the owner just compensation, the general rule regarding inverse condemnation is that the owner of the property, and not a government entity, seeks to recover damages for a loss in value of the property as a result of governmental action. There are several avenues from which this type of action can arise, as there are multiple ways property can be affected by government activity. Rather than there being a cut and dried standard for what inverse condemnation looks like, each case involving it arises is based on a set of unique factual circumstances.

In Obergefell v. Hodges, the United States Supreme Court, in a 5-4 opinion, determined that prohibitions on same-sex marriage are an unconstitutional infringement of Fourteenth Amendment rights. This decision throws the doors open for same-sex marriages, affording same-sex married couples the same rights and privileges only enjoyed by opposite-sex couples until recently. This expansion of marriage allows same-sex couples to take advantage of certain legal benefits, and property law is no exception. Same-sex married couples may now hold property in a tenancy by the entirety, a form of title available exclusively to married couples owning together.

You have likely seen the commercials for reverse mortgages. While the advertisements urge viewers to “call now to secure you reverse mortgage today” and make them seem risk-free, obtaining a mortgage of this type is a serious decision that should not be made without fully understanding its pros and cons.