Real Estate Litigation
|Assignment of rights
Broker commission disputes
Commercial lease enforcement
Construction products and defects
Declarations and easements
Election of electric service providers
Eminent domain and condemnation
Financing for development of property
Foreclosure and confirmation actions
Land use permitting
Mold and indoor air quality
Rights of first refusal
Telecommunications and facility siting
Tenants in common
Trespass and nuisance
Alston & Bird has a track record of effectively trying, litigating or reaching prompt settlement of the most complex real estate disputes in jurisdictions all across the country. In the past five years alone, members of our team have tried or litigated cases involving real estate issues in Alabama, California, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and West Virginia. Additionally, our team has counseled clients regarding real estate disputes in Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, Washington and Wisconsin.
In the past five years, our real estate litigators have litigated and tried cases involving mezzanine loan disputes, suits regarding personal guaranties, broker commission disputes, contract disputes, easement and restrictive covenants, reversionary interests, eminent domain and governmental takings, foreclosure and related issues, lease enforcement, and mold/indoor air quality claims.
Our lawyers are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America and Super Lawyers.
Bringing Value to Our Clients
Alston & Bird’s Real Estate Litigation Group adds value through our familiarity and experience with the terminology, deal structures and other issues unique to the real estate industry. Our broad spectrum of experience benefits our clients, and we can assemble a team to suit each client’s unique needs. Drawing upon the talents and litigation experience of our lawyers from various legal disciplines, we are able to formulate the most effective and efficient strategies for successfully resolving virtually any real estate-related conflict.
Because our attorneys know and understand the real estate industry and appreciate the financial and other impacts of litigation, we typically begin each case by counseling our clients on the risks and benefits of litigation, outlining the options and providing realistic assessment of the advantages of pursuing each option, discussing how each affects the client’s overarching business goals. By understanding the client’s objectives, we are better able to provide value and positive results.
- In federal court, we are currently representing a national bank regarding its interest in a medical office building upon which it foreclosed. After assuming the tenants’ leases, the tenants claimed that they had paid (and were continuing to pay) above-market rent, which allegedly was designed to allow the tenants to take a percentage ownership in any entity that owned the medical office building and/or a right to any proceeds generated from the operation or sale of such property. We filed a declaratory judgment action and asserted claims for tortious interference against the tenants.
- We are lead trial and appellate counsel for an international construction materials manufacturer regarding its efforts to recover damages due to an inverse condemnation by the Oklahoma Department of Transportation (ODOT). Our client operated a concrete plant on property that it owned and leased. At issue is whether our client had an enforceable leasehold interest in its property, which ODOT took to relocate an interstate highway (I-40). Although the ODOT initially treated the client as a tenant and offered it nearly $3 million for its property interests and relocation expenses, ODOT withdrew that offer when it learned that the client’s landlord did not consent in writing to the client’s lease. The trial court granted an ex parte motion dispossessing client from the property. The case has already had two trips to the Oklahoma Supreme Court, one of which is currently pending.
- We represent a multiple-listing service in a class action dispute challenging the client’s fee structure and the payment of patronage dividends to its broker members. The plaintiffs assert claims under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, the Sherman Antitrust Act and various Georgia state-law theories. The lawsuit asserts claims on behalf of a putative plaintiff class (to include all buyers and sellers of residential real estate in Georgia listed for sale with the listing service) against the listing service, two local real estate boards and a defendant class to include any broker who listed or assisted in purchasing property that had been listed on the listing service’s website.
- In an arbitration proceeding, we represent the owner of a mixed-use facility (office and retail) in a dispute with an adjacent hotel regarding various provisions of a Declaration of Easements and Covenants that govern the operation of a shared parking garage and central plant.
- We represent the developer of a large office complex regarding a dispute as to whether the client has the ability to choose which electric utility will provide service to one or all of the buildings, where the project, which initially (in 2006) was a spec development, has changed into a build-to-suit project for a specific end-user.
- We recently obtained summary judgment in favor of the owner and operator of an Atlanta restaurant in a dispute over a right of first refusal. The plaintiff subleased property to the restaurant and claimed that the restaurant failed to honor the plaintiff’s alleged right of first refusal with the original owner, when an affiliate of the restaurant acquired the property after obtaining an estoppel letter from the plaintiff. The case is on appeal.
- We represent an international mining company in a lawsuit over the value of marble mined from property that the client owns jointly, as tenants-in-common, with four individuals. A declaratory judgment action to resolve the dispute over both the method and amounts that the client must pay its cotenants is pending.
- We recently prosecuted claims for a member of a bankrupt developer in an adversary proceeding centered on our client’s relationship with its two lenders. At issue were our client’s claims that the mezzanine lender used the debtor’s and our client’s confidential information to lure a third party into acquiring the senior note, to the detriment of our client, which froze out friendly capital available to acquire the senior note.
- In a state court action, we represent the owner and operator of a national chain of hotels in a condemnation action that is relocating a railroad line within several feet of the guest rooms and requires the relocation of various signage whose dimensions are not permitted under existing zoning.