As legal years go, action on the 1996 legislative and judicial fronts was relatively quiet in the area of property law. The legislative activity which spawned most of the interest was bills addressing the definitional limits of the unauthorized practice of law in real estate closings. These bills were not enacted and have been carried over for the next legislative session. Several judicial decisions, although none could be described as landmark determinations, are of interest and clarify points of law. These cases, as well as selected items of legislation which are believed to be of the most practical interest to the practitioner, are what follow.
As legal years go, action on the 1996 legislative and judicial fronts was relatively quiet in the area of property law. The legislative activity which spawned most of the interest was bills addressing the definitional limits of the unauthorized practice of law in real estate closings. These bills were not enacted and have been carried over for the next legislative session.
The 1986 General Assembly may be remembered as much for what it did not do as for what it did. Carried over into the next session was House Bill 810, which would have abolished dower and curtesy in favor of a statutory share for the surviving spouse in the deceased spouse's estate. Of course, passage of this bill would have ushered in significant change in the practice of decedents' estates. Significantly, passage of the bill also would have legislatively overruled recent judicial and legislative activity which has created the sole and separate estate, for both female and male, allowing circumvention of the surviving spouse's claim of curtesy or dower. Many believe House Bill 810 is a long-awaited change whose time has come, but it must wait at least one more year. Of those bills which became law, most noteworthy was House Bill 207. Virginia Code ("Code") section 36-91(c) now provides that group homes, family care homes, or foster homes wherein no more than six physically handicapped, mentally ill, mentally retarded or developmentally disabled persons reside, with or without one or more resident counselors or staff personnel, shall be considered single family residences for the purpose of interpreting restrictive covenants executed after July 1, 1986.4 This legislation was in direct response to Omega Corp. v. Malloy a 1984 Virginia Supreme Court decision which upheld the trial court's determination that a group home for the mentally retarded does not constitute a "single-family use." A key finding in the case was that the presence of a counselor living in the home converted the residence into a facility.
The 1986 General Assembly may be remembered as much for what it did not do as for what it did. Carried over into the next session was House Bill 810, which would have abolished dower and curtesy in favor of a statutory share for the surviving spouse in the deceased spouse's estate. Of course, passage of this bill would have ushered in significant change in the practice of decedents' estates. Significantly, passage of the bill also would have legislatively overruled recent judicial and legislative activity which has created the sole and separate estate, for both female and male, allowing circumvention of the surviving spouse's claim of curtesy or dower. Many believe House Bill 810 is a long-awaited change whose time has come, but it must wait at least one more year.
The General Assembly made several minor changes affecting property law in Virginia. The most significant of these changes was the amendment of the Code's provisions regarding a spouse's dower and curtesy interests in the separate estate of a deceased spouse. In addition to this legislation, the Virginia Supreme Court decided several cases dealing with varied property issues. The decisions discussed below are those which should have the most interest to the general practitioner. The real estate specialist, no doubt, is already aware of most of them.
The General Assembly made several minor changes affecting property law in Virginia. The most significant of these changes was the amendment of the Code's provisions regarding a spouse's dower and curtesy interests in the separate estate of a deceased spouse. In addition to this legislation, the Virginia Supreme Court decided several cases dealing with varied property issues. The decisions discussed below are those which should have the most interest to the general practitioner. The real estate specialist, no doubt, is already aware of most of them. In the majority of the cases which follow, the Virginia Supreme Court affirms and reinforces long-standing judicial precedent in Virginia. The most significant development deals with zoning regulations and residential restrictive covenants which affect group homes for the mentally handicapped. In another decision, the court had the opportunity to recognize tortious interference with a prospective contract for the sale of real estate as a cause of action for the first time.
The focus of this article is on the state's power of eminent domain as a means of controlling the use of scarce coastal resources. However, in order to determine whether this rather drastic exercise of governmental power is the most appropriate means of effecting its purposes, the state or its delegate must consider the alternatives. This article therefore will first examine briefly other possible means of control; it will then discuss the substantive and procedural requirements of eminent domain; and finally, it will consider problems of post-acquisition resource management.
This article will address in order: the mechanics of a solar energy system; the problem of solar access; the traditional public and private remedies available at common law; Virginia's legislative response to the problem of assuring solar access; and some suggestions for the resolution of anticipated solar access conflicts in Virginia.
