Download - Property Bray Fall 2013 (2)

7/23/2019 Property Bray Fall 2013 (2)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/property-bray-fall-2013-2 1/37

Property Outline 02/01/2014

1. What is property?a. Two Conceptions of Property

i. Trespass1. Any intentional intrusion that depri es another of

possession of land! e en if only te"porarily

2. The so erei#n owner #ets to decide how the land isused and can choose to e$clude people %not a&solute'

(. Jacque v. Steenberg Homes, Inc.a. Trespassed "o&ile ho"e across land. )100!000

in puniti e da"a#es&. *ecessity is not enou#h

i. +i#ht to e$clude enforced &ecause it is ani"portant ri#ht

ii. Two reasons for enforcin#1. To a oid potential iolence %self,help'

2. To protect pri acy ri#htsc. Owner is in &est position to -now a&out fra#ile#oods or dan#ers on property

d. Owner fi#ures out how property is &est used! they#et to recei e returns fro" it

e. arnard +ule The rationale for the co"pensatoryda"a#e re uire"ent is that if the indi idualcannot show actual har"! he or she has &ut ano"inal interest! hence! society has little interestin ha in# the unlawful! &ut otherwise har"less!conduct deterred! therefore! puniti e da"a#es.

i. O erturned puniti e da"a#esii. *uisance

1. Hinman v. Pacific Air Transport a. Two airlines fly within 100 feet of plaintiff s

#round. s not trespass! &ut nuisance&. Ad coleu" doctrine %doesn t apply here'



i. Whoe er owns the soil owns also to the s-yand to the depths

c. n3unction Court orders you to do or not doso"ethin#

2. Hendricks v. Stalnaker

a. +ace to install water well &efore septic syste"&. Court found not an unreasona&le use of landc. Test reasona&leness or unreasona&leness of the

use of the property in relation to the particularlocality

i. nreasona&le the #ra ity of the har"soutwei#hs the utility of the actor s conduct

d. f he -new #oin# o er property line or doin#"aliciously "atters

iii. Trespass . *uisance1. 5howin# of 6ar"

a. Trespass *o showin#&. *uisance 5how si#nificant har"

2. 5how nreasona&lenessa. Trespass *o&. *uisance 7es

(. What interest are you protectin#?a. Trespass Possession&. *uisance se 8 9n3oy"ent

&. Property and 9 uityi. +epeated Trespassers

1. aker v. Ho!ard "ount# Hunt



a. 6untin# do#s re#ularly trespassed. Would &eunfair for a-er to ha e to file lawsuit for e erytrespass. n3unction #ranted

b. :a"a#es would not &e sufficient since do#srepeatedly on land

c. n "ost cases people not held lia&le for do# strespassin# on other s lands if no har" is done!&ut if -now do# o er there and har" is done!lia&le

$. 9 uity :istincti e ;eaturesa. 9"phasi<es e$ceptional cases

i. 5o"e -ind of de iation fro" the nor"ii. *ot typical case where da"a#es will &e

enou#hb. 6as specifically i"plicated "oral reasonin#c. 6as a ha&it of startin# with the re"edy and

wor-in# &ac-wardsii. uildin# 9ncroach"ents

1. 9ncroach"enta. *ot intentional chance of in3unction #oes down&. nsi#nificant chance of in3unction #oes downc. =reat hardship to re"o e chance of in3unction

#oes downd. f #ood faith

i. nsi#nificant encroach"ent 8 #reat hardshipto re"o e &eco"e "ore i"portant. *ot 3usta cost &enefit. +eally has to &e a great hardship

e. f &ad faithi. :oesn t "atter a&out insi#nificance or

hardshipii. Will lead to in3unction

2. Pile v. Pedrick a. sin# a trespass style of property



&. :ef. &uilt wall where sur eyor said o-. Turns outo er property line. >ust re"o e wall withoutenterin# other land

(. %olden Press, Inc. v. &#landsa. sin# a nuisance conception of property

&. Wall e$tended 2 inches o er property line.Plaintiff s use not affected and re"o al is #reathardship for defendant. Pay cost to ac uire land.

2. 6ow does property &e#in?a. ;irst Possession

i. "portance1. Ad anta#es

a. Clear 5i#nalin# @ess :isputes >ore Clarity&. 6i#h ncenti es to 5earch

2. :isad anta#esa. ne ual :istri&ution

ii. Wild Ani"als1. Pierson v. Post

a. Pursuin# fo$ in woods s. shootin# fo$ %ownershipissue'

&. Possession of a wild ani"al %fo$' one hasintercepted the" in such a "anner that theydepri e the" of natural li&erty and render escapei"possi&le

c. &atione Soli &y reason of the soil &ecause youown the land! whate er is on it is yours

d. 5i#nalin# "atters to a oid wasteful racese. A&andoned pursuit no possession

2. %'en v. &ic'a. 5hot whale with spear identifia&le to hi". Person

not fa"iliar with custo"! found whale and sold it.:ef. "ust pay for con ersion



&. nder Pierson v. Post i. =ot "ortal woundin# &ut a&andoned pursuit

so no possessionii. Wouldn t wor- here as incenti e structure to

hunt whales would &e de"olished

c. Only safe and appropriate way to capture whaleif no reco#ni<ed practice! no one would en#a#e inindustry

(. (eeble v. Hickeringill a. :uc- decoy near nei#h&or s decoy def. fires #un

to dri e P s duc-s away. nterfered with P s use of land for e"ploy"ent

&. *ot property interest in the duc-s &ut propertyinterest in his trade/occupation

i. :uc-s would need to &e trapped in decoyc. ;air . nfair Co"petition

i. s society &etter or worse off?iii. >ore Cases

1. Popov v. Ha#as'i a. arry onds &all. P esta&lished pre,possessor

interest when &all touched "itt in &ein# allowedto co"plete catch without interference. : first touna"&i#uously esta&lish possession of &all

&. >ust sell &all and split proceeds2. Hammonds v. "entral (entuck# )atural %as "o .

a. +e,in3ect #as into #round for stora#e undernei#h&or s land! not a trespass

&. Wild ani"al analo#y released into wild! nowownerless and wild eli#i&le for recapture

(. *one Star %as "o . v. +urc'isona. +e,in3ect #as into #round for stora#e under

nei#h&or s land. *ei#h&or sued for con ersionwhen tryin# to e$tract

&. Court re3ected wild ani"al analo#y Bif a horsestrays o er on a nei#h&or s land! the nei#h&or"ay &e entitled to his da"a#es! &ut he does not!

&y irtue of trespass! ac uire title to the horse c. pheld con ersion cause of action



i . Open Access and the Co""ons1. 5ee 10. Theories su&section %&' strum

&. Creationi. >isappropriation and Duasi,Property +i#ht

1. Duasi,Property

a. Property for one purpose &ut not property foranother purpose

&. +i#ht to protect a#ainst co"petitors! &ut nota#ainst the world

2. Sic -tere Tuoa. :uty to use your property so it doesn t hurt other

people(. International )e!s Service v. Associated Press

a. %6ot *ews' AP recei es stories fro" writers andpu&lishes the". : copied &ulletins and earlyeditions e$actly and sold the" to custo"ers.

nfair &usiness practices&. Duasi,Property. f treated as property,property!

"e tellin# you a story read is iolatin# propertyri#ht. *o property! no one will pay to putso"eone in 5yria to #et the story &ecause e erynewspaper will #et and ta-e it

c. Property case &ecausei. Ealua&le

ii. Ealua&le now/hotiii. @a&or/e$pensei . A#ainst co"petitors

c. Accessioni. ncrease

1. Calf always #oes to the owner of the "othera. 5i#nalin#/@e#al Certainty



i. Fnow calf &elon#s to "a"a cow/potentialpaternity issues

&. ncenti esi. Owner has the a&ility to ta-e care of the calf

ii. The :octrine of Accession

1. :efinitiona. 5o"eone "ista-enly ta-es up an o&3ect owned &y

so"eone else and turns it into so"ethin# elsethrou#h the process of la&or

2. et'erbee v. %reena. Cut trees on defendants property possi&ly in #ood

faith. Con erted trees in "ore alua&le chattels.&. +eple in le#al re"edy to reco er #oods

unlawfully withheld fro" his or her possessionBad Faith

No Change :on t #et to-eepSubstantialTransformation

:on t Feep

Untraceable Feepd.

i. The Ad "oelum +ule1. /d!ards v. Sims2. Part of ca e "ay #o under P s property. : sue 3ud#e to

pre ent inspection. >a3 Ad Coleu" ri#hts :is &elon#sto hi" who owns the entrance especially when he hasprepared it for e$hi&ition

e. Ad erse Possessioni. Purpose of Ad erse Possession

1. Purposesa. +eliance nterests



&. 5leepin# on their ri#htsc. Transaction costsd. +edistri&uti e costs

2. Color of Titlea. 6a e a docu"ent that says it was yours! &ut

there is a defect in the docu"ent&. Purposes ha e shorter ti"e period under color of

title(. Prohi&ition of AP a#ainst #o ern"ent

a. >onitorin# costs are really hi#h&. 6ard to &e &est #ate-eeperc. Political acti ity and protest

4. +arengo "ave "o. v. &ossa. AP :efinition

i. When an owner sits on her ri#ht to e$cludeand the statute of li"itations for challen#in#the ori#inal unlawful entry e$pires! not only isthe ori#inal owner &arred fro" assertin# theri#ht to e$clude &ut a new title also sprin#sup in the ad erse possessor

ii. The possession "ust ha e &een 1. actual! 2.isi&le! (. notorious! 4. e$clusi e! G. under

clai" of ownership and hostile to the ownerof the le#al title and to the world at lar#e andcontinuous for the full period prescri&ed &ythe statute

iii. 9 uity rule , 5tatute of li"itations does not&e#in until the in3ured party has reali<ed it

i . =eneral rule #ood faith or o&3ecti e&. : clai"s ca e under P under AP. P did not

disco er until recently. *o AP.G. "arpenter v. &uperto

a. P sou#ht title to land had &een usin# in &ad faith.Could not ac uire &y AP in &ad faith. Court "ade: deed her strip of land 8 to pay costs of "o in#propane tan- to her lot

f. The pro&le" of 5e uential Possessioni. Armor# v. 0elamirie



1. Chi"ney 5weep found 3ewel. Apprentice re"o edstones. P sued for alue of 3ewel. Court return 3ewel orco"pensate B3ewel of the finest water.

2. ;inder has possession of property e en if not theri#htful owner. Can -eep property fro" all &ut the

ri#htful owner(. ;inder has #reater clai" than con erter

a. 9 en if con ersion first and then found! &ut wouldstill lose to true owner

4. Con erter has possession a#ainst all &ut true ownerG. ;irst finder -eeps possession &ecause easiest for true

owner to find it/encoura#es stealin#/"ini"i<in#pro&le"s of proof and 3urisdiction

ii. "lark v. +alone# 1. ;loatin# lo#s in &ay and "oored. @ater found in

possession of :2. ;irst finder has #reater clai" than second finder(. ;inder "aintains possession a#ainst con ersion

iii. Anderson v. %ouldberg1. Trespassed to cut lo#s. : clai"ed fro" his land! which

they were not2. Possession is #ood title a#ainst the world e$cept those

who ha e &etter title(. Con erter 1 has &etter clai" than Con erter 24. Jus Tertii a defense &ased on the ri#hts of third parties

i . +elati ity of Title and +e3ection of the Jus Tertii defense#. Conflict &etween the ways property can &e#in

i. is'er v. Ste!ard 1. BTro er for a swar" of &ees 2. ;irst possession s. accession(. Thin- throu#h what the incenti es are! the rules in a

thorou#h way



a. Hust sayin# a rule of law for property won t wor-&ut need to wor- throu#h situation to persuadewhy rule should &e applied in this particularsituation

ii. Hanna' v. Peel

1. +e uisitioned ho"e. rooch found &y "e"&er of"ilitary. Owner of ho"e clai"ed fro" police and sold.P sued for &rooch or alue.

2. : didn t -now a&out &rooch or had li ed there so firstfinder

(. ;inder wins e$cept whena. Attached to or under the property&. 9"ployee/a#ent of anotherc. Trespassin#

4. Chan#e one thin# and result would flipa. Peel ne er went to property&. P does e erythin# ri#ht

(. What can &e property?a. Personhood

i. ody Parts1. +oore v. &egents of t'e -niversit# of "alifornia

a. sed plaintiff s cells for "edical research withoutplaintiff s per"ission. Court plaintiff had noownership interest in cells after they left his &ody

&. ;ocus on &oth incenti es and "oral ar#u"entsii. Pu&licity

1. +idler v. ord +otor "ompan# a. ette >idler co""ercial sound,a,li-e&. :istincti e oice i"itated in order to sell a

product! the sellers appropriated what is nottheirs



c. As alue #oes up! pressure to ha e an increase inproperty ri#hts #oes up

&. Wateri. Watercourses

1. /vans v. +erri!eat'er

a. : o&structed and di erted water. P downstrea"no lon#er recei ed

&. 9n#land uses natural flow theory doesn t reallyloo-s at reasona&leness

c. 5 follows B+easona&le se i. Pro,social &alancin# of the co"petin#

interestsii. >ainly only in ol ed in artificial uses

2. "offin v. *eft Hand 0itc' "ompan# a. : tore out P s da"&. Prior appropriation Theory

i. As resource is "ore alua&le "o e "oretoward properti<ation as a strate#y

ii. se "ust &e &eneficial can t &e done 3ust tospite people

c. Pu&lic +i#htsi. The *a i#ation 5er itude

1. *a i#a&le Watersa. +i#ht to tra el &y essel and fish on a &ody of

water that is na i#a&le&. *a i#a&le water presu"pti ely owned &y #o t

2. *a i#a&le Airspacea. Airspace is pu&lic



&. Can t ha e state ariationii. The Pu&lic Trust :octrine

1. Purposea. Way to -eep so"e thin#s fro" &ein# property

&ecause they re too pu&lic

&. =ood for stoppin# de elop"ent &y pri ate parties!&ut does nothin# to stop de elop"ent &y #o t

c. 9$ception 5tate can sell s"all part of har&or to&uild doc- or pier &ut can t #i e away whole thin#

2. Illinois "entral &ailroad "o. v. Illinoisa. Tried to sell part of Chica#o 6ar&or. Could not too

pu&lic(. Transfor"ation of the Pu&lic Trust :octrine4. State of regon e2 rel. T'ornton v. Ha#

a. Wanted to &uild fence on &each4. What can &e done with property?

a. Protectin# the +i#ht to 9$clude %and ts 9nforce"ent'i. Cri"inal @aws

1. Cri"inal @aws Protectin# Personal Propertya. People v. livo

i. @arceny1. ntent to steal2. 9$ercisin# control inconsistent with

owner s ri#hts(. >o e"ent of the o&3ect

2. Cri"inal @aws Protectin# +eal Property



a. +easonsi. nder enforce"ent of property ri#hts if

"erely left to pri ate enforce"entii. +educe self,help and iolence

iii. nsol ent defendants

i . *ot 3ust har" to property owner &ut a har"to society

. Cri"inal law often e$presses society aluesii. Ci il Actions

1. Ci il Actions Protectin# +eal Propertya. People don t ha e access to resources to hire a

laywer2. Ci il Actions Protectin# Personal Property

a. Intel "orporation v. Hamidi i. sin# ntel s e"ail syste" to send e,"ails to

e"ployees critici<in# co"pany. *o propertytort

iii. 5elf,6elp&. 9$ceptions to the +i#ht to 9$clude

i. *ecessity1. sually fails

a. 9 eryone says it was necessary&. Can use if you really don t care whether you #et

sued for trespass! &ecause conse uences will &eworse if you don t trespass

ii. Custo"1. +c"onico v. Singleton

a. 6untin# on unenclosed land in pursuit with noper"ission o-ay. Wron# in "odern ti"es



&. *ot a tru"p card ar#u"ent! su&ordinate to "orefor"al laws

iii. Pu&lic Acco""odation @aws1. Certain &usiness owners ha e to ser e the entire pu&lic2. :uties

a. Pro ide ser ice if a aila&le&. 6a e reasona&le rates

(. si . Pu&lic Policy

1. -ston v. &esorts International Hotel, Inc.a. Card counter e$cluded fro" casinos. Casino

Control Act re#ulated &ut had no rule fore$cludin# patrons for strate#ies

&. *o ri#ht to e$clude people fro" 3ust &ecause youfeel li-e it! "ust &e for reasona&le reasons youe$press

. Antidiscri"ination @aws1. The ;air 6ousin# Act

a. Pre ents ran#e of discri"inatory &eha iorsa#ainst "e"&ers of enu"erated protected classesin the housin# field

i. *o discri"ination on &asis of race! color!reli#ion! se$! fa"ilial status! national ori#in!or disa&ility

&. Can t refuse to sell %su&section a'c. Can t ad ertise indicatin# preference Ilist of

protected characteristicsJc. ail"ents

i. Allen v. H#att &egenc#3)as'ville Hotel 1. Eehicle stolen fro" #ara#e operated &y hotel. ail"ent

for hire had &een created2. To esta&lish &ail"ent "ust &e a sufficient deli ery of

possession and control



(. Transfer your property to another so they act li-e owner&ut not the owner for those purposes

ii. The ailee s :uty of Care1. n deter"inin# whether the &ailee e$ercised reasona&le

care! such as standard would ta-e into account all the

circu"stances surroundin# the &ail"ent relationship!includin# whether the &ailee recei ed co"pensation orwhether the &ail"ent was for the &enefit of the &ailee.

d. A&andon"ents and :estructioni. Pocono Springs "ivic Association, Inc. v. +ac(en4ie

1. Could not find &uyer. BA&andoned lot and did not payfees

a. ntent and lac- of "aintenance i"portanti. 9ffort to a&andon

2. Owners of lot in fee si"ple and were lia&le for fees(. 6ow you use property can hurt others4. Can a&andon personal property! &ut not real property

ii. /#erman v. +ercantile Trust "o.1. 6o"e owner directed will to destroy house. :oin# so

would hurt nei#h&or s property ri#hts2. Will in iolation of pu&lic policy(. Can destroy property as you wish &ut not to the har"

of othersG. What are the for"s of property?

a. The ;or"s of Ownershipi. :i isions &y Ti"e

ii. 9states in @and1. ;ee 5i"ple

a. ;ull ownership owner indefinitely



&. n will BTo A 2. @ife 9state

a. =i es so"eone ownership for that person s life&. BTo A for life c. When you &uy a life estate! doesn t &eco"e

"easured &y your life &ut still that persons(. +e"ainder

a. BTo A for life! and then to &. has a re"ainder interest! co"es after life estate

and #oes to so"eone other than the #rantor4. +e ersion

a. BTo A for life and then &ac- to "e / To A for life &. ac- to the #rantor

G. +ule A#ainst Perpetuitiesa. Are we #oin# to -now who is #oin# to #et the land

21 years after e eryone is dead if don t -now!defaults &ac-

iii. Present Possessory nterestsi . ;uture nterests

1. nterests +etained &y the =rantor2. nterests Created in a =rantee

. sin# the 9state 5yste" for 9state Plannin#i. Personal Property

&. Waste and +estraints on Alienationi. Waste



1. roka! v. airc'ild a. Wanted to tear down &e ueathed life estate and

increase alue. Could not as would &e waste anda#ainst testator s wishes

ii. +estraints on Alienation

1. +orse v. lood a. f heir #a e once cent to fa"ily would lose estate.

Would &e restraint on alienation&. Alienation +estriction on a&ility to sell! #i e away

or de ise propertyc. Can t li"it sellin# a&ility! &ut if doesn t its o-

i. As inefficient! #oes a#ainst pu&lic policy! "aynot &e enou#h &uyers! &est person doesn t#et it

c. Conflicts etween Co,Ownersi. Partition

1. 0elfino v. 5ealencisa. Co,owners one wanted to sell! other li ed on&. Partition &y -ind

i. Car in# up the thin# itself %the land'c. Partition &y sale %"ore co""on now'

i. 5plittin# proceeds fro" "oney &ased onpercenta#e

ii. Contri&ution and Accountin#1. %illmor v. %illmor

a. Cow #ra<in# issue&. Can t da"a#e land or refuse to acco""odate

fellow co,owneriii. 5e erance



1. Harms v. Spraguea. rother "ort#a#ed to defendants without other

&rother -nowin#. >ort#a#e does not sur i e&rother s death. :id not se er 3oint tenancy

&. *eed to "a-e sure &oth co,owenrs si#n

i . 5pecial Pro&le"s of Hoint an- Accounts1. In re /state of ilfile#

a. :au#hter withdrew funds fro" 3oint &an- accountwith "o" ri#ht &efore she died so dad "ay not#et so"e as inheritance

&. 5he was entitled to whole fund &ecause she wasthe sur i in# 3oint tenant

c. Hoint tenancy if a&out land! not "oneyi. Can t sell the entire thin#! &ut sell your part!

&eco"es tenancy in co""onii. Can t use all the property you want! as lon#

as other s wishes aren t inco"pati&led. Two actions possi&le when one party withdraws

"ore than her "oietyi. 5e ers 3oint tenancy

ii. Clai" &y one 3oint tenant a#ainst anotherd. >arital nterests in Property

i. 6 rien v. 6 rien1. Wife contri&uted to hus&and s "edical school! license to

practice only asset at ti"e of di orce. Ca"e into"arria#e while they were "arried. Court sees "arria#eas econo"ic partnership! consider potential earnin#s

2. Assets would &e split unfairly with whoe er "a-in#"oney #ettin# "ore

ii. +arvin v. +arvin1. Plaintiff #a e up career and was co"panion!

ho"e"a-er! coo-! in e$chan#e for : s financial pro"iseto support for life. 5hould &e a&le to ha e this contract&etween the" e en if not "arried. 9nforcea&le! not

oid2. People with "ost "oney wouldn t want to #et "arried!

incenti i<es people to #et "arried &y enforcin# contracte. Property,li-e 5yste"s %Property as an nstru"ent of 5ocial Policy'



i. The Proposed =oo#le oo-s 5ettle"ent1. Aut'ors %uild v. %oogle, Inc.

a. =oo#le only showin# snippets &ut scanned whole&oo-

ii. TDs and the :estruction of Ocean ;isheries

1. Adler B@e#al O&stacles to Pri ate Orderin# in >arine;isheries

a. ;ishin# uota&. ncenti es

i. Conser in# the fishii. nno atin#

1. *eed space to &e a&le to "a-e"ista-es

2. Could try new technolo#yiii. ncenti e to trade

1. Can sell ri#hts to &etter fisher"anc. Wea-nesses

i. 9nforce"ent costsii. Politics

1. @o&&yin# pro&le"s2. Anti,trust issues

iii. :istri&ution within the #roup of fishers2. Alliance Against I 7s v. ro!n

a. =roups don t li-e idea of ;Ds! ar#ued ar&itraryand capricious! was found not



&. 5et date retroacti ely so as to not incenti i<eprople to enter "ar-et

c. =reater ease of ascertainin# how "any fish &oatsas opposed to indi idual fisher"en

(. Wy"an B;ro" ;ur to ;ish +econsiderin# the

9 olution of Pri ate Property a. 6ard to set up in 5 &ecause of so "any eto

ideas&. +educe political opposition

K. 6ow can co"ple$ collections of property ri#hts &e "ana#ed?a. @eases

i. +easons to @ease1. ;inancin# :e ice2. +is- 5preadin# and :i ersification of :e ice(. 5peciali<ation of ;unctions4. @oc- in Possi&ility/6old up

ii. @ease Types1. Ter" of 7ears

a. ;i$ed ti"e2. Periodic Tenancy

a. Feeps rollin# o er(. Tenancy at Will

a. 9ither party "ay ter"inate at anyti"e4. Tenancy at 5ufferance

a. ndi idual who was once in ri#htful possessionholds o er after the ri#ht has ended



&. O erstayin# welco"e &ut no one has -ic-ed youout

iii. The ndependent Co enants >odel1. What

a. 5o"e&ody is #oin# to &ear the ris- that thin#s are

#oin# to turn out #ood or &adi. sually placed on tenant

1. 6a e to pay rent no "atter whata. nless landlord pre ents

possession and e icts tenant2. Paradine v. Jane

a. 5till has to pay rent e en thou#h BPrince +uperthas co"e onto land pre entin# far"in#

(. Smit' v. +c/nan# a. Tryin# to #et out of payin# rent with ar#u"ent

were e icted &y a ery s"all sli er of wallencroachin# on property

&. Court said if you re e ictin# a little &it! you ree ictin# the whole

i . :uty to :eli er Possession. 9$tensions of the ndependent Co enants >odel

&. The >odel of :ependent Co enantsi. Javins v. irst )ational &ealt# "orp.

1. Alle#e 1G00 housin# iolations2. @andlord in &etter position to fi$(. +etaliatory e iction doctrine pre ents landlord fro"

-ic-in# you out i""ediately after you do so"ethin#c. The "plied Warranty of 6a&ita&ility

i. Consu"er protection! ery fact specific! left to 3ury! don t needAC in 5anta >onica! do in *7C



ii. *ot only li"ited to housin# codes! can consider othercircu"stances

iii. :oesn t "ean if iolation don t ha e to pay rent! is ane aluation

i . Conse uences

1. Cause rents to rise and the supply of low,cost housin#would fall

2. >i#ht i"pro e the uality of housin# without anysi#nificant increase in rents

a. 5upply of housin# inelastic(. +ent control and enforce"ent also "atter

. Craswell1. >ar#inal consu"er

a. Pay the "a$ they are willin# to pay&. +ent #oes up a little &it with W6 and can t afford

2. nfra,"ar#inal consu"era. Willin# to pay a hi#her price than the "ar-et price&. +ent #oes up a little &it and #et &etter uality of

li in# li-e it(. @andlord

a. @ose out so"e! ha e to spend "ore on"aintenance and "ay not &e a&le to pay it allthrou#h rent

d. Condos and Coopsi. Condos ersus Coops

1. 5ee Ter"sii. Hudicial +e iew of =o ernance :isputes

1. )a'rstedt v. *akeside 5illage "ondominium Association



a. CAT @A:7&. Ones you -new #ettin# into &efore you &ou#ht

upheld if "easures were ar&itrary! i"pose&urden on use of land that outwei#hs &enefits or

iolates pu&lic policy

c. Ones you didn t -now you were #ettin# into! "ust&e reasona&le

2. 89 est :; t' Street v. Pullmana. Want to #et rid of cra<y nei#h&or&. usiness,Hud#"ent +ule %chose this one'

i. :eferential standard that lets &oards "a-eany decision it wants on su&stance as lon# asit follows procedural rules

c. +eal Property 5tatutei. Coop would pro e Pull"an was a &ad tenant

e. Trustsi. Trust ;iduciary :uties

1. 5eparatin# so"eone out to "ana#e and not allowin#those it &enefits to "ana#e it

2. People in ol ed in trustsa. 5ettlor has the wealth&. Trustee "ana#e the trust %has le#al title'

i. >ust act in &est interest of &eneficiaryc. eneficiary recei e the wealth %has e uita&le

title'(. +easons

a. =ood way to transfer property not in fee si"ple&. 5ettlor can control how "oney is "ana#edc. ;ewer #ifts in the first place if didn t ha e this

type of de ice



4. Pro&le"sa. Principal A#ent Pro&le"&. Trustee "ust use a lot of discretion &ot'koc. Chan#ed circu"stances , ilbur

G. &ot'ko v. &eis

a. Artist three trustees! two &enefit fro" sellin#paintin#s

ii. Chan#ed Circu"stances1. ilber v. !ens

a. 9$ton, a"ford +esearch ;und&. "# Pres chan#in# specific intent of will to fulfill

#eneral intentc. =ettin# away with it when "eans of #ettin# there

are cra<yd. Traditionally stron# s-epticis" of cy pres ha e

to find #eneral charita&le intentL. 6ow do -now who owns what?

a. Transfer and the :eli ery +e uire"enti. :isclai"er

1. don t want itii. Transfer and Aliena&ility

1. +ules :esi#ned to 9nhance Transfera&ilitya. The 5tatute of ;rauds

i. +e uires any contract for sale of land to &e inwritin#

ii. 5i#ned &y whoe er the contract is &ein#enforced a#ainst



2. The :eli ery +e uire"enta. Irons v. Small Piece

i. 5on #i es colt %horse' to son er&ally! nodeli ery

ii. =ift re uires possession! acceptance! and

deli ery1. Cannot &e oral #ift! needs to actually

&e deli ered2. Pre ents fraudulent clai"s and will

-now who is responsi&le for ite"iii. +easons for :eli ery +e uire"ents for =ifts

1. ;or &etter or for worse! we nee anowner

2. Want to reduce fraud(. Want to reduce disputes a&out the

scope of the #ift4. To a oid conflictin# #iftsG. To encoura#e careful decision "a-in#

&. oster v. &eissi. @etter on death&ed to lea e "oney to

hus&and! need deli eryii. Ealid #ift intent to relin uish possession M

deli ery or deediii. Wills act re uire"ent

1. 6as to &e in writin#a. +educe disputes

2. 6a e to ha e at least onedisinterested witness

a. Pre ent coercion(. 5o"eti"es si#nature has to &e

notari<ed



a. Pre ent fraudi . Two e$ceptions to wills act can pree"pt will

in re#ards to those assets1. 6olo#raphic wills

a. Written out &y hand

2. =ifts causa "ortisa. =ift "ade in conte"plation of

death&. +e uire"ents

i. 5ic- and a&out to dieii. Actually ha e to die

iii. There "ust &e deli ery&. :efinin# and Pro in# Ownership

i. Three strate#ies1. Possession

a. @ow alue. ;un#i&le! s"all! easy to "o e2. >ar-in#(. +ecordation

a. Too &i# to "o e&. +e#istration is re uired for ta$ purposesc. A need to relin uish the possessiond. Two conditions for re#istry to wor-

i. 6as to &e sufficiently alua&le to &e worth thecost of re#istry



ii. 9nforce"ent "echanis"ii. @and Transactions

1. @and :e"arcation2. 5tatute of ;rauds

a. Contract for sale of land "ust &e in writin#

&. 5i#ned &y whoe er the contract is &ein# enforceda#ainst

(. Duic- Clai" deeda. ncertainty a&out title! want to resol e&. >a-in# no warranty you actually own it! if ha e an

interest no "atter what it "ay &e! you #et iti. *ot #oin# to want to pay a lot! "ay not ha e

full interest in propertyiii. *e"o :at

1. One cannot #i e that which one does not ha ea. Can only pass alon# what you own&. Thief cannot transfer title in paintin# to so"eone

elsec. Can transfer finder s ri#htsd. @ife estate duration of #i er s life

i . The =ood ;aith Purchaser1. 9$ception to *e"o :at2. +e uire"ents

a. 5eller has to &e a&le to selli. 5eller cannot &e a thief



&. uyer is actin# in #ood faithi. Whether you -new that the #oods did not

&elon# to the person sellin#ii. n uiry notice -now enou#h #oin# on you

should "a-e in uiries

c. =ood faith purchaser has to &e a purchaseri. Can t #et as a #ift

. aird 8 Hac-son B nfor"ation! ncertainty! and the Transferof Property

1. @anda. Arrunada B nstitutional ;oundations of

"personal 9$chan#e Theory and Policy ofContractual +e#istries

2. Airplanes(. 5hips4. Auto"o&ilesG. Art

c. +ecordin# Actsi. Title 5earch and BChain of Title

1. Three -inds of noticea. Actual&. Constructi ec. n uiry

2. +ace noticea. ;irst person to write down in office owns

i. 5o"eone can #ain ownership of propertydon t own



ii. 5o"eone can sell property twice(. *otice 5tatute

a. 9 en if you record first can t win if you had noticefirst

i. >i#ht not &e first to record! &ut can still win

ii. *ot protected fro" su&se uent #ood faithpurchasers

ii. Types of +ecordin# Actsiii. 9lectronic @and +ecords

1. Wor-s as well as paper2. *ow ha e to #o to two places that "ay possi&ly conflict

i . The @i"its of Title 5earches1. +ugaas v. Smit'

a. Ad3oinin# properties! plaintiff clai"s part of land&y AP! new owners title includes disputed strip#ood faith purchase s. ad erse possession APwins

&. AP don t ha e to recordi. ad faith AP will record

ii. =ood faith AP will ne er record &ecause theyne er thin- they are AP

c. Title search isn t #oin# to catch APN. Where does "y property end and "y nei#h&or s property &e#in?

a. *uisancei. Adams v. "leveland3"liff Iron "ompan#

1. *ot allowed to reco er for nuisance if -new nuisancewas there typically

2. Trespass easier to reco er da"a#es for



(. Trespassa. Tan#i&le! apprecia&le in asion&. 5trict lia&ility/presu"ed har"c. +easona&le or unreasona&le

4. *uisance

a. *o in asion&. 5i#nificant har"c. nreasona&le acti ities

G. *uisance style trespassa. *o tan#i&le apprecia&le in asion&. 6ar" or no har"c. +easona&le or unreasona&le

K. *uisance style trespass 2.0 foreseea&ly si#nificanthar"

ii. alance of 6ardships1. Assu"in# no &ad faith! is the hardship on the defendant

of #i in# the in3unction e$tre"e co"pared to the aluefor the plaintiff opportunity cost hi#h for owner! hardto find another ho"e li-e this one

iii. Prescription1. :o it lon# enou#h ha e a ri#ht to -eep doin# it

i . Spur Industries v. 0el ebb 0evelopment 1. 5un City Cattle @ot

a. +esidential co""unity has pu&lic nuisance clai"!not de eloper thou#h

&. 9ase"ents



i. 6a e the ri#ht to use1. 6a e a use &ut there still is an owner2. >ost ease"ents last fore er

ii. 9$ceptions to deed re uire"ent for ease"ents1. Prescription

a. Open and notorious&. Continuousc. Ad ersed. ninterrupted for fi e yearse. Clear and definite line

2. 5ee-in# an e uita&le re"edyiii. 6ard to -eep a trac- of! not always written down

1. 9ase"ent in @and2. 9ase"ent in =ross

a. :oesn t #o with the land! -ept &y the personi . Can t su&di ide an ease"ent! i"plies "ore intensi e use

. Too hard to deter"ine what is too "uch use of an ease"ent1. f use ease"ent for another parcel! is "isuse

a. :oes not e ual forfeiture or a&andon"ent ofease"ent

&. To hard to fi#ure out which property is usin#ease"ent! en3oin the" all

2. Can only use ease"ent for parcel you ha e it for



i. ;our -inds of ne#ati e ease"ents ha e to #et deed for in 51. @i#ht air water! ??

ii. @icense wai er of a ri#ht to e$clude1. Can always re o-e

c. onin#

i. Two 5tories1. >oti ation

a. =ood health reasons! protect alue of your land&. ad ur&an renewal! often used as a tool for

e$plicit racial discri"ination! class2. 9cono"ic

a. =ood encoura#es in est"ent in land! "oreadapted uses! resources! <ones to reduce ta$es!-eeps people fro" freeloadin# and i"posin# costson others

&. ad re#ulation e$pensi e! can createe$ternalities! increase costs %prices people out'

ii. Can t do anythin# a&out e$istin# de eloped properties &ut cando so"ethin# a&out de elopin# properties li-e +ount *aurel

1. >ust affir"ati ely "a-e possi&le an appropriate arietyand choice of housin#

2. >ust sustain the hea y &urden of de"onstratin#peculiar circu"stances

iii. *on,confor"in# use1. eco"es "ore alua&le &ecause others can t enter2. ;our options

a. @ea e iti. 5o"eti"es die out

&. Ta-e it away



i. Eiolates ri#htsc. ""inent do"ain

i. =o t. ta-es it &ut pays you "ar-etalue/e$pensi e

d. A"orti<ation

i. =i e fair warnin# and phasin# out a certainland use after a period of ti"e #race period&efore use is wiped out

ii. Courts will loo- at loss to owner andreasona&leness of a"orti<ation period

i . Cu"ulati e %"ore fle$i&le' and non,cu"ulati e <ones1. :an#er "ansion li in# in "iddle of industrial area

. Pros 8 Cons1. Pros 1. Allow "ore and &etter de elop"ent ali#nin#

uses to eli"inate costs! help welfare 2. +educesuncertainty

2. Cons 1. 9$cludin# outsiders 2. nfairness to e$istin#users

. 6ow can %and should' the #o ern"ent #i e! chan#e! or ta-e awayproperty?

a. The @i"itation of the Ta-in#s Clausei. *o person shall &e depri ed of life! li&erty! or property without

due process of law nor shall pri ate property &e ta-en forpu&lic use without 3ust co"pensation

ii. enefits of 9"inent :o"ain1. Asse"&ly and 6oldouts

iii. :an#ers1. Potential for discri"ination a#ainst whoe er doesn t

ha e political power2. proot(. se 9: "ore than it should4. Potential for corruption and patrona#e

&. (elo v. "it# of )e! *ondon, "onnecticut i. Whether City s econo"ic de elop"ent plan ser es a pu&lic

purposeii. Pu&lic use Q so"e &enefit to the pu&lic %"a3ority pu&lic use

Q a aila&le to the pu&lic %dissent'1. ;ollow "a3ority2. :eference to the local #o t. on whether there is a

&enefit to the pu&lic10. Theories

a. Coase BThe Pro&le" of 5ocial Cost



>orealua&

le;ar"in#

+anchin#

9ntitle"ent

;ar"er

*odeal,Rfar"in#

:eal,Rranchin#

+ancher

:eal,Rfar"in#

*odeal ,Rranchin#

&. 9ntitle"ent @e#al ri#ht to -eep so"eone fro" doin# so"ethin#i. t doesn t "atter who has the entitle"ent! end up with the

"ost alua&leii. Ta-eaways

1. oth sides cause the har"a. ecause of their acti ities&. ecause rancher is causin# har" to the far"er it

doesn t tell us who we need to "o e2. f transaction costs were <ero! there would &e an

efficient rearran#e"ent of ri#hts(. Transactions costs are not <ero



4. The initial allocations "atter when transaction costs arehi#h

G. Two Assu"ptionsa. All people are rational "a$i"i<ers&. All alues are capa&le of &ein# e$pressed in

"onetary ter"si. Theore" will wor- &etter for situations where

people are predo"inantly concerned o erecono"ic interests

iii. "pedi"ents to contract1. Asse"&ly Pro&le"s

a. 6a e to tal- to too "any people to "a-e thedeals

2. ilateral >onopoliesa. One person has to deal with one person

i. 6oldout pro&le"s! &ad i"pressions(. t is i"portant to loo- down the road in order to identify

potential asse"&ly pro&le"s and &ilateral "onopolypro&le"s &efore the client #ets trapped in a situationthat precludes any -ind of Coasean &ar#ainin#

c. Ostru" B=o ernin# the Co""ons i. Tra#edy of the Co""ons

1. ncenti e to add "ore cattle! as only &ear s"all shareof o er#ra<in# costs

ii. Prisoner s :ile""a1. n two person interaction! incenti e to cheat rather than

cooperate if &oth cheat! &oth loseiii. @e iathan

1. Central #o ern"ent control "ost natural resourcesyste"s

2. 6a e authority to -eep people in line(. >ay not &e &est to deter"ine opti"al use fisher"an

e$a"ple #o t. "ay not -now &est! local fisher"anha e &etter infor"ation



i . Pri ati<ation1. Creation of pri ate property ri#hts2. Pro ides own profit incenti e(. Can do with as they see fit! ha e to fi#ure out own land4. Plots of land "ay not &e e ual %rainfall' also pro&le"

with decidin# who s distri&uted whatG. :on t -now opti"al scale of property

. Ostru" says should use low le el institutions1. Conditions

a. Clarity of the @aw&. >echanis"s of conflict resolution "ust &e local

and pu&lic! so as to &e accessi&le to all indi idualsof a co""unity

c. The rules! in addition to &ein# clear! shared and"ade effecti e &y all users! "ust not conflict withhi#her le els of #o ern"ent

2. :ifficultiesa. *eed a le el of trust to #et started need low

transaction costs need "onitorin# 8 co"plianceto handle on#oin# issues

d. :e"set< BToward a Theory of Property +i#hts i. When so"ethin# is your property you internali<e the costs and

&enefitsii. Thin#s will &e treated as property when the &enefits fro"

treatin# the" as property outwei#h the costs of treatin# the"as property

1. enefitsa. ncenti es

i. +eap what you sew&. Collecti e action

i. A oid wasteful races and depletion ofresources



c. 9asier to &ar#ain with one person who ownsproperty than it is a lar#e #roup

2. Costsa. :efinin# the property ri#hts&. 5yste" of "onitorin# and enforce"ent

c. Can deter people fro" usin#! creatin#! in entin#!if not sure property is theirs

iii. When so"ethin# &eco"es increasin#ly alua&le! we shoulde$pect #reater properti<ation

e. +adin BProperty and Personhood i. ;i e :istinctions

1. :ifferent people ha e different relations to property2. n est oursel es in our property can &e #ood or &ad in

a "oral sense(. The self s. thin#s separated fro" the self

a. Thin#s do not &eco"e property until they reseparated fro" your &ody

4. Property and Property for Personhooda. f no personal connection! still #oin# to distin#uish

as propertyG. Continuu" fro" fun#i&le to persona&le

a. Thin#s you care a lot a&out and ery little a&outii. Property no 3ust out there in the world! we ha e a relationship

with itiii. :on t ha e to thin- that anythin# different than "ar-et alue

due to personal connection to property as a flaw11. The"es

a. Custo"i. :an#er custo" will &e self,interested! fa or insiders o er

outsidersii. Ealue of loo-in# to custo"

1. What s e ol ed is pro&a&ly so"ethin# that doesn t ha ewasteful races

Courts should not loo- to custo" unhesitatin#ly! need to loo- atpotential dan#ers and &enefits

Download - Property Bray Fall 2013 (2)

Top Related