PROPERTY

Document Sample
PROPERTY Powered By Docstoc
					                                                                          Heather’s Parcho Outline
                                                                                         Fall 2002

                       PARCHO’S PROPERTY

Bundle of rights
           o    Right to possess, exclude, and transfer
           o    Rights are not absolute (can’t always do what you want – pollute, play loud music,
                etc.)


I. Acquisition of Property and Resolution of Conflicting Claims
A. THE RULE OF CAPTURE

  1.   General Rule: A person who first captures resources is entitled to them. (i.e. Whoever is
       prior in time wins)

  2.   Capture of Wild Animals: If wild animals are captured, they belong to the captor. Capture is
       required; chasing is not enough.

           a.   Pierson v. Post

                     i. Post was in pursuit of fox but Pierson swooped in at last minute and captured the
                        fox. Hunting on wasteland, nobody owns that property. Otherwise, landowner
                        would own fox if killed on the property.
                    ii. Pierson’s arg: actual capture gives possession. No reason he couldn’t have right
                        to the wild animal.
                   iii. Post’s arg: pursuit should mean possession.Held: pursuit doesn’t give
                        possession. It is the person who captures it. → capture rule
                   iv. Majority: uses philosophers from Roman law that capture justifies possession.
                        Precedent: couldn’t find precedent, so look to statutes, custom, look to English
                        CL, legal commentato
                    v. Dissenting Rule: Pursuit should be enough. Should be left to the sportsmen.
                        Invested time and $ to devote effort into hunting. Don’t want someone to waste
                        your time.
                   vi. (Foxes are a bad thing b/c they’re bad for farmers. Law should do things to
                        help society.)




           b.   Rationale:
                      i. Fosters competition (promotes killing).
                     ii. Ease of Administration
                    iii. But note: The rule of capture was laid down in the 19th C when it was
                         desirable to destroy animals. Today the rule goes against conservation,
                         which may be the goal of society today. Statutes that protect endangered
                         species may also limit these rules.
           c.   Wounded or trapped animals: If an animal has been mortally wounded or trapped
                so that capture is virtually certain, the animal is treated as captured. But if the
                animal is only in the process of being entrapped, and the door has not snapped shut,
                it has not been captured.
                      i. Ghen v. Rich




                                                  1
                                                                          Heather’s Parcho Outline
                                                                                         Fall 2002
                     ii. (Whale Shooting)
                    iii. Issue: Does common practice of lancing give Ghen entitlement to whale
                    iv. Holding: Yes we defer to industry custom as long as:
                         1) custom embraces entire industry
                         2) custom is of limited application (not too vague & not all encompassing)
                         3) custom is fair and in social interest.


                    v. Keeber v. Hickeringill
                   vi. pg. 30)(Δ shot at decoy pond to scare ducks away)
                  vii. Issue: Is a free animal on private property considered the prop. of the land
                       owner?
                 viii. Holding: Since the ducks are on his land he has some control but not full
                       (awarded $ for disruption but not for damages)
                   ix. Policy Issues: Useful v. Harmful activity-here ct. allows for some
                       constructive poss. in
     Pierson/Post doesn’t- courts will differ depending on whether the outcome is useful or
     harmful (If the Def. was Greenpeace and they were scaring ducks to save them from
     extinction(useful) the ct. may have rejected constructive poss.)(flexibility in law)




          d.   Interference by noncompetitor: A person who doesn’t want to capture the animal
               cannot maliciously interfere w/ a person who is in the process of entrapping animals.
               Rationale: We want to encourage competition and there is no social value in
               interloping. The underlying principle of capitalism is that you can injure others
               through competition, but not otherwise.
          e.   Custom: While the general rule is that physical control over the animal is required, in
               some hunting trades, a custom which is thought more efficient in getting animals
               killed, may dictate a diff result. Cts apply a custom when:
                      i. custom embraces an entire business
                     ii. custom is of a very limited application; specific, not broad
                    iii. industry is dependant on custom to thrive

                      Rationale: Customs are based on superior knowledge.
                      Note: As a general rule, courts are likely to defer social norms in industry
                      practices when they are fair and align w/ the greater social interest; This is bec
                      some social norms can be inefficient and exclusionary.
          f.   Relativity of rights: Poacher vs. Owner – The owner has greater rights than the poacher,
               but the poacher has greater rights than anyone else. This rule is designed to minimize
               future conflict and to preserve public order.
          g.   Habit of Return: If a wild animal escapes your possession you lose your property right.
               But if you have a domesticated animal which escapes, they are not available for capture
               by another. Rationale: Domesticated animals are valuable to society. Efforts to tame
               wild animals should be rewarded.
          h.   Rule of Increase: Title to the offspring of a domesticated animal follows the title to the
               mother.

3.   Rights to Gas and Oil: Originally the rule of capture was applied by courts to oil and gas.
         a. Hammonds v. Central Kentucky
         b. (p.1 in SM)(Δ was re-injecting/storing gas under π’s
         c. Issue: who owns gas after it’s re-injected?




                                                  2
                                                                             Heather’s Parcho Outline
                                                                                            Fall 2002
             d.    Holding: Lower Ct. Gas was re-injected on purpose so we can’t compare to wild animal
                  that escaped so the gas remains in possession of the re-injector. Appellate Ct.- said it’s
                  like an animal & goes back into the commons
              e. Water- 3 types- Underground, Water Courses(lakes, rivers), Surface(runoff from rain)
              f. Underground- apply rule of capture w/ reasonableness purpose limitation
    4.   The most persuasive reason for applying this rule is that it gives an incentive to produce oil
         and gas. The problem w/ the rule of capture is that it led to the tragedy of the commons – overuse
         of communal resources (people were trying to get as much as they can bec if not someone else
         would take it). Today, the Texas Railroad Commission regulates oil and gas not under capture,
         but under an elaborate system. However, it’s a little too late bec much of the resources have been
         depleted. Possible alternative regimes for regulating oil/gas could be:
              a. Nationalization – compensate property owners for takings and/or storage. Problems =
                  corruption, inefficiency, high transaction costs
              b. Consolidated Management
              c. First in Time – You could just flag a well and claim it
              d. Gov Regulation – Problems = corruption, high monitoring and enforcement costs,
                  government not always in touch w/ needs of the public
              e. Proportional Extraction – Problems = Enforcement and division of the resource.

    5.   Rights to Water – The rule of capture is applied to rights in water in certain contexts. The
         source of the water makes a difference.
             a. Underground Water: In most eastern states, where underground water is plentiful,
                 the rule of capture is applied. The rule of capture is only limited by a reasonableness
                 doctrine. If your use of underground water is harmful to others it will not be considered
                 reasonable. In western states, where water is less abundant, the rule of first
                 appropriation + beneficial use = right to water is followed.
             b. Surface Water
             c. Streams and Lakes
                       i. Stratton v. Hermon Boy’s School

Facts: School diverts water from a river and P doesn’t like how much is diverted. (He says the water should
be used for only those who live right on the stream.)
Issue: Was the school liable for any damages caused to P?
Trial Court says diversion is not allowed and awards damages to P b/c water was diverted.
Appellate court says diversion is ok as long as there is no actual harm. P still showed that he was
harmed. So they affirmed the damages and gave him money even though they changed the rule.

                       ii. Coffin v. Left Hand Ditch

D tore down a part of P’s dam that was diverting water from their property. The P won the first case but
the defendant won in the appeal b/c water was just as much the property of those who divert it to water
crops etc. as it was those who were right on the river upstream.
Rule: You’re entitled to the use of water if you’re the first person to use it for a beneficial use. This
gives one incentive to overuse resources. People try and maximize the amount of water they can use.
Another problem – who decides what is more beneficial – it is relative.

             d.   Thus emerges the debate between private property and communal property. The
                  evolution of private property was to internalize externalities. But with this comes
                  the desire to use as much of a resource as possible before some one else can use it.



B. ACQUISITION BY CREATION




                                                       3
                                                                                                Heather’s Parcho Outline
                                                                                                               Fall 2002
     1.   Intro: A person can acquire property by creating it, but it is diff to define “creation”. The
          primary purpose in recognizing prop by creation is to reward labor, but when one’s labor is mixed
          w/ the labor and goods of another, the Q becomes tricky.
     2.   Rights in Body Parts:
               a. Moore v. Regents of the University of California
                         i. the ct held that a man did not have a prop right in his spleen following its
                            removal by doctors who made it into a patented cell line of great commercial
                            value. The doctors who created the cell line thus acquired original ownership.
                            The ct held that the patient had only the right to sue the doctors for failure to
                            disclose their research and econ interest in the patient’s cells. In ruling, the ct
                            was concerned about making body products property that could be sold.
                            However, transferability in the market is not an essential characteristic of prop.
                            Although most prop is freely transferable, some property is not alienable and
                            some property can be given away but not sold. The hard Q w/ body parts is not
                            whether they should be treated as prop, but whether they should be sellable.


                             Majority                               Arabian (Conc.)                 Mosk (Dissent)
Statutory Interpretation     1.Health and Safety Code               n/a                             Health Code; discussed the
(primal analysis)            regulates ‘spleen disposal’                                            fact that you can donate organs
                             (this statute was created to                                           but there is no statute that says
                             protect the public – not for                                           you can sell it; so you
                             possession of spleen;                                                  technically can TRANSFER
                             2.Right of publicity-he equates                                        body parts; so Moore has AS
                             his situation with the value                                           MUCH right as U of C to
                             famous people get from their                                           profit from his body parts.
                             fame; 3. Moore not entitled to
                             full value of patent: they put
                             the work in to develop the
                             patent – his cells were just the
                             starting point.
Institutional Incompetence   Legislative: their decision to         n/a                             Says that the court actually has
                             deal with depending on                                                 the right to decide – they can
                             statute: they have to say                                              divide the money two ways;
                             whether situations like this                                           whereas majority says
                             constitute incompetence                                                legislature should decide
                                                                                                    issues on splitting the money
                                                                                                    and how it should be done
Perception of property       Narrow tradition: there is no          “not our right to decide”       Bundle of Rights: just b/c you
                             precedent in this case b/c this                                        don’t fit into every
                             is new technology – there is no                                        classification, it doesn’t mean
                             perception of property                                                 your property right is null.
                             regarding human cells that has                                         You need not have them all to
                             existed before the present                                             still have claim to money
                                                                                                    made from your body
Policy Analysis              Whether we should extend                                               1.Respect to the human body
                             conversion to consider cases                                           of the members of our society.
                             like this as property: 1. Moore                                        2. Fairness to Moore
                             did not expect to get his cells                                        3. Informed Consent is
                             back. 2.would have a                                                   insufficient. Moore would
                             detriment effect on policy b/c                                         have to show that not just him,
                             the medical field wouldn’t be                                          but anyone, who received full
                             able to progress as usual due                                          information would not consent
                             to the constraints of getting                                          to the operation. However,
                             permission to do research                                              Moore had leukemia – he
                                                                                                    really did not have much of a
                                                                                                    choice.


     3.   Intellectual Property: IP is the catchall label for prop created by exercising the mind. IP
          includes copyrights, patents, and trademarks, but may also cover prop in ideas or in a persona.
               a. Cheney Bros v. Doris Silk Corp




                                                                4
                                                                               Heather’s Parcho Outline
                                                                                              Fall 2002
Said that there was no copyright or patent protection - Instead plaintiff wants seasonal protection: didn’t
want to go as far as copyright, just wanted it for the season. The court says that you can’t have seasonal
protection in court. Under common law, imitation and competition are legit b/c it keeps monopolies
from forming (the exception to this is IP).

              b. Smith v. Channel
Extends principle that imitation is legitimate. Court holds that D had right to copy and to mention the
trademark in their advertisement. You cannot get protection for the scent OR the trademark that goes
with it. Can’t defame original but public policy favors allowing imitation for the sake of competition.
              c. INS v. AP

Court has to decide if AP has property right in news, and if it does, does that right include publication?
         -Courts grant AP quasi-property right: a right that only exists against competitors.
                  *this case is not considered bad law. (he doesn’t think so)
Information Goods – public good.
non-rivalrous consumption – consumption of one good does not detract from the use or benefit of
others; non exchangeability of benefits


             d.The dilemma: The dilemma in recognizing IP is how to nurture individual creativity and
               reward labor w/o going too far by creating monopolies and stifling creativity in others.
               After all, creativity thrives on imitation.
          e. The solution: Time limits are placed on copyrights and patents.
          f. Alternative Means of Protection:
                     i. Branding - consumers rationally or irrationally develop loyalty to certain brands
                         and would not buy alternative brands even when the products are quite similar.
                         Branding provides strong protection.
                    ii. First Mover Advantage - If your product is first on the market it takes a while
                         before people can copy your products, and by that time you can use branding to
                         solidify your market position.
          g. The common law: To avoid monopoly and encourage competition, the CL commonly
               allows copying and imitation. But there are exceptions, such as the right of publicity =>
               A person may not use a celebrity’s name, likeness, voice, or signature for profit w/o
               the celebrity’s consent. The celebrity’s labor in creating a persona of value is protected
               against another’s using it for profit.
          h. Acquisition by creation: Copyrights and Patents
                     i. Copyrights last 70 years after death of author or 120 years if corporation
                         b/c they never die.
          i. Capture/First in Time: Trademark and Domain Names
                     i. Trademarks last as long as you want them (20 yrs at a time)
                    ii. VW v. Volkswagen
Domain name case. New type of property invented with technology.

Domain names are subject to the rule of capture
Case deals with those who beat companies to trademark domain name so that the companies would have to
purchase it from them. VW.net

                      iii. ACPA is started to regulate – allows courts provide remedies. The public at
                           large is also the third party which should be considered – cyber-squatters hurt
                           not only the company but also consumers
                      iv. Right of Celebrity: The celebrity of famous people has a right to all things
                           representing their likeness (impersonations, dolls, other depictions) This
                           right is grounded in principles of privacy but there are also other
                           rationales, E.G. – labor theories.



                                                      5
                                                                             Heather’s Parcho Outline
                                                                                            Fall 2002



C. ACQUISITION OF CHATTELS (MOVABLE PROPERTY)


  1.   Acquisition of Chattels by Creation: As is the case with IP, property rights in personal property
       may be obtained through creation.
       E.g. Carpenter builds a table.
            a. Law of Accession: Acquisition by accession comes into play when a person improves
                the property of another by mistake (i.e. addition of labor or labor and new materials). A
                person whose prop is taken and used by another is always entitled to the value of the
                prop taken, but that person may lose title by the accessions (additions) of the other.
                If the improver is denied title by accession, the original owner is entitled to the value
                added by the taker.
                      i. Labor Added: Where A adds labor to B’s raw material, the courts usually
                         award the final product to the owner of the raw material (B), unless A’s
                         efforts have sufficiently increased its value to make it unfair to award the
                         final product to B. Just how much is “sufficient” is diff to determine. Also,
                         most states require that for A to recover, he must show that he acted in good
                         faith and not willfully.
                         Ex. A, relying on permission that he thinks came from B, enters B’s land, cuts
                         timber, and makes hoops from the timber. The standing timber was worth $25;
                         the hoops are worth $700. The hoops belong to A b/c of the great increase in
                         value and b/c he acted in GF, but B can sue A for $25 in damages for trespass.
                     ii. Labor and materials added: Where A, an innocent trespasser, adds labor
                         and materials to raw material owned by B, the final product is generally
                         awarded to the owner of the principal material. However, where A is not
                         innocent, most courts will award the final product to B regardless of the extent
                         of the labor and materials that were added.
                         Ex. A’s car is stolen and stripped by thieves. The thieves dispose of the car’s
                         nearly worthless body on an empty lot. B subsequently spots the body and,
                         incorrectly believing that its owner had abandoned it, takes the body home for
                         restoration. B installs the body, and engine, transmission, etc. If A
                         subsequently discovers his car body in B’s hands, A will not be entitled to the
                         car; B will only have to pay A the value of the stripped car body.

  2.   Acquisition of Chattels by Purchase: The general rule is that a seller can’t convey better title
       than that which he holds. Therefore, if a good is stolen and a BFPV purchases that good, the
       original owner will still prevail over the BFPV. However, there are two exceptions to this rule:
           a. Voidable Title – BFPV may prevail over original owner where the scoundrel from
                 whom he purchased the goods has gained possession of the goods through fraud or
                 misrepresentation. For instance, if the scoundrel paid for the goods w/ counterfeit
                 money or a bounced check or if he deceived the owner about his identity. The law says
                 the title of the scoundrel is voidable, but not completely void. Because it is voidable, a
                 perfect title can be created in the BFPV. Rights of original owner are distinguished.
           b. Estoppel – If the owner, by his words or conduct, has expressly or impliedly
                 represented that the possessor of the goods is the owner of them, or that he has the
                 authority to sell them, the owner is “estopped” from denying the trust of theses
                 representations to one who buys in good-faith reliance on the representation.
                        i. Entrusting to merchant: Estoppel usually arises in cases where the true owner
                            entrusts the goods to a merchant, who then (in violation of his agreement w/ the
                            true owner) sells them to a good-faith purchaser. At CL, the mere fact that the
                            true owner entrusted the goods to a merchant was never enough to estop
                            him from recovering them from the good-faith purchaser; some additional


                                                    6
                                                                           Heather’s Parcho Outline
                                                                                          Fall 2002
                       conduct by the true owner inducing reliance on the part of the good-faith
                       purchaser had to be shown.
                   ii. UCC expands doctrine: Under UCC, any entrusting of possession of goods to
                       a merchant who deals in goods of that kind gives him the power to transfer
                       all rights of the entruster to a buyer in ordinary course of business. Thus, in
                       contrast to the CL, the mere act of entrusting goods is sufficient to estop the true
                       owner from recovering them once they have passed to a good-faith purchaser.
                  iii. Rationale for expansion:
                             Protect Commerce - when people go into a store and buy
                                 something, they should be secure about purchasing an item.
                             Efficiency (Least Cost Avoider) – The original owner could have
                                 avoided the conflict at the least cost so the responsibility is placed
                                 on him.
                             Fairness – Except in a case where property is stolen, the moral
                                 fault should be placed on the owner. An owner can take steps to
                                 prevent theft; things usually get stolen bec of an owner’s
                                 negligence.

3.   Acquisition of Chattels by Find: An owner of prop dose not lose title by losing the prop. The
     owner’s rights persist even though the article has been lost or mislaid. As a general rule, a finder
     has rights superior to everyone but the true owner, however, there are important exceptions to
     this rule.
          a. Example: A finds a jewel and takes it to a jewel to have it appraised. The jeweler
              refuses to give the jewel back to A, saying that A does not own it. A is entitled to
              recover from the jeweler either the jewel or the full money value of the jewel. As bet
              A and the jeweler, A, the prior possessor, has the superior right. (note: even if A then
              loses it himself, and B finds it, A’s rights are not lost by losing the jewel). (note: the
              prior possessor wins rule even applies to objects acquired through theft or trespass)
                    i. Rationale for prior possessor rule:
                             Preserve public order
                             Protect interests of true owner – If you don’t give the finder
                                 something, they will just hide the found goods and the true owner
                                 might never learn that the goods were found.
                             Protect possession – When it comes to moveable prop, possession is
                                 pretty much the only way to establish ownership.
          b. Armory v. Delamirie

         Facts: Chimney sweeper finds jewelry and bring it to a shop for appraisal, they offer him a
         very low amount and when he says no, they won’t give it back to him.
         Holding: the finder has superior rights to the property against everyone else except the
         original owner
         Remedy: Court said that if the jeweler did not bring the stone back then they had to
         compensate him for the most expensive jewel that would fit the jewelry.

         c.   What constitutes possession?: For a finder to become a prior possessor, the finder
              must – like w/ animals – acquire physical control over the object and have an intent
              to assume dominion over it.
                    i. Constructive possession: A person is in “constructive possession” when the
                       law treats him as if he is in possession although, in fact, he is not or he is
                       unaware of it. The owner or occupant of premises may constructively possess
                       something on the premises of which he is unaware. If so, he is entitled to the
                       benefit of the prior possessor wins rule.
                       Ex. A landowner is in constructive possession of the objects located under the
                       surface of her land even though she is unaware of the objects. If A hires B to



                                                  7
                                                                                   Heather’s Parcho Outline
                                                                                                  Fall 2002
                           clean out her pool, and B finds a ring at the bottom of the pool, the ring
                           belongs to A, even though A was unaware the ring was there.
              d.   Finder vs. Owner of Premises:
              e.   McAvoy v. Medina

Facts: P was in a barber shop and found a wallet. He asked to barber to keep it to try and find its owner.
He couldn’t find the owner and the P wanted it back. Barber refused.
Issue: who should get the good found in a private place?
Rule: It is not the finder but the owner of the private place where the good was found until the
rightful owner shows up to claim it. Why? Barbershop has the best chance of returning it to the
rightful owner because that is where the owner is likely to look for it.


                                       Property Found in Public Place

                             CIRCUMSTANCES                       EXAMPLE                 FINDER’S RIGHTS
LOST                         Owner accidentally and          O does not notice that      Finder entitled to possession
                             casually parted w/              his watch has slipped off   against all the world except
                             possession and does not         his wrist and landed on     the true owner (exceptions
                             know where to find prop         the street                  where owner of premises gets
                                                                                         possession = finder is a
                                                                                         trespasser, employee of owner
                                                                                         of premises, guest, on
                                                                                         premises for a limited
                                                                                         purpose, prop is found in a
                                                                                         highly private place, prop is
                                                                                         bured)
MISLAID                      Owner intentionally             O lays his watch on the     Owner of premises entitled to
                             placed prop somewhere           sink in a hotel room and    possession against all the
                             and then forgot about it        forgets to pick it up       world except the true owner
ABANDONED                    Owner voluntarily and           O throws his old watch      Finder obtains both possession
                             intentionally                   into a garbage can bec a    and title if he exercises control
                             relinquishes ownership          new battery for it would    over the prop w/ intent to
                             w/ intent to give up both       cost too much               assert ownership
                             title and possession

Example: A finds a wallet on the floor of a beauty shop and a ring on the counter in the same shop. The
wallet is lost prop b/c it is assumed that it was not intentionally placed on the floor. A, the finder, prevails
over the owner of the shop and can take the wallet home to keep for the true owner. The ring is mislaid
prop b/c, from its position, it is assumed it was intentionally placed on the counter and forgotten. The ring
goes to the owner of the shop to keep until the true owner claims it. The finder has no rights in the ring.

Note: NY abandons distinctions bet lost, mislaid and abandoned. All such prop is treated as lost prop and
goes to the finder.


              f.   Bailment: A bailment is the rightful possession of goods by one who is not the owner.
                   The true owner is the bailor; the person in possession is a bailee. The bailee has the duty
                   to care for the goods and deliver them to the owner if the owner claims the find. A
                   bailment can be created by agreement, by find, or by implication.
                         i. Creation: To create a bailment, the alleged bailee must assume actual physical
                             control w/ the intent to possess.
                        ii. Parking lot cases: If A leaves the keys w/ the attendant, who gives A a ticket
                             identifying the car for redelivery, a bailment is created by agreement.



                                                         8
                                                                                 Heather’s Parcho Outline
                                                                                                Fall 2002
                       iii. Custody distinguished: A person who has custody but not possession is not a
                            bailee. Custody is where goods are handed over but the owner does not intend
                            to relinquish the right of dominion over them.
                       iv. Duties of bailee: The standard of care varies w/ the type of bailment.
                                  Bailment for the sole benefit of bailor – A gratuitous bailee must
                                     use only slight care and is liable only for gross negligence.
                                     Ex. You ask someone to watch your car when you go on vacation.
                                  Bailment mutually beneficial – Bailee must exercise ordinary care
                                     and is liable for ordinary diligence. A mutual benefit is clear where
                                     the bailee charges for the service. Note: Some courts have stretched
                                     the facts to find some benefit to both parties from the service rendered.
                                     Thus if a hotel cashier accepts a ring for delivery to a guest in the hotel,
                                     the hotel gets a benefit from rendering a service to a guest (goodwill if
                                     nothing else).
                                     Ex. Parking garages and hotels
                                  Bailment for sole benefit of bailee – Bailee is required to use
                                     extraordinary care. The bailee is liable for even slight neglect that
                                     results in the goods being lost, damaged, or destroyed.
                                     Ex. You borrow someone’s lawn mower.
                                  Involuntary bailment – If the bailee has the goods thrust upon her,
                                     the bailee does not have to take affirmative steps to protect the
                                     prop and must only use slight care.
                                     Ex. Someone leaves their dog on your doorstep.


     4.    Acquisition of Chattels by Gift: A gift is a present (in time) voluntary transfer of property
           from one person to another w/o any consideration or compensation. It must be a present
           transfer for if it is to take effect in the future it is unenforceable b/c there is no K.
                a. Gift inter vivos: Gift made during the donor’s life when the donor is not under any
                     threat of impending death. The ordinary gift is an inter vivos one. An inter vivos gift,
                     once made, is irrevocable.
                b. Gift causa mortis: Gift made in contemplation of immediately approaching death. A
                     gift causa mortis is revoked if the donor recovers from the illness that prompted the
                     gift. (note: it is possible to be near death and still make an inter vivos gift – look to the
                     intent of the donor; did he want it to be irrevocable nevertheless?)
                           i. Newman v. Bost
Facts: D was dying and promised P (his housekeeper) gifts; he pointed at several things (one of which was a bureau that
had a life insurance policy on it. Among other things, he promised her 3000, household furniture, 300 piano, and
bedroom furniture. He died and she is trying to get this from the administrator. She won it all in the first case.
             Appeal – she did not get the life insurance, she got some of the furniture, she got the piano and the bedroom
             furniture.
                            ii. Life insurance – she did not get it for these reasons
                                       He never discussed giving it to her
                                       It could be manually delivered
                                       Life insurance was not normally kept in a bureau
                           iii. household furniture – she only got some for these reasons
                                       it was unclear how much he was talking about giving her; they gave her the things
                                           that he gave her the keys to, everything else was insufficient delivery
                           iv. piano
                            v.bedroom furniture
                                       furniture was in here bedroom so it was a more adequate delivery.

              c.   Requirements for a gift of chattels:
                       i. Donor must intend to make a gift;




                                                       9
                                                                                 Heather’s Parcho Outline
                                                                                                Fall 2002
                        ii. The donee must accept the gift; (law presumes acceptance when the gift is
                            beneficial to the donee)
                       iii. There must be a delivery from the donor to the donee (see chart)



                                              Delivery of Gift

                                          CIRCUMSTANCES                               EXAMPLE
ACTUAL PHYSICAL                        Donor physically vests donee w/       X hands a pearl necklace to Y
DELIVERY                               possession of the item such that
                                       donee has dominion and control
                                       over it
CONSTRUCTIVE                           Actual manual delivery is             X hands Y the a piece of paper w/
DELIVERY                               impracticable so donor surrenders     the combination to a safe or the
                                       the means of obtaining possession     key to the safe
                                       and control                           X hands Y the bank book to the
                                                                             bank account
SYMBOLIC DELIVERY                      Actual manual deliver is              X executes a written document
                                       impracticable so donor hands          stating he is giving Y his car
                                       over some object symbolic of the
                                       thing given
DELIVERY THROUGH                       Donor instructs his agent to          X tells jewelry store (X’s agent)
THIRD PERSON                           deliver a gift to donee               to deliver a pearl necklace to Y

                                       Donor delivers gift to agent of       X personally delivers a pearl
                                       donee                                 necklace for Y to Y’s butler

Note: The delivery requirement is dispensed w/ when the donee already has possession (ex. donee is
bailee). But when this is the case, the donative intent must be very clear.

              d.   Intangible interests: For a gift to be valid, a present interest, not necessarily a
                   possessory interest must be transferred. Therefore, a remainder interest, which has no
                   physical existence, can also be transferred by a written assignment. (ex. donor reserves a
                   LE for himself in the subject matter of the gift).
                          i. Gruen v. Gruen
Facts: Father promised to give son a painting in a letter written in 1963. After he died (1980), it remained in
his mother’s hands and she refused to give it to her son.
  Issue: One can’t say that a future promise will take effect when they die. It is not valid according to inter
  vivos (giving a gift while you are alive) because when one dies, their will supercedes such gifts.
       - you can divide property by time; this was not a division by time
  Court says for a gift to be valid present interest must be transferred but not necessarily by physical transfer
  of possession.
  Son was given the remainder of interest in the painting.

  ***key points:
      - if I promise to give you something in the future, my promise is not legally binding and you
      cannot enforce it
      - however, if I vest a property interest in you now, then you have a vested interest and it will be
      binding in court
                e. this case is prime example: I write you a letter that says this is yours, but I am
                     retaining it until I die. You would have a vested interest and would have legal
                     rights to it when I die.




                                                       10
                                                                            Heather’s Parcho Outline
                                                                                           Fall 2002
            f.   Rationale for requirements: B/c gifts lie outside of the market system b/c they lack
                 K, you want to eliminate all ambiguity and have no doubt as to the intent to effect a
                 gift and the delivery of the gift.

D. ACQUISITION BY DISCOVERY

   1.   Discovery of America: “In the beginning all the world was America” John Locke wrote, meaning
        that it was up for grabs. The European nations had a convention that discovery of America gave
        title to a gov when its subjects made the discovery. When the Native Americans contested this,
        the S.C., through C.J. Marshall, held that discovery gave title to the European nations which
        passed title to the states or to the U.S. The Native Americans were not regarded as in prior
        possession of America; they were hunters who moved their villages and, unlike the Europeans,
        were not settlers who built permanent homes, staked out farms, and took possession of tracts of
        land. As an alternative to title by discovery, Marshall held that Europeans – and subsequently the
        U.S. – acquired title by conquest.
              a. Native American right of occupancy: Although not recognized as having title or
                   ownership, Indian tribes have a right of occupancy on their land. This right has been
                   granted, and remains subject to the control of, the sovereign Congress.
              b. Lessons from America: Two lessons can be drawn from above. First “possession” is an
                   elastic word. Its meaning is culturally determined. The European idea of possession of
                   land was unknown to the Native Americans, who used the land but never thought of
                   “possessing” it. Second, the determination and enforcement of prop depends on the
                   power of the state to impose its will. Prop thus both confers and rests on power.




II. The Rights of People Who Own Land in Fee Simple

A. THE BLACKSTONIAN MODEL OF ABSOLUTE RIGHTS W/IN ONE’S BOUNDARIES

   1.   Intro: This model is the most expansive view of property rights. It is a nice theoretic benchmark
        against which we can measure existing rules, but it is inapplicable in the real world.
   2.   The traditional Blackstonian bundle of rights for prop in land included:
            a. ownership by a single individual
            b. in perpetuitiy
            c. of a territory demarcated horizontally by boundaries drawn upon the land, and extending
                 vertically downward and upward
            d. w/ absolute rights to exclude
            e. absolute rights to use and abuse land, and
            f. absolute rights to transfer

   3.   Fee Simple: The strongest property right we have today that comes closest to this model is called
        a fee simple. A fee simple is a modern concept of ownership that is restricted on social grounds.


B. ENROACHMENTS


   1.   Intro: An encroachment is any infringement on the prop of another. (Ex. A erects a building, or
        part of a building, on neighbor B’s prop, mistakenly believing the building is on A’s own land).
             a. Pile v. Pedrick




                                                   11
                                                                              Heather’s Parcho Outline
                                                                                             Fall 2002
  Facts: D wanted to build on their land, had a surveyor come out and tell them where their land ended – they built;
  few years later a city surveyor comes out and says that the D’s building is 1 3/8 inch over the boundary. D
  offered them many options but the P sues for trespass. P wants the entire wall removed.

               b. Court says that he is entitled to that (even though they suggest he consider the other options -
                    damages). Court grants injunctive relief.
               c. P holds out b/c he wants the max amount of money (says you can either tear the wall down or just
                    give me the money it would cost to do this) He now has an injunction so it’s his call – it’s his
                    property right now.
               d. Efficient thing to do in this case would be to award Pile the $1 that the inch of land would cost.
                          i.The court, however, considers the possibility that Pile values his land more than the
                              ‘market’ would (which is $1)

      Why didn’t the court just award market value?
             e. Court couldn’t say what the harm to Pile was
             f. Said that there could be post trial negotiations in which Pile and Pedrick would be reasonable
                        i.Problem with this argument is that it never happens in reality – the player with the
                            injunction is very unlikely that they would speak, let alone negotiate; in practice,
                            we shouldn’t rely on this to happen. Damages relief would be the best

     2.   Innocent encroachment: If the encroachment is the result of an innocent mistake, courts
          tend to look at the relative hardships to the parties of granting or denying injunctive relief. If
          removal is diff or expensive for the intruder compared to the inconvenience it causes the
          landowner, injunctive relief is usually denied and only damages awarded. Where
          encroachments are minor and trivial, some courts deny all relief.
               a. Raab v. Casper
Facts: P and D were adjoining land owners. Casper decides to build (without getting it surveyed). When he was
halfway through with the cabin, Raab warns Casper that he is encroaching. Casper ignores the warning. Raab
orders a survey and finds out the Casper was encroaching and brings a suit for trespass.
  D did two things wrong
         - Casper didn’t order a survey
            - Didn’t listen to Raab

  Trial court believes that Casper is a good faith encroacher; P appeals

  Appellate court does not find Casper to be a good faith encroacher. They said he was negligent in building before
  he had a surveyor check and he didn’t listen to Raab when he should have. Court says we cannot condone this
  type of behavior.
  What is the remedy?
            If you are a good faith encroacher, then you get to keep your improvement and pay damages for the
                land you encroached upon, and pay for the survey, and pay for the rent for the time you were there
                before the trial
            They found Casper to be a bad faith encroacher and found him to be negligent.

In most states now, If you are a good faith improver, the encroached upon party gets 1) the option of getting
the property they built on your land – and paying them for the improvement or 2) the option of selling the
land to the encroacher.


              b.   CL: This “good faith improver” rule is a modern law doctrine. At CL, an uninvited
                   encroachment by one person on another’s land, no matter how slight or unintended, was
                   considered a violation of prop rights which gave the encroached upon owner the right to
                   remove the encroaching party.
              c.   Negligent Encroachment: If someone’s negligence leads to an encroachment, even
                   though it may be innocent, many courts wont apply good faith improver rule



                                                      12
                                                                              Heather’s Parcho Outline
                                                                                             Fall 2002

    3.   Willful/Intentional encroachment: If the encroachment is willful or intentional, most courts
         issue an injunction requiring removal of the encroachment regardless of the balance of
         convenience or relative hardships.


C. LIMITATIONS ON THE RIGHT TO EXCLUDE - TRESPASS


    1.   Intro: Like the modern law of encroachments, the modern law of trespass has gotten more lenient
         and reflects a retreat from right to exclude under traditional common law. Yet b/c trespass is an
         intentional tort, it is likely to be punished severely even now. As a general rule, courts will be
         more willing to condone trespass when it serves an important social goal, but will deter
         trespass otherwise.
              a. Jacque v. Steenberg Homes

Facts: Some one wanted a mobile home delivered in the middle of winter from Steenberg homes; the road
was covered in snow and so they asked Jacque if they could drive across his field to deliver it, Jacque says
no, they do it anyway.
He wins $1 in nominal damages and $100,000 in punitive damages
Court says this was a premeditated decision – it was a deliberate trespass. The court wants to punish
those who deliberately break property law.


             b. State v. Shack
Under fed law, workers have a right to organize a union, and unions have a right to communicate w/
workers on the employer’s premises seeking their votes. Ownership of prop does not include the right
to bar government services, hence there was no trespass and no breach of the right to exclude.

             c.   Protection of Marginalized group: Policy considerations must be looked at when
                  determining a prop owner’s rights. In this case, the court was trying to protect a
                  marginalized group so it limits the rights of the prop owner in order to achieve a
                  social goal. (Migrant workers are disadvantaged, isolated, and powerless and
                  government supported programs to help them depend on reasonable access)
             d.   Other justifications: Entry on the land of another may also be justified by:
                        i. Public/governmental interests
                       ii. Emergency – in emergency situations compensation should still be given,
                           but should not require punitive

    2.   Prop owner’s right to exclude vs. right of free speech:
            a. Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robbins

Facts: Students protest on the property of the shopping center. Owner makes them leave because they have
a policy prohibiting activism. They sue for a violation of their constitutional rights. The students win.
The ct held that property owners cannot prohibit free speech completely, but they can regulate the
manner, place, and time of the expression. The ct said that allowing the demonstrators did not
amount to a governmental taking b/c the events failed to demonstrate that the right to exclude others
is so essential to the use or economic value of the property. (Said that the shopping center could post
signs saying that they do not endorse protests so that they aren’t tied to it)
              b. Case by case analysis: These competing rights must be balanced by looking at how
                    much the speech hurts the property owner’s interest.


D. THE RISK OF ADVERSE POSSESSION



                                                     13
                                                                               Heather’s Parcho Outline
                                                                                              Fall 2002

    1.   Overview: AP is the most unusual way of acquiring prop rights. If, within the number of years
         specified in the state SOL, the owner of land does not take legal action to eject a possessor
         who claims adversely to the owner, the owner is thereafter barred from bringing an action in
         ejectment. Once the owner is barred from suing in ejectment, the adverse possessor has title
         to the land.

    2.   Effect of adverse possession: The running of the SOL not only bars the owner’s claim to
         possession, but it also extinguishes the old title of the owner and creates a new title by
         operation of law in the adverse possessor. The adverse possessor’s right to possession,
         heretofore good against all the world except the rightful owner, is now good against the rightful
         owner as well. Once the adverse possessor has title, it can be transferred in the same manner as
         any other title to land (by deed, will, or through intestacy to heirs). **However, title acquired
         through AP can’t be recorded in the courthouse b/c it does not arise from a recordable document
         but rather from operation of law. Thus, if the adverse possessor whishes to have his title and name
         as owner recorded in the courthouse, he must file a quiet title action against the former owner.
         The decree in this lawsuit will be recorded and will declare that the adverse possessor has legal
         title.

    3.   Justifications for AP:
             a. Utilitarian view – adverse possession rewards active use of land and prevents diff
                  evidentiary problems
             b. Psychologically – doctrine permits people who develop a special attachment to the
                  land to keep it
             c. Morally – doctrine punishes/discourages slothful or indifferent owners

    4.   Requirements for AP:
            a. Actual Possession: Adverse possessor must show that she was an actual occupier of the
                land; must prove that she used or maintained the land in some way (farming, gardening,
                etc).
                       i. Standard used: The standards used by courts is to ask how the neighbors
                          viewed the adverse possessor. If the neighbors viewed her as an actual owner,
                          that should create a presumption in favor of actuality
                      ii. NY law: To meet this requirement, NY requires the occupier to enclose the land
                          or substantially cultivate or improve it.
                    iii. Van Valkenburgh v. Lutz

Facts: Lutz’s were using land that wasn’t theirs; Van Valkenburghs bought the land and then told the Lutz’s
that they bought it and asked them to stop using it (walking across and building on it). Lutz’s still claimed
that they had the right of way. P built a fence so the D could not cross it; D sued the P claiming a right of
way. D won. P now sues to gain possession. D contends that they acquired the lots through adverse
possession.
        D did get rights to prescriptive easement (road), but by doing this – they admitted that this land
         was not theirs – they would have been wiser to claim it was theirs through adverse possession.
         Since they did not claim it as theirs – they were unable to claim it later under adverse possession.
Claim of title – you have claim to the land under legal principles; Color of title – you have actual legal
possession

Issue: 1. Must possession be actual to acquired title by adverse possession? 2. Where a person claims title,
not founded upon a written instrument, must a person either protect land by a substantial enclosure or
cultivate or improve on it to gain title? 3. Must land be possessed under a claim of title under adverse
possession.

Holding: yes to all three




                                                     14
                                                                               Heather’s Parcho Outline
                                                                                              Fall 2002
Rule: in order to acquire title by adverse possession, possession must be actual, it must be under claim of
title, and the land must be either enclosed or sufficiently improved.

Rationale: The garden occupied only a small portion of the lots. Their garage only encroached by a few
inches. Statute says there must be substantial improvement, cultivation, or it must be enclosed.
         Wasn’t substantially improve for three reasons:
         1. shack was too small
         2. garden was insubstantial
         3. putting trash on the land is not improvement.

             b.   Continuous Possession for Statutory Term: Continuous possession requires only the
                  degree of occupancy and use that the average owner would make of the particular
                  type of property. An adverse use is continuous when it is made w/o a break in the
                  essential attitude of mind required for adverse use. A person can be in continuous
                  possession even though there are considerable intervals during which the prop is not
                  used.
                        i. Seasonal use: Use of a summer home only during the summer for the statutory
                            period is continuous use. Similarly, seasonal use of a hunting cabin during the
                            hunting seasons, or the grazing of cattle on range lands in summer, may be
                            sufficiently continuous possession if such lands are normally used in this way.
                            (Howard v. Kunto – used it as a summer home and court found that to be
                            sufficient)
                                 1. Ewing v. Burnett held that you can use AP even if you don’t reside on
                                     the land (making use of it is sufficient).

                       ii. Abandonment: If the possessor abandons the prop for any period of time,
                           w/o intent to return, continuity of AP is lost. The AP comes to an end, and
                           possession returns constructively to the true owner. If the adverse possessor
                           returns later, the SOL begins to run anew. (Intent of the adverse possessor must
                           be analyzed)
                      iii. Interruption by true owner: If the true owner reenters the land openly and
                           notoriously for the purpose of regaining possession, an interruption has
                           occurred and SOL stops running. (Most states use objective test – if the
                           owner’s acts are ordinary acts of ownership and would give notice of claim to
                           the average person, they are an interruption)
                      iv. Statutory Term:
                                1. common law – 20 year
                                2. eastern states – 15-20 years
                                3. western states – can be as short as 5 years (to compensate for shorter
                                     term, many states require tax payments by adverse possessor)
             c.   Hostile Possession w/ a Claim of Right: To be an adverse possessor, a person must
                  hold adversely to the owner and under a claim of right. Hostility does not mean
                  animosity; rather it means only that the possession is w/o the owner’s consent. The
                  occupier must claim the land as his own in defiance of the true owner’s title.
                        i. Mannillo v. Gorski

Facts: Guy sues neighbor b/c his pathway encroaches 15 inches. Neither were aware of the encroachment
for a long period of time. When they found out, D claims it was his through adverse possession – for 15
years. (good faith)
Issue: 1. Must possession be accompanied by a knowing, intentional, hostility for adverse possession? 2.
Does a minor border encroachment satisfy the “open and notorious” requirement for adverse possession. 3.
Can adverse possession come out of a situation where a person does not know he is encroaching?
Holding: no to first 2, yes to third
D won.




                                                     15
                                                                               Heather’s Parcho Outline
                                                                                              Fall 2002
Rule: Possession need not be knowingly and intentionally hostile but it must be notorious enough to
give the true owner actual or constructive notice of the encroachment. Subjective state of mind is
irrelevant. No good faith or bad faith is required.

                      ii. If you take possession with the true owner’s permission, it is very unlikely that
                          you could win under an adverse possession argument; this is presumed to last
                          until the occupier does a certain act that defies the true owner

                      iii. Three views as to state of mind of occupier:
                                1. Subjective Standard (NY): To prevail in NY the adverse possessor
                                     has to state “I truly thought that I owned the land I occupied => Good
                                     faith requirement
                                2. Minority view: Some states require adverse possessor to act in bad
                                     faith; must state “I knew the land was not mine but nevertheless I
                                     wanted to take it”.
                                3. Objective standard (modern view): In most states, it doesn’t
                                     matter if it was good or bad faith as long as the other requirements
                                     are met. (See Mannillo v. Gorski)
                      iv. Permission: There cannot be AP if the true owner permits the possession or the
                           use. If a possession begins permissively, as in the case of a tenant-landlord, it is
                           presumed to continue permissively until a hostile act occurs.
             d.   Open and notorious possession: The adverse possessor must occupy the prop in an
                  open, notorious, and visible manner. Her acts must be such as will constitute
                  reasonable notice to the owner that she is claiming dominion, so that the owner can
                  defend her rights. Open and notorious acts are those from which the community,
                  observing them, would infer the actor to be claiming ownership. Actual notice to the
                  true owner is not required in most states.
                        i. Surveying mistakes and encroachments: Sometimes an encroachment may
                           occur and a party may not even be aware of it bec of a surveying mistake. There
                           are two views:
                                1. If there is a surveying mistake, the prop owner is protected against AP
                                     bec statute time will not begin to run until you learn of the mistake.
                                2. You are at risk of losing your prop to AP even if you didn’t know of
                                     the mistake.
             e.   Exclusive: The adverse possessor’s use must be exclusive of the owner throughout
                  the statutory period. Therefore, if the owner periodically uses his/her land during the
                  adverse possessor’s period of possession it will usually be enough to defeat a claim of
                  AP.

    5.   What can a true owner do to prevent AP?: Letters generally do not suffice. An owner must
         file and successfully prosecute a suit to gain ownership rights. It the suit is successful, it will
         relate back to the date on which it was filed; you must file before the statutory period lapses.

    6.   Extent of Land Acquired by AP: Assuming all requirements for AP are satisfied, to what
         physical area does the adverse possessor’s claim extend?
             a. Property Actually Occupied (general rule): Normally he acquires title only to that
                  prop “actually” occupied. The amount of prop occupied by a particular act of
                  dominion will vary w/ the nature of the prop.
             b. Constructive AP (color of title): By the doctrine of “constructive” AP, one who
                  enters prop under color of title (i.e. a written instrument that is defective for some
                  reason) will gain title to the entire area described in the instrument, even if he
                  “actually” possesses only a portion of it.
                        i. Must be recognized as a unit: The parcel of land claimed to be constructively
                           possessed must be one which is recognized in the community as a single parcel
                           likely to be owned by a single owner.



                                                     16
                                                                               Heather’s Parcho Outline
                                                                                              Fall 2002
                          Ex. Ted Turner owns a piece of land consisting of Sections 1,2, and 3 and a
                          militia group occupies section 3. If there is no color of title, the militia group
                          will get only section 3. If there is color of title and Turner does not use the land,
                          the militia group will get it all. Otherwise, the group will get all but what Turner
                          is using.

   7.   Disabilities of Owner: Most legislatures think it unfair for a SOL to run upon a person who
        is unable to bring a lawsuit (under a legal disability). Therefore, most statutes give an
        additional period of time to bring an action if the owner is under a disability. However,
        disability provisions are strictly limited in two ways:
             a. Only the disabilities specified in the statute (e.g. insanity, infancy, imprisonment, etc.)
                  can be considered; and
             b. Usually only disabilities of the owner at the time AP begins count.
             c. Note: Disabilities cannot be tacked; you only count the first one.

   8.   AP against the government: At CL it was impossible to acquire title in state owned land by
        adverse possession. However, a number of states deviated from common law rule, and now allow
        AP, even against the gov. In some states the statutory period is much longer w/ gov land, in others
        it’s the same period.

   9.  AP of Chattels: As is the case w/ land, title to chattels may also be acquired through AP.
       However, AP of chattels raises a unique problem. The problem is in determining when the statute
       of limitations begins to run. An owner knows that their property was stolen, but do not know who
       to bring suit against. Unlike land, personal property is easily moved and is hard to track down.
             a. General Rule: The general rule is that the SOL begins to run from the date of theft.
             b. Exception: If the owner exercised due diligence, he will be entitled to the rule of
                 discovery => SOL begins running when true owner discovered or should have
                 discovered the identity of the possessor of the stolen goods.
             c. NY approach: The statutory period will not begin to run, regardless of the diligence of
                 the owner, until the owner demands the possessor to return the goods and the latter
                 refuses. In NY, there must be an act of defiance.
             d. O’Keefe v. Snyder
1946- Painting stolen
O’Keefe does nothing (doesn’t report it)
1972 – lists paintings as missing
1973 – D buys painting
1976 – O’Keefe Sues

Cause of action for adverse possession began the day when the paintings were displayed; were displayed
between 1965-1968

Discovery rule: rule that states that statutory time began at discovery:
    10. this rule only applies to diligent owners; she would have to sue as soon as she knows the identity of
        the owner
   11. Rule does 2 things

            a.   Puts the burden of showing that she used due diligence in trying to recover on the
                 owner
            b.   If the owner is successful, the statutory period will begin to run at the moment that
                 the owner learned or should have learned of the identity of the owner
                       i. NY rejected the discovery rule because it thought that the discovery rule puts
                          too much burden on true owners; NY adopted a more protective rule stipulating
                          that the statutory period will not begin to run regardless of the diligence of the
                          owner until the owner demands that the possessor returns the goods and the
                          latter refuses



                                                    17
                                                                              Heather’s Parcho Outline
                                                                                             Fall 2002
                               1.   This, in essence, requires BAD FAITH – the AP must defy


   12. Tacking and AP: To establish continuous possession for the statutory period, an adverse
       possessor can tack onto her own period of AP any period of AP by predecessors in interest.
       Thus, separate periods of actual possession by those holding hostilely to the owner can be tacked
       together, provided there is privity of estate bet the adverse possessors.
           a. Privity: Privity exists when the subsequent possessor is admitted to the estate w/ the
                permission/consent of the former owner (not formalistic).
           b. Ex. A has a 99 year lease, and then after that the land reverts to the owner. Two
                possibilities:
                      i. If AP occurred within period of lease, first 99 years, the adverse possessor will
                          only acquire title against A, and not against the owner. A will have the right to
                          possess for the remainder of the 99 years.
                     ii. If AP occupies in the period after the lease is over and when the land is
                          supposed to revert to the original owner, the adverse possessor can gain full title.
                          The time A spent on the property is tacked onto the time that the adverse
                          possessor has occupied the land. It is up to the lessor to watch over their land
                          instantaneously after the lease expires and he must take action right away.



III. Possessory Estates
A. INTRODUCTION

   1.   Introduction: The system of land estates was devised in feudal times but still exists today.
            a. Present vs. Future Estates: Present estates vest in their holders an immediate
                possessory right. Future interests defer the vesting of the interest until some future point
                in time.
                      i. Present Interests Include:
                             1. Fee Simple Estate
                             2. Life Estate
                             3. Fee Tail Estate
                             4. Leaseholds

B. THE FEE SIMPLE

   1.   Fee Simple Absolute: A FSA is absolute ownership, so far as absolute ownership is known to
        Anglo-American law. It is of potentially infinite duration. There are no limitations on its
        inheritability. It cannot be divested, nor will it end on the happening of any event.
            a. Words of Purchase and Words of Limitation: Estates are created by using appropriate
                 words in a deed or will. “Words of purchase” identify the person in whom the estate is
                 granted. “Words of limitation” are words describing the type of estate created.
                 Ex. O conveys Blackacre “to a and her heirs.” The words “to A” are words of purchase,
                 identifying A as the taker. The words “and her heirs” are words of limitation indicating a
                 fee simple.
            b. Creation of a fee simple: At CL it was necessary to use words of inheritance (and his
                 heirs) to create a fee simple by deed.
                        i. Heirs have no present interest: The words “and his heirs” are only words of
                           limitation indicating that A takes a fee simple. A can sell or give away the fee
                           simple, or devise it by will, thus depriving A’s heirs of the land.
                       ii. Modern Law: The ancient requirement of words of inheritance in a deed
                           (and his heirs) has been abolished in all states. Under modern law, a deed or
                           will is presumed to pass the largest estate the grantor or testator owned. Thus a



                                                    18
                                                                          Heather’s Parcho Outline
                                                                                         Fall 2002
                       conveyance of Blackacre “to A” conveys a fee simple if the grantor had a fee
                       simple.
                           1. Note: Be the legal system favors fee simple estates, in cases of doubt,
                               courts will presume that the grantor intended to grant a FSA.

2.   Inheritance (intro): An important attribute of fee simples in general is that they are
     inheritable. In transferring upon death, the controlling instrument is the will. First question
     you ask yourself is if there is a will. If there is no will, intestacy laws of the state will
     determine how the prop of the decedent is to be divided.
         a. Intestate: A person who dies w/o a will dies intestate. The people who are entitled to
             the property of such person are called heirs (it is important to avoid the mistake of saying
             that a living person has heirs).
         b. Devisees: People who receive prop by way of a will are called devisees.

3.   Inheritance:
         a. Share of Spouse: If the decedent leaves a spouse, the spouse is entitled to some share
             of the decedents property (usually ½). The other ½ goes to the decedent’s issue, or,
             if no issue, to the decedent’s parents, or, if no parents, to the spouse.
         b. Share of Issue: The word “issue” means children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren,
             and all further descendants.
                   i. Children’s share: If the decedent leaves a spouse and children, the spouse
                        takes half, and the children divide half. If the decedent leaves no spouse, the
                        children take all in equal shares.
                             1. Representation: If a child predeceases the decedent, leaving issue,
                                 the issue represent the child and take the child’s portion. This is
                                 called a per stirpes distribution.
                             2. Grandchildren’s share: Grandchildren do not take if their parent
                                 is alive. Generally speaking – and subject to much variation if the
                                 decedent leaves no children but only grandchildren and more remote
                                 issue – grandchildren share only under the principle of representation.
                                           Ex. O dies intestate, leaving no spouse, a child A, and two
                                           sons of a child B who predeceased O. A and the two sons of
                                           B are O’s heirs. A takes ½; the two sons of B, representing B,
                                           take the other half.
         c. Share of parents (ancestors): If the decedent leaves issue, parents do not take. If
             decedent leaves a spouse and no issue, parents take ½ and the spouse ½. If the
             decedent leaves no spouse and no issue, parents take all.
         d. Share of Collateral relatives: “Collateral relatives” includes all blood kin except
             ancestors and descendants. Hence it includes brothers, sisters, nephews, nieces, uncles,
             aunts, and cousins. If the decedents leaves no spouse, issue, or parent, the collateral
             relatives take.
         e. Escheat: If a fee simple owner deis w/o a will and w/o heirs, the fee simple escheats to
             the state.

4.   Restraints on Alienation (Restraints on transferability of interest): In general, the law views
     restraints on alienation w/ great disfavor.
         a.    Objections to R on A:
                    i. makes prop unmarketable
                   ii. perpetuates concentration of wealth
                  iii. discourages improvements both b/c owner cannot sell the land to realize the
                       full value of the land and b/c she cannot finance improvements by
                       mortgaging the land
                  iv. may adversely affect creditors
         b. Three types of Restraints:
                    i. Disabling restraints – Outright forbid owner from transferring




                                                 19
                                                                                 Heather’s Parcho Outline
                                                                                                Fall 2002
                        ii. Forfeiture restraints – Provide that if grantee attempts to transfer the house his
                            interests will be forfeited to another person
                       iii. Promissory restraints – grantee contractually promises not to alienate the land
              c.   Restatement approach: R2nd provides that absolute restraints on fee simple,
                   regardless of type, are VOID. Partial disabling restraints are VOID. Partial
                   forfeiture or promissory restraints are generally void unless they are reasonable in
                   purpose, duration, and effect.


C. THE LIFE ESTATE

    1.   Definition: A LE is an estate that has the potential duration of one or more human lives.
             a. White v. Brown

Will left house to White with a clause that said that it is only to live in, not to sell. She eventually wants to
sell. She can only sell if it is a fee simple estate. D argued that the will was ambiguous; it really isn’t. The
terminology was missing – should have explicitly said that this was a life estate. If it was a life estate and
she didn’t live in it, then the house would pass to her heirs at law. She is suing to get the title of the house
from her heirs (Brown).
Court determined that it was not a life estate; on appeal the SC said that it was a fee simple absolute b/c
when a transfer lacks terminology and intention that would be required to show that it was just a life
estate, it is a fee simple by default.


    2.   Types of Life Estates:
            a. For life of grantee: The usual LE is measured by the grantee’s life. Ex. O conveys
                 Blackacre “to A for life.” The grantee, A, gets an estate in the land for so long as A lives.
                 On A’s death, the land reverts to O, the grantor. (note: could say “to A until he dies”)
            b. Pur autre vie: Where the estate is measure by the life of someone other than the
                 owner of the LE, it is classified as a LE pur autre vie. It comes to an end when the
                 measuring life ends.
                       i. Creation of LE pur autre vie: One of two ways:
                              1. O conveys Blackacre to B for the life of A. If B dies before A, the LE
                                   pur autre vie descends to B’s heirs.
                              2. A, a life tenant, conveys her LE to B. B has a LE pur autre vie. A is
                                   the measuring life.

    3.   LE is always followed by a future interest: Two possible scenarios:
             a. Reversion: land returns to grantor. This is the default is a third party is not specified.
                 (note: this is a reversion in fee simple b/c it reverts to the grantor forever)
             b. Remainder: land returns to anyone but the grantor (third party)

    4.   Transferability: A life tenant ordinarily is free to transfer, lease, encumber, or otherwise alienate
         her estate inter vivos. Of course, the transferee gets no more than the life tenant had – an estate
         that ends at the expiration of the measuring life.
              a. Problems w/ LE:
                         i. limited duration significantly impairs their marketability.
                        ii. sometimes impose excessive maintenance costs on life tenant. As a life
                             tenant, you can legally sell the land, but no one will want to buy it.

                       iii. Baker v. Weedon




                                                       20
                                                                                 Heather’s Parcho Outline
                                                                                                Fall 2002
Weedon dies and leaves a life estate to his 3rd wife; will says that if she dies and has children – the land goes to
them, if she doesn’t the land goes to his grandchildren. Suit arises b/c she can’t farm it alone and wants to sell it.
His kids don’t want to sell it.

  Issue: when can a life tenant file to sell?
           - no one will want to buy b/c they don’t know when she will die
           - however, she can’t work the land or make anything out of it
  Court says that to sell it is a very drastic remedy and not in the best interest of the entire family. Court
  does allow her to sell part of it to alleviate her financial burden.


     5.   Sale of Prop by a Court: If the life tenant and the owners of the remainder are all adults,
          competent, and agree, a fee simple in the land can be sold. If they cannot agree, can the life
          tenant order the proceeds reinvested in trust w/ the income paid to the life tenant?
              a. Holders of the remainder are able to consent: If the holders of the remainder are all
                   ascertainable, adult, and competent, they can consent to the sale and the general rule is
                   that a court will not give the life tenant relief in this case. The parties can bargain among
                   themselves about sale and division of the proceeds.
                         i. Equitable intervention: Equity may intervene and order sale of the prop if
                             the sale is necessary for the best interest of all the parties. This is a flexible
                             remedy used sparingly b/c of the underlying notion that the grantor wants
                             the land itself, not the econ value represented by the land, passed on to the
                             holders of the remainder.
              b. Holders of the remainder cant consent: A court may order a sale if it finds that a
                   sale is in the best interests of the holders of the remainder.

     6.   Valuation of Life Estates: Two ways to evaluate the perspective shares of the life tenant and the
          remainderman
              a. Rely on tables promulgated by the Treasury for tax purposes (easy way)
              b. See pages 218-219 (hard way)

     7.   Duties of Life Tenant: B/c LE’s are always followed by future interest, the life tenant and
          the future interest holder are essentially co-owners of the prop. Therefore the life tenant
          owes basic duties to the future interest holders:
               a. Duty not to commit waste: When two or more parties have the right to possess prop
                   concurrently or consecutively, neither has the right to use the prop in a way that
                   unreasonably interferes w/ the expectations of the other.
                         i. Affirmative wastes: (act) consists of voluntary acts ex. breaking a wall
                        ii. Permissive wastes: (omission) consists of failure to act when action is required.
                             as a tenant you cannot allow the property to fall into disrepair.
                       iii. Exceptions: Neither type of wastes are permitted, but there are some
                             exceptions:
                                  1. Minerals can be extracted if they were extracted when the future
                                      interest was created.
                                  2. Trees can be cut down if good husbandry requires.
                                      (note: Changes that increase the value of the prop are not typically
                                      considered waste, but this standard is objective)
               b. Duty to make repairs: duty to make reasonable repairs that result from normal use of
                   the property.
               c. Duty to pay prop taxes and mortgage interests payments: however, the duty to make
                   payments is capped by the actual or reasonable rent (i.e. you cannot get more than you
                   paid for the property)

     8.   Trusts as an alternative: B/c of the problems w/ LE’s, most modern grantors prefer to use trusts.
          Trusts preserve the value of LE’s, but eliminate the vices. A trust is basically a device whereby
          one person manages prop for the benefit of others. It is a legal instrument which enables the


                                                       21
                                                                                 Heather’s Parcho Outline
                                                                                                Fall 2002
          grantor to benefit whomever they wish to benefit w/o giving them a possessory interest.
          Usually a grantor grants property to a trust and appoints a trustee, who is under a strict obligation
          (fiduciary duty) to manage the trust for the sole benefit of the beneficiaries. The trustee and the
          beneficiary can be the same person.
               a. Mahrenholz v. County Board of School Trustess

 Trust that stated that this land was only to be used for educational purpose
 Main question: Did the original grant create a FSD or a FSSCS?
 Trial court says FSSCS, appellate court reversed finding a FSD.
 Additional question: Was the condition breached? Found that the land never stopped being used for a school
 b/c the school still store things there.
 Rule: Little determinative language can make a huge difference.
Bottom line:
 HH is the future interest holder: he was to get it as soon as the land wasn’t used for school purposes
 Rule: you cannot convey future interests independently but most states have enacted statutes allowing
 intervivos transfers. 2 questions here:

  1. What interests were conveyed by the transfer? (future, present, etc)
  2. Was the condition breached?

           - If you are dealing with a FSD, the condition begins to run the moment the condition is
                breached, but the breach needs to be open and notorious
           - With an FSSCS, the property is conveyed as soon as the future interest holder exercises
                their right of entry
           - Sometimes a restrict will take effect due to a promise – instead, it forms a covenant
                    o Only the duty implied BY the grantor makes it a Defeasible fee
                    o The grantor may be able to get damages but no forfeiture occurs
                               Courts typically do not like forfeiture – they would rather award remedies
                                  (especially in modern times)


D. THE FEE TAIL

     1.   Historical Background: In feudal England, land was the basis of family power, status, and
          wealth. One of the chief objectives of landowners, particularly large landowners, was to keep land
          in the family. The fee tail was invented for just that purpose – to keep the land safe for succeeding
          generations. It was designed to transfer generation to generation until the grantor’s bloodline ran
          out. At that point it would revert to grantor (grantor’s heirs), only if the creating instrument was
          silent as to who would take over when bloodline ran out. So fee tail could be followed by a
          reversion or a remainder.
               a. Restrictions: Fee tail holders could not give the right to possession for their lives to
                    third parties; they could not break the chain and thus affect the rights of the issue.
                    This changed in the 19th C when the law permitted the fee tail tenant to disentail by
                    conveying a fee simple to a third person.

     2.   Significance today: Fee tail is of little importance now. Fee tail was abolished in all states but
          4 (Del, Ma., Mass, R.I). In these 4 states, fee tail tenant can convert his interest into a fee
          simple by executing a deed during her life. She cannot do it by will.

     3.   Creation of fee tail: At CL, the fee tail was created by an instrument using words of
          inheritance and words confirming succession to the issue of the grantee: “to A and the heirs
          of his body.”

     4.   What we should know about the fee tail: The only thing we should know about the fee tail is
          what happens in states which have abolished the fee tail when fee tails are attempted to be
          conveyed.


                                                       22
                                                                                Heather’s Parcho Outline
                                                                                               Fall 2002
             a.   Ex. O → to my son A, and the heirs of his body. If A dies w/o issue, to my daughter B,
                  and the heirs of her body.  There are 3 ways to deal w/ this:
                        i. Minority: A takes the LE and A’s issue gets a remainder in fee simple. B gets
                           nothing
                       ii. Majority 1: A gets a FSA and B gets nothing, even if A dies w/o issue.
                      iii. Majority 2: A gets a FSA but if A dies w/o issue, then B gets a FSA.

E. DEFEASIBLE ESTATES

    1.   Defeasible Fees: A FS can be created so that it is defeasible (subject to revocation) on the
         happening of some event, and the owner of the FS then loses, or may lose, the property. If
         the fee simple is defeasible, it is not absolute. Defeasible fees are most commonly encountered in
         deeds restricting the use of land, but they may be used for other purposes as well. There are 2
         types of defeasible fees simple:
    2. Fee Simple Determinable: FSD terminates immediately and automatically upon the
         occurrence of the specified even or condition, as long as the condition is not unreasonable or
         too restrictive.
         Ex. O → A and his heirs, as long as no alcohol is served on the premises. A has a FSD that will
         automatically end if they serve alcohol. When that happens the fee simple reverts to O.
              a. Creation: A determinable fee is created by language that connotes that the grantor is
                   giving a fee simple only until a stated event happens. (“to A so long as”, “to A until”, “to
                   A while”, or lang providing that on the happening of a stated event the land is to revert to
                   the grantor)
              b. Future Interests in FSD: By essence, every FSD is followed by a potential interest.
                   There are two types of future interests in FSD:
                         i. Possibility of reverter – Future interest in grantor (default)
                        ii. Executory interest – Future interest in third party
              c. Transferability: A FSD may be transferred or inherited so long as the stated event
                   has not happened. But the fee simple remains subject to the limitation no matter
                   who holds it.
              d. Valuation: When the gov exercises eminent domain, taking title to land where a
                   FSD is owned by A and a possibility of reverter is owned by B, it is necessary to
                   value the separate interests. The majority rule is that the entire condemnation award
                   belongs to A unless the FSD would expire w/in a reasonably short period. A minority
                   rule sets the value of the determinable fee as the diff bet full market value of a fee simple
                   for all uses and the value of the land for the uses permitted. The diff bet the value of the
                   determinable fee and the full fair market value is the value of the possibility of reverter.
                         i. Ink v. City of Canton
     (246) (Ink gives land to city for use as a park only-It’s a park for 20 years-state now wants to build a
     highway on most of the land)
     Issue: The highway department is compensating people for their land. Who should they pay Ink
     or the State.
     Holding: Ink gets the value of the land the City gets the value of the structures built on the land

                       ii. City of Palm Springs v. Living Desert Reserve

D gives the land to P only to be used for a Museum; P (who is the local government) condemns it. So, they
basically have to pay themselves. And then they get to turn it into a golf course.
Court gave it back to D


    3.   Fee Simple Subject to Condition Subsequent: Only diff bet FSD and FSSCS is that the
         FSSCS does not terminate automatically upon the breach of the condition or occurrence of
         the specified event. FSSCS gives the future interest holder an option to reenter and take.
         Future interest holder can either act on the option or not act.



                                                      23
                                                                             Heather’s Parcho Outline
                                                                                            Fall 2002
       Ex. O → A, but if Bud Light is served on the property, then O can reenter the premises. If O does
       not choose to exercise her right of entry when liquor is sold, the fee simple continues in A.
            a. Creation: A FSSCS is created by first giving the grantee an unconditional fee
               simple and then providing that the fee simple may be divested by the grantor or her
               heirs if a specified condition happens. (“to A, but if X event happens…” or “to A, upon
               condition that if X event happens…” or “to A, provided, however, that if X event
               happens…” or “to A, however if…” the grantor retains a right of entry)
            b. Future Interests in FSSCS: Like the FSD, FSSCS can create potential future
               interests:
                      i. Right of entry – Future interest in grantor
                     ii. Executory interest – Future Interest in third party
            c. Distinguished from FSD: These two estates are very similar and often the language in
               deeds can be classified either way. If the courtt has a choice, the FSSCS is preferred
               on the ground that the forfeiture is optional at the grantor’s election and not
               automatic. The general policy of the courts is to avoid forfeiture of estates.

  4.   Practical Differences bet FSD and FSSCS:
           a. Transferability of the Right of Entry: In some states the right of entry that follows a
               FSSCS is not transferable during life. It is unalienable during life. The majority of
               states, however, allow the right of entry to be transferred inter vivos.
           b. RAP: RAP only applies to future interest (FSSCS) but not to possibility of reverter
               (FSD).
           c. SOL: W/ an FSD, limitation period begins to run the moment the condition is
               breached, however, the breach must be open and notorious. W/ a FSSCS, the
               limitation period begins to run from the moment the future interest holder attempts
               to exercise the right of entry.

  5.   Interpretation: It is up to the ct to determine whether some actions constitute a violation of the
       restriction. (Ex. is cooking w/ alcohol a violation of the condition that alcohol not be sold on the
       land?)

  6.   Covenants vs. Defeasible Fees: Sometimes the duty or restriction will take the form of a promise
       (covenant). The grantee will promise or undertake an obligation (ex. not to sell alcohol on the
       land). However, only a duty imposed by the grantor creates a defeasible fee. A promise by the
       grantee is different and a breach implicates the standard contractual remedies (damages,
       injunction). A breach of a defeasible fee results in forfeiture.

  7.   Relationship bet Defeasible Fees and Restraints on Alienation: When a condition is too broad
       or goes too far, the cts may use the doctrine against restraints on alienability to strike it down.

  8.   Defeasible Life Estates: Like a fee simple, a LE can be created so as to be determinable, subject
       to condition subsequent, or subject to an executory limitation.
            a. Ex. O → “to A for life so long as A remains unmarried”. A has a LE terminable upon
                marriage. (note: this might violate the rule against restraints on alientation)
            b. Ex. O → “to A for life, but if A does not use the land for agrigulture, O retains the right
                to reenter.” A has a LE subject to a condition subsequent.
            c. Ex. O → “to A for life, but if B marries during A’s life, to B.” A has a LE subject to an
                executory limitation.



IV. Future Interests
A. INTRODUCTION



                                                    24
                                                                                 Heather’s Parcho Outline
                                                                                                Fall 2002
   1.   Introduction: A future interest is a nonpossessory interest capable of becoming possessory in the
        future. A future interest is a present interest in the sense that it is a presently existing interest. But
        it is not a presently possessory interest, and that is why we call it a future interest.
              a. Ex. O conveys Blackacre “to A for life, and on A’s death to B.” A has a possessory LE.
                   B has a future interest called a remainder. It will become possessory on A’s death.
                   Before A’s death, the remainder exists as a property interest in Blackacre. As w/ other
                   prop interests, B can transfer the remainder to C, and B’s creditors can reach the
                   remainder. It is an existing prop interest, which will become possessory in the future.

   2.   Types of Future Interests: Future interests are divided into two basic groups:
           a. Future Interests in the Grantor:
                      i. Reversion – Follows present finite estates (life estates and leaseholds)
                     ii. Possibility of Reverter – follows FSD
                    iii. Right of Entry – follows FSSCS
           b. Future Interests in Third Parties:
                      i. Vested Remainders – Follow finite present estates (life estates and
                         leaseholds). Three varieties:
                             1. Vested Remainder (absolute)
                             2. Vested Remainder Subject to Divestment (VRSTD)
                             3. Vested Remainder Subject to Open (VRSTO)
                     ii. Contingent Remainders – Follow finite estates
                    iii. Executory Interests – Follow defeasible fees. Two varieties:
                             1. Shifting – cuts short the interest before it
                                       a. OA ahh, but if B returns from Rome then to B ahh
                             2. Springing – gap between termination of the previous estate and the
                                  vestee
                                       a. OA for life then to B 30 days after funeral (O has title in
                                           between)


B. FUTURE INTERESTS IN THE GRANTOR/TRANSFEROR

   1.   Reversion: A reversion is a future interest left in the grantor after she conveys a finite estate
        (LE or leasehold) w/o providing who will take the prop afterward, or when she expressly
        reserves the future interest to himself.
             a. Reversion need not be certain:
                 Ex. O → A for life, then to B and her heirs if she outlives A. A has a LE, B has a
                 contingent remainder. If B dies before A, there is a reversion to O.
             b. Ex. O → to A for life, then to B and her heirs if B attains the age of 21 before A dies. O
                 has a reversion bec B may not attain 21 before A dies. However, if B does attain 21, O’s
                 reversion disappears.
   2.   Possibility of Reverter: A possibility of reverter is a future interest remaining in the grantor
        (who has a FSA) when a FSD is created. If you see a grant of a FSD, know that the grantor has
        a possibility of reverter unless the grant transfers the prop to a third party upon the occurrence of
        the specified event.

   3.   Right of Entry: A right of entry is created when a grantor creates a FSSCS and retains the
        power to cut short or terminate the estate.
            a. Ex. O conveys Whiteacre to A but provides “if land ceases to be used for library
                purposes, O has the right to re-enter.” A has a FSSCS and O has a right of entry.

C. FUTURE INTERESTS IN THIRD PARTIES/TRANSFEREES

   1.   Remainder: A remainder is a future interest created in a grantee that follows directly after
        finite present estates (Defeasible Life Estates and Defeasible Leaseholds). A remainder




                                                      25
                                                                       Heather’s Parcho Outline
                                                                                      Fall 2002
never divests or cuts short the preceding estate; instead fit always waits patiently for the
preceding estate to expire. There are two types of remainders:
Ex. O → to A for life, then to B if B is then living. B has a remainder bec B’s interest is capable
of becoming possessory upon the termination of the LE.
    a. Vested Remainder: A remainder is vested if the holder of the remainder is alive,
        ascertainable, and there is no condition precedent in the grant.
              i. Subclassification of Vested Remainders:
                       1. Indefeasibly vested remainder: When a remainder is indefeasibly
                            vested, the holder of the remainder is certain to acquire a possessory
                            estate at some time in the future, and is also certain to be entitled to
                            retain permanently thereafter the possessory estate so acquired.
                            Ex. O → A for life, then to B and her heirs. B is to take permanent
                            possession on A’s death. If B dies before A, B’s heirs are entitled to
                            possession. Thus, B’s remainder is indefeasibly vested. If B dies
                            intestate and w/o heirs before A, B’s remainder escheats to the state.
                            Ex. O → A for life, then to B for life, then to C and her heirs. A = LE.
                            B = VR in a LE. C = VR in FSA.
                       2. Vested Remainder Subject to Open (VRSTO): When a remainder is
                            vested subject to open, it is vested in a class of persons, at least one of
                            whom is qualified to take possession, but the shares of the class
                            members are not yet fixed bec more persons can subsequently become
                            members of the class. (ex. by being born).
                            Ex. O → A for life, then to A’s children and H/H (A has one child, x).
                            A = LE, x = VRSTO (bec more kids may be born later), A’s unborn
                            children = CR (they are unborn, but still have an interest).
                       3. Vested Remainder Subject to Divestment (VRSTD): When a
                            remainder is subject to divestment, it may be divested in the future by
                            operation of a CS. (look for “, but if”). A VRSTD is followed by an
                            executory interest if it shifts to another party.
                            Ex. O → A for life, then to B H/H, but if B fails to grow sunflowers on
                            the land, then to C H/H. A = LE, B = VRSTD, C = Executory interest
                            Ex. O → A for life, then to B H/H if B survives A, and if B doesn’t
                            survive A, then to C H/H. A = LE, B = CR (no ,but), C = CR (C has a
                            CP as well and also doesn’t cut anything short). O has a technical
                            reversion, but this will cease once A dies.
    b. Contingent Remainder: All remainders that are not vested are contingent. The
        remainder will be contingent if any of the above conditions for a vested remainder
        are not satisfied.
              i. Ex. O → A for life, then to B and her heirs. A has a LE. B has a VR (we
                  assume, w/o other info, that B is alive and ascertainable). There is no reversion
                  b/c if B dies it goes to B’s heirs.
             ii. Ex. O → A for 10 yrs, then to whomever is the president of the U.S. and his
                  heirs. A has a leasehold. The pres has a contingent remaninder (it is not
                  ascertainable at the time of the conveyance who this person is so the
                  remainder is contingent, not vested).
                  Note: there is no CP in the conveyance – someone will be pres, but for now its
                  just an abstract entity.
             iii. Ex. O → A for life, then to B if B attains 21, and if B doesn’t to C. A = LE, B =
                  CR, C = CR. If A dies, and B is only 18, the land reverts to O for the 3 yr
                  period.
    c. Note on CR: When there is a CR, you must look for someone to take the prop should the
        condition fail. You must look for either a reversion or an executory interest.
    d. Condition Precedent vs. Condition Subsequent: A condition precedent is a condition
        that must occur before the person moves into possession. A condition subsequent is a
        condition that cuts short a possessory estate if it occurs.




                                             26
                                                                             Heather’s Parcho Outline
                                                                                            Fall 2002
                      i. Ex. O → A for life, but if she sells alcohol O can re-enter. A has a LE subject
                          to condition subsequent (CS = selling of alcohol). B has a right of entry (right
                          of entry always follows CS).
                     ii. Ex. O → A for life, then to B and her heirs if she survives A. A has a life
                          estate. B has a contingent remainder. (B has to survive A in order to take the
                          property. Since this is a CP, B’s remainder is contingent).
           e. Distinction bet Vested and Contingent Remainders:
                      i. CR subject to RAP, while VRSTD are not (only VRSTO is subject to RAP)
  2.   Executory Interests: There are two types of executory interests – shifting and springing.
       For a shifting executory interest to vest, it must cut short the interest preceding it. A
       springing executory interest exists when there is a gap bet the termination of the preceding
       estate and the vesting.
           a. Executory Interests are subject to RAP.
           b. Ex. O → A and H/H, but if B returns from Rome, then to B H/H. A = FSSCS, B =
                shifting EI
           c. Ex. O → A for life, then to his daughter B one month after the funeral. A = LE, B =
                springing EI (there is a gap; B takes over a month after funeral)
           d. Ex. O → A for life, then to B H/H, but if B fails to graduate from law school then to C
                and H/H. A = LE, B = VRSTD, C = shifting EI


D. RULES FURTHERING MARKETABILITY BY DESTROYING CONTINGENT FUTURE
INTERESTS

  1.   The Rule in Shelly’s Case (Rule of Merger): If the same instrument creates a LE in A, and then
       purports to create a remainder in persons described as A’s heirs, we change the remainder to the
       heirs to become a remainder in FSA in A; A gets the full conveyance.
            a. Ex. O → A for life, then to A’s heirs. A = FSA.
            b. Relevance today: This rule is of no use today and has been abolished in most states.

  2.   Doctrine of Worthier Title (Rule Forbidding Remainders to Grantor’s Heirs): If an
       intervivos conveyance ( a conveyance bet two living people) grants land to a person, and also
       creates a future interest (remainder or EI) in Grantor’s Heirs, we change that future interest
       into a reversion for O in FSA.
            a. Ex. O, while alive → A for life, then to O’s heirs. O = reversion in FSA.
            b. Relevance today: This doctrine is still enforced in most states, however, it is considered
                a rule of construction, which means it only creates a rebuttable presumption that a
                reversion in O, rather than a remainder in O’s heirs, is intended. However, this
                presumption can be easily rebutted.

  3.   Rule Against Perpetuities (RAP): No interest is good unless it will vest or fail not later than
       21 years after the expiration of some life in being at the creation of the interest. If an
       interest vests later than the perpetuities period that interest is struck down by the rule.
           a. Interests Subject to Rule:
                      i. Contingent Remainders
                     ii. Vested Remainders Subject to Open
                    iii. Executory Interests
                    iv. Purchase Options
                        Ex. O → A for life, then to B H/H. Rule doesn’t apply b/c B’s interest is a VR in
                        FSA.
           b. Lives in Being: Refers to people who are alive at the time of the conveyance and
                who can affect the vesting.
                      i. Note: If a condition is attached to one of the lives in being, and this person must
                          satisfy the condition personally, the future interest is always good under the
                          RAP.




                                                   27
                                                                             Heather’s Parcho Outline
                                                                                            Fall 2002
                          Ex. O → A for life, then to Jeter and H/H if Jeter attains 30. Jeter = CR. Jeter
                          will either attain 30 or die in his lifetime so his interest is not affected.
            c.   Create, Kill, Count Approach:
                       i. Create a person who may be eligible to claim the property under the terms of the
                          conveyance
                      ii. Kill all the lives in being except for the new person you created
                     iii. Count 21 yrs from the moment of everyone’s death.
                     iv. If the interest is sure the vest or fail w/in the perpetuities period, the RAP will
                          not strike it down.
            d.   Class Conveyances: Whenever a conveyance is made to a group of people (ex. to A’s
                 children), the RAP requires that the future interest of all the members of the group
                 will necessarily vest or fail within the perpetuities period. If the gift to one member
                 of the class might vest too remotely, the whole class gift is invalid.
                       i. Ex. O → A for life, then to A’s children H/H. A has one child, C.
                          Create D (A’s new child)
                          Kill A,C
                          Count – if everyone else is dead, the interest in D will vest immediately, so the
                          rule isn’t violate.
                      ii. Ex. O → A for life, then to A’s children for their lives, then to B if B is then
                          alive, and if B isn’t alive, then to B’s heirs. (A has a child, M; B is alive)
                          A = LE, M = VRSTO, A’s unborn children = CR, B = CR, B’s heirs = CR. All
                          interests are good.
            e.   Re-Purchase Options: RAP was extended to options to re-purchase land. In a
                 typical purchase option, the grantor reserves in himself the right to re-purchase the
                 land upon the occurrence of a certain contingency.
                       i. Ex. A → B and her heirs, but if B holds trance parties on the prop, A will have
                          the right to buy back the land for $1000.
                      ii. Central Delaware v. Greyhound Corp.

Land to be used for public purpose and if it wasn’t, the seller could repurchase. They argued that this was a right
of entry, not a repurchase agreement.
                                1. Trial court found that it was an option but decided not to apply the rule on
                                     public policy grounds.
                                          a. They thought applying the rule would deter people from giving
                                               their land for public purposes
                                          b. Supreme court reverses and says that the RAP is a preemptory
                                               rule that cannot be held back – it’s not discretionary.


                     iii. Exceptions to Purchase Options:
                             1. RAP doesn’t apply to options to lessees (as opposed to lessors) to
                                  buy the prop at the end of the lease.
                                      a. Symphony Space, Inc. v. Pergola Properties, Inc




                                                   28
                                                                             Heather’s Parcho Outline
                                                                                            Fall 2002

 1978, Broadwest Rail Corp sells building to symphony space (a non profit organization) for a tax break (they sold at
 10,010). Then they lease back the commercial space for $1. In a separate agreement, they created a repurchase
 option for $10 and the option could be exercised in 1987, 1993, 1998, or 2003.
 Issue: Is the repurchase item valid under the rule of perpetuities?
 Holding: Court says that the option is subject to the rule and when applied to the rule the repurchase option is
 rendered invalid.
 Courts could have eliminated the last date option and not applied the rule. However – they didn’t b/c the whole
 purpose of this deal was to avoid taxes. Bad policy.
     - RAP does not apply to leases. Why?
               Because options to purchase what you are leasing gives you an incentive to improve on it which is
               positive.
               The courts could have used this too, but they chose not to.

                                2. RAP doesn’t apply to pre-emptive options held by governing boards of co-ops
                                    and condos. Pre-emptive option means that when you go to sell, the governing
                                    board has the first chance to buy.

             f.   Wait and See Approach: Most states (not NY) have abandoned the traditional RAP
                  approach in favor of the wait and see approach. There are two approaches under
                  this doctrine
                        i. Wait out the perpetuities period; don’t analyze at the time of conveyance
                           (lives in being + 21)
                       ii. Wait 90 yrs



V. Co-ownership and Marital Interests
A. COMMON LAW CONCURRENT INTERESTS

    1.   Tenancy In Common: A TIC is a form of concurrent ownership wherein each co-tenant is
         the owner of a separate and distinct share of the property, which has not been divided
         among the co-tenants. Each owner has a separate undivided interest in the whole. Each co-
         tenant has the right to possess and use the entire property subject to the right of the other
         co-tenants.
             a. Creation:
                        i. A TIC can be created either expressly by grant or will. (O → A and B)
                       ii. A TIC can be created by operation of law. (Ex. when people inherent prop
                           together – i.e more than one heir)
             b. Default: When a conveyance is made to two or more persons who are not husband
                 and wife, they are presumed to take as TIC and not as joint tenants. This
                 presumption can be overcome by evidence that a JT was intended.
             c. Transferability: A tenant in common can sell, give, devise, or otherwise dispose of
                 her undivided share in the same manner as if she were the sole owner of the prop.
             d. Termination:
                        i. If all tenants in common transfer to a third party, that party will have full
                           ownership and the TIC will be terminated.
                       ii. If the property is partitioned among the co-tenants, the TIC is terminated.
                      iii. If the value of the land would be substantially lower is it was parceled, then
                           the court will order a sale (and the money split).(Johnson v. Henrickson)
                      iv. Delfino v. Vealencis
I FACTS: The Delfinos (P) owned 99/144 of the property and wanted a residential development, while
Vealencis (D) owned 45/144 and wanted to keep her garbage business on it. (Tenants in common.)
(Delfinos want partition by sale b/c one tenant will own entirety and fully account for benefits; Vealencis



                                                    29
                                                                               Heather’s Parcho Outline
                                                                                              Fall 2002
want in kind to keep business.)
RULE: A partition by sale should only be ordered if the physical attributes of the land in question
are such that a partition is impracticable or inequitable, and the interests of the owners would be
promoted by a partition by sale.

             e.   No right of survivorship: When a tenant in common dies, her interest passes to her
                  devisees or heirs. It does not go to the surviving tenant in common.

    2.    Joint Tenancy: A JT is a TIC + a right of survivorship. When one of the joint tenants
          passes away, her interest will automatically pas to the other surviving JT. It will not become
          part of her estate.
              a. Advantages of right of survivorship:
                         i. Transfers the prop automatically to the surviving joint tenant w/o the time and
                            expense associated w/ probate
                        ii. JT protects the surviving joint tenant from the claims of secured and unsecured
                            creditors of the dead joint tenant.
              b. Creation: A JT requires that the interests of the joint tenants be equal in all
                   respects. They must take their interests at the (i) same time, (ii) by the same
                   instrument, (iii) w/ identical interests, and (iv) w/ an equal right to possess the whole
                   property. These unities must exist at all times. So if a JT transfers his interest, it
                   severs the JT.
                         i. Unity of Interest: – interest granted (type, amount, and duration of the estate
                            must be identical for each owner)
                        ii. Unity of Title – the interest must be created in the same grant, not in successive
                            grants.
                       iii. Unity of Time – the interest must vest at the same moment
                       iv. Unity of Possession – all joint tenants must have equal right of access and use
                            in the land.
              c. Severance: Severance can occur either by mutual consent or by unilateral acts, such
                   as unilateral transfer. If there is a transfer, JT turns into a TIC. Some states (NY)
                   offer protection to the unsuspecting JT and require recordation of unilateral transfers.
                   Recording is a mechanism for informing the other JT that a transfer has taken place.
              d. Unilateral conveyance to oneself
                         i. Used to have to transfer through a dummy to sever: Riddle v. Harmon
Wife unilaterally conveyed her joint tenancy to herself in order to change it into a tenancy in common so
that she can convey it to whoever she wants in her will. Didn’t use the third party dummy.
Issue: Does this act sever the JT and her husbands right of survivorship?
Holding: Yes. She can unilaterally sever by transfer a ½ interest in the property to herself.
Rationale: Since she could easily convey to a dummy and then back to herself, the court sees no
reason to make one do this.
                        ii. Harms v. Sprague

 William Harms and John Harms were joint tenants. John executes a mortgage on HIS share and executes a
 will to devise his property to Sprague.
 Issue: Does a mortgage sever a JT? (If it does – it goes to Sprague? Does the mortgage have any effect
 after the death of the mortgager?
 2 theories about severance: the mortgage shifts the title to the mortgagee and he has an equitable right to
 the property; or the lien theory (majority view) which states that the mortgagee has a lien and so the
 interest doesn’t vest until the loan is not paid off.
      - this state says it was a lien and so the right of survivorship survives (because at the death, the
           property goes to other JT before the mortgagee could get it as equitable property.
      - The mortgage does not attach to the property and so Harms gets it without the lien

                      iii. Tehnet v. Boswell

Johnson and Tehnet have JT. Johnson leases property to Boswell without telling Tehnet. Johnson dies.


                                                     30
                                                                               Heather’s Parcho Outline
                                                                                              Fall 2002
Issue: Does the lease sever the JT? If it doesn’t sever it, does the lease survive?
Holding: No, it does not sever the JT. A lease is not so inherently inconsistent with a JT as to effect
severance.
however, if there was clear and unambiguous intent to sever the JT, then the lease can sever it.
Secondly, the lease here does not survive (Boswell’s lease was extinguished with Johnson’s tenancy)
              The court said that ruling otherwise would upset the legitimate expectations of the joint tenant
              Said to Boswell that a careful or prudent lessee should have conducted a title search
    Important here that the court created a standard, not a rule – “Without clear and unambiguous intent
    to sever the JT, then the lease can’t sever it”

                      iv. Transfers by will: Transfers by will do not sever the JT. The right of
                           survivorship supersedes the will.
            e. Construction/Interpretation: JT’s are out of favor w/ courts today, so if you want to set
                 up a JT you have to express your intent VERY clearly. (To A and B as joint tenants, and
                 not as tenants in common. Or mention right of survivorship. “To A and B as joint
                 tenants” may not be enough)
    2. Effect of Various Unilateral Acts on a JT:
            a. Conveyance to Oneself: The CL required that in order to have a legal transfer, one
                 person must convey to another person, and not to herself; hence the joint tenant could not
                 convey directly to herself. Some recent cases have allowed a joint tenant to
                 unilaterally sever the tenancy by conveying her interest to herself w/o using an
                 intermediary.
                        i. Conveyance to a strawman or creation of a trust and then having that person
                           transfer to you are ways to get around the CL bar.
            b. Mortgaging: When one joint tenant gives a mortgage on the prop, does this sever the JT
                 b/c the unity of interest is destroyed? Jurisdictions are not in agreement: (see Harms)
                        i. Title theory states: the execution of a mortgage conveys title to the
                           mortgagee, therefore JT is severed b/c a prop interest was transferred
                       ii. Lien theory states: JT survives b/c no prop interest was transferred
            c. Leases: Several approaches to leases: (see Tehnet)
                        i. Complete Severance – (dominant view in England; only a small # of US states
                           accept it) A conveyance of a lease or a LE terminates the JT and hence the
                           interest of the lessee survives the death of the JT lessor.
                       ii. No Severance – (some states adopt this rule) execution of a lease does not
                           sever a JT and thus the lease does not survive the death of the lessor JT.
                      iii. Partial Severance – other states hold that a lease or a LE partially severs
                           the JT, turning it into a TIC for the duration of the lease. The original joint
                           tenants become joint tenants in the reversion.

    3.  Tenancy by the Entirety: A TBE is a form of concurrent ownership that can be created only
        between a husband and wife, holding as one person. The TBE is like a JT in that the 4 unities
        (plus a fifth – unity of marriage) are required for its creation, and the surviving spouse has the
        right of survivorship. What distinguishes it is that the H and W and considered to hold as one
        person and neither of them, acting alone, can partition the prop or terminate the other
        spouses right of survivorship by conveying her or his interest to a third party.
             a. Termination: Divorce terminates the TBE.
                        i. Effect: If you terminate a TBE it will become a TIC.
             b. Rights of Creditors: Under the majority view, creditiors of one spouse cannot reach
                  the prop bec neither the husband nor the wife acting alone can transfer his or her
                  interest.
                        i. To protect themselves, creditors can get both spouses to agree to the
                            transaction in the contract.
                                 1. Sawada v. Endo
Endo injures Sawadas in car accident. Mrs. Sawada sued but the Endos had given their property to their
son. The Sawadas win lawsuit but cannot collect b/c Endos have given most of their property away and



                                                     31
                                                                               Heather’s Parcho Outline
                                                                                              Fall 2002
what they have left is in a tenancy by the entirety. So he doesn’t have enough $ to pay unless they get some
of the TIC prop.
Issue: Can an interest of a spouse in a TBE prop be taken by creditors?
Holding: No

                                2.   U.S. v Craft

For years, between 1979 and 1986, Don Craft failed to file his tax return files and so incurred a debt of
482,446 to the IRS. In 1998, they try to get the money from Don. The IRS wants to attach the lien to
entirety property held by Don and wife Sandra. Sandra opposes this.

Issue: Does a tenant by the entirety possess the property or rights to property to which a federal tax
lien may attach? Lower court says yes, SC reverses.

Courts look at the state law. O’Conner says that the indivisibility of this property is a common law fiction.
Both can use it, make money off it, and exclude others. The only thing they cannot due is transfer it
unilaterally. Court included the policy concern that there could be massive tax evasion.
     - Dissents say that in other areas of joint ownership (corporations) they are technically legal
         fictions. Said tax evasion is an unsubstantial fear.

                                3.   United States v. 1500 Lincoln Avenue

Mr. Bernstien was selling lots of illegal drugs at his pharmacy. He was married and his wife had a TBE
and she had no knowledge of what was going on. The government wants forfeiture. Mrs. Bertstien raises
the innocent owner defense. Government wants to give her a TIC and take his half. She wants to retain her
property rights – says this property is out of reach – it is hers in the entirety.

Issue: What interest is forfeited when one of the tenants engages in illegal activity?
    - government says that they will not effect the property rights during her lifetime if she
        outlives her husband. If he outlives his wife- the property will forfeit to the government.

                       ii. NY Rule: In NY, creditors who levy on a debtor spouse’s interest step into the
                            spouse’s shoes and get the rights of a tenant by the entirety. Neither party can
                            unilaterally sever the entirety by partition and each has a right of survivorship.
                            Ex. X and Y hold by the entirety and C is a creditor. C can become a tenant by
                            the entirety w/ Y.
             c.   Forfeiture under drug laws: Fed drug laws provide for the forfeiture to the gov of
                  any prop used in the sale of illegal drugs. Any interest in the prop of an innocent
                  owner is exempt from forfeiture. Cts have held that the gov is in the same position as a
                  creditor of the drug-dealing spouse and can reach whatever interest of H (drug dealer) a
                  creditor can reach. Thus, W’s protection against forfeiture may differ from state to state.


B. RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF CO-TENANTS

    1.   Intro: The rights and duties of co-tenants are more or less the same regardless of the type of
         co-tenancy. Unless otherwise noted, these rules apply to all co-tenants.

RIGHTS:

    2.   Partition: Any tenant in common or joint tenant has the right to bring a suit in partition.
         This is an equitable proceeding in which the court physically divides or sells the common
         prop, adjusts the claims of the parties, and separates them. Partition is not available to a
         TBE b/c neither spouse can destroy the right of survivorship of the other spouse.



                                                     32
                                                                              Heather’s Parcho Outline
                                                                                             Fall 2002
            a.   Partition in Kind: The ct may order physical partition of the property into separate
                 tracts if feasible. Once partitioned, each party owns her tract in fee simple.
                      i. Advantages: Preserves current tenants on the land and protects the weaker
                           tenant against abuse.
            b.   Partition by Sale: If physical partition is not feasible or in the best interests of the
                 parties, the ct will order the property sold and the sale proceeds divided equally
                 among the co-tenants.
                      i. Advantages: Increases the value of the land, it is administratively easier, and it
                           prevents a hold out problem.
            c.   Waiver of right to seek partition: Some states allow a waiver either by express or
                 implied agreement. Also, the right to seek partition may be negated by the
                 conveying instrument.

   3.   Possession: Each co-tenant is equally entitled to the possession and enjoyment of the entire
        co-tenancy property. No co-tenant may exclude another co-tenant from any part of the
        prop.
            a. Accounting for reasonable rental value by co-tenant in possession: Suppose A and B
                are co-tenants. A goes into exclusive possession. B voluntarily remains out of
                possession. Must A pay B 1/ the fair rental value of the prop?
                      i. Majority Rule: If B is not excluded (ousted) by A, A is entitled to use and
                         occupy every part of the prop w/o paying any amount to B. B cannot
                         recover a share of the rental value of the land unless B has been ousted by
                         A, or A agreed to pay B, or A stands in a fiduciary relationship to B. Rule of
                         Spiller v. Mackereth
                              1. Ouster: Ouster is an act by one co-tenant that deprives another co-
                                   tenant of the right to possession. The other tenant must request to use
                                   the land, be denied, and only then can he demand payment.

   4.   Accounting: Any rents or other income collected by a co-tenant from a third party must be
        shared equally w/ the other co-tenants if the income exceeds the collecting co-tenant’s
        proportionate share. The collecting co-tenant must account to the others for their proportionate
        shares. The collecting co-tenant must account for the net amount actually received, not for the
        reasonable rental value of the land. If there is an ouster, the accounting will be based on the fair
        market value.
            a. Co-tenant leases only his interest: This is similar to self-use, however the lessee is
                 subject to the same obligations as the other co-tenants. Any co-tenant that is
                 unhappy w/ the lease can take the necessary measures to gain the right to
                 accounting.

   5.   Contributions: The general principle is that a co-tenant who pays money to keep up the
        prop, which benefits all co-tenants, is entitled to reimbursement for more than her
        proportionate share of costs. But this is subject to exceptions and qualifications.
            a. Repairs: Repairs are voluntary. A co-tenant who makes necessary repairs cannot
                compel contribution from her co-tenant. However, repairs may be taken into account
                in a case of partition or accounting. Only reasonable repairs under the
                circumstances will be considered.
            b. Tax Payments: Each co-tenant has a duty to pay her share of taxes. If one co-
                tenant pays more than her share, she can compel the other to reimburse her
                immediately, or she can wait and present her claim in a suit for partition.
            c. Mortgage Payments: There is generally a right to contribution for mortgage
                payments.
            d. Improvements: Same rule applies here as for repairs.

DUTIES:

   6.   Co-Tenants have two duties:


                                                    33
                                                                             Heather’s Parcho Outline
                                                                                            Fall 2002
             a.   Make tax and mortgage payments when such payments become due
                     i. Swartzbaugh v. Sampson

 Mr. Swartz (D) leased part of some land for a boxing pavilion, but Mrs. Swartz (P), the JT, never signed
the lease and wants to cancel it.
RULE: A JT, during the existence of a JT estate, has the right to convey or mortgage his/her interest
in the property, even if the other JT objects.
PROC: Appeal from granting of motion for nonsuit in action to cancel leases.
ISSUE: Can one JT, who has not joined in the leases executed by a cotenant and a lesee in exclusive
possession of the leased property, maintain an action to cancel the leases?
HELD: No. Lease is valid. The leasee is subject to the rights of the other JTs who haven't entered
into the lease.

             b.   Duty not to commit waste; not let prop fall into disrepair.


C. MARITAL PROPERTY

    1.   Types of Marital Property Regimes: Two types of regimes were handed down to us from the
         middle ages:
             a. Separate Property: Originated in England; under this system each spouse owns the
                 prop he/she acquires. However, under the old English rule, the husband had full control
                 of the wife’s prop for the duration of the marriage.
             b. Community Property: Treats the husband and wife as a single unit that shares prop
                 equally. It is enacted in 8 states. Married couples can opt for either a JT or a TIC should
                 they wish to do so. However, it is an either/or option – either JT/TIC or Community
                 Prop. In many comm. prop states there is a strong tax incentive to elect comm. prop
                 and not the more traditional forms we know of.
                       i. Note: even in comm. prop states, the prop the spouses bring into the
                          marriage can remain under separate ownership; it is not totally
                          encompassing. All other property will be split equally at the dissolution of the
                          marriage.
             c. Co-Ownership: H and W can hold prop as either JT, TIC, or TBE.

    2.   The CL System – Effect of Divorce:
             a. Traditional “title” view: Upon divorce the spouse who held formal title to the prop got
                to keep it; only marital prop was affected - separate prop remained separate upon divorce.
                       i. Co-Tenancy: If prop was held the co-tenancy forms JT or TIC, divorce did not
                          affect it. If tenancy was held in TBE, it was converted to a TIC or a JT.
             b. Modern Doctrine of Equitable Distribution: Today, every state that follows the CL
                approach to prop has abolished the doctrine that legal title controls and replaced it
                w/ a system of equitable distribution. (again, only marital prop was affected) No longer
                divide prop by who the title holder is. Equitable distribution empowered courts to
                consider various factors, such as:
                       i. duration of marriage
                      ii. prior marriage
                    iii. age, health, education
                     iv. skills
                      v. custody of children
                     vi. respective contributions of the spouses to the prop they have in deciding how the
                          prop is to be divided
                    vii. NOTE: An important change from the CL was that this was a system that
                          didn’t take fault into account. At CL, prop wouldn’t be granted if there was
                          adultery, cruelty, etc.




                                                    34
                                                                                Heather’s Parcho Outline
                                                                                               Fall 2002
              c.   Today’s trend: Today, the trend is to engage in equal distribution. Property is
                   usually divided in half. Courts can grant alimony to needy spouse.

     3.   What constitutes Marital Property: Earnings and prop acquired from the earnings are
          surely marital property. Assets brought into the marriage are usually kept separate. States
          are split as to whether gifts, inheritances, and bequests are considered marital prop or
          should be considered separate prop.
              a. Professional Degrees: Whether professional degrees are considered marital prop is
                    questionable, but the majority say no (NY says yes). In states where it isn’t, a party
                    may make an expectations argument (i.e. the legitimate expectations of the parties
                    mandate equitable distribution of the value of the degree)

                        i. In re Marriage of Graham
Mrs. Graham is suing her ex husband for equitable relief. She claims that the MBA is marital property that she is
entitled to. (They were married for six years. Trial court gave her a percentage of his future earnings for financing
his education. ($33,134.00) Assessed her investment in comparison with his future earnings.

  Appeals court reversed saying that education is not considered marital property. Supreme court affirmed.
  Why?
     Said it doesn’t fit the standards of common law marital property (can not be divided, transferred, and
     does not survive death, etc.)
     Dissent says that that is not an equitable division of the money each brought in. 70% of their income was
     from her job (since he was in school)
                          he says that if they had stayed married longer, she would have gotten a division of those
                          future earnings that she helped him to get
                          he also uses wrongful death actions to support his theory


                        ii. O’Brien v. O’Brien

  Couple married for 9 years. Husband gets an M.D She supported him. Trial court found that degree obtained during
  marriage was marital property, appellate court reverses. SC ruled that the marital license constituted marital
  property.
  Rule: In NY, medical license DOES constitute marital property. Domestic relation law which allows court to
  consider careers and contributions to career if acquired during marriage.
  Second issue: What should the damages be?
           1. reliance – amount contributed
           2. value- future value of degree
                           court says value if the license is marital property
      - Almost all courts agree with Graham – educational degrees are not considered marital property.
           However, many of these courts allow reimbursement alimony to reimburse other spouse for contribution to
           education.


                      iii. Elkus v. Elkus-
(NY Case) Similar situation as above but the Husband was an opera singer who made it big years after he
got married
Issue: Does the π’s (husband’s) career/celebrity status constitute marital prop. subject to equitable
distribution?
Holding: To the extent that the wife’s contributions & efforts increased the value of her husbands
career, she should be compensated for this increase. (An opera career is subject to equitable distribution)

              b.   Good Will and Forfeited Salary
                       i. In most states good will is considered marital property
                      ii. Forfeited salary is usually also considered marital property



                                                      35
                                                                           Heather’s Parcho Outline
                                                                                          Fall 2002
                            1.   So if you forfeit a high salary, your spouse is entitled to a portion of
                                 your previous salary

4.   The CL System - Death of a Spouse: CL vested two prop rights in the surviving spouse:
         a. Curtesy: Upon the death of the wife, the husband acquired a life estate in all her land if
            she gave birth to live issue; if she didn’t the husband got nothing.
         b. Dower: if wife outlived husband she was entitled to a life estate and 1/3 of the land the
            husband owned during the marriage.
                 i. Today: Curtesy and dower exist in only 6 jurisdictions today. Other systems
                     abolished the CL system and adopted the system of elective shares, under which
                     the surviving spouse can disregard the will and receive instead a statutorily
                     defined fraction of the estate, usually 1/3 or ½ depending on the existence of
                     children. The elective shares applied not only to land, but to all the prop of the
                     deceased spouse.

5.   Community Property: 8 states follow the community property regime. By contrast to the CL
     that assumes that during marriage prop is owned separately, this system is based on the idea that
     each spouse should each hold an equal fraction of prop acquired. Comm prop includes the
     earnings of the spouses during marriage, and anything bought w/ those earnings.
          a. Assets brought into the marriage: Anything brought into the marriage remains
              separate.
          b. Distinguishing Factor: Each spouse has unrestricted authority to manage, use, and
              dispose of his/her separate property. But the parties have equal authority to
              manage, use, or dispose of community property; they have to do it together. Neither
              spouse, acting alone, can convey his/her share to others (third parties) except to the other
              spouse.
          c. Opting out: In most comm. prop states, parties can opt out of the system, but
              neither spouse can opt out unilaterally.

6.   What Constitutes Community Property?:
       a. Assets from prop brought into the marriage which accrue during marriage: In ID,
           LA, and TX, profits and rents are considered community prop. It is separate prop in
           other states, unless there is a joint effort which then is considered comm. prop.
       b. Personal Injury Damages:
                 i. Loss of earning potential + community expenses (hospital bills) = comm.
                     prop
                ii. Pain/suffering + loss of body parts = separate property
       c. Assets acquired in part w/ community prop money and partly w/ separate property
           money (mixing of funds): Three approaches:
                 i. Inception of Right Rule: The first payment made determines who owns the
                     title.
                ii. Time of Vesting Rule: The status of property is determined by the last
                     payment.
               iii. Pro-Rata Rule: Pro-rate the payments and divide the prop accordingly.
       d. Substitution of Original Assets: What happens when an asset, originally owned
           separately, was exchanged for a diff asset? A newly purchased asset will remain
           separate prop if it can be traced back to a separate source.
       e. Commingling of Money: If you commingle funds the account will be considered
           community prop unless the comm. contribution was negligible or trifling.
       f. Transmutation: Transmutation is the process by which comm. prop is converted in
           sep prop and vice versa. This happens either by agreement or by gift.
       g. Migrating Couples: If domiciled in a comm. prop state, the earnings of both are
           comm. prop. Once the prop rights are determined, they don’t change if a couple
           changes domicile. Comm prop acquired in a comm. prop state remain comm. prop when
           a couple moves to a CL prop state. Similarly, sep prop from earnings acquired while the




                                                 36
                                                                              Heather’s Parcho Outline
                                                                                             Fall 2002
                   couple was domiciled in a CL prop state remains sep prop when they move to a comm.
                   prop state.
               h. Rights of Creditors: Creditors can reach comm. prop, but they cant reach the sep
                   prop of the non liable spouse.
               i. Divorce:
                         i. Separate Prop:
                                 1. AZ, CA, ID, LA. – award separate prop to the spouse who owns it,
                                     however, Ca. and Id. allow alimony and allowance payments.
                                 2. NV, NM, TX, WA – divide separate property equitably. In these
                                     states, ct will give weight to the fact that prop was owned
                                     separately to determine what is equitable.
                        ii. Comm Prop:
                                 1. General Rule of equitable or equal distribution (judge’s discretion)
               j. Death: Will controls if there is one. If there is no will, in CA, NV, WA, ID, and NM,
                   if one of the spouses dies intestate (w/o will) his/her share of the community prop
                   will pass to the surviving spouse in its entirety. With separate property, you follow
                   the relevant laws of the state.
     7. Contracts Between Spouses: Every rule may be superceded by agreements during, before,
          or after marriage.
     8. Contracts Between Unmarried Couples: NY doesn’t recognize implied K’s bet parties, but
          does recognize express K’s.
               a. Marvin v. Marvin
FACTS: agreement btwn 2 adults living together; Michelle and Lee Marvin lived together for 7 yrs w/out
marriage and didnt' hold themselves as husb and wife; when they split up Michelle sued to enforce an
alleged oral agreeement under which she was entitled to half of the property and support payments
ISSUE: Are contracts btwn unmarried couples enforceable?
HELD: 1) Crts should enforce explicit contracts btwn unmarried partners unless the contract is
explicitly founded on maritricious sexual services. In the absence of an           explicit contract, the crt
should inquire whether the conduct of the parties est. an understanding regarding the division of
property and support payment. On remand, no contract and awarded Michelle rehab support of
$104,000. Lee Marvin appealed and won; Michelle received nothing.
* NY in general does not recognize implied contracts between unmarried parties, but does enforce explicit
ones. IL refused to follow Marvin, reasoning that the issue is complex and should thus be left to the
legislature. WA went even further than Marvin and awarded unmarried partners status rts by equating their
status to that of married couples. Contractual and equitable remedies were also granted to same-sex
couples following Marvin in WA.




VI. The Law of Landlord and Tenant
A. THE LEASEHOLD ESTATES

    1.   Term of Years: Tenancy for a period of time w/ an ascertainable beginning and ending date.
         It is usually created by express agreement. At CL, the time span of the lease could be infinite.
         Modern law differs. Under modern law there are usually term limitations on leases. For example,
         Ca has a 51 year limit on agricultural leases and a 99 year limit on residential leases. A term of
         years terminates automatically on the last day of the lease, so no termination notice is required.
         The death of either the landlord or the tenant does not effect the validity of the lease.

    2.   Periodic Tenancy: A periodic tenancy is a tenancy for a period of some fixed duration, but
         unlike the term of years, it is renewed automatically at the end of each lease term. For




                                                    37
                                                                             Heather’s Parcho Outline
                                                                                            Fall 2002
         example, “to T from month to month.” An affirmative act is required to terminate this lease. One
         of the parties must send the other a timely written notice of termination.
              a. Death: The death of either party does not affect the validity of the lease.
              b. Creation: Most periodic tenancies are created by agreement.
                         i. Creation by Operation of Law: A periodic tendency may arise in certain cases
                            even in absence of an agreement:
                                 1. Tenant holds over after expiration of term: Where a tenant
                                      remains in possession after the end of the term, the LL may elect to
                                      consent to T’s staying over and hold T liable for further rent as a
                                      period tenant for an additional term.
                                 2. Tenant takes possession under an invalid lease: The mere entry
                                      into possession creates a tenancy at will. However, the payment of
                                      rent periodically converts the tenancy at will into a tenancy from
                                      period to period.
              c. Notice Requirement:
                         i. CL: At CL, notice had to be given one month prior to termination for leases
                            shorter than one year and a six month notice was required for leases longer than
                            or equal to one year.
                        ii. Modern: 30 day notice is required. (note: if state has no relevant statute,
                            CL rule applies)
              d. Ex. “for no fixed term at an annual rental of $2,400 payable $200 per month on the first
                  of each month” => The majority would deem this a year to year periodic tenancy b/c it
                  states an annual rate. How the rent is paid should not change the nature of the period. A
                  minority of states would view it as a month to month periodic tenancy.

    3.   Tenancy At Will: Taw is a lease that is terminable at will by either of the parties. Thus, the
         lease endures for as long as the landlord and tenant want it to last – there is no stated
         duration. Even in cases of tenancy at will, you cannot terminate at the spot. Modern law
         requires an advanced timely notice (usually 30 days).
             a. Creation: TaW may be expressly provided for, but more often it will arise when the
                  parties failed to reach an agreement, but nevertheless the tenant took possession w/o
                  permission from the landlord.
             b. Power of Termination: In most states an attempt by the landlord to reserve the
                  power of termination solely to himself would result in the creation of a similar
                  power in the tenant. In other words, the law forces symmetry in that particular
                  instance.
                        i. Garner v. Gerrish

Lease between Gerrish (tenant) and Donvan (Landlord). The lease said that Garish had the right to
terminate his lease at will. Donovan dies and Garner (executor of estate) moves in and wants Gerrish out.
Question: Whether a lease which grants the tenant the right to terminate the agreement at a date of his
choice creates a determinable life tenancy on behalf of the tenant or merely establishes a tenancy at
will?
Court says tenancy on behalf of the tenant. Tenant can stay as long as he wants.


    4.   Tenancy at Sufferance: Created when a tenant remains in possession after the termination of the
         lease (holdover situations). The traditional common law rules give the landlord two options in
         such cases:
              a. evict the tenant and collect damages for the hold over period – back rent due          OR
              b. Holdover: consent explicitly or implicitly to the stay and create a new tenancy w/ the
                  same terms w/ a maximum duration of one year
                       i. Crechale & Polles, Inc. v. Smith




                                                    38
                                                                               Heather’s Parcho Outline
                                                                                              Fall 2002
Crechale and Polles enter into an original 5 year lease with Smith. Smith’s new building isn’t ready so he
seeks an extension on a month to month basis. (They have different versions of the story). Then, there is a
lot of correspondence. One letter said sent to confirm their oral agreement. Crechale denies ever getting it.
Crechale sends letter demanding that Smith vacates and yet cashes Smith’s first check but not subsequent
checks. Two and a half months after the lease was supposed to end, Crechale’s attorney sends him a lease
saying that are choosing to bind him to a new 1 year lease with same conditions.
Can a landlord initially treat his former tenants as trespassers and attempt to evict them and then change his
mind and hold them over for another period?
          - Court said that once a landlord treats a tenant as a trespasser and tries to kick him out,
              he is prevented from changing his mind and holding him over
          - Court says a month to month periodic tenancy had been created when Crechale cashed
              the check.
                   o Courts don’t generally like holdovers

Most states have adopted legislation to deal with holdovers but the laws enacted diverge widely.
         - Some limit the duration of a holdover tenancy
         - Some convert holdovers to tenancies at will
         - Others provide that landlords may collect double rent for the holdover period



C. THE LEASE

    1.   Evolution:
            a. Beginning: Leases were a status symbol and they were pro-landlord.
            b. Middle: Contractual ideology takes over.
            c. Today: Leases are again a status symbol, but they are pro-tenant.

    2.   Leases vs other arrangements: You must be careful to distinguish leases from other
         arrangements that look like leases but are not (ex. a license or a LE)
             a. Ex. Billboards: In a typical billboard situation, you don’t have a lease. It is either an
                 easement or a license. It is not a lease b/c the use of the billboard does not substantially
                 interfere w/ the possession of the landowner.
             b. Determining leases: To determine if there is a lease, look at the control retained by
                 the LL. The more control the LL has the less likely the relationship will be
                 considered a lease. The breath on exclusivity of possession of a tenant is very
                 important.

    3.   Property and Contractual Elements of Leases:
            a. Past: In the past, the conveyance aspect (prop element) was dominant. Under traditional
                 CL, all obligations under the lease were independent, meaning that the T had to keep
                 paying rent even if LL breached its obligations. The one exception was the LL obligation
                 of quiet enjoyment, and the T obligation to pay rent.
            b. Present: Now, the contractual element is dominant. Under K law, the LL’s
                 obligations are mutually dependent w/ the duty to pay rent.
                      i. Limits to K approach:
                               1. Certain aspects of the lease cannot be contracted away.
                               2. Most LL’s use pre-printed form leases, which typically include clauses
                                   favorable to LL. The negotiations between LL and T are not very
                                   flexible.

D. SELECTION OF TENANTS AND UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION

    1.   CL: LL’s were free to exclude any T’s they didn’t like w/o having to explain why.



                                                     39
                                                                              Heather’s Parcho Outline
                                                                                             Fall 2002
             a.   Note: This changed w/ the Civil Rights Act and w/ the Fair Housing Act of 1988.

    2.   Fair Housing Act: The purpose of the Act is to provide fair housing throughout the US. It
         significantly restrained the power of LL’s to discriminate.
              a. Exemptions: The FHA provides that private clubs, dwellings for religious
                  organizations, and certain specified persons are exempt from the Act. The purpose
                  of these exemptions is to protect some types of close personal relationships from what is
                  thought to be an invasion of privacy.
                         i. Single family dwelling: A person leasing or selling a dwelling she owns is
                            exempt if she (i) does not own more than three such dwellings, (ii) does not
                            use a broker, and (iii) does not advertise in a manner that indicates her
                            intent to discriminate. The owner can only use the exemption once every 24
                            months.
                        ii. Small owner-occupied multiple unit: A person is exempt if she is offering to
                            lease a room or an apt in her building of four units or less, one unit of which
                            she occupies, and she does not advertise in a discriminatory manner.
              b. Prohibitions: Section 3604 provides that it is unlawful to:
                         i. to refuse to sell, rent, negotiate or otherwise deny a dwelling to any person
                            bec of sex, race, color, religion, familial status, or national origin.
                                 1. Soules v. U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development

FACTS: Sherri Soules, a single woman, lives w/ mom and a young child. Downes is a real estate owner.
Soules is interested in an apt that Downes is renting. Downes asks her if she has children and Soules
becomes defensive. Downes doesn't like her attitude, but she does explain to her that there are older people
in the bldg and noisy children will be a problem. After the conversation 2 things happen. 1) Soules
complains to HOME (enforces fair housing act). 2) HOME sends 2 testers (T1 w/o kids, T2 w/ kids - T1
shown apt and T2 is not shown the apt). Soules later arrives and is shown a different apt. Other applicants
w/ children were shown the disputed apt., although at the end it is rented to a person w/o children. A
lawsuit follows.
ISSUE: Was there a violation of the fair housing act?
HELD: 1) Fair housing act does not require discriminatory motivation, just discriminatory impact
(about familial status). At the end it finds that although there was a prima facie case (presumptive
violation), the realtor had a good reason that is not discriminatory (securing quiet neighbors). Not
enough to show discrimination.
                                     2. U.S. v. Starrett City Associates
FACTS/PROC: AG brought suit against City b/c in violation of fair housing act. City said needed to limit
blacks b/c of white flight risk. 64% White, 22% Black, 8% Hispanics. D claim that if there is to be a
shot at achieving sustainable integration. If below 64% white, it will become segregated.
ISSUE: Is this a violation of the Fair Housing Act?
HELD: Yes. Majority explains that the fair housing act outlaws practices whose effect is
discriminatory. Minority apps had to wait much much longer for application processing. Court
imposed a ceiling and no time limit and therefore they should be struck down. (end discrimination -
focuses on process/equal treatment)
DISSENT: Take into consideration circumstances; you'll just get segregation in the end. Reads FHA
differently. FHA to prohibit the main tenants of racial segregation. The fair housing act did not mean to
prohibit promotion of integration in private housing. The point is to end segregation. The process was
necessary to affect integration. (end segregation - result based/integration; if you have to use quotas, so be
it; result that matters)

                       ii. To discriminate in the provision of services (ex. repairs) or conditions based
                           on the above categories. [you cannot discriminate at any point]
                      iii. To make, print, or publish any notice, statement, or advertisement that
                           indicates a preference, limitation, or discrimination based on the above
                           categories or handicap.




                                                     40
                                                                               Heather’s Parcho Outline
                                                                                              Fall 2002
                      iv. To tell people in the listed categories that a dwelling is unavailable whereas
                           in fact it is.
                       v. For profit, to attempt to induce any person to sell or rent by representation
                           regarding the entry into the neighborhood of the above categories.
                           [attempts to combat blockbusting – brokers would spread rumors that
                           minorities were moving in order to cause mass panic]
                      vi. To discriminate based on handicap of buyer or renter or any person
                           associated them.
             c.   Remedies for Violations of Act: Injunctions, damages, and punitive damages are all
                  viable remedies.
             d.   The FHA cannot be overridden contractually
             e.   Categories NOT included in the Act:
                        i. Age
                       ii. Sexual orientation
                      iii. Economic Status – Problem w/ this is that there is a correlation bet econ status
                           and minority status so LL’s can get past the FHA by claiming econ issues.

    3.   Theories on why it is Difficult to Achieve Integration in the Housing Market:
            a. Richard Muth: Consumer aversion theory. Whites have an aversion to living w/
                 minorities and are willing to pay more to live in white neighborhoods. Whites will
                 continue fleeing.
            b. Thomas Shelling: Game Theory Explanation. Whites least tolerant to minorities move
                 out. As more minorities move in, more whites move out.

E. LANDLORDS’ DUTIES: TENANT’S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES

    Introduction: At CL, T accepted the premises as is, and LL’s were under no obligation to guarantee
    their fitness or suitability. In the 60’s there began a period of sweeping reform that riddled the CL rule
    w/ exceptions.

    1.   Duty to deliver possesion:

             a.   English Rule: Requires LL to put the T (lessee) in physical possession of the premises
                  (NY has English Rule)
             b.   American Rule: Recognizes the lessee’s right of possession as a legal matter, but it
                  implies no duty upon lessor (LL) to ensure delivery of physical possession. In other
                  words, the American Rule requires landlords to deliver legal, but not physical possession
             c.   Policy: English rule is better on policy grounds b/c the LL is in a better position to
                  prevent any problems, such as holdover tenants. On the other hand, the new tenant can
                  do nothing.
             d.   Hannan v. Dusch

FACTS: When Hannan's (P) lease was to begin, Dusch (D) failed to evict a hold-over tenant. (P contents D
must deliver actual possession and that he should have evicted a hold-over tenant. D contends that he need
only deliver the legal right to possession.)
RULE: A landlord only has a duty to deliver the right to possession of the premises to a tenant, not
actual possession.
PROC: Appeal from the sustaining of a demurrer in action for damages for failure to deliver possession.
ISSUE: Must the landlord deliver actual possession to the tenant?
HELD: No. Once the tenant takes possession, he is responsible for ejecting a tresspasser. A covenant
stating whether or not the landlord did or did not have a duty to put   the tenant in possession would
prevail. If no covenant, two rules: (1) The English rule says that the landlord must place the tenant in
possession and (2) The American rule says that the landlord must only give the tenant the right to
possession. Choose American rule b/c it is unfair to hold the landlord liable for the wrong of another.
     (Although Eng. rule good b/c 1. A tenant contracts for possession and not for a lawsuit to evict a hold-



                                                     41
                                                                              Heather’s Parcho Outline
                                                                                             Fall 2002
over and 2. The landlord is in a better position to assess whether       a current tenant will in fact hold-
over.)




     2.    Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment: A T has a right of quiet enjoyment of the premises, w/o
          interference by the LL. This right arises from the LL’s covenant of quiet enjoyment, which
          may be expressly provided for in the lease. If not expressly provided, such a covenant is
          always implied in every lease. Note: This covenant does not cover trespassers.
              a. Reste Realty Corp v. Cooper

Cooper enters 5 year lease. Basement floods and they just clean it up. One bad flood and Cooper leaves with
2 ½ years left on lease. D is unhappy and sues. District court found for D. Appellate reverses. SC reverses
again.
  Issue: Can a tenant abandon when the lease premises don’t satisfy the covenant of quiet enjoyment?
  Court says yes they can.
  Covenant of quiet enjoyment is implied in every lease. Where there is such a covenant either express
  or implied, it’s substantial breach by the landlord constitutes constructive eviction. A remedy must be
  sought in a timely fashion.
  Court said since the source of the problem was driveway (not part of property) and the tenant had no duty to
  inspect the premises.
                           i.Says it’s the duty of the LL who knew of the problem to disclose it
                          ii.D was entitled to rely on the promises of the P to fix the problem
  This case presents a dramatic shift in the law
                Common law held that the tenant took the property “as is”
                Now, the law tends to protect the less informed party and tenants are perceived to know less
                than the LL

              b.   Breach: The covenant of quiet enjoyment can be breached by either actual or
                   constructive eviction. It can also be breached by failure to make certain repairs,
                   failure to provide utilities, or failure to remedy nuisances.
                         i. Acts of Third Parties: Generally LL’s duty doesn’t extend to acts of
                            neighbors or third parties, but if the LL controls the acts of such persons,
                            LL will also be responsible.

              c.   Actual Eviction: Actual eviction requires physical explusion or exclusion from
                   possession. An example of actual eviction would be changing the locks or when the
                   LL occupies the space himself.
              d.   Partial eviction by LL: If T is evicted from any portion of the leased premises, his
                   rent obligation abates entirely until possession is restored. Note: Restatement takes
                   a diff approach – W/ partial eviction T can abate the rent only in part. So if you
                   were evicted from 20% of the premises, you can abate only 20%.
              e.   Remedies: Whether T is actually or partially evicted, T can choose from the following
                   remedies:
                         i. Terminate the lease and collect the benefit of the bargain (i.e. the diff bet the
                            reserved rent and the rent on the market) and consequential damages.
                            Ex. You rented for 1200, and rent went up to 1300, so you can collect 100 for
                            every month you lost.
                        ii. Keep the lease, abate the rent in full, and collect consequential damages.

              f.   Constructive Eviction: Where, through the fault of the LL, there occurs a
                   substantial interference w/ T’s use and enjoyment of the leased premises, so that T
                   can no longer enjoy the premises as the parties contemplated, T may terminate the
                   lease, vacate the premises, and be excused from further rent liability.



                                                     42
                                                                             Heather’s Parcho Outline
                                                                                            Fall 2002
                       i. Requirements if used as a Defense: T must show:
                             1. Failure to perform a duty on part of LL;
                             2. Substantial interference w/ enjoyment
                             3. Giving LL timely notice and a reas opportunity to fix the problem
                             4. In most states, T must terminate the lease and vacate the premises
                                 w/in a reas time. Vacating the premises proves that the interferece
                                 was substantial.

             g.   Illegal Lease Doctrine: The illegal lease doctrine applies when the conditions of the
                  leased premises, at the time the lease is made, violate the relevant housing code b/c
                  they are unsafe or unsanitary. Minor technical violations do not render the lease
                  illegal, nor do violations of which the LL had neither actual nor constructive
                  knowledge. (Most courts consider the illegal lease and implied warranty of
                  habitability together). If the lease is illegal, the LL can’t enforce any covenant to
                  pay rent. LL can sue only for the reasonable rental value of the premises as they
                  exist.

    3.   Implied Warranty of Habitability: At CL, the LL was not obliged to insure habitability or make
         repairs. However, this doctrine has taken over in most states. It covers latent and patent defects
         (things you cant see and things you can). T has no duty to inspect the apt before the signing
         of the lease. The IWH cant be waived. Even if I moves in w/ knowledge of the defect, T does
         not assume the risk just by knowing of it.
              a. Hilder v. St Peter
P (Hilder) was renting a COMPLETELY unlivable apartment. LL won’t fix anything. She doesn’t move
out but sues for all rent and damages (money she spent to fix it). Trial court gave her damages of
reimbursement and compensatory damages. LL appeals claiming that P remained on the property so she
shouldn’t be reimbursed. This is why this is NOT constructive eviction – she stayed.
Issue: Does an implied warrant of habitability exist in oral rental leases – should it be implied?
Court says YES.

             b.   T’s obligations in exercising this right: T must give LL timely notice and a
                  reasonable time to fix the problem. If LL doesn’t respond, then T is entitled to
                  several remedies.
             c.   Diff bet IWH and right of quiet enjoyment: To claim constructive eviction you must
                  leave the apt. W/ IWH you can stay in the apt and get remedies.
             d.   Possible remedies:
                        i. Recission (K remedey)
                       ii. Rent application – you can repair and deduct the cost
                      iii. Rent withholding – stop paying rent until problem is fixed
                      iv. Rent abatement – Two abatement measures:
                                1. Reserved rent minus rent value of defective premises (abate the rent by
                                    this amount)
                                2. Rental value of apt as warranted minus rent value of defective premises
             e.   Standard for Breach of IWH:
                        i. any non-compliance w/ housing code
                       ii. substantial non-compliance or non-compliance that affects the habitability
                           of the premises.
                      iii. Note: Non-compliance creates a presumption of breach but the LL can
                           rebut this presumption.
                      iv. P just argues that condition is sub par w/o measuring against housing code
             f.   IWH and commercial leases: IWH doesn’t extend to commercial leases. The
                  assumption w/ commercial leases is that commercial parties are more equal in bargaining
                  power, so the law doesn’t worry about them too much.




                                                    43
                                                                             Heather’s Parcho Outline
                                                                                            Fall 2002
    4.   Right Against Retaliatory Evictions: At CL LL’s were allowed to evict T’s at any time and for
         any reason. Modern law, however, forbids a LL, acting under a retaliatory motivation, to evict a
         T. A common approach taken by courts is to create a rebuttable presumption of retaliatory
         purpose if the LL seeks to terminate the tenancy, increase rent, or decrease services within a
         reasonable proximity (usually 90-180 days) to a complaint or legal action by a T. The
         burden would be on the LL to prove there is no retaliatory motive.

             a.   LL’s Tort Liability: Is LL responsible for injuries on the premises?
                       i. CL – LL not responsible
                      ii. Modern Law - several states impose liability in neg on LL’s for injuries to T’s
                          resulting from breaches of contractual obligations or IWH. (Section 358
                          Restatement 2nd of Torts) This is especially true when LL knew of a defect and
                          attempted to conceal it from the public. In almost all states, the LL is
                          responsible for injuries when he takes it upon himself to repair a problem and
                          does it in a neg way.
                               1. Multi-unit buildings: LL has a duty ot keep common areas safe.


F. TENANT’S DUTIES: LANDLORD’S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES

Duties of Tenants:

    1.   Fulfill the obligations of the Lease: most obvious is the duty to pay rent; but remember, T is
         relieved of this duty, at least temporarily, if LL materially breaches an obligation to T or
         IWH or the covenant of quiet enjoyment

    2.   Not to Commit Waste or Nuisance: What constitutes waste?
             a. Acts affecting vital and substantial portions of the premises
             b. Acts changing the characteristic appearance
             c. Acts changing the realty itself – Ex. permanent changes
             d. T must comply w/ building and health codes

    3.   Duty to Vacate at the End of the Lease


Landlord’s Remedies:
   1. LL can sue for damages – back rent; this is a breach of K

    2.   Ask for a security deposit – most states put limits on the amount; typically two months rent.
         LL’s are also required to put them in a security account and accrue interest on it.

    3.   Use self-help measures – cut off utilities, etc. Even though this is illegal in most states, LL’s
         are not allowed to force T’s out of the premises, so LL cannot change locks, cut off utilities,
         or seize T’s belongings in order to force her to leave or pay rent.

    4.   Summary proceedings – these proceedings were enacted to alleviate the plight of LL’s.
            a. LL must send T a notice of breach and give T a reasonable time to address to problem.
               No notice is necessary in hold over cases.
            b. After notice is sent, LL brings an unlawful detainer action seeking repossession. Usually
               a hearing will be scheduled within 3-8 weeks from the filing.
            c. If the court found for the LL, LL can get a sheriff to evict the T.

    5.   Holdover Tenants – W/ holdover T’s LL has two options:
            a. Terminate and initiate eviction proceedings OR
            b. Hold the tenant over for a new lease under the same terms (usually 1 year lease)



                                                    44
                                                                                 Heather’s Parcho Outline
                                                                                                Fall 2002
     6.    Abandonment – If T abandons premises LL can:
               a. CL – when T abandoned LL could either:
                          i. Sue T for rent due OR
                         ii. Retake possession and let at T’s expense (collect the consequential damages)
                               Note: NY follows CL
               b. Modern – The trend is to eliminate the LL’s choice and treat the lease as any other
                    K by imposing on the LL the duty to mitigate damages. Ex. LL must use reas
                    diligence to re-let the apt.
                          i. Sommer v. Kridel
2 yr lease. Kridel says he has to get out of lease (before it starts) b/c his marriage fell through. Contacts LL and says “I
cannot live there – keep my rent and security deposit.” Sommer says nothing. A chick wants to rent it but he turns her
down and then sues Kridel for the lost rent.
  Does the LL have a duty to mitigate (look for another tenant) when a tenant abandons?
                c. Yes, court rejects the majority rule that was grounded in notions of property and moves towards the
                     contractual view.
                            i.Must take reasonable actions to lessen the harm by attempting to re-rent that
                                apartment
                           ii.Burden of proof is on the LL
  Court let Kridel out of the lease but had to pay attorney’s fees – but case was remanded
  This duty to mitigate was adopted in 42 states (NOT NY)


     G. THEORIES ON LL/TENANT LAW
           a. Chicago passed laws regulating housing – question of its constitutionality. Ended up
              being upheld.
           b. Policy Analysis
              - Posner says if we force LL to make improvements, they will just end up raising
                  rent and hurting the poorer tenants that we were trying to protect
              - Prevents low income people from getting housing
              - Just wealth transfer from LL to middle class business owners
           c. Rising Tide – Weicher
                   i. New Argument – the market can do better than the government in
                      improving the housing situation
                          1. Believes that there is an underlining economic disparity and
                              housing situation is improving for four reasons
                                        Higher income on the whole
                                        Lower Costs
                                        Increased production
                                        Government programs
                                        Trickling down effect: as the wealthy people make
                                           more money, their standards rise, they buy more.
                                           Each time they move up, the bottom level housed
                                           become affordable b/c everyone moves up.
                      o There actually was very little redistribution


     H. THE PROBLEM OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

     1.   Rent Control: Many cities have enacted rent control ordinances. Rent control is a form of
          price regulation. Regulating rents has been held C on the theory that it bears a rational
          relation to a legitimate public purpose: the welfare of housing consumers. There are two
          degrees of rent control – rent control per se and rent stabilization.
              a. Common approach: The common approach to RC is to set a baseline rent for a given
                   unit ,and then through time, adjust the baseline for inflation and other circumstances.
                   Baseline for new units is usually set by the market.



                                                       45
                                                                           Heather’s Parcho Outline
                                                                                          Fall 2002
         b.   NY: elaborate RC scheme; old buildings are subjected to RC, while newer ones are
              subject to rent stabalization. RS allows for higher and more frequent rent increases than
              does RC.
         c.   Termination: Rent control schemes require a good cause for termination. (ex. in NY,
              when a T dies, the surviving occupant is entitled to the same conditions if she is a family
              member or life partner)
         d.   Downside: Those who cant get into a RC scheme pay more. There is also a fear that RC
              will extend to new buildings, so this suppresses development.

I.   SUBLEASES AND ASSIGNMENTS


1.   Intro: Assignment and subletting are two possible exit strategies for lessees. An assignment
     occurs when a T transfers the entire remaining lease period. A sublease occurs when a T
     transfers just part of the interest and then the interest reverts back to the original T. The
     distinction is imp b/c of the nature of the relationship bet the LL, the T, and the subsequent
     taker. (It is possible for something that looks like a sublease to really be a partial assignment
     if the T transfers ALL rights under the K to the subleasee for a period of time.

2.   Importance of the Lease: A lease creates both privity of estate and privity of contract. The
     LL and T are parties of the same K and of the same prop so there is dual privity.

3.   Assignments: An assignment changes the privities of the parties involved:
         a. LL ↔ Main T = Privity of K
         b. Assignee ↔ Main T = Privity of K
         c. LL ↔ Assignee = Privity of Estate (unless the LL requires the new T to sign a new K)

4.   Sublease: A sublease changes the privities of the parties involved:
         a. LL ↔ Main T = Privity of K and Estate
         b. Subleasee ↔ Main T = Privity of K and Estate
         c. LL ↔ Subleasee = No relationship

5.   Practical Implications of the Diff Bet Assignments and Subleases:
         a. Assignments:
                   i. original T remains responsible for her original obligations under the lease
                      w/ the LL.
                  ii. The main tenant and assignee relationship is governed by whatever K they
                      themselves decide on.
                 iii. Between the LL and assignee, the relationship is controlled solely by the
                      rules of Prop Law. The assignee is only liable to the LL for the covenants
                      that are attached to the land (don’t stem from the K). These covenants are
                      covenant to pay rent and taxes, and the duty not to commit waste
         b. Subleases:
                   i. Bet the LL and main T, both privities remain in tact. Same is true bet the T
                      and the subleasee
                  ii. Bet the LL and subleasee there is nothing, so the LL cannot get damages
                      from the subleasee, even if the subleasee doesn’t pay any rent at all. LL can
                      only evict; to get back rent LL has to go through the main T. The only way
                      to bind the subleasee, is to have him sign another K

6.   Restrictions on Transfer: How much power do LL’s have to restrict transfers?
         a. NY Standard: If the lease contains an express provision barring transfers altogether, it
              is allowed. If transfers require written consent from the LL, consent cannot be
              unreasonably withheld.
         b. CA Standard: If the K requires the LL’s written permission, the LL cannot withhold
              permission arbitrarily. This rule only applies to non-residential leases.


                                                 46
                                                                               Heather’s Parcho Outline
                                                                                              Fall 2002
             c.   American Book Co v. Yeshiva University

D owns real property. P seeks to sublet the premises to Planned Parenthood. Yeshiva objects on
ideological grounds and a lawsuit ensues.
Rule says that any assignment or sublease requires consent of LL but consent will not be withheld
unreasonably.
         - Court must decide whether this is unreasonable
                 o Courts usually don’t like inalienability of land, but if there’s an express clause in the
                      lease granting the LL the power to deny consent arbitrarily, in NY such clauses will
                      be enforced.
                 o But they say that this case is different – a LL lack of consent is valid for reasons of
                            Lack of financial responsibility
                            The business, character or rep of propose transferee
                            Legality of the proposed dues
                            Nature of occupancy
                            Ideological reasons are not valid
         - Landlords are NOT sensors!
         - Most states agree that a LL cannot arbitrarily deny right to transfer



             d.   Kendall

 Issue: Does a commercial leaser have the power to deny subletting and assigning when the contract requires
 his prior consent without saying more?
           - if the lease contains such a clause, consent may be withheld only if there is a commercially
                reasonable objection to the assignment
                     o the lease is primarily a contract so there is a duty to behave in good faith
                               Legitimate reasons to withhold consent
                                         Financial responsibility
                                         Suitability
                                         Legality
                                         Need for alteration of the premises
                                         Nature of occupancy

                             Illegitimate reasons
                                       Personal taste
                                       Desire to charge higher rate

 This case happened in 1989 and the legislation is restricted to commercial leases and any ambiguity should be
 construed in favor of transferability but if there is express language prohibiting transfers, it will be honored.

               When you initially lease the apartment out, you can be very picky. This changes for subleases



VII. The Land Transaction
(see handout)

IX. The Law of Nuisance


                                                     47
                                                                             Heather’s Parcho Outline
                                                                                            Fall 2002
A. INTRODUCTION
  1.   Intro – Land Use Controls: land use controls have been developed to deal w/ the prob of
       externalities and to allow for coordinated use. Under the old fashioned Blackstonian model of
       absolute rights, prop owners could use their assets in a way that was detrimental to their
       neighbors, thereby harming neighboring prop and decreasing the overall value of prop on the
       whole.
           a. Performance of Land Use Controls: Controls can be performed either:
                       i. Privately: Nuisance law and K law
                      ii. Publicly: Zoning, housing codes, and takings

  2.   Nuisance: A nuisance is an unprivileged interference w/ a person’s use and enjoyment of her
       land. All that is required is an intent to do an activity that you know or should know will cause
       harm. A nuisance is termed a private nuisance when it involves interference w/ the private use
       and enjoyment of one or a number of nearby properties. It is a public nuisance when the
       interference is w/ a right common to the general public.

           a.   Approach by Judiciary: Judiciary has played a large role in the development of the law
                of nuisance. The look at cases on a case by case basis in order to accommodate both
                fairness and efficiency. Factors the ct takes into account are:
                      i. Utility of D’s operations
                     ii. Magnitude of the harm to P
                    iii. Cost of avoidance
           b.   Unintentional Nuisance: If the nuisance is unintentional it can still meet the
                nuisance standard if the conduct is negligent, reckless, or abnormally dangerous.

  3.   Types of unreasonable interference: Case law says that the interference should be unreasonable.
       (Restatement differs) The practical meaning of the term “nuisance” is best grasped by looking at
       the particular cases in which the interference has been held to be a nuisance.
            a. Character of the Harm:
                       i. Depreciation of Prop Value: Use of prop in a manner that depreciates the
                           value of surrounding prop is not enough by itself by constitute a nuisance.
                      ii. Discomfort: Measure discomfort by the sensibilities of the average person.
            b. Fear of Harm: Fear of harm may constitute a nuisance (ex. storage of explosives). But
                 even though a person may fear a use, it may be permitted b/c it has a high social value –
                 there is always a balancing.

  4.   Compare – Trespass vs. Nuisance: A trespass is an actionable invasion of a possessor’s
       interest in exclusive possession of land. A nuisance is an actionable invasion of a possessor’s
       interest in the use and enjoyment of land. Trespass requires a physical invasion, but nuisance
       doesn’t. In nuisance, a reasonableness standard is used, while in trespass, strict liability is used.
       The remedies for nuisance are more flexible than trespass.


  5.   Right to Lateral and Subjacent Support: At CL, and still today, every landowner is entitled
       to the support her land would receive under natural conditions. The right to lateral support
       could be jeopardized, for example, if your neighbor started digging on the property line, and your
       land began to give way. The right to subjacent support could be violated, for example, if the
       neighbor digs under your property like if someone was building a mine under your house.

  6.   Economic Analysis:
          a. Suppose that landowner A has a factory on her land belching smoke into the air, which
             flows across to landowner B, who has an amusement park on his land.
                  i. Who is At Fault?: Neither party alone causes the conflict. Under the economic
                      theory, the party emitting smoke is no more the cause of the conflict than the
                      party sensitive to the smoke. In the same way that you can regulate A, the law


                                                   48
                                                                               Heather’s Parcho Outline
                                                                                              Fall 2002
                           can regulate B. The traditional fairness analysis which showed the flow of harm
                           from A to B has no place in econ theory.
                      ii. Externalities: An externality is a cost (or benefit) of any given action that is not
                           taken into consideration by the actor in determining the level of that activity that
                           is optimal from the actor’s point of view. Econ theory suggests that resources
                           will be allocated more efficiently if costs are internalized – taken into account
                           by the actors. In the above ex, an external cost of the factory is that B’s land is
                           made unsuitable for uses sensitive to smoke.
            b.   The Coase Theorem: The goal of econ theory is to maximize the social value of
                 production by putting land to its most valuable use while internalizing costs. Econ theory
                 doesn’t care about compensation to the loser as long as the more valuable activity
                 prevails and the most efficient result is achieved.
                       i. Ex. Suppose the cost to A of installing smoke abatement equip is $100, and the
                           damage to B’s land is $50. If the ct gives A the right to belch smoke, A will
                           continue to do so bec B will give A only $50 to stop it, and it is worth $100 to A
                           to continue. If the ct gives B the right to stop the smoke, B will sell the right to
                           smoke to A at somewhere bet $50 and $100, bec the right is only worth $50 to B
                           and is worth $100 to A. A sale will make them both better off. Thus regardless
                           of wether A or B is given the right, it will end up in A’s hands by operation of
                           the market, at least in cases where transaction costs are low. The market
                           determines whether the activity (smoke emission) will continue, not the
                           allocation of rights by the courts.
            c.   Transaction Costs: The Coase theorem, which provides that the market will move the
                 right to the highest valued use, assumes that transaction costs are low. This may be an
                 unrealistic assumption. Transaction costs include costs of obtaining info, conducting
                 negotiations, coming to terms w/ the other party, and enforcement of any bargains made.
                       i. Holdout Problem: Suppose A’s factory belches smoke over 50 neighbors. If
                           each neighbor is given the right to enjoin A, A has to buy all of them out. Each
                           neighbor would have an incentive to hold out for an exorbitant price. A can
                           avoid this problem by not making any firm offers until all 50 neighbors agree to
                           a set price.
                      ii. The Free Rider Problem: If 50 neighbors are affected, but do not have the
                           right to enjoin A, they should get together to pay A to install abate equipment.
                           But each neighbor is going to want a free ride and wont want to pay his share.
                     iii. The Strategic Behavior Problem: If A or B behaves in a strategic way in an
                           effort to get as much of the gains from trade as possible, bargaining may be diff
                           to achieve.


B. REMEDIES

   1.Judicial Remedies: In determining what remedy to give in cases of land use conflict, a ct has
     the four choices below. The basic choice is bet injunctive and damage relieve. When an
     injunction is granted, P receives the entitlement or property right; P can refuse to sell this right if
     D does not offer enough. When damages are given, the invader is in effect given power to destroy
     the entitlement of P on payment of its value, objectively determined by a jury.
          a. Enjoin A: The ct may grant B an injunction forbidding A to emit smoke. B then
               has the right. A and B can then bargain, and according to Coase, transfer the right
               to A. B is made richer by the entitlement and is also in a strong position to get most
               of the gains from the trade.
                     i. Estancias Dallas Corp v. Schultz
FACTS        The Schultzs (Ps) owned and lived in a house next to which D built a 155 unit apt building.
             Ds air conditioning equipment made noises described as jet planes. Ps could not use
             backyard, lost sleep, etc. Ps sued Ds seeking to abate nuisance.
PROCED       Trial ct found for P ($1000 for Mr. and $9000 for Mrs.) and granted injunction.



                                                     49
                                                                                 Heather’s Parcho Outline
                                                                                                Fall 2002
  HIST
  ISSUE            On appeal: Whether balancing equities in a nuisance action is the rule of necessity to be
                   narrowly construed?
  RULE             Injunctive relief requires Balancing equities or comparative injury considers the injury
                   that may result to the D and the public by granting an injunction. If damage to public greater
                   than to P than no injunction
  HOLDING          Trial ct did not abuse discretion in balancing equities in Ps favor:
                   -public have other places to live- no shortage of apt in Houston
                   -Ps use and enjoyment greatly impaired
                   -financial cost to D private financial benefit is not sufficient to justify rule of necessity
  DEC              Affirmed (for P- affirmed injunction)

                         ii. High Transaction Costs: If trans costs are high (ex. P’s are 50 neighbSors),
                             the right as initially allocated would probably not be transferred, even though it
                             would be to society’s econ advantage. For this reason, some suggest that the
                             second or third remedy, which leaves the right w/ the highest valued use while
                             giving damages to the other party, is appropriate in such a situation.
              b.    Give B damages: The ct may refuse an injunction but grant B damages. This has
                    the effect of giving the right to B, but forcing a sale of it to A (damages). Since the
                    forced sale is at the price of B’s damage, B gets his damages but A gets all the
                    possible gains from trade.
                          i. Boomer v. Atlantic Cement

Cement Plant nuisance case. Lots of damage to the residents – cracked walls, bad air, etc. P asked for an
injunction and it was denied b/c of the economic disparity in the parties fixing it. (Plant cost $45 million to build
with 300 employees and damages to P was $185,000)
Issue: Should an injunction against the polluters be given to the P?
         - issues injunction but if they pay permanent damages, injunction is revoked
                   o dissent says you’re sanctioning a continuing nuisance
                            “they’re selling a license to create a nuisance”
                            this will eliminate and motivation for the nuisance causer to invest in better
                                technologies that would be less of a nuisance
         - Debate over whether this is most efficient decision – is the value of the plant greater than the value
             of the community not being exposed to pollution? In the 70’s we didn’t know the far reaching
             extent of pollution
                   o Ts decision could have gone either way

Endowment effect: you value the things you own over their market value
      - people who got married there, had children there might value it more than the law accounts for

Case for injunctions is stronger when there are only two parties according to the law of economics. Cases
involving multiple parties, damages should be preferred. Why?
           - They are a corrective measure
           - Value of the operation is higher than the amount they would have to pay in damages
                    o If they can abate for cheaper (develop better technology so no problem) they will ask
                          for injunction
           - Problem
                    o Courts may not get the damages amount right
                    o Not all parties that are hurt are represented
                    o Don’t know enough about possible later damages (cancer, e.g.)
                    o Best thing to do; check every few years and revisit amount


              c.    Enjoin A and give A damages: The ct may grant B an injunction against A and
                    require B to pay A damages. This has the effect of giving the right to B, but forcing



                                                       50
                                                                                  Heather’s Parcho Outline
                                                                                                 Fall 2002
                    B to pay A for it. This solution may not be feasible when there are many potential
                    B’s and high transaction costs.
                         i. Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co.
Cattle feedlot – P attains an injunction in trial court.

Issues:
          1. Where the operation of a business, such as a cattle feedlot is lawful in the first instance, but becomes
             a nuisance by reason of nearby residential area, may the feedlot operation be enjoined in an action
             brought by the developer of the residential area?
        2. Assuming that the nuisance may be enjoined, may the developer of a completely new town or urban
             area in a previously agricultural land be required to indemnify the operator of the feedlot who must
             move or cease operation because of the residential area created by the developer?
Court says yes to both.
        1. Injunction to stop
        2. Makes P pay D because court said the residents (and developer) was in the wrong for moving into
             this area when D was there first.



               d.   Refuse B any remedy: The ct may refuse to grant B any remedy – either injunction
                    or damages.
                         i. Corpart Indus. V. Consolidated Edison Co.

Operator of car selling business seeks damages from power plant b/c emissions damaged P’s cars causing him to go
out of business.
       Court of appeals finds no nuisance. Why?
                 Value to D is far greater than the harm to the P
                 No way to abate
                 So, no nuisance OR damages
                 Court distinguishes Boomer on the ground that it involved unreasonable and intentional
                 invasion
                            Economic power prevailed again, but with a distributional element b/c unlike
                            Boomer, here Corpart gets nothing.

     2. Theories for Granting Remedies
           a. Cabbresi and Melamed say that there are two things to consider-
                    1.    to whom should a entitlement be given (who’s in the right)
                    2.    how to protect that person’s interest
                              a. property protection rule: either the entitled person sets the price
                                        i. e.g. injunction
                              b. liability rule: a third party sets the price
                                        i. e.g. damages


                                                Mode of Protection
                                       Property Rule            Liability Rule
Initial                  Resident    Rule 1-                   Rule 2-
Entitlement                          Estancias                 Boomer
                         Polluter    Rule 3-                   Rule 4-
                                     Corpat (must pay polluter Spur
                                     to stop)




                                                           51
                                                                               Heather’s Parcho Outline
                                                                                              Fall 2002
Legislation to Deal with Pollution
         1. Government regulation
                 a. Sets standards
                 b. Limits emissions
                 c. Prohibits certain activities

         2.   Establish and incentive system
                  a. No safety zone but rather you are charged a fee for certain activites
                             i. E.g. fee for each unit of pollution released
                            ii. Supposed to get us to appropriate level
                           iii. Permit for amount of pollution rights




X. Servitudes
A. INTRODUCTION
    1.   Intro: Servitudes are interests in land created by private land use agreements. They involve at
         least two parcels of land. The purpose of those agreements is to increase the total value of the
         parcels involved and the effect of such agreements is to burden one parcel for the benefit of
         another.

    2.   Easements vs. Covenants:
             a. Easement: Gives a third party a right to use the burdened land. In a typical
                easement a land owner says “I give you the right to use my land as follows…”
             b. Covenant: A restriction on the landowners own use. Landowner says “I promise
                you that my use of the land will be restricted as follows.”


B. EASEMENTS

    1.   Intro: Typical easements are made for:
             a. Driveways
             b. Roads
             c. Walkways
             d. Pipes and utility lines

    2.   Easement vs. Fee Simple: An easement is a privilege to use the land of another. The
         easement does not give the holder a right of possession, but only a right to use or to take
         something away from the parcel to which the easement attaches.

    3.   Types of Easements: All easements are either affirmative or negative and either appurtenant or
         in gross.
              a. Affirmative Easement: Allows the holder to perform a physical act on the land of
                   another. (Ex. O grants A a right away across O’s land)
              b. Negative Easement: The owner of a negative easement can prevent the owner of the
                   servient land from doing some act on the servient land.
              c. Easement Appurtenant: An easement that attaches to the dominant parcel and runs w/
                   the land. (Ex. If A has an easement to cross B’s land, if A sells to C, C has the right to
                   cross B’s land). Easement appurtenant is the default rule when it is unclear what
                   type of easement was created.




                                                     52
                                                                           Heather’s Parcho Outline
                                                                                          Fall 2002
            d.   Easement in Gross: An easement that attaches to a certain person or a group of people,
                 regardless of ownership. This easement is personal and cannot pass to another person.
                 It is not assignable and frequently not even divisible.


                                   Affirmative                         Negative
Appurtenant                        Right of way                        View easement
In gross                           Right of way for utility            Conservation easements

   4.   Easements vs. Licenses: A license is permission by a land owner to do some act on the land
        that would otherwise be a trespass. In this sense, easements and licenses are identical.
        However, a license is always revocable whereas an easement is irrevocable after its creation.
        Two exceptions to license being revocable:
            a. License is coupled w/ an interest in the land
            b. Estoppel – If a licensee expended resources in reasonable reliance of the continuous
                existence of the license. This doesn’t apply in NY.

   5.   Creation of Easements: 5 ways to create easements:
           a. Creation by Express Grant: An easement over the grantor’s land may be granted to
                another.
                     i. Willard v. First Church of Christ Scientists
                         McGuigan owns both lots and sells one to Peterson who sells to Willard without
                         mentioning the easement that McGuigan granted to the church to use the
                         parking lot next to it (where he is running his office).
                                       Lack of easement in deed does not get McGuigan off the hook b/c
                                       one, it was already being used by the church and two, it was
                                       recorded and he could have looked it up
                                       Issue: may a grantor in a deed reserve an easement in a third
                                       party?
                                                   Court says yes. You can effectively create an easement
                                                   for the benefit of a third party. Church’s easement is
                                                   valid – court focuses on equity.
                                                   Easement should be enforced for equity reasons
                                                   because the price was adjusted to reflect the presence
                                                   of the easement.
                                                   Easement appurtenant because it was only an easement
                                                   for the church – if they moved, it was lost
                                                          NY holds that you cannot reserve an easement to
                                                          third party


            b.   Creation by Implication: An easement by implication is created by operation of law,
                 not by written instrument. An easement by implication may be recognized given the
                 following conditions:
                        i. The two parcels were once under single ownership
                       ii. There was a pre-division use (when the lots were under single ownership)
                           that extended to the servient parcel
                     iii. The previous use was apparent on reas inspection (ex. beaten path or
                           anything that would put a person on reas notice of a use)
                      iv. The use is reas necessary

                             1.   Van Sandt v. Royster

                                      a.   Laura Bailey owns 3 lots in 1903. Series of transfers; lot 19
                                           from Bailey to Jones to Reynolds to Van Sandt; conveyed 20
                                           to Murphy and kept 4. No easement was mentioned in any of


                                                   53
                                                               Heather’s Parcho Outline
                                                                              Fall 2002
                               the deeds but there was an easement to connect her sewer pipe
                               to the city lines through lot 19 and 20.
                                     i. Van Sandt finds out and tries to enjoin Royster (new
                                         owner of 4) from using the pipeline.
                                    ii. Issue: Is there an easement?
                                              1. Yes, by implied reservation. Original buyer
                                                   of lot 19 was aware of it AND it was
                                                   necessary for the comfortable enjoyment of
                                                   lot 4.
                                              2. Rule: Court says: If land may be used
                                                   without an easement but cannot be used
                                                   without disproportionate expense, an
                                                   easement may still be implied in favor of
                                                   the grantor or the grantee on the basis of
                                                   necessity alone.
                                              3. Also ruled that P had a constructive notice
                                                   of the easement b/c his house was
                                                   constructed with modern plumbing and had
                                                   to realize that the plumbing had to drain
                                                   some where.


c.   Creation by Necessity: An easement by necessity will be found where two parcels of
     land are situated in a way that an easement over one of them is absolutely necessary
     for the enjoyment of the other. (ex. land locked parcel). The requirements are:
           i. Dominant and servient estates were once under single ownership
          ii. The easement is absolutely necessary
         iii. The necessity existed at the time of the severance of the two tracts of land
                  1. Othen v. Rosier
                            Hill, a Common Grantor divides the land & sells to different people. Othen
                            is landlocked and needs to use a road through Rosier’s land to get to the
                            main road-Othen sues for injunction to get a right of way.
                                 Issues:
                                     1. Is there an easement by necessity?
                                     2. Is there an easement by prescription?

                                  Neither easement exists according to court
                                                                 2. The mere fact that the two
                                                                     parcels are landlocked does not
                                                                     justify a finding of an easement.
d.   Creation by Prescription: The requirements mirror the requirements for AP. The
     only diff is that once the requirements are satisfied, the claimant gets an easement,
     not a possessory right. Only affirmative easements can be formed this way.
     Requirements – Use must be:
           i. Open and Notorious
          ii. Hostile
         iii. Adverse w/ a claim of right (cant be permissive)
         iv. Continuous for the necessary statutory period
          v. Exclusive
e.   Easement by estoppel (reliance)
           i. Holbrook v. Taylor

         ii. Initially Holbrook gave Taylor permission (license) to drive through & maintain
             a road on his prop. & Taylor spends $100 to improve the road & also spends




                                       54
                                                                             Heather’s Parcho Outline
                                                                                            Fall 2002
                          money remodeling his house- They have a fight & Holbrook builds a fence-
                          Taylor sues
Issues: Is there an easement by prescription? Is there an easement by estoppel?
                          Holding: This is easement by estoppel because Taylor spent $ in reliance of
                          the original license
                                    GP- Be careful when you grant a license
                              Interesting b/c the court not only considered how much they spent on the
                              road but they also considered how much they spent on the house


    6.   Public Easements and the Doctrine of Public Trust: The public at large can acquire a public
         easement in private land by prescription if members of the public use the land in a manner
         meeting the requirements for prescription. Note: If the land used is vacant or undeveloped, the
         presumption is that the use is permissive. Thus, except for a public road, it is diff to acquire a
         public easement by prescription.
             a. Doctrine of Public Trust: Broad doctrine that may be employed to give the public
                  access rights reasonable under the circumstances (ex. access to dry sand area b/c
                  public has access to wet sand area)
                       i. Mathews v. Bay Head Improvement Association

                                Δ bought land close to the ocean & effectively blocked/denied access to the
                                public from getting to a public beach-π’s demanded public access. The
                                land property was private but the water was public and the public had a
                                right to use the land.
                                     Issue: Can public pass through Bay Head prop. to get to the public
                                     ocean?
                                     Holding: Ct. said yes, and relied on a doctrine of public trust in
                                     allowing the public to go on the Δ’s land-but eas. was not created
                                                          - made them open their membership to all
                                                          - affirmative easement in gross
                                     -didn’t use prescriptive easm b/c this would have been hard to prove


    7.   Environmental Easements: The Uniform Conservation Easement Act (17 states) allows for
         positive and neg easements that protect natural, scenic, or open-spaced values.

    8.   Scope of Easements:

             a.   Easement created expressly: Terms of the grant control the scope. Thus it is imp to
                  clearly articulate the terms of the easement and to bear in mind possible needs for future
                  change.
             b.   Easement created by Implication: Scope depends on prior use or on any similar use the
                  parties might have expected.
             c.   Easements created by Prescription: Scope remains consistent w/ the use which gave
                  rise to the prescriptive easement.
                        i. Brown v. Voss

3 parcels of land A,B & C. A is owned by Voss, B & C are both owned by Brown. The previous owner of
Parcel B had an easement on A that ran w/ the land but he was not the owner of C at the time(owner of C
did not have an easement at that time) The question is now that Brown bought & extended his house to C,
does the easement extend to C as well?
Issues: Can a dominant tenement extend the easement’s scope to include an additional parcel?
Holding: No, Since this easement is specific to a parcel of land, Brown can’t extend it to C but the
remedy given to Voss was only $1 because it didn’t effect Voss at all-he was just trying to bust
Brown’s Balls



                                                    55
                                                                               Heather’s Parcho Outline
                                                                                              Fall 2002
                  c)   1)Restatement 3rd on Property § 410- Ct. should permit changes necessary for
                       normal development of the Dominant estate
                       2) What if servient land owner wants to slightly change the location of an
                       easement i.e. move the road over to build something
                       Majority view: Can’t do it
                       Minority view: Restatement 3rd § 408: Can do it, if it does not significantly
                       lessen the utility of the easement or frustrate its purpose

             d.    Use for the benefit of nondominant land: An easement granted for the benefit of lot 1
                   cant be used for the benefit of lot 2, even though the same person owns lots 1 and 2. The
                   dominant owner can’t increase the scope of the easement by using it to benefit a
                   nondominant tenement.
                         i. Limitation: Courts permit changes that are necessary for normal development
                            of the dominant estate; the easement can be modified to allow for such
                            development.

    9.   Division of easements in gross: If nonexclusive (i.e. use is enjoyed both by the beneficiary
         and the servient owner), an easement in gross cannot be apportioned. If an easement in
         gross is exclusive, (e.g. beneficiary has the exclusive right of enjoyment), the easement can be
         apportioned or divided.
             a. Limitation: One stock Rule – An easement that is apportioned or divided is subject to
                  the one stock rule. This means that all the parties that hold an interest in the
                  easement must act as “one stock” and not as independent owners. The parties must
                  make the decisions together. (Miller v. Lutheran Conference- fish and boat case)


    10. Termination of Easements:
             a. Expiration – Easements can simply expire. Some are created for the life of the holder or
                  for a term of years. Likewise, easement of necessity ends when necessity ends.
             b. Release – Easement holder can willingly give up her privilege by giving the servient
                  property owner a document of release, but the document must comply w/ the relevant
                  requirement of the statute of frauds.
             c. Abandonment – Requires that the holder stop using the easement and independently
                  manifest intent to abandon.
                        i. Presault v. United States
FACTS: (Prop. owneres sued the Govt. for an unauth. taking after the govt. authorized the conversion of an
abandoned RR easement into a nature trail across the owners' property.)
PROC: Appeal from judgment for D in action for damages for unauth taking of land by govt.
RULE: An easement is terminated by abandonment when nonuse is coupled w/ an act manifesting a
present intent to relinquish the easement or a purpose inconsistent w/ its future existence.

             d.    Estoppel – If the easement holder represents intent to stop using it and the servient owner
                   relies on this representation and materially changes her position in reasonable reliance on
                   the representation. (Servient owner has to reasonably rely on the dominant owner’s
                   representation not to use the easement)
             e.    Excessive use – In several states, an easement may terminate if the holder overuses it. In
                   most states however, excessive use will be remedied either by damages or injunctive
                   relief, but not forfeiture.
             f.    Merger – All easements are extinguished when the servient and dominant lots come
                   under the same ownership. Ex. If servient owner buys the dominant lot, the easement
                   terminates.
             g.    Prescription – b/c easements need not be exclusive, the servient owner can negate an
                   easement by blocking the dominant owner from exercising the easement for the statutory
                   period of time.




                                                     56
                                                                            Heather’s Parcho Outline
                                                                                           Fall 2002
           h.   Condemnation – All easements are terminated when a gov agency takes the servient
                tenement by eminent domain. Since an easement is a property interest its owner is
                entitled to compensation and the value of the easement is measured by the diminuition of
                the value in the dominant tenement.
                (Ex. The gov takes your parcel which is subject to an easement. After this the gov has to
                pay compensation. You also lost the value of the easement so you figure out how much
                the land is now worth w/o the easement and determine what you loss.)



C. COVENANTS

  1.   Intro: Private bargaining can serve to allocate resources effectively by minimizing land use
       conflicts and establishing coordination. However, for such bargaining to be effective, the
       agreements must be binding. To make them binding, covenants were developed.

  2.   Definition: A covenant is a promise to do or refrain from doing something that a property
       owner takes upon herself. Like easements, they are a private means of land control.

  3.   Types of Covenants:
          a. Real Covenant: A contractual promise that traditionally was enforceable in a court
               of law. Remedy for a breach was damages.
          b. Equitable Servitude: A covenant enforceable in equity by or against successors to the
               land of the original parties to the K. Can be formed without an actual K. Hence, if P
               wants equitable relief (injunction or specific performance), P must show that the
               covenant qualifies as an equitable servitude. Remedy for breach is an injunction.

  4.   Real Covenants: The major issue involving real covenants is whether the burden of the
       covenant will run to successor owners of the promisor’s land. It is also sometimes and issue
       whether the benefit will run to successor owner’s of the promisee’s land. To run w/ the land, the
       covenant must satisfy the following requirements:
           a. Original covenanter and covenantee must intend the covenant to “run w/ the land” (i.e.
               that the benefit of the covenant would bind successors)
           b. Must be in writing (required by statute of frauds)
           c. Successors must have notice of this intent; either actual or constructive
           d. Covenant must touch and concern the land – According to the traditional view, this
               requirement is satisfied if it can be shown that the covenant either enhances the value of
               the land and confers a benefit on the land OR conversely (if it is a burden) if it imposes a
               burden on the land.
                      i. Ex. Covenants affecting the physical condition of the land are always held to
                         touch and concern.
                     ii. Ex. Covenants restricting business activity on the land
                    iii. Ex. Obligation to buy water from a neighbors well was held not to touch and
                         concern
                    iv. Ex. Older cases hold that covenants to pay taxes do not touch and concern, but
                         contemporary holdings provide that obligations to buy prop insurance or pay a
                         security deposit touch and concern.
                     v. Note: Restatement 3 replaces the touch and concern requirement w/ a
                         reasonableness test based on three factors:
                             1. The purpose or goal of the covenant
                             2. The fairness of the arrangement
                             3. The degree of interference w/ personal autonomy
                             Note: The Rest view suggests that covenants imposing unreasonable
                             restraints on alienation and trade, or unconscionable covenants should not
                             be enforced




                                                   57
                                                                                Heather’s Parcho Outline
                                                                                               Fall 2002
             e.   There must be horizontal and vertical privity (the two together are called privity of
                  estate) between all parties on which the covenant is binding. Privity exists whenever a
                  title to the land is acquired by devise, intestacy, grant, or judicial conveyance and the
                  conveyance contains the promise; but AP doesn’t establish privity
                         i. Horizontal privity (relationship bet the contracting parties) When a court
                             requires horizontal privity, it means that there must be some land transfer
                             between the original promissor and the original promissee. Hor will always
                             exist in the case of LL and T or if the covenant was created simultaneously w/ a
                             transfer of interest in the land. Most J’s don’t require horizontal privity for
                             running of a burden.
                        ii. Vertical privity (privity between litigants) Vertical privity refers to the original
                             relationship between the promissor and his successor and the promissee and his
                             successor. For the burden to run, the same interest must be transferred
                             (ex. if you started w/ a FS, you must continue w/ a FS). For the benefit to
                             run, a lesser interest can be transferred (if A started w/ a FS and conveyed
                             a LE, there is still a covenant)

    5.   Creation of Covenants: Although not an interest in land, a writing is required for a real
         covenant. A real covenant will not be implied or arise by prescription.
             a. Exception – Implied From a General Plan: Where a developer has previously sold
                 restricted lots, many courts will imply a negative servitude on a lot subsequently
                 conveyed even though there is no writing that creates a servitude. The developer must
                 have had a reasonably uniform general plan for an exclusively residential subdivision,
                 and subsequent grantees must have had notice of restrictions on lots previously conveyed.

    6.    Equitable Servitudes: An equitable servitude is a covenant that fails to satisfy the privity
          requirement but nevertheless would run w/ the land on equitable grounds.
               a. Equity Requires 3 things:
                          i. Parties (covenator and covenatee) intended the promise to run
                         ii. Subsequent purchaser has actual or constructive notice of the covenant
                        iii. Covenant touches and concerns the land. (Note: Remember that Rest 3 applies
                             to equitable servitudes too)
                                  1. Tulk v. Moxhay (p.864)
(Crt. of Chaucery, 1848)
FACTS: Tulk was the owner of a vacant lot in Leicester Square and neighboring houses (property); series
of transfers; orig one was between Tulk and Elms yr was 1808 (modern Eng. law); Elms covenanted to
keep the square; not to bld anything on the square. After several conveyances, goes to Moxhay (no
mention of covenant w/ this last one, yet Moxhay had actual knowledge of the covenant; ignored it and
built on the square)
Inherently not enforceable b/c no horizontal privity; for Horizontal you need two orig. parties (in UK,
landlord an tenant);
HELD: Chancellor crafts a new instrument since Moxhey actually knew; inequitable not to enforce
covenant against Moxhey (fairness - guy knew & efficiency - since he knew, he adjusted the purchase price
to reflect existence of covenant - if not enforce covenant, we would provide him w/ windfall)

                                  2. Sanborn v. McLean (p.870/149)
(S.Crt. of Mich., 1925)
FACTS: (The McLeans tried to build a gas station on their lot in a residential district, but were enjoined
from doing so by their neighbors.) Dealing w/ a subdivision; original owner (developer) is McLaughlin;
series of sales/deeds: 1) Dec. 1892 - 10 lots all restricted to single family residences; 2) 1893 - 11 more lots
were conveyed w/ similar restrictions (sticky b/c some sold w/ restrictions, some not; the ones w/ were
single family); in 1911, McLean had one of the lots and wanted to start a gas station (no restriction in
exchange of title); tried to enjoin from operating; T CRT issued an injunction for the bldg to be destroyed
PROC: Appeal from decree providing injunctive relief for violation of reciprocal negative easement.




                                                      58
                                                                                Heather’s Parcho Outline
                                                                                               Fall 2002
RULE: An equitable servitude can be implied on a lot, even when the servitude is not created by a
written instrument, if there is a scheme for development of a residential subdivision and the
purchaser of the lot has notice of it.

    7.   Restrictive Covenants
             a. Group Homes
                      i. Hill v. Community of Damien

FACTS: C.ofD., a home for AIDS patients, leases a home in Far Hills Village. Patients live there and
conduct a normal life. Residents not happy; claim use of this violates single family residential use
restriction. The neighbors further claim Fair Housing Act does not apply.
T CRT: issues injunction against group home
S.CRT: reverses
ISSUE: (1) Is operation of a group home for 4 unrelated individuals a residential use? (2) Single family?
S.CRT: (1) Yes; w/ trad structure and atmosphere. (2) Yes; b/c term "family" not defined in the
covenant and should thus be cross referenced w/ Albequerque Zoning; defined broadly - no more
than 5 unrelated persons living together in a dwelling. court adds that there are strong public policy
reasons to incl. group homes in family. Fear of increased traffic has no bearing here. Evidence here
insufficient to prove discriminatory intent. The court does find discriminatory impact in that the
enforcement of the covenant would deny housing to the handicapped. Should make reasonable
efforts to accommodate handicapped. This group home doesn't require excessive effort.


              b.   Racially restrictive covenants
                        i. Shelley v. Kraemer

Until 50s racially restricted covenants existed; restriction on sale to on minorities (couldn't sell to blacks);
Shelley's purchased property in MO that was subject to prior restriction; neighbors sought injunction of
sale. The S.Crt. of MO ordered the trial crt to grant relief and the same happened in Mich.
HELD: SCOTUS reverses.
* problem w/ covenants is that they're private. 14th: no state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge priv. and immunities of citiz. of U.S., but have to show state act. How does S.Crt. provide since
they're private? Enforcing by injunction is a state act. Even though private contract, there is a function to
be enforced by the crt. For us to enfoce such a contract would violate.
NOW: use Fair Housing Act


    8.  Termination of Covenants:
             a. Expiration – A real covenant may be expressly designed to expire at some fixed
                  point in time or upon some contingency.
             b. Express waiver or release – This is similar to release under easements, but the
                  underlying nature of covenants make things more complicated. W/ easements you
                  have a small number of parties in the typical case. W/ covenants you usually have
                  multiple parties, and to get all of them to waive their rights or release the covenant
                  is very difficult.
             c. Changed Conditions in Neighborhood – If the character of a neighborhood has so
                  changed that it is impossible any longer to secure in substantial degree the benefits
                  of the restrictive covenants, equity may refuse to enforce the covenant. However, for
                  the defense of changed conditions to succeed, most cts require either that (i) the change
                  outside the subdivision must be so pervasive as to make all lots in the subdivision
                  unsuitable for the permitted uses, or (ii) substantial change must have occurred w/in the
                  subdivision itself.
                        i. Western Land Co. v. Trusckolaski
FACTS: W.L. divides property into 40 lots and all are restricted for residential use (single family
dwelling); as the city of Reno expands, all of a sudden, W.L. wants to construct a shopping mall on the



                                                      59
                                                                                 Heather’s Parcho Outline
                                                                                                Fall 2002
land; homeowners in the subdivision bring a lawsuit to enjoin.
ISSUE: (1) Can orig. restrictions be abolished in light of new conditions? (2) Does a zoning change that
allows commercial uses, override restrictions? (3) Is efficiency test applicable?
HELD: (1) no. changes not sufficient enough; subdivision still suitable for residential use, and thus the
purpose of the original plan has not been thwarted; (2) no. not enough and can't supercede covenants. (3)
no. paramount interest is of residents in plotted area; crt refuses to take into accnt other residents who could
take     advantage of the shopping mall

                        ii. Rick v. West

Rick is a subdivider that restricts to single-family use; Rick then sells half-acre lot that builds a house on it.
After running into trouble selling other lots, Rick contracted 45 acres for industrial use, but Rick is a
holdout. West refuses to lift covenant. P sue West, covenant unenforceable.
ISSUE: Is the covenance of single-family use still valid?
HELD: Yes; neither obsolete nor outmoded; West entitled to enforce full power of covenant
RULE: A landowner in a subdivision under a restrictive covenant has the right to insist upon adherence to
the covenant even when the other owners consent to its release

              d.   Abandonment - If enough violations of the covenant occur, w/o any beneficiary
                   attempting to enforce the covenant, it is evidence that most owners no longer want
                   the covenant to be effective. The test is whether the average person reasonably
                   concludes by looking at the relevant property that the restriction has been
                   abandoned.
              e.   Merger – ALL lots must be merged under the same ownership.
              f.   Condemnation

    9.    Common Interest Communities:
               a. Condos: Features:
                          i. You own your own unit, but you co-own common areas w/ other tenants
                         ii. Since each owner owns in FS, failure to pay by an owner does not affect other
                             unit owners.
                        iii. Common areas, exterior walls, are owned in tenancy in common
                        iv. Owners association has maintenance responsible for common areas but owns no
                             interest in them
                         v. Each condo has a declaration. By joining you consent to the homeowner’s
                             association. You accept the by-laws.
                        vi. Homeowners association can make and amend by laws that govern owners and
                             occupants. Courts usually allow amendments as long as they are reasonable.
                             Courts will approve of changes as long as they don’t diminish the size of the
                             common areas and are not retroactive. Note: Courts will usually give more
                             deference to covenants in the declaration, over subsequently adopted covenants
                                  1. Pocono Springs Civic Association v. Mackenzie
Mack. Bought a lot as part of a CIC. They later realize it has sewage problems & is essentially inhabitable
but are still being charged association fees. They are trying to abandon the land so not to have to pay these
fees.
Issue: Can a resident of a condo negate his obligation to the assoc. by abandoning the prop.?
Holding: They have perfect title & can’t abandon it
Rationale: Tort Liability, If someone falls on the prop. we want someone to be responsible
GP- What they should have done was create a corporation, give the prop. to the corp. & go bankrupt t- b/c
as we know from our favorite novel (no Eric not “Private Parts”) Buffalo Creek “the educational tool”
Disaster it’s hard to pierce the corporate veil


                                 2.   Nahrstedt v. Lakeside Village Condo




                                                       60
                                                                              Heather’s Parcho Outline
                                                                                             Fall 2002
 When Nahrs. bought the condo she brought her 3 cats despite the “no pets allowed” restriction. She
claimed the cats were quiet & didn’t disturb anyone b/c they remained in her apt. all the time.
Issue: Does the restraint have to be reasonable in general or should they look at whether the rule is
reasonable when applied to each individual case independently (i.e. if the rule was designed to protect from
nuisance of animals and her cats were not bothering anyone they should be allowed to stay)?
          Holding: Look at the prohibition in general/abstract b/c can’t go case by case-it would be
          unreasonable- a restraint in the Declaration is struck down only if the burden it imposes
          will be substantially outweighed by the benefit from removing the restriction - & obviously
          you can’t restrict a person’s liberties or constitutional rights; Burden to show
          unreasonableness is on the owner not the association.
          Rationale:        1) She had notice-it was in the declaration
                            2) Market- many communities allow pets she could have gone there
                Epstien- makes these two points & likens the declaration to mini-constitution that a person
                can buy into or not-if you do you are bound by the rules

             b.   Co-Ops: Diff from condos in several ways:
                       i. Building is owned by a non-profit organization
                      ii. The residents own shares in the org and can vote for the board of directors; they
                          themselves have no prop right
                     iii. If one T defaults, the other T’s have to cover her share. Therefore, there is a
                          strong tendency to screen applicants ahead to time, but they still cant violate the
                          FHA
                     iv. B/c the building is owned by a corp, it may be diff for individual owners to
                          secure financing; you must have independent assets or credit
                      v. The premises are maintained by a management firm hired by the board.



XI. The Law of Zoning

A. Introduction
    1.   Theory: By dividing up a city into use zones from which harmful uses are excluded, zoning
         purports to prevent one landowner from harming his neighbor by bringing in an
         incompatible use. In a sense, zoning is nuisance law made predictable by declaring in
         advance what uses are harmful and prohibited in the various zones. This is the theory used
         in Village of Euclid to uphold zoning from constitutional attack. But zoning has purposes
         beyond preventing harm. Modern zoning often regulates uses to achieve public benefits or
         to maximize prop values in the city. Zoning also has a darker side: it has been used to
         exclude low income groups who cant afford the housing permitted in a city.
             a. Village of Euclid v. Abler Realty (950) (S. Ct. 1926) Ambler challenged a zoning scheme
                  created by the village. The scheme imposed size & use restrictions & divided the city
                  into different districts. Ambler’s lot was divided into 3 different use classes-It was,
                  therefore, worth only 1/4 of its value if it could be used for industrial purposes. He
                  claimed the zoning scheme violated his 14th Ammend. rights & his right to due process
                  because it dropped the land’s worth from $10,000 to $2,500.
                  Issue: Is the ordinance a violation of the π’s constitutional rights?
                  Holding: Nope-Zoning is constitutional-t.f. the ordinance stands
                  Rationale: The complexity of urban life calls for land use controls- therefore, can
                  zone to avoid nuisance b4 it happens by separating industrial from residential
                  Note, zoning rules at the time sought to protect single family homes-which all the
                  Justices were a part of.




                                                     61
                                                                            Heather’s Parcho Outline
                                                                                           Fall 2002
             b.   Cumulative Zoning: (Euclidian zoning) The notion of cumulative zoning separates
                  conflicting uses and classifies them on a scale from “highest” use to “lowest” use.
                  The highest use is deemed the least harmful to others, the lowest the most harmful.
                  It permits higher uses in lower use areas, but not the opposite. (Ex. you can build a
                  house in an industrial area, but not a factory in a residential area).

B. The Non-Conforming Use

    1.   Nonconforming Uses: A nonconforming use is a use in existence when the zoning ordinance
         is passed that is not permitted in the district under the new zoning ordinance (Note: land has
         to be put to use). Nonconforming uses are allowed to remain b/c requiring immediate termination
         would be either a violation of substantive DP or an unconstitutional taking of prop rights.
         Nontheless, nonconforming uses may be limited or terminated under certain conditions:
              a. Amortization: A zoning ordinance may provide that the nonconforming use must
                  terminate after a specified period of time. The ordinance may provide for diff
                  amortization periods, depending on the amount of investment in the use and building.
                         i. Majority view – amortization valid: The maj of cts have held such
                            ordinances constitutional as a reas exercise of the police power – not a
                            violation of DP and not a taking. Nonetheless, the ordinance must be reas as
                            applied to each nonconforming use terminated. If not reas as applied to each
                            particular landowner, it is un-C as to that landowner.
                        ii. Minority view – amortization un-C: A min of cts have held amortization
                            ordinances un-C as a taking of prop w/o compensation.
                       iii. PA Northwestern Distributors v. Zoning Hearing Board

 Shortly after the π opened an adult bookshop, the town established a zoning ordinance that prevented such
shops in that area. An amortization clause gave business owners 90 days to comply. (relocate or change the
nature of the store). P argues that this violates his due process rights>
Issue: Can a municipality re-zone an area and force existing land owners to comply or relocate without
compensation?
Holding: Non conforming uses are vested prop. interests & although it’s OK to rezone, you must
compensate (This is a PA case-different in other states as in next case)
Concurrence: Don’t necessarily need compensation- amortization may work w/out compensation but it
must be reasonable under the circumstances and 90 days in this case is not reasonable-must give a longer
period to relocate
GP- loves the concurrence b/c compensation would be very expensive & impractical b/c it would be passed
along to the tax payer

                      iv. Buzzetti v. City of NY

Upheld a zoning ordinance regulating permissible locations of adult entertainment establishments. The Ct.
basing their opinion on studies indicating that the businesses lower the prop. value, & decrease the
character of the community, increased crime rates, and lower the quality of urban life, gave the
establishments 1 year to relocate w/out compensation. (Bottom line- if you’re going to open a porn shop
do it in PA not NY)



C. The Scope of the Zoning Power

    1.   Intro: Zoning was originally established to ensure adequate amounts of light and air, to
         minimize the risks of fire and other public hazards and to prevent overcrowding.
         Eventually, regulation expanded.




                                                   62
                                                                               Heather’s Parcho Outline
                                                                                              Fall 2002
    2.   Aesthetic Regulation: In recent years, many courts have held that cities may enact
         regulations primarily for aesthetic objectives. Some of these courts, attempting to put some
         limits on what can be legislated in the name of beauty, have said that the standard to be applied to
         aesthetic ordinances is whether the prohibited use offends the sensibilities of the average person
         and tends to depress prop values.

                        i. Stoyanoff v. Berkeley (1012) (1970)
Stoyanoff applied for a permit to build an unusual house. The permit was denied b/c the city’s board did
not approve the design. Soyanoff claims the aesthetic rules are too vague & outside the scope of zoning
regulation.
Issue: Does the legislation enable aesthetic zoning regulation? Is it allowed to do so?
Holding: Yes it does, Yes it can. The legislation protects the character of the community & its prop.
value which are legitimate grounds for zoning. This ct. establishes the right of local municipalities to
control architectural design.

                        ii. Anderson v. City of Isaaquah (1020)
Similar facts as in Stoyanoff (except it was a commercial property) but after his original plans were rejected
Anderson drew up another set of plans which were also rejected by the development committee. He asked
for a concrete set of guidelines but none were ever given. They told him to “drive around the neighborhood
and see what’s there” After spending $250,000 he appealed to the city council & lost (He wanted to build a
modern building with off white stucco)
Holding: Aesthetic restrictions are allowed but they must be clear & can’t be arbitrary. Here, they
were unclear & the committee did nothing to illuminate them. The board must let the applicant know
exactly what to change in the design in order to comply w/ the guidelines

             b.   Architectural Review Boards: Most courts now uphold the power of city
                  architectural review boards to deny building permits for proposed buildings that
                  the board disapproves. B/c the standards these boards apply are often vague and diff to
                  apply, they raise problems of improper delegation of power and equal protection of the
                  laws. A fav standard is that the building must “conform to the existing character of
                  the neighborhood and not cause a substantial depreciation in neighboring prop
                  values”. Such a standard has been upheld, even when the existing character of the
                  hood is not entirely uniform.
                        i. Contrast: (Anderson case – Holding a substantially similar statute to be
                           unconstitutionally vague)
             c.   Advertising signs: It has long been held that commercial ads may be prohibited in
                  residential areas, on the theory that they are harmful to the quiet and tranquility
                  sought in residential areas. But problems arise when political ads are banned or when
                  commercial billboards are banned from commercial areas. Here the zoning ordinance
                  may conflict w/ freedom of speech:
                        i. Political Ads: Ordinances prohibiting political signs entirely in front yards
                           of residential areas have usually been void, b/c adequate alternative means
                           of communication are not available to owners (note: if there is another
                           plausible way, the ban might be upheld)
                       ii. Related Decisions:
                                1. Linmark - N.J. S.C. strikes down ordinance prohibiting “for sale”
                                     and “sold” signs. Ct says alternative such as newspaper not likely
                                     to reach same audience, and also, the town didn’t prove the
                                     measure was necessary.
                                2. Metro Media – Ca S.C. strikes down ordinance prohibiting
                                     everything except on site commercial signs. Ct says the ordinance
                                     wasn’t sufficiently narrowly tailored, aesthetic interest wasn’t
                                     sufficiently substantial.
                                3. Vincent – Ordinance prohibiting posting on public property
                                     upheld.



                                                     63
                                                                                 Heather’s Parcho Outline
                                                                                                Fall 2002
                                 4.   Gilleo - Signs are protected speech - physical aspects may be
                                      regulated but not content. The ordinance closes off a cheap &
                                      convenient means of expressing oneself for which there is no close
                                      substitute



    3.   Exclusionary Zoning - Controls On Household Composition: Zoning can be used to
         purposefully exclude various groups from the community or from certain districts.
         Excluded persons may be unmarried or unrelated persons who live together as a family, low
         income persons, or racial minorities. Even when there is no intention to exclude these
         persons, the zoning ordinance may in fact result in exclusion.
              a. Nontraditional Families: At the heart of the zoning system is the protection of the
                   single family home. But what is a single fam home? Legislatures have defined it in
                   various ways. If the definition bears a rational relationship to the objective of
                   preserving “family values” and quiet seclusion, the def passes muster under the C.
                   Only arbitrary laws will be struck down. (Belle Terre – controls in all but 3 states;
                   NY, Ca, NJ)
                         i. Subsequent Decisions:
                                  1. Moore – S.C. invalidates single family restriction which defined
                                       family as including “no more than 1 set of grandkids”). Ct
                                       distinguishes this case from Belle Terre because the restriction here
                                       prevents family members from living together, whereas Belle Terre
                                       restricted unrelated people.
                                  2. McMinn and Baer both stuck down ordinances limiting housing to
                                       no more than 2 or 4 unrelated people living together (or cooking
                                       together as in Baer)
                                  3. State ct approach: Several state cts, however, have held that
                                       occupancy restrictions based on biological or legal relationships violate
                                       the state C bec the definitions do not bear a rational relationship to the
                                       city’s goal of controlling density.
                                  4. State v. City of Rochester said that a zoning amendment was a
                                       legislative act that could not be struck down by the court.
                                  5. City of Edmonds v. Oxford House
City sought to close Oxford House, a group home of 10-12 adults recovering from substance abuse, on the
grounds that it violated its definition of the one family ordinance. OH challenges claiming a violation of
the Fair Housing Act (FHA)
Issue: Can Zoning be used to override the FHA?
Holding: FHO prevails-zoning can’t override
Rationale: FHO accepts restrictions on maximum occupancy but does not preserve family character
concerns-here family definition rules were concerned w/ family living & not space for living


                               6. Oxford House v. City of St. Louis
city ordinance defined family as no more than 8 unrelated ppl. living together. 3rd cir. felt this was a
reasonable restriction.
Seemingly benign ordinances such as this are very detrimental to group homes
Raises the NIMBY problem (not in my backyard)
             Even those who don’t mind these homes still do not want them in their back yard.
             Now, rule in most places is 8 people


    4.   Exclusionary Zoning – Growth Controls: Exclusionary zoning seeks to keep out the poor;
         growth controls seek to keep out everyone. Growth controls may be adopted to preserve certain
         attributes of the local community. Courts are more sympathetic to growth control measures



                                                       64
                                                                             Heather’s Parcho Outline
                                                                                            Fall 2002
        (if reas and limited in time and effect) than exclusionary zoning measures. May be there to
        keep personality of town, to have better air and water, to prevent overtaxing, etc.
             a. Most common measure to do this is restrictive schedules or moratoria, or the greenbelt
                  strategy which prohibits building altogether
             b. Mt Laurel – The Mt. Laurel decision of NJ has become famous for laying down a
                  requirement that each community must provide its fair share of housing needs in the
                  region. Mt Laurel I held that a city’s zoning regulations, which did not provide
                  opportunity for a fair share of the region’s need for low-income and moderate income
                  housing, were in violation of the state constitutional requirements of substantive DP and
                  equal protection because the regulations were not concerned w/ the general welfare of all
                  persons. The intent of the town leg is not controlling; the effect of excluding low income
                  persons is. The ct reaffirmed this decision in Mt Laurel II where they also extended
                  the rule to all communities not just developing communities.




XII. Eminent Domain and the Problem of Regulatory Takings

A. Sources and Rationales
   1.   Intro – When private land use controls fail, the government may intervene to improve on the
        workings of the market; government regulation of land is desirable when it can help prevent
        harmful third party effects (negative externalities) or can coordinate positive externalities.
        When the gov intervenes, it can do so in one of two ways;
            a. Zoning      OR
            b. Eminent Domain (physical taking)
                      i. Ex. Gov wants to build a highway. By ED they can just take your prop. By
                         zoning they can just provide that the land can only be used for highway use.
                     ii. Note: When the gov decides to exercise its ED powers, it must pay
                         compensation. But w/ zoning, it doesn’t. So we have to determine when the
                         gov says its zoning, but is really exceeding this zoning power and should be
                         forced to pay compensation.


   2.   Applicable Constitutional Amendments:
           a. 5th (Takings Clause) - The authority of the gov to take land derives from its police
                power. To safeguard against abuse, the takings clause provides that private prop can
                be taken only for public use and only for the exchange of just compensation.
                      i. Public Use – Public use is required b/c the gov can’t favor one private owner
                         over another.
                     ii. Just Compensation – Just compensation (i) mitigates the harm of the prop
                         owner and (ii) forces the gov to account for its actions.
                    iii. 5th Amendment does two things
                              1. says govt can take land
                              2. says how they can take land
                                       a. see above (public use and just compensation)
           b. 14th (Due Process Clause) - Property cannot be deprived w/o DP of law.
                      i. Procedural Dimension – Requires that none of the liberties listed (life,
                         liberty, prop), can be taken w/o giving the affected party an opportunity to
                         defend herself.
                     ii. Substantive Dimension – Requires that:
                              1. Any gov legislation or regulation affecting life, liberty, or prop
                                  must advance some public interest.



                                                    65
                                                                               Heather’s Parcho Outline
                                                                                              Fall 2002
                               2.   The means chosen to advance the public interest must be
                                    reasonably necessary (not unduly cumbersome).

   -    Lochner was arguably one of the worst decisions of the supreme court b/c it struck down almost
        any property regulation/taking
            o Today, economic substantive due process isn’t used to strike invalidate

   -    Among state courts, this is very different – they may be willing to use ESDP to challenge
        regulation of property


   3.   Definition of ED: The power of the gov to transfer title to private prop from the private
        owners to itself. The gov may assume control over private prop and dispose of it as it deems
        necessary. Sequence of events involved:
            a. First, the gov usually tries to strike a voluntary bargain/negotiation w/ the prop owner.
            b. If negotiations fail, the gov will begin a condemnation proceeding and the presiding ct
                 will evaluate the claim of the gov. If it approves it, it will also determine compensation
                 amount the gov has to pay. Gov may take the entire bundle of rights of the prop owner,
                 or just one of the sticks in the bundle.
            c. Inverse condemnation proceeding: When the gov physically or regulatorily makes use of
                 a prop or strips the prop of all its value or a substantial part of the value w/o initiating a
                 formal condemnation proceeding, the owner may bring an inverse condemnation action
                 to secure a ruling that the gov has taken the prop and must pay just compensation.

B. Public Use and Just Compensation

   1.   Public Use – In modern times, most cts have held that the term “public use” means the
        condemnation must benefit the public. Under this broader construction, most condemnations are
        permissible. So long as the legislation serves some public interest, and the means chosen is not
        irrational, cts should uphold the legislation w/o questioning its wisdom.
             a. Ex. A public purpose may be served by transferring ownership from one private person
                 to another private person. Examples include urban renewal, where the gov condemns
                 blighted land and resells it to a developer. (Note: A purely public holding – serving no
                 public interest – would be un-C, but this is very rare)

   2.   Just Compensation - Just compensation means that the owner must be paid fair market value
        for the prop taken. Compensation includes the recovery, not only for the part condemned, but
        also for damage to the remainder. (Ex. gov condemns land to operate a garbage dump and takes
        half your lot. But of course a garbage dump on ½ of your land affects the value of the remainder,
        so JC covers any depreciation of the remainder)
             a. Note: Just compensation does not cover personal or subjective value.

   3.   Academic Perspective –
           a. Berger – Traces two possible interpretations of public use. Broadly defined, a use is
              public whenever it confers a benefit on the public. Narrowly defined, a use is public only
              when the public actually gets to use the condemned land. Berger’s account is mainly
              historical. He tells us in the early years it was the narrow interpretation that dominated,
              but through time we’ve moved to the broader approach. (ex. Midkiff shows how minimal
              the requirements are now).
           b. Merrill – Merrill introduces the distinction between ends and means. Thus far we have
              focused on ends (what use has the property been put to). Merrill thinks the emphasis
              should be on the means. Merrill’s theory is that the gov may use its ED power whenever
              transaction costs prevent private bargaining or make it impossible. Gov must intervene
              and has a legitimate right to do so, when it is acting as a facilitator of a socially desirable
              outcome.
           c. Munch says transactional costs can always be lowered to a manageable level


                                                     66
                                                                                  Heather’s Parcho Outline
                                                                                                 Fall 2002
              d.   Epstein- public use is only a provision of public goods (highways and parks – open to
                   everyone)
Public Use

               e. Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff
 Hawaii wanted to distribute wealth b/c a few owners owned all the prop. They pass a land reform act to
take the land & give it to others
Issue: Is this a public use?
Holding: Yes, Ct. says they only have to check for reasonable behavior-it’s really up to the local legislator-
Doesn’t literally have to be for public use, just for a public purpose, & breaking up an oligopoly is a
public interest & therefore, fits under police power
Public Use Requirement is Minimal

This is problematic b/s its equivalent to saying that if it’s legit police power than it is a reasonable
If this is so, why do we need public use requirement in the first place


              f.   Poletown Neighborhood Council v. City of Detroit

Detroit wants to take land from this neighborhood and build GM a plant in order to keep GM in the city
Issue: Is helping the local economy to be considered a public benefit enough to take private prop.?
Holding: Yes it is a public benefit- not really helping GM just creating jobs for hundreds of people
Dissent: Primary benefit was for GM- GM had engineered this move using its political power
GP- Doesn’t think this is what the framers of the amendment had in mind when they gave this right to the
gov.- Dissenters make more sense
              g. City of Oakland v. Oakland Raiders

Issue: may the city of Oakland condemn a sports franchise to keep them from relocating? Is this a public
use?
Trial court concluded as a matter of law that no statutory provision allows for taking AND this is not a
recognized public use
Holding: Maybe, Anything that promotes education, recreation or public enjoyment may be
considered public purposes (City owned the arena and what went on there) They can own sports
team
                Other Solutions: 1) give munic. Right of 1st refusal 2) Give munic. Rights to the name


         Problems w/ focusing on the means:
         a. In one way or another, all real estate is unique
         b. There are ways to diminish transaction costs



C. Physical Takings

What constitutes a taking?

         Permanent physical occupation/invasion – If the gov physically invades property permanently,
         it has taken the prop and must pay for it, no matter how trivial the invasion. Any permanent
         invasion is a taking – this is a per se rule. Must compensate.

                   1. Loretto v. Telepromter Manhattan CATV Corp.
           NY passed a law providing that landowners must allow cable TV companies to install wires on
           their prop. for a $1 payment. Loretto who bought the prop. not knowing about the wires later
           finds out & sues for compensation.


                                                       67
                                                                               Heather’s Parcho Outline
                                                                                              Fall 2002
           Issue: Does a permanent, physical occupation authorized by the gov. give rise to an obligation to
           compensation?
           Holding: Yes, any permanent, physical occupation is automatically a taking (per se rule-
           degree of taking is not considered(degree only considered when assessing the damage). Ct.
           remands for compensation. Regulation of prop. can be done w/ out compensation if it promotes
           public interest. If the physical taking is temporary, there is a balancing test
           -Brightline rule cuts administrative costs
           -The court makes this distinction b/c permanent occupations are an especially severe intrusion
           on the owner’s rights (right to exclude)
           On remand NY ct. held one dollar was enough compensation
           Dissent: Per Se rule is stupid(my language-not the dissent) There are certain regulatory measures
           that are much more harmful to the rights of the property owner than a little wire like in this case.
           Brightline rule of majority makes no sense.
           -and wont cut administrative costs b/c need courts to decide how much compensation anyway

         Temporary physical taking- one case that says one can be compensated for a temporary
         taking: 1st English Evangelical Lutheran church of Gledale v. County of Los Angeles

Flood that ruined churched property. City put temporary moratorium on construction on the flood
susceptible area and church sued to get use for the amount of time they “took” it.

CA courts rejected this claim holding that property owners under CA law have to right to compensation
until the regulation is declared a taking and the government decided never-the less to let it stand. Only then
can you get compensation, up until then you can only get regulation repealed. Appeals to SC and court
rules that if indeed the regulation were a taking the church can get compensation.
          - Said that IF there was a taking, then the govt can not just go back and repeal, they must
                pay for the time the regulation was enacted (even when temporary)
          - Court never said whether this WAS a taking – this case was strictly about remedies
                    o Most people took it to say that temporary moratoriums do give rise to
                         compensation.
                    o Court dealt with this in next case:



D. Regulatory Takings


    1.   Intro: When is governmental regulation of a person’s property – which does not involve
         physical entry by the gov or third parties – a taking? The gov can regulate the use of prop
         under the police power, for the purpose of protecting health, safety, or public welfare, but at some
         point these regulations – imposing an onerous burden on the landowner – may become a taking of
         prop. There is no set formula to determine this, but there are several factors cts will weight to deal
         w/ the problem.

    2.   Factors: Not one particular factor is dispositive, except for the wipe out rule. Courts will weigh
         them all.
             a. Harm/Benefit Test:
                      i. If the gov regulation has the purpose or effect or protecting the public from
                         harm (or a nuisance broadly defined), this is a valid exercise of police
                         power; NO TAKING IF NUISANCE (Hadecheck)
                              1. Note: Any potentially harmful activity may be considered a nuisance
                                   for these purposes, even if we wouldn’t classify it as a CL nuisance.
                     ii. If the regulation has the purpose of extracting a public benefit, it is an
                         exercise of ED and the owner must be compensated.




                                                      68
                                                                                Heather’s Parcho Outline
                                                                                               Fall 2002
             b.   Test of severe economic loss: If a regulation unduly diminishes the value of the prop
                  it will be a taking. Thus, large damage to the owner may be compensable, but small
                  damage isn’t.
             c.   Reciprocity test: Regulations that involve reciprocal advantages and disadvantages
                  are not a taking. If the regulated owners obtain some advantage, though it be less
                  than the advantage obtained by others, the regulation is w/in the police power.
             d.   Entirety test/Conceptual Severance: If you can separate the prop into separate and
                  independent estates and show that one part was taken in its entirety, this is a taking.
                  (Ex. Party argues that you can conceptually sever air rights or surface rights)You
                  cannot conceptually sever temporal rights and claim a wipeout (Tahoe)
             e.   Extent of Regulation
             f.   Impact on investment-backed expectations: Gov should not be permitted to
                  demoralize investors by destroying their expectations. Reliance interest deserves
                  protection.
             g.   Character of the government action
             h.   Destruction of All Economic value: If the regulation denies all economically
                  beneficial uses of land (i.e. wipes out), it is a per se taking, unless the state can justify
                  its actions as preventing a common law nuisance.
             i.   Wipeout: If it is a complete taking (wipeout) then there must always be
                  compensation. (Lucas)

               j. Hadacheck v. Sebastian S.Ct. (1140)
LA passes an ordinance prohibiting the manufacturing of bricks in certain parts of the city. π, a brick
manufacturer, had prop. in that part of the city which lay on a bed of clay. He claimed it was a taking b/c it
caused a huge diminution in value. He also claims disparate treatment b/c othrs in rest of the city were
allowed to remain open
Issue: Is this a taking to be compensated for?
Holding: No, it was w/in the police power of the city. It is never a taking if the regulation/ordinance is
reasonably regarded to be a nuisance control measure-t.f. no compensation
-keep in mind they apply a loose definition of nuisance don’t have to meet rigorous level of public/private
tort nuisance

                        i. Lucas v. South Carolina (1198) S.Ct.
 In 1986 Lucy bought 2 beachfront properties in SC for $975,000. In 1988 SC passes a law barring all dev.
From beachfront prop.
Holding: Scalia adds a new per se rule: Wipeout- Holds if the prop. is rendered valueless (aka wipeout)
it is automatically a taking –says this applies in this case
On Remand: Ct. found it was a taking but just a temporary taking b/c the π could apply for a residential
building permit




                                                      69
                                                                               Heather’s Parcho Outline
                                                                                              Fall 2002
                              v. Palazolo v. Rhode Island
P and others owned company and company had 3 waterfront plots. P was the one shareholder. RI enacts regulation
that prohibites developing of wetlands. (Same story as in Lucas)
1978, The company ceases to exist and by operational flaw, P becomes owner. (This is considered ownership change
under our system) P submits several development plans and is denied repeatedly and brings an inverse condemnation
suit and alleges that the council’s decision deprives him of all economical use. RI superior court finds against him and
state SC affirms. They rely on the assumption that P got title to the land after the regulation was enacted. (Court
assumed that if you buy land after regulation, you can’t claim taking.
   Key here is that he bought the land AFTER the regulation and courts say you can still bring inverse
   condemnation action but in THIS case is doesn’t work under Lucas and might work under Penn Central.
   Issues:
       1. May a post regulation acquirer bring an inverse condemnation action?
                 a. Yes
                           i.The extinction rule discriminates against old owners who may not live long enough to see
                               their claim ripen and discriminates against poor owners who may not have the money to
                               bring action.

      2. Was there a taking under Lucas?
               a. No
                         i.He could do other things with prop – did not render it completely useless

      3. Was there a taking under Penn Central?
               a. Maybe, case is remanded



                       ii. Tahoe v. Sierra Preservation Council

  To save the beautiful water from becoming muddy from erosion, the council established the Tahoe Regional Planning
  Agency and they enacted an ordinance banning development on environmentally sensitive land until original plan is adopted.
  (plan supposed to be adopted in 83 but they fail to meet deadline and extends then ban until 84) Ban was for 32 months.
  1984, a group of 700 property owners brought a lawsuit based on Lucas and Penn Central. 1999 district court rules for the
  property owners, denying then on Penn but succeeding under Lucas. Appeals court reverses, appeal to SC.
  Is the temporary moratorium a taking under Lucas?
           - No.
                    o A property right has both a physical dimension and a temporal dimension, for a wipeout to exist,
                        both dimensions must be taken.
                              “Parcel as a whole” term
                              This isn’t a taking, just a diminution in value so it should be decided under Penn central and
                                 Penn Coal

                              You cannot take your property and divide into time units and claim a taking b/c the property
                               value will go back to normal once regulation is lifted
                              Dissent says that this is a taken b/c the distinction between permanent and temporary
                               regulations is not that different b/c temporary one can be extended and permanent one can be
                               repealed. He says this is a forced leasehold.



 Dimunition in Value (these cases are ad hoc – they look at all the factors)

          PENNSYLVANIA COAL CO. V. MAHON

 Pennsylvania Coal sold the surface land to private owners but reserved the right to mine the coal
underneath (right was in the deed along w/ warning that purchasers took the risk of subsidence-and waive



                                                      70
                                                                                Heather’s Parcho Outline
                                                                                               Fall 2002
damage rights). PA passed the Kohler act, which forbade mining in a way that would cause subsidence
(endanger houses from falling in) thus taking the mining right away.
Holding: Holmes: It was a taking. When regulation effects a diminution of value of considerable
magnitude it must be construed as an exercise of Eminent Domain & t.f. a taking that must be
compensated for. According to Holmes there was no nuisance control in this case
Rationale: 1) Holmes saw the coal rights as a separate estate that was taken entirely(right to mine is its own
estate)-establishes Doctrine of Severance-If you can show that a right/estate was taken in its entirety ct. will
probably consider it a taking 2) No nuisance b/c the situation was private- the price of the pprop. Sold
probably reflected the risk
Dissent: Brandeis: Act curbed public nuisance so it’s not a taking. There was no considerable diminution of
value to the π b/c the overall value increased (the houses won’t fall down)
              k. Keystone Bitonimus Coal v. Debenedictus(S.Ct.)

Coal co. is bound by an act that requires them to keep 50% of the coal in the ground & to restore the
surface wherever they dig Main point of this case is that even with the same fact pattern and same
tests, the courts came up with a different holding – COURTS CAN GO EITHER WAY ON THESE
Holding: It’s not a taking- Ct. (Stevens) distinguishes from Penn Coal on 4 grounds
Legislation here:
                   1)     protects the public at large-not just the homeowner(weak distinction)
                   2)      aims to abet a problem “akin to a public nuisance” (weak distinction)
                   3)      creates average reciprocity of advantage (Weak)
                   4)      Does not create Considerable Diminution (b/c it only limits 50% of mining)
                           (also no problem of Holmes’ Conceptual Severance)

                  M. PENN CENTRAL TRANSPORTATION (PCT) V. NY                    S. Ct. (1159)

NY passed a landmark designation law that designated Grand Central Station a historical landmark-requires
PCT to keep the exterior in good repair & seek commission approval for any architectural changes. PCT
sought to build a skyscraper on top of the station-commission disapproves- so PCT sues claiming it’s a
taking that deserves compensation
Holding: Ct. says no taking-t.f. no compensation- Ct. makes a mess of existing common law & creates it’s
own ad hoc test/ ad hoc inquiry into the facts in order to determine whether it’s a taking or not
-Ct. uses 3 factors: 1)Economic impact 2) Investment backed Expectations 3)whether there was a
physical taking (obviously not in this case)
-PCT had 3 arguments- Ct. disputed all
1) Conceptual Severance- of air space above building is a complete takingCt. says NOPE! (not BOOP)
     Taking does not arise b/c you lost your air rights (only Holmes would buy this crap)
2)        Diminution in Value- Losing millions of dollars of future rent from the skyscraper we want to
buildCt. answers threefold: a) you can still operate profitably(Michael Jordon’s steakhouse-Ms. Fong has
been there twice) b) No investment Backed expectations were upset in this case c) There’s Reciprocity of
Advantage- b/c now NY as a whole is nicer (tell that to the guy who’s losing millions b/c of this- GP: Ct.
should have left this out it sounds foolish)
3)Disparate Treatment Effect –  Ct. says They were not singled out for this measure just happens to be it
effects them more
-Ct. admits it is ad hoc decision- basically comes to a conclusion then fits it into a rule/test or makes up a
new test
Ct. does award them Transfer Development Rights (they can build on their other properties even if
violates of other rules)


    3.   Post-regulation Transfer: An owner who received title to the property after the enactment of the
         regulation can still bring an inverse condemnation proceeding. Post-regulation transfer does not
         extinguish pre-exiting compensation




                                                      71
                                                                                Heather’s Parcho Outline
                                                                                               Fall 2002
E. Exactions

    -    When a prop owner applies for a building permit, the city may impose a condition on the
         development which doesn’t benefit the owner but benefits the city. These conditions are
         called exactions. (Ex. A public path to cross the owner’s prop for beach access) An exaction
         must be logically related to the specific public need or burden that the owner’s building
         creates or to which it contributes. There must be an essential nexus bet the legitimate state
         interest and the permit exacted by the city. The condition attached to the permit must be a
         credible way of securing the state’s interest, which dispels any suspicion that it is a subterfuge to
         allow physical occupation of prop w/o paying.

                        i. Reasonable Relationship: Even though the city can show a logical nexus for
                           its action (i.e. action is related to the state interest), it must also show that the
                           permit conditions imposed on the owner bear a rough proportionality to the
                           negative impact of the development on the public. (The owner can be
                           required to pick up a cost roughly proportionate to the injury inflicted on the
                           city)
                       ii. Nolan v. California Coastal Commission (CCC) (1181)S. Ct.
Nolan bought the prop. between two public beaches. He wants to knock down & rebuild a bungalow on this
prop. & applies for a permit to do so. Council conditions the permit on him allowing the public to move
between beaches.
Issue: Does the exactment of an easement for access to a public beach = a taking?
Holding: YES- Scalia points out that-1) had he not requested a permit & they would have demanded
access from one beach to another it would be a physical taking which would get compensation 2)
Does the goal advance a substantial gov. goal 3)Creates essential Nexus test- even if it advances a
substantial government goal the means must fit the ends you are trying to promote - here the
bungalow had nothing to do with the public access it was just blackmail (Scalia also joins the ad hoc
club and makes this new requirement)

                      iii. Dolan v. City of Tigard (1186) S Ct.-

Dolan wants to expand her store and add a parking lot and applies for a permit -the city claims since it is
prone to flooding she must make a bicycle path on her prop. and she must leave an open space
This makes no sense what does a bicycle path have to do w/ flooding? – That’s exactly her argument.
Issue: 1) Is there an essential nexus between the goal & the means
                       2) Are the conditions of the permit sufficiently related (rough proportionality
                       between the means and the end) (this fine-tunes Issue 1)
Holding: 1) Yes there is an essential nexus between the required dedications and the legitimate state
interest i.e. the bike path would alleviate the extra traffic her new store would bring but…




                                                      72

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:60
posted:4/11/2012
language:English
pages:72