Docstoc

Easements by Estoppel Faculty Administration

Document Sample
Easements by Estoppel Faculty Administration Powered By Docstoc
					        SCOPE OF EASEMENT
         REVIEW PROBLEMS
•   Use of Blackletter Tests
•   Use of Cases
•   Imagine Possible Missing Facts
•   Identify Possible Policy Concerns
         Review Problem A
• Mike gets poor TV reception b/c of
  valley location
• Debbie owns neighboring ranch above
  M’s land
• 1962 Agreement: “[Owner of M’s land]
  may place and maintain an antenna
  onto [Debbie’s] barn and run wires
  from the antenna to [M’s land] to
  allow television reception for that
  property.”
          Review Problem A
• 1962 Agreement: “[Owner of M’s land]
  may place and maintain an antenna onto
  [Debbie’s] barn and run wires from the
  antenna to [M’s land] to allow television
  reception for that property.”
• Antenna installed; reception still not
  good; cable unavailable
• 2007: M wants to put a satellite dish
  where antenna is now, but D objects.
 Arguments from Marcus Cable?
• 1962 Agreement: “[Owner of M’s land]
  may place and maintain an antenna onto
  [Debbie’s] barn and run wires from the
  antenna to [M’s land] to allow television
  reception for that property.”
• 2007: M wants to put a satellite dish
  where antenna is now, but D objects.
  Evolutionary Not Revolutionary
         Change Allowed?
• 1962 Agreement: “[Owner of M’s land]
  may place and maintain an antenna onto
  [Debbie’s] barn and run wires from the
  antenna to [M’s land] to allow television
  reception for that property.”
• 2007: M wants to put a satellite dish
  where antenna is now, but D objects.
      Greater Burden Than
   Contemplated by the Parties?
• 1962 Agreement: “[Owner of M’s land]
  may place and maintain an antenna onto
  [Debbie’s] barn and run wires from the
  antenna to [M’s land] to allow television
  reception for that property.”
• 2007: M wants to put a satellite dish
  where antenna is now, but D objects.
   Other Arguments from Chevy
             Chase?
• 1962 Agreement: “[Owner of M’s land]
  may place and maintain an antenna onto
  [Debbie’s] barn and run wires from the
  antenna to [M’s land] to allow television
  reception for that property.”
• 2007: M wants to put a satellite dish
  where antenna is now, but D objects.
       REVIEW PROBLEM A:
        POLICY QUESTION?

• What to do if increase in burden is
  negligible but not within literal
  language of grant?
         REVIEW PROBLEM C
• Santa-acre next to garbage dump. Elfacre =
  big lot w small cottage.
• Grant = “E’s owners shall have the right to
  cross S to dump garbage in the adjacent
  garbage dump”
• Es replace cottage w toy factory (7x
  garbage).
 Greater burden than contemplated
          by the parties?
• S next to garbage dump. E = big lot w small
  cottage.
• Grant = “E’s owners shall have the right to
  cross S to dump garbage in the adjacent
  garbage dump”
• Es replace cottage w toy factory (7x garbage).
  Reasonable considering terms of
              grant ?
• S next to garbage dump. E = big lot w small
  cottage.
• Grant = “E’s owners shall have the right to
  cross S to dump garbage in the adjacent
  garbage dump”
• Es replace cottage w toy factory (7x garbage).
    Evolutionary not revolutionary
           change allowed?
• S next to garbage dump. E = big lot w small
  cottage.
• Grant = “E’s owners shall have the right to
  cross S to dump garbage in the adjacent
  garbage dump”
• Es replace cottage w toy factory (7x garbage).
    Additional Arguments from
             Cases?
• S next to garbage dump. E = big lot w small
  cottage.
• Grant = “E’s owners shall have the right to
  cross S to dump garbage in the adjacent
  garbage dump”
• Es replace cottage w toy factory (7x garbage).
Problem C: Possible Concerns
1. Want precision in language:
   punish Santa for not specifying limits
2. Want people to bargain fairly
3. Check unequal bargaining power
4. Check who drafted
 Problem C: Possible Concerns
1. Want precision in language
2. Want people to bargain fairly:
   punish elves if hid intent to expand
   factory
3. Check unequal bargaining power
4. Check who drafted
  Problem C: Possible Concerns
1. Want precision in language
2. Want people to bargain fairly
3. Check unequal bargaining power
  A. Santa, Inc. v. little elves
  B. Old man v. Keebler Cookies & Toys Int’l
4. Check who drafted
  Problem C: Possible Concerns
1. Want precision in language
2. Want people to bargain fairly
3. Check unequal bargaining power
4. Check who drafted: construe
   against the drafter
   COURSE SELECTION:
     PREPARATION
• Become Familiar with Registration Procedures
• Become Familiar with Graduation
  Requirements
• Read Course Descriptions
• Read Course Evaluations
   COURSE SELECTION:
    2L FALL SEMESTER
• Not Sophomore Year in College
  – No Need to Get All “Basic Courses” Out of the Way
    Early
  – No Need to Take Heavy Load
• You Won’t Get Everything You Want,
  Especially if Afternoon Registration Time
• Prepare Alternatives
  COURSE SELECTION:
   HOW TO CHOOSE
1. Becoming a Well-Rounded Lawyer
2. Resume Management
3. Taking Care of Yourself
Becoming a Well-Rounded Lawyer
 • Administrative Law:
 • Business Associations:
 • Evidence:
 • Federal Income Tax I:
 • Substantive Criminal Law:
 • Trusts & Estates:
 • U.S. Constitutional Law II:
 • At Least One Comparative/International Course
   (E.g., International Law, Comparative Law,
   International Business Transactions)
 • At Least One Course Addressing a Complex
   Statute: (E.g., Commercial Law, Bankruptcy,
   Environmental Law, Employment or Housing
   Discrimination)
Becoming a Well-Rounded Lawyer
            The Bar Exam:
      Becoming a Practicing Lawyer

 • Bar Review Courses Will Give You
   Version You Need for Bar
 • Mildly Helpful to Have Had the Material
   Before
 • Matters Less the Better You Are at Law
   School Exams
  RESUME MANAGEMENT

• Preparing for a Specialty Area
  – Check Lists On Registrar’s Page
  – Not a College Major
• Putting Yourself in the Best Light
  – Alternate Forms of Evaluation
    • Writing Papers
    • Lawyering Skills
  – Schedules That Facilitate Your Doing Well
TAKING CARE OF YOURSELF

• Balance in Course Selection
  – # of Exams or Papers
  – Likely Size of Classes
  – One Subject You Really Want to Take
• Comfortable Daily/Weekly Schedule
• Choose Professors Rather Than
  Course Titles
         FINAL POINTS

• Employers Care Much Less Than You’d
  Imagine
• Use Faculty Advising Sessions
• Talk to Me After Class or in Office
  Hours
• Housing Discrimination (T-Th 8-9:20am)
    Express Easements
Petersen v. Friedman
& DQ 111-12
Featuring Owls
        Negative Easements
• Agreement not to use servient estate in any
  way that causes specific type of harm to
  dominant estate
• Limited # of harms can be protected this way.
    –   Access to Light & Air
    –   Access to View
    –   Unimpeded flow of artificial stream
    –   Extra lateral or subjacent support
• Most forms essentially negative rights of way:
  path that cannot be impeded for light/view/
  water to get to dom. estate across serv. estate
 Negative Easements
       Petersen v. Friedman
          (Cal. App. 1958)

D Placed TV Antenna Within Negative
   Easement for Light, Air & View
       Negative Easements
             Petersen v. Friedman
             DQ111: D’s Arguments
1. D may have argued no such thing as a view
   easement in California.
   •   Court says weight of authority supports
       existence of view easements
   •   Need to check in each jurisdiction for list of
       recognized negative easements
    Negative Easements
           Petersen v. Friedman
              DQ111: D’s Arguments
1. No such thing as view easement in Cal.
2. Parties could not have intended to ban TV
   antennas (in 1942 still unknown). Court’s
   Response?
     Negative Easements
            Petersen v. Friedman
               DQ111: D’s Arguments
1. No such thing as view easement in Cal.
2. No intent to ban TV antennas
3. Antenna doesn’t violate easement b/c it
   doesn’t in fact block light & view. Court’s
   response?
      Negative Easements
        DQ111: D’s Arguments (Petersen)
1.   No such thing as view easement in Cal.
2.   No intent to ban TV antennas
3.   Antenna doesn’t in fact block light & view.
4.   Potential argument: Burden much greater
     than contemplated by parties. Can you
     elaborate?
      Negative Easements
         DQ111: D’s Arguments (Petersen)
1.   No such thing as view easement in Cal.
2.   No intent to ban TV antennas
3.   Antenna doesn’t in fact block light & view.
4.   Potential argument: Burden much greater
     than contemplated by parties. Court’s
     likely response?
    Negative Easements
          Petersen v. Friedman
            (Cal. App. 1958)

 DQ112. Why is it easier to determine the
scope of a negative easement than that of a
            positive easement?
   Chapter 8: Servitudes
1. Easements
  a. Express (Positive & Negative)
  b. Implied (Positive Only)
2. Promissory Servitudes (Brief Intro)
3. Homeowner’s Associations
      Implied Easements
               Four Types
• Easement by Estoppel
•Easement by Implication
•Easement by Necessity
•Easement by Prescription
     Implied Easements
• Easements are both contracts &
conveyances
• How do you achieve contracts and
conveyances without express agreement?
    Implied Easements
             Four Theories
Promissory Estoppel (Detrimental Reliance)
    Implied-in-Fact K (Parties’ Intent)
     Implied-in-Law K (Public Policy)
           Adverse Possession
     Implied Easements
      Four Theories  Four Types
Promissory Estoppel (Detrimental Reliance) ≈
           Easement by Estoppel
     Implied-in-Fact K (Parties’ Intent) ≈
          Easement by Implication
     Implied-in-Law K (Public Policy) ≈
          Easement by Necessity
    Adverse Possession ≈ Easement by
                Prescription
      Implied Easements
     Recurring “Sewage Pipe Hypo”
1. Developer builds line of houses
      Implied Easements
     Recurring “Sewage Pipe Hypo”
1. Developer builds line of houses
2. Sewer pipes connecting last house in line
   to sewage disposal system pass under
   other houses in line
      Implied Easements
     Recurring “Sewage Pipe Hypo”
1. Developer builds line of houses
2. Sewer pipes connecting last house in line to
   sewage disposal system pass under other
   houses in line
3. Developer sells all houses in line, but
   sewer lines serving last house not
   referenced in deeds and no notice provided
   orally
       Implied Easements
      Recurring “Sewage Pipe Hypo”
1. Developer builds line of houses
2. Sewer pipes connecting last house in line to sewage
   disposal system pass under other houses in line
3. Developer sells all houses in line, but sewer lines
   serving last house not referenced in deeds and no
   notice provided orally
4. When can owners of last house claim one
   or more types of implied easement? (Note
   can have more than one on same facts.)
Easements by Estoppel
       featuring

      OWLS
       Easements by Estoppel
An owner may be estopped from barring a 2d
   party access to the owner’s property where
1. The owner apparently allows 2d party to
   use the property
2. 2d party reasonably and detrimentally relies
   on this acquiescence
       Easements by Estoppel
An owner may be estopped from barring a 2d
   party access to the owner’s property where
1. The owner apparently allows 2d party to
   use the property
2. 2d party reasonably and detrimentally
   relies on this acquiescence
DQ113: Was the D’s reliance on the
  oral promise in Stoner reasonable?
  Was it detrimental?
       Easements by Estoppel
An owner may be estopped from barring a 2d
   party access to the owner’s property where
1. The owner apparently allows 2d party to
   use the property
2. 2d party reasonably and detrimentally
   relies on this acquiescence
   Application to Sewage Pipe Hypo
        Easements by Estoppel
DQ114: Policy Arguments re Easements by
  Estoppel: Common Concerns include
• Doctrine undermines Statute of Frauds
• Claimants should make sure of legal rights
before relying on mere license.
• Neighbors don’t typically commit all
arrangements to signed writings.
       Easements by Estoppel
 DQ114 & Note 2: Should states allow
    Easements by Estoppel …?
• Whenever there’s reasonable and detrimental
reliance;
• Only after compensation paid; –OR–
• Never
      Easements by Estoppel
 DQ114 & Note 2: Should states allow
    Easements by Estoppel …?

• NOTE: Many states do not allow!
      Easements by Estoppel
 DQ114: Policy Arguments re Easements by
                  Estoppel
• Note 3: Nelson v. AT&T: Stronger or
  weaker case than Stoner for granting
  Easement by Estoppel?
       Easements by Estoppel
      Note 4: How Long Does an
     Easement by Estoppel Last?
Stoner: “For so long a time as the nature of
it calls for.” What does this mean …
• For an irrigation ditch?
       Easements by Estoppel
      Note 4: How Long Does an
     Easement by Estoppel Last?
Stoner: “For so long a time as the nature of
it calls for.” What does this mean …
• In the hypo in Note 4:
   – House built in reliance on use of right of
     way, which created E-by-E.
   – House burns down.
   – Can it be rebuilt using that right of way?
        Easements by Estoppel
         Note 4: How Long Does an
        Easement by Estoppel Last?
P849 quote from Rerick
• Could read to allow right to rebuild
• May turn on evidence of nature of reliance
    – Return on investment w/o rebuilding?
    – Connection between safety and dilapidation
   Easements by Implication &
          Necessity

Featuring FALCONS
 Easements by Implication & Necessity

• Both Arise from Split of Larger Parcel
   – E-by-I: Parties Intend that Prior Existing
     Use Should Continue
   – E-by-N: Split Creates Landlocked Parcel
     Needing Access
• Same Facts Can Give Rise to Both
      EASEMENTS BY NECESSITY:
1. One parcel is split in two
2. Landlock: One resulting parcel is cut off
   from key access (e.g. to roads) by other
   parcel (alone or in combination with
   parcels owned by 3d parties).
3. At time parcels split, access necessary
   to enjoyment of landlocked parcel
    EASEMENTS BY IMPLICATION:
1. One parcel is split in two
2. Prior Use of one part of parcel to benefit
   another part (“Quasi-Easement”)
3. Circumstances suggest parties intended
   to continue prior use after split
    NOTE: STATES VARY ON PRECISE
                FORMULATION
     EASEMENTS BY IMPLICATION:
1. One parcel is split in two
2. Prior Use (“Quasi-Easement”)
3. Intent to continue prior use
4. *Apparent, visible or reasonably
   discoverable
5. *Some degree of necessity
* Some jurisdictions treat 4 & 5 as separate
     elements; some treat as evidence of
     intent
EASEMENTS BY IMPLICATION: NOTICE
Need notice to bind subsequent
  purchasers
•   Actual Notice (Fact Q): Did buyer know
    about easement?
•   Inquiry Notice (Legal Q): Sufficient info
    to create duty in reasonable buyer to
    ask?
•   Usually can’t be notice from records b/c
    implied.
EASEMENTS BY IMPLICATION: NOTICE
Need notice to bind subsequent
  purchasers
•   Actual Notice (Fact Q): Did buyer know
    about easement?
•   Inquiry Notice (Legal Q): Sufficient info
    to create duty in reasonable buyer to
    ask?
•   Application to “Sewage Pipe Hypo”?

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:7
posted:10/10/2012
language:English
pages:61