Property (post midterm)

Record title

official ownership or documentation that is filed in public records

Quitclaim deed

legal document that transfers any interest a person (grantor) has in property to another (grantee) without making any guarantees about the title's validity

quiet title action

a lawsuit to resolve ownership disputes and remove "clouds" on property title

privity

the transfer of rights in property to a successor

bailor

the rightful owner of an item

bailee

individual who has possession of the rightful owner's item

Alienable

property that can be sold or given away within the owner's lifetime

Devisable

property than can be transferred by will at death

Descendible

property that can pass through the laws of intestate succession if the owner dies without a will (aka inheritable)

waste

the duty of the life tenant to use the property in a manner that does not significantly interfere with the rights of the future owner

Concurrent estate

each co-owner or tenant has the right to use and possess the entire property

2 Key Questions of Property

Why do we recognize property?

What is property?

5 Theories of Property/Why Recognize Property

- protect first possession

- encourage labor

- maximize societal happiness (utilitarianism)

- ensure democracy

- facilitate personal development

Protect First Possession

First come, first serve, fairness concerns, in line with traditional/historical viewpoints about property, serves a bright-line rule, incentivize exploring the frontiers

Encourage Labor

Allows people to "reap what they sow" as a reward for labor; encourages and rewards the investment of labor

If you put in the work, that is a reason to allocate property rights and incentivize people to do the work we want them to do

Maximize Societal Happiness (Utilitarianism)

Makes people use property more efficiently, if you give people more rights associated with their property, they will be happier; if you assign property rights to people, they will be more likely to protect their property

Ensuring Democracy/Civic Republicanism

Everyone has the power to exercise rights associated with their property, which also promotes economic security; If you have economic interests, you are going to be more involved with the political processes that govern your rights

Facilitate Personal Development/Personhood

Change the way people think and grow in society; it builds discipline as you manage property, encourages financial literacy & independence, and provides stability & security

Pierson v. Post Main Takeaway

property rights are established by occupancy; In this case, the fox hunter did not do enough to maintain a property interest in the fox he was actively hunting. Further, the court did not want to extend the occupancy principle in an unreasonable manner.

Pierson v. Post Policy Analysis

Policy Analysis:

- Ensure efficient administration

- Majority: clear rule is efficient

- Dissent: flexible rule is just

- Avoid breaches of the peace

- Majority: its rule will preserve peace

- Dissent: Not so, because of contrary custom

- Destroy foxes

- Majority: reward success

- Dissent: protect investment

White v. Samsung Electronic America

Samsung's ad using a robot evoking Vanna White and Wheel of Fortune appropriated her identity for commercial gain without consent; court held common-law right of publicity protects a celebrity's identity, not just their name or photo; dissent warned this overextends publicity rights and threatens creative expression.

Common Law Right of Publicity Elements

(1) defendant's use of plaintiff's identity

(2) appropriation of plaintiff's name or likeness to the defendant's advantage, commercial or otherwise

(3) lack of consent

(4) resulting injury

Property

rights among people concerning things

Bundle of Rights

- right to use

- right to exclude

- right to transfer

- right to destroy

Right to Transfer

any owner may freely transfer or alienate any of her property to anyone (alienability)

Johnson v. M'Inosh

P bought land directly from Native American tribes; D later received a grant to the same land from the U.S. government; Court held that private individuals cannot obtain valid title from Native American tribes because, under the Doctrine of Discovery, tribes hold only a right of occupancy while the federal government holds ultimate title and the exclusive right to purchase or extinguish that occupancy. Therefore, government-granted title prevails over private purchases from tribes.

Demonstrated a limit on the right to transfer holding that land transfers are only valid if made under the rule of the currently prevailing government; think legal positivism

Moore v. Regents of the University of California

Doctors removed Moore's cells during treatment, secretly used them to create and patent a valuable cell line; Moore neither consented nor was paid; court held that Moore had no property interest in his excised cells and therefore could not sue for conversion, but that his doctor breached fiduciary duties by failing to disclose his research and financial interests (lack of informed consent); court refused to recognize property rights in removed human tissue due to existing law and policy concerns about chilling medical research; government can put limits on the right to transfer (legal reasons & policy reasons)

Right to Exclude

Fundamental aspect of property law is that you are able to tell people that they cannot be on your land or use your property

most essential stick in the bundle

trespass

any intentional and unprivileged entry onto land in the possession of another person was trespass

Exceptions to Trespass

Consent; Necessity

Jacque v. Steenberg Homes

despite repeated refusals, Steenberg Homes intentionally drove a mobile home across the Jacques' private land to make a delivery easier; court held nominal damages for intentional trespass can support punitive damages bc trespass violates fundamental rights to exclude; punitive damages are necessary to deter deliberate invasions of property rights and prevent trespass from becoming a cheap cost of doing business; showcases policies supporting trespass doctrine

Policies supporting trespass doctrine

- Potential interference with owner's use

- Mitigating risk of adverse possession

- Danger owner may use self-help remedies

State v. Shack

farm owner tried to exclude a legal aid lawyer and health worker from visiting migrant workers living on his property and had them charged with trespass; court held that property rights are not absolute and do not include the right to bar access to legal and medical services for people lawfully living on the land. Because excluding the defendants would interfere with the workers' health, welfare, and dignity, no trespass occurred and the convictions were reversed.

Right to Use

scope: use your property in a manner that does not injure another person's property

Private Nuisance Elements

(1) Intentional

(2) Nontrespassory

(3) Unreasonable

(4) Substantial interference with

(5) the use and enjoyment of the plaintiff's land

Unreasonable

gravity of harm outweighs utility of actor's conduct

Spite Fence Doctrine

a landowner cannot erect an unusually high fence along his property for the purpose of annoying his neighbor

Tranfield v. Arcuni-English

spite fence; Tranfields bought property with ocean view; didn't get along with neighbors; Arcuni planted very high and obnoxious trees that blocked the Tranfields view; Arcuni had explicit intent to block the view; trees could be lower and still protect her privacy; malicious intent needs to be proven in a spite fence case

Prah v. Maretti

private nuisance; Prah had house with solar panels to provide heat and water; Maretti built a house that blocked the solar panels from the sun; private nuisance elements are met

Right to Destroy

Owner's right to destroy their property

Eyerman v. Mercantile Trust Co.

Johnston owned a house and wrote in her will that she wanted it destroyed when she died; neighbors didn't like this because it would significantly decrease their property value; court: destroying home would be a senseless destruction; differing theories between majority and dissent

3 Aspects of Real Property

Adverse Possession

Vertical limits of ownership

Water law

Adverse Possession

If A occupies B's land for a long enough period while meeting certain conditions, A acquires title to the land without B's consent

Justifications for Adverse Possession

Preventing Frivolous Claims

Correcting title defects

Encouraging development

Protecting personhood

Adverse Possession Elements

(1) Actual

(2) Exclusive

(3) Open and notorious

(4) Adverse and hostile

(5) Continuous possession

Actual Possession

At a minimum, the claimant must physically use the land in the same manner that a reasonable owner would, given its character, location, and nature. The claimant can also use this standard by using the land more intensively than a reasonable owner would.

Exclusive Possession

The claimant's possession cannot be shared with the owner or with the public in general.

Open and Notorious Possession

The claimant's possession must be visible and obvious, so that if the owner made a reasonable inspection of the land, he would become aware of the adverse claim.

Adverse and Hostile possession

Possession authorized by the owner does not meet this requirement; AND

- Some States: Claimant must believe in "good faith" that he/she owns the land

- Most States: Claimant's state of mind is irrelevant.

- Few States: Claimant must intend to take the title from the owner ("bad faith")

Good Faith - Adverse & Hostile Possession

the adverse claimant must believe in good faith that they own the land (minority of jurisdictions)

Bad Faith - Adverse & Hostile Possession

the adverse claimant must know that he does not own the land and intend to take title from the owner (very much minority of jurisdictions - makes adverse possession very rare)

Objective Test - Adverse & Hostile Possession

the adverse possessor's state of mind is irrelevant. Rather, if the claimant satisfies the other four elements of adverse possession (actual, exclusive, open & notorious, and continuous for the required time period), the claimant has established adverse possession (majority of jurisdictions)

Continuous Possession

The claimant's possession must be as continuous as a reasonable owners would be, given the character, location, and nature of the land; Does not require continuous occupancy and use; just requires use consistent with what would be normal given the particular land in dispute

Tacking

adverse possession periods of 2+ successive occupants may be added together to meet statutory period; requires privity

Gurwit v. Kannatzer

Gurwits bought land and thought they owned a 17-acre lot; they put no trespassing/hunting sign, cleared some trees, etc.; land actually owned by Kannatzers; Gurwits acquired title to 17-acre tract by adverse possession; adverse possession

Van Walkenburgh v. Lutz

Lutz used and improved neighboring triangular parcel for decades (farming, building structures, access path), believing it was his; later if was purchased by Van Walkenburgh at tax sale; (1) actual - did not improve entire parcel; boundaries were uncertain; (2) Exclusive - weakly supported/not clearly established over whole parcel; undefined boundaries; (3) Open and notorious - some use was visible, but not clearly defined; (4) Adverse & Hostile - Lutz admitted that Van Valkenburgh owned the land - undermines hostile claim; (5) Continuous - occurred over many years but continuity alone was not enough; NO adverse possession; dissent disagrees; intro to mindset for adverse possession

Fulkerson v. Van Buren

Fulkerson held title to 4.5 acre parcel; Progressive Church started using existing church building for many years without permission; cleared overgrown land and debris; repaired the building; made major improvements; realized church had no deed so tried to get it; Fulkerson refused; NO adverse possession; did NOT meet good faith requirement;

[M]ere possession of land is not enough to adversely possess the land.... The [claimant's] intention to hold adversely must be clear, distinct, and unequivocal.... ...Because the church congregation did not possess the land with the requisite intent for seven years, the church congregation did not adversely possess the land

Fulkerson v. Van Buren Dissent

[I]t is not necessary that the possessor have a conscious feeling of ill will or enmity toward his neighbor. Claim of ownership, even under a mistaken belief, is nevertheless adverse.

Tioga Coal Co. v. Supermarkets General Corp

Tiaoga owned land near street - used the street as they put locks on it; trying to get possession of it from the state but turns out it was owned by the supermarket; hostility is implied from objective possession; subjective intent towards true owner is not required; Adverse Possession

Howard v. Kunto

row of summer homes all had wrong deeds (one off); seasonal summer occupancy satisfies the continuous possession (continuous possession for what the land is typically used for); Tacking allowed; Adverse possession

Vertical Dimension of Ownership - Traditional View

cujus est solum, est usque coelum et ad infernos = rights extend upwards to the heavens and downwards to the center of the earth

Vertical Dimension of Ownership - Modern Law

generally entitled to the immediate reaches of airspace above the land; courts have increasingly modified this absolutist approach, though the precise upward and downward limits are far from clear

United States v. Causby

When Flight constitutes a taking (of airspace above land):

So low, frequent, or disruptive that it directly and subsequently interferes with the property owner's use and enjoyment of their land

Routine flights, even if noisy, generally do not rise to the level of a taking unless they impose a severe, tangible burden on the property

Under the Constitution: "taking" can only be carried out by the government - not a private individual

Legal concept of a taking is inherently a government action that triggers the requirement for just compensation

Chance v. BP Chemicals, Inc.

Establish a Subsurface Trespass:

Actual invasion on the surface that infringes upon the reasonable and foreseeable use of the property

Just v. Marinette County

...An owner of land has no absolute and unlimited right to change the essential natural character of his land so as to use it for a purpose for which it was unsuited in its natural state and which injures the rights of others. The exercise of the police power in zoning must be reasonable and we think it is not an unreasonable exercise of that power to prevent harm to public rights by limiting the use of private property to its natural uses.

This is not a case where an owner is prevented from using his land for natural and indigenous uses.... The changing of wetlands and swamps to the damage of the general public by upsetting the natural environment and the natural relationship is not a reasonable use of that land which is protected from police power regulation.

4 Types of Found Chattels

- Lost Property

- Mislaid Property

- Abandoned Property

- Treasure Trove

Lost Property

owner unintentionally and involuntarily parts with it

Mislaid Property

owner voluntarily and knowingly places it somewhere, but then unintentionally forgets it

Abandoned Property

owner knowingly relinquishes all right, title, and interest to it

Treasure Trove

owner concealed it in a hidden location long ago; usually limited to gold, silver, coins, or currency

Constructive Possession

when the property owner has/exercises actual control over their property

Bailment Relationships

- Mutual benefit

- Primary benefit for the bailee

- Primary benefit for the bailor

Mutual Benefit

requires reasonable care from the bailee

Primary benefit for the bailee

extraordinary care from the bailee (ex: borrowing your friends car)

Primary benefit for the bailor

gross negligence/bad faith

Inter Vivos Gifts

gift of personal property given to a living person during the lifetime of the donor (the person giving the gift), as opposed to a gift that is given at death through a will or inheritance; NON-REVOCABLE

Inter Vivos Gift Elements

(1) Donative Intent

(2) Delivery

(3) Acceptance

Donative Intent

the donor must intend to make an immediate transfer of property

Delivery

the item must be delivered back to the donee (manual, constructive, symbolic)

Acceptance

the donee must accept the gift; acceptance of a valuable item is usually presumed

Gift Causa Mortis Elements

(1) Donative Intent

(2) Delivery

(3) Acceptance

(4) Imminent Death

Manual Delivery (Gift)

physical transfer of gifted item to donee; traditionally required if practicable; strongly preferred by courts bc has benefit of clarity

Constructive Delivery (Gift)

physical transfer to donee of object that provides access to gifted item

Symbolic Delivery (Gift)

physical transfer to donee of object that symbolizes or represents the gifted item

Gift Causa Mortis

gift made during the donor's lifetime that is made in anticipation of their death; REVOCABLE anytime before death

Estate

Present possessory interest (snapshot in time; one slice of ownership)

Ways Estates are Transferred

Deeds; Will; Intestate Succession

Deeds

living people transfer real property

Will

deceased person transfers real property

Intestate Succession

how property is divided when there's no will

Reversion

automatic return of property to the original owner after a granted lesser estate

Reverter

automatic return of property ONLY IF a specific, conditional event occurs

Absolute Restraint

A provision that totally prohibits the future transfer of a fee simple is void as against public policy

Partial Restraints

A provision that partially restrains transfer of a fee simple is valid if reasonable in duration, scope, and purpose

Freehold Estates

- fee simple absolute

- life estate

- fee tail

- fee simple defeasibles

Fee Simple Defeasibles

Fee simple determinable; fee simple subject to a condition subsequent; fee simple subject to an executory limitation

Voluntary Waste

results from an affirmative act that significantly reduces the value of the property

Permissive Waste

results from the failure to take reasonable care to protect the estate

Ameliorative Waste

results from an affirmative act that causes substantial change in the property and increases its market value; most states do not recognize this form of waste

Fee Simple Absolute

Creation: no special words are needed

Duration: potentially infinite

Alienable: Yes

Devisable: Yes

Inheritable: Yes