Property Outline – Professor Kieff Property Law Theory
Restitution/ Self-Help for Improver
Download 266.24 Kb.
|
Restitution/ Self-Help for Improver- will receive restitution if you can prove benefit was conferred / how much Rule: most states reject absolute right to exclude where good faith improver Olney Bldg Co. case- contractor build a home on someone else’s land and then tears it down after failed negotiations; Held- house is now property of landowner, by destroying it, builder substantially interfered; builder/improver may not self-help Exceptions to Right to Exclude Necessity Ploof v. Putnam- Π, family sailing in storm, moor to Δ’s dock, dock’s owner unmoors boat; Rule: There is a duty to allow acts of necessity in order to preserve human life McConico v. Singleton- Rule: hunters given license to hunt on another’s land as long as they are not using it (based on custom); owner is not harmed Public Accommodations Laws Common carriers and innkeepers are subject to a general duty of nondiscrimination among customers; Requirements: 1. if they refuse service, they must have some good reason; 2. must charge reasonable rates Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased scope of “public accommodation” to: h/motels providing lodging, restaurants/places selling food, entertainment theaters/arenas Uston v. Resorts Int. Hotel, Inc.- casino excluded card-counters; Held by NJ- if you open yourself up to the public, you cannot selectively choose who to admit Shelley v. Kraemer- black family, Shelleys purchased home, neighbors sued to restrain Shelleys from taking possession, claiming racial covenant was enforceable; Held- courts cannot enforce racially restrictive real estate covenants, which are invalid under 14th Am. equal protection clause (individuals can still sell to who they want) policy reasons behind not enforcing? same as goals of Fair Housing Act (unlawful to refuse to rent/sell to someone b/c of race, gender, religion, familial status, etc.): want to increase housing avail. for minority groups; prevention of dignitary harms/ stigma/ segregation/ ghetto-ization Atty Gen. v. Desilets- couple not allowed to rent apt. b/c landlords didn’t want unmarried couple there; Held- remanded b/c state statute meant to protect a diff. class Other Powers of Sovereign Owner Licenses Rule: mere licenses are not property rights Rule: a license is revocable unless on its terms it’s supported by a contract making it irrevocable a license may/may not have injunctive remedies standard of care in torts- if someone is on land for free, must avoid being reckless (low standard); someone on land for business, must avoid being negligent (higher) Property interest vs. contract interest Marrone- racetrack owner revokes ticket of man suspected of doping a horse at the track; Held- ticket is a license that is revocable; ticket owner’s right is to sue for breach of contract, as ticket was a contract Hurst v. Picture Theatres, Ltd. (U.K. case)- movie-goer expelled while watching show; remedies: specific perf. (injuction), refund (damages); 2 judges- tix is a license, rights conferred by tix define terms; 1 judge- tix is contract, not license ProCD Inc. v. Zeidenberg- software license treated like a contract; Held- shrinkwrap license is enforceable; if you buy software, you are agreeing to the license Bailments Bailments- arise when the owner of property (bailor) temporarily transfers custody of the property to another (the bailee) respective rights have strong contractual element, may be modified by agreement bailor’s right to exclude others is transferred to bailee Allen v. Hyatt Regency- car stolen while at parking garage; issue: bailment or license?; bailment is transfer of possession; presumption of negligence if bailment; Held- bailment b/c ticket serves as possession (like a 2nd key, need it to leave) Bailee’s duty of care Justice Story- if bailment for sole benefit of bailor, law requires only slight diligence; if bailment for sole benefit of bailee, law makes him responsible for slight neglect; if reciprocally beneficial, law makes bailee responsible for ordinary neglect Rule- bailees, even involuntary bailees, are strictly liable for misdelivery Cowen v. Pressprich- Π accidentally sent wrong bond to the Δs; Δs noticed it was wrong, gave it back to the wrong person, who steals the bond; Held- Δ held strictly liable for misdelivery; Δ took control of it, so not involuntary bailee The Winkfield (Eng.)- Πs, Postaser. Gen. files suit on behalf of mail-owners when ship collides w/another ship; Held- Postmaster recovers, holds $ subject to claims by customers (possible windfall to Postmaster if not all file claims) Rule: in voluntary bailment, cts usually bar action by true owner against present possessor if bailee has already recovered from the present possessor Abandonment and Destruction abandonment- parting w/possession b/c you don’t want to get it back; Q of intent traditional rule- real property cannot be abandoned Pocono Springs Civic Assoc. v. MacKenzie- MacKenzie’s Poconos property has become a neg.-value asset, they try to abandon it to assoc. & get out of paying assoc. fees; Held- may not abandon; goal- want someone to take care of it, mop up neg. value signals of non-abandonment- tie tied to car as blazemark, note on windshield Eyerman v. Mercantile Trust Co.- homeowner wants house destroyed upon her death; Π neighborhood assoc. gets injunction; Held- rule against destroying; public policy arg.- would cause senseless loss to estate, Πs, public, cause depreciation, archit. signif. Transfer right to transfer- fundamental attribute of owner sovereignty transfer rules add cost (make it harder), but overall, add value- make it easier for ppl to tell an asset has been property transferred so they can decide to buy/sell it efficiency justification- free transferability allows things to be reallocated so as to allow those who place a higher value on the asset to end up in control of it 2 types: exchanges and gifts Rule against restraints on alienation- an owner may not transfer property to another on the condition that the transferee will not retransfer the property Lauderbaugh v. Williams- restraint on transfer in homeowner agreement: future owners must be members of HOA; Held- restraint unenforceable; no standards for membership to HOA set out, possble HOA could deny membership to prospective alienee, depriving Lauderbaugh of right to transfer/alienate her land Rule- partial restraints on alienation only upheld if reasonable SOF- § 1- any conveyance of a property right in land, other than short-term lease, and any contract for assignment, surrender, or sale of property right in land must be in writing and signed by at least one of the parties Rule: transfer of a gift requires some physical transfer Irons v. Smallpiece- father promises to transfer 2 colts to son, dies before giving them over; Held- in order to transfer property by gift, there must be delivery Foster v. Rice- wife on deathbed, writes letter seeking to transfer items to husband; Held- no delivery (even tho husband went home and picked items up); note failed as authorization Requirements of a will: generally must be in writing, witnessed by 1 or 2 disinterested witnesses, who must sign before a notary; goal: 1. provide evidence/confidence and 2. create solemnity so executor gets it right holographic wills- handwritten; generally- might meet both goals; problem w/solemnity- person changing their mind as they write; benefit- more likely to be used by the poor, want to enable them to transfer Forms of Ownership: Freehold Interests (Estates in Land) Fee Simple the largest package of ownership rights, from which others are carved; indefinite in time i.e.: “To Marge and her heirs”, OR, “To Marge in fee simple”, or “To Marge” heir- a person who takes under an intestacy statute; one does not have heirs until one’s death (so Homer, Bart, Lisa, and Maggie are heirs apparent) words of limitation- describe the estate (delimit it); i.e. “and her heirs” words of purchase- i.e.: “to A” Life Estate and Future Interests Life estate- Marge may use the property fully (subject to the law of waste) until her death, when the interest ends i.e. “To Marge for life” After the life estate: if the life estate comes to a natural end, it is followed by EITHER Reversion- the interest that is (i) created along w/the preceding estate (here life estate) and (ii) immediately follows (iii) upon the natural end of the preceding estate (iv) and is in the grantor (or her successor) i.e.: Homer grants “to Marge for life, (then to Homer).” Marge has a life, and Homer has a reversion. OR Remainder- similar interest but in someone other than the grantor i.e.: Homer grants house “to Marge for life, then to Bart and his heirs.” Marge has a life estate, and Bart has a remainder (Bart does not have heirs until he dies; any children of his would have a mere expectancy). Every life estate is followed by a reversion in the transferor or a remainder in a transferee. Defeasible Fees and Future Interests Terminology for the present possessory interest varies according to whether the future interest is in the grantor or a grantee. Interest created in the grantor: 2 types: Fee simple determinable- fee simple that automatically ends upon the happening of the named event and then reverts to the grantor; the interest is followed by a possibility of reverter (not a reversion, which is the grantor’s interest that follows the natural ending of a life estate) usually created by words of duration (i.e. “so long as”) i.e.: O grants Blackacre “to GW Law School so long as it is used for instruction in the law, then to O.” GW has a fee simple determinable. O has a possibility of reverter. Fee simple subject to a condition subsequent: fee simple that, upon happening of the named event, does not automatically end but can be ended by action (self-help or lawsuit) of the holder of the right of entry/power of termination (the grantor or his successor in interest). i.e.: O grants Blackacre “to GW Law School, but if it is not for instruction in law, the O has the right to reenter and take the premises.” GW has a fee simple subject to a condition subsequent, and O has a right of entry. Typically, as btw the fee simple determinable and the fee simple subject to condition subsequent, there is a constructional preference for the fee simple subject to a condition subsequent, in order to disfavor forfeitures. Fee simple subject to an executory limitation: can be like a fee simple determinable and is followed by an executory interest. Like the fee simple determinable, the fee simple subject to an executory interest automatically ends upon the happening of the named event. For defeasible fees followed by an interest in a grantee, there is apparently no analogue of the fee simple subject to condition subsequent (i.e. where action must be taken). i.e.: O grants Blackacre “to GW so long as it is used for the instruction of law, but if it is not used for the instruction of law, then to the Museum.” GW has a fee simple subject to an executory limitation, and the Museum has an executory interest. In general, executor interests are interests in a transferee that (usually) divest or cut short a previous interest. Conservation of Estates Where someone is granting a fee simple, all of the pieces have to add up to a fee simple. Williams v. Estate of Williams- will transfers to decedent’s 3 daughters; if 1 daughter dies/marries, her int’st goes to the other daughters, 2 daughters gone, no official reversion cl. (holographic will), last daughter’s kids want to take all; Held: implied reversion in the class of heirs at law; when daughters fail condition(s), goes to the heirs through the legal system City of Klamath Falls v. Bell- corp. granted int’st to city “for so long as” the bldg. used as library, no longer a library; Held- treated as reversion prop. int’st passes back to corp., which is dissolved, so transfers up to shareholders, who, at death, transfer down to heirs 2 approaches: executor interest approach- subject to rule of perpetuities reversionary approach- not subject to rule of perpetuities The Numerous Clausus Background: Definition: the catalog of estates is finite and closed property, unlike contract, is not freely customizable by parties but rather is standardized in to a closed set of approved forms flexibility is given in the recursiveness of the system (allows for an infinite set of potential outputs) intestacy statutes- allows a state to determine a decedent’s heirs and how/when they will inherit when no will is left purpose- allows ppl to do less investigation b/c the boundaries are set and finite when deciding whether to buy/sell (lessens information cost); cost- few pigeonholes means fewer variations, may frustrate parties’ intent Johnson v. Whiton- grandfather conveyed land to Sarah w/a fee tail (will go to you, your heirs, their heirs; if your heir has no heir, fee tail reverts back to grantor); she doesn’t have a fee simple; Held- fee tail is invalid b/c it fragments the estate, denies unqualified alienation resolve by: to sarah, in fee simple, but if she owns prop. at death and dies intestate, then to the heirs on her father’s side (will go to heirs, but sarah can sell it) Garner v. Gerrish- issue: whether lease granting tenant right to terminate lease at date of his choice creates a determinable life tenancy or tenancy at will? Held- lease grants life tenancy terminable at will of tenant, landlord lacks same right of termination Mediating Conflicts Over Time Waste there is potential for conflict when 2 + ppl hold int’sts in a single piece of property; i.e. esp. when a fee simple is divided into a life estate w/one or more remainders holder of life estate will want quick return investments, while holders of remainders want long-term investments Waste doctrine restricts what a owner of something less than a fee simple estate can do w/respect to co-tenancy (ppl who own at same time) or time-divided ownership Brokaw v. Fairchild- Π, life tenant (contingent remainder- if he dies w/o heirs, goes to remaining heirs of grantor) wants to tear mansion down, build apt. bldg.; Held- waste doctrine blocks Π from putting plot to “highest and best use” (ameliorative waste- waste even though it may improve value) Court intervenes for future user: future user not here unable to participate; future user might attach high value to mansion, not want to deal w/hassle of apt. bldg. RESTRAINTS AGAINST ALIENATION See MacKenzie, p. 9 Mountain Brow Lodge v. Toscono- 2 restraints on use of lodge- on use and on sale; Held- restriction on the use of the land is NOT a restraint on alienation even if that is its effect; Lodge 82 may sell their land, but only they can use it (treated as fee simple condition subsequent- will revert if used for wrong purpose) policy reasons against restraints on alienation- increases transaction costs for 3rd parties (who will have to figure out the associated legal rules) RULE AGAINST PERPETUITIES allows people to control the use of property for one generation into the future plus the next generation up to the traditional age of majority Rule: No interest is good unless it must vest, if at all, not later than 21 years after some life in being at the creation of the interest if a life is born after the creator of the instrument dies, we treat that birth as having occurred at the time of the prior life ending (as long as it’s a live birth) Vesting: removing the “suspense” element: if contingent remainder, vesting means ascertaining who the taker is and the satisfaction of all conditions precedent if executory interest, vesting involves the taking of possession (cutting short of prior interest occurs) if remainder subject to open (class gift), it means the closing of the class Practice probs., p. 617, supplement on RAP Problems with Dead Hand Control Symphony Space, Inc. v. Pergola Properties, Inc.- corporations are not treated as a measuring life (must be a human being); Held- open options to purchase commercial property are not exempt from the RAP but, right of 1st refusal (i.e. from co-op board) is okay; why? options tied to 3rd parties w/o being held by ppl presently in custody (i.e. co-op board) interfere w/alienability- cost w/o benefit Co-Ownership and Mediating Conflicts btw Co-Owners Background 2 main types of co-tenancy: Tenancy in common- no right of survivorship; if one tenant dies, that person’s interest will pass to that person’s heirs Joint tenancy- right of survivorship among the joint tenants (lacking inheritability to your estate); if one tenant dies, that interest will get absorbed into the interest of the other tenant(s) 4 basic unities (have to have all 4, esp. first 3; if not – tenancy in common): time (create interest at same time) title (created thru same instrument) interest (same interest) possession For all co-tenancy relationships, these ppl don’t have property rights w/respect to each other (each have an equal, undivided right to the whole; exception- joint tenancy- lacks inheritability), w/respect to outside world, do have property rights, may exclude/sell if conflict- courts won’t interfere or work out formally; no cause of action for waste btw co-tenants; partition- stay or leave Partition Delfino v. Vealencis- Delfinos want entire plot for housing development, Vealencis wants partition in kind- to keep house/ garbage business; Held- standard: use partition in kind unless either phys. attributes of land make partition impracticable or int’st of the owners would be better served by a partition; Court uses partition in kind more common approach- partition by sale (avoids risk of esoteric pieces being undervalued/ overvalued; allows sale by auction to do valuing, rather than court) Contribution and Accounting Gillmor v. Gillmor- Π sues b/c Δ uses property for grazing in a way that keeps Π off, Δ counterclaims for maintenance; Rule of off-setting: for actions of ouster and accounting, there must be full ouster (must really be excluded- best evid.- in writing) to get accounting; if Π succeeds on ouster claim, Π may have to pay back cost of maintenance Severance Harms v. Sprague- Harms and brother (JH) owned property in joint tenancy, brother died; JH’s executor (Sprague) refused to give title to Harms, b/c of mortgage; lender (Simmons) claimed title to the brother's interest as collateral for mortgage; Held- joint tenancy not severed, and mortgage did not survive JH’s death Marital Interests Tenancy by the entirety has survivorship (when one tenant dies, property goes to remaining tenant) goes further than joint tenancies- both spouses must be consulted before transfers can be made (i.e. if selling, obtaining mortgage, etc.); courts don’t get involved Directory: outlines -> Property outlines -> Adil Khan Contracts Midterm outline- waldron outlines -> Remedies for breach of promise (1) The Interests Protected outlines -> Basic Process for Assessing Damages: 97 Select interest that deserves vindication 97 a. Restitution 97 outlines -> Chapter Five: Written Documents 1 Unsigned Documents 1 outlines -> Cases and Materials on Contracts outlines -> College of Science and Health outlines -> Evidence outline outlines -> 2. Act, Omission, Status or Circumstances 4 Consequences and Causation 8 Introduction to Mens Rea and Intent 10 Levels of Fault 11 Property -> Property outline Download 266.24 Kb. Share with your friends:
|