Steward Sterk Property Attack Outline Write a brief

Download 218.36 Kb.
Size218.36 Kb.
  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11

Spring 2012

Steward Sterk – Property – Attack Outline

Write a brief

  1. Define Rule

  2. Apply to facts

  3. Distinguish contrary authority

Table of Contents


a)Discovery 2

b)Capture 3


b)Rule of First in Time 4


c)Co-tenants – See co-tenant section BUT point is that mere ouster is insufficient!!! 6


c)Waste 9

d)Restraints on Alienation 9



a)Joint Tenants 17

b)Tenancy in Common 17

c)Tenancy by Entirety 18

d)Possession and Ouster 18

e)Contribution, Improvements, Repairs 19

f)Partition 19

g)Adverse Possession 19



d)Sublet vs. Assignment 22

e)Tenant Defaults 24

f)Landlord Defaults 24

ii)Duty to Deliver Premises – Failure to deliver premises on promised date constitutes a material breach of the rental agreement. 25

h)Policy Arguments for Zoning Resulting in Unforeseen Costs to Tenants 27

i)Increases vacancy rates and costs, decreases available stock of apartments 27

ii)Drives up rent 27

iii)Ls will ask for big deposits and put in acceleration clauses 27

iv)May prohibit other practices like assignment/sublease, may undercut ability to mitigate 27

(1)Puts burden on insolvent breaching parties 27

v)Can undercut ability to comply with warranty of habitability 27

vi)Bad policy  restraint on alienation 27


iv)Seller’s representations – Seller has not received written notice of (a) zoning or other violations (b) pending rezoning or (c) any other assessment affecting the property. Also that there are no known encroachments or easements not in public records. 28

d)Recording Acts 29

v)Bona Fide Purchaser for Value 31

vi)Notice – Must look at other deeds from O, and NOTE if deed refers to a plan!!! 31

12)NUISANCE – Who is the best cost/nuisance avoider??? 33

13)EASEMENTS – First mention easement appurtenant/in gross 35

b)Scope of Easements 37

c)Termination 38


b)Termination 40


i)Exercise of police power – Power of the government to protect the health, safety, welfare, and morals 42

iii)Nectow v. City of Cambridge – Distinct from Euclid. Challenged law as applied rather than on its face. Court held that there was no valid exercise of police power WRT Π’s property so the law was unconstitutional as applied. 42

iv)Policy 42


    1. Discovery

      1. Johnson v. M’Intosh – Acquisition by conquest results in superior title to land over natives  Title from US Government is superior to title from Native Americans

        1. Natives have right to occupation but not right to ownership

      2. Policy – Objectives of property system

        1. Promote productivity

        2. Minimize fighting – Lower transaction costs

        3. Promote “fairness”
    2. Capture

      1. Pierson v. Post – Rule of capture  pursuit alone is insufficient

        1. Physical possession

        2. Intent to possess

          1. Mere pursuit?

          2. Mortal wounding – Would that will objectively prove fatal – deprive animal of liberty/subjectively manifest intent to seize the animal

        3. Dissent – Custom  hunters may argue pursuit constitutes possession sometimes

      2. Policy

        1. Outcome promotes certainty and is administratively cheap

        2. Tension between peace and order vs. promoting productive activity


    1. Generally

      1. ReplevinReturn of taken good

      2. Trover – Damages

      3. Lost Property – Unintentionally misplaced property

        1. Goes to finder

      4. Mislaid Property – Property intentionally placed but forgotten

        1. Goes to owner of premises

      5. Abandoned Property – Property intentionally relinquished

        1. Goes to finder

      6. Exceptions

        1. Land owner > Trespassing finder

        2. Land owner > Guest finder

        3. Employer > Employee

        4. Tenant > Landowner
    2. Rule of First in Time

      1. Armory v. Delamirie – Chimney sweep trover action for jewel stolen by jeweler’s asst

        1. Holding: Finder has title better than all the world but True Owner (TO)

        2. Damages: Max value of a jewel that fits in the setting

        3. NOTE: If TO shows up, TO only collects from jeweler if jeweler has not paid damages to finder  If jeweler bought jewel, TO wins, if jeweler stole the jewel and lost judgment, TO loses

      2. Anderson v. Gouldberg – Π trespasses on TO’s land, cuts trees which Δ-mill steals

        1. Holding: Π’s possession is lawful and superior WRT Δ

    3. Policy

      1. Protect prior possessor encouraging people to invest in goods

      2. Relative ownership is simpler to implement than absolute title

      3. Absent true owner, thief wins against subsequent finders

  1. Directory: sites -> default -> files -> upload documents
    upload documents -> Torts Outline Daniel Ricks
    upload documents -> Torts outline Functions of Tort Law
    upload documents -> Constitutional Law (Yoshino, Fall 2009) Table of Contents
    upload documents -> Arrest: (1) pc? (2) Warrant required?
    upload documents -> Civil procedure outline
    upload documents -> Criminal Procedure: Police Investigation
    upload documents -> Regulation of Agricultural gmos in China
    upload documents -> Rodriguez Con Law Outline Judicial Review and Constitutional Interpretation
    upload documents -> Standing Justiciability (§ 501 Legal/beneficial owner of exclusive right? “Arising under” jx?) 46 Statute of Limitations Run? 46 Is Π an Author? 14 Is this a Work of Joint Authorship? 14 Is it a Work for Hire?
    upload documents -> Fed Courts Outline: 26 Pages

    Download 218.36 Kb.

    Share with your friends:
  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11

The database is protected by copyright © 2022
send message

    Main page