Abandonment and Destruction

Question 1

Abandonment

Answer 1

• the parting w/ possession to no one in particular, w/ no intention of resuming possession in the future
• sort of the reverse of first possession (taking something that’s yours + returning it to the public domain)

Question 2

Requirements for Abandonment

Answer 2

• Intent AND

- Overt Act (complexity of interfaces between law and social norm - what counts as overt act)

Question 3

Pocon Springs Civic Association, Inc. v. MacKenzie - Main Point

Answer 3

• can’t abandon real property

- perfect title in real property can’t be abandoned + possession is presumed to be in the party w/ the record title

Question 4

Pocono Springs Civic Association, Inc. - Facts

Answer 4

• MacKenzies purchase lot in Pocono Springs development in 1969 -> decide to sell in 1987 but can’t b/c property found unsuitable for on-lot sewage system
• they try many different things to get rid of the lot - sign notarized statement conveying intent to abandon, try to give it away, let it get seized for non-payment of taxes, stop visiting it, + declare they won’t receive mail there

Question 5

Pocono Springs - Procedural Posture

Answer 5

• After MaKenzies try to abandon their lot, Pocono Springs sues them for unpaid assessments (covenant) + wins -> court says no abandonment
• note that MacKenzies could theoretically try to argue changed conditions from the covenant, but suit would be very expensive

Question 6

Real Property and Abandonment - General Principle

Answer 6

• CANNOT abandon real property w/ marketable title

- possibly due to concerns of externalities (ex: what if you could just abandon a hazardous waste site?)

Question 7

Eyerman v. Mercantile Trust Co. - Facts

Answer 7

• Johnston directs in will that trustee should raze house + sell land w/ proceeds going to the estate (doesn’t say why)
• 98% of the value of the property would be lost
• plaintiffs = neighbors -> claim violation of trust indenture, nuisance, + violation of public policy, + adverse effect on their property rights

Question 8

Eyerman - Decision

Answer 8

• court says house shouldn’t be torn down
• right to dispose on death traditionally less expansive than right to dispose during life
• also takes into account public policy considerations - health + safety of the neighborhood, reduced property value for neighbors, + lower value to Johnston’s estate

Question 9

Eyerman - Potential Concerns w/ Decision

Answer 9

• Did majority make it too easy to discount testators’ wishes? (will itself was perfectly normal, rational + coherent, + professionally drafted - only weird part was the razing)
• Do the externalities (loss in property value for neighbors) justify this?

Question 10

Destruction and Death

Answer 10

• generally, more accepted to destroy personal property upon death (ex: people who want to be buried w/ wedding rings) - things so connected to your personhood that they’re like an extension of self