Ch. 3 "Owning Personal Property" Flashcards
Rule of capture
Property rights can arise in things that are unowned
State v. Shaw
Facts: Shaw and others stole fish contained in two nets. Trail court directed verdict of not guilty, theory that fish must have confined so absolutely no possibility of escape
Issue: How much control is needed to create property rights in wild animals?
Holding: Rule of capture does NOT require absolute security against possibility of escape
-Stealing fish there were safetly secured and confined can be larceny even if escape was not absolutely possible
Takeaway: Rule of capture does NOT need absolute security/unequivocal control
Popov v. Hayashi
Connections between control, custom, fairness, equity
Facts: Popov attempted to catch baseball. Tackled and thrown to the ground. Hayashi saw the ball and put it in his pocket. Popov sued him for conversion (wrongful exercise of dominion over personal property of another)
Issue: Does a person have pre-possessory interest if they complete significant steps to achieve possession of an item?
Holding: Court adopts Gray’s rule: Person achieves complete control of the ball at the point that the momentum of the ball and momentum of the fan ceases, but if dislodged before ceased, then it is NOT possessed.
Takeaway: Pre-possessory interest. Qualified right to possession in support action for conversion, less than the bundle of rights that accompany full possession.
Finders (Four categories)
Lost property
-Property is lost when the owner unintentionally and involuntarily parts with it
Mislaid property
-Property is mislaid when an owner voluntarily and knowingly places it somewhere, but then unintentionally forgets it
Abandoned property
-When the owner knowingly relinquishes all rights, title, and interest to it
Treasure trove
-Owner concealed it in a hidden location long ago
Armory v. Delamirie
Facts: P found a jewel and took it to D’s shop. D’s apprentice took the stone and D offered P money for them. P refused and asked for jewel back. P in trover (seeking damages for wrongful taking of proeprty)
Issue: Does the finder of a lost item have superior rights over anyone except a prior possessor?
Holding: Court held that the boy had finfers property interest and the priority over everyone except the rightful owner
Takeaway: A finder of a lost item has superior rights to the item over everyone, except any prior possessor
Policy:
- expectations of the parties
- Bailment: the rightful possession of property/goods owned by another
- Protecting ownership
- Maintaining peace and order
Three types of Bailment
- Those for mutual benefit for both the bailor and bailee
- has a duty to take reasonble care of the property - Those for the primary benefit of the bailee
- extraordinary care is required - Those for the primary benefit of the bailor
- bailee is liable only if the property is damaged b/c of gross negligence or bad faith
Hannah v. Peel
Facts: House was conveyed to D that he never occupied. P found a brooch and he handed it over to police. No one calimed it, brooch was given to D who sold it, and was later sold again. P brought suit for return of brooch or its value + damages
Issue: Does the finder of lost chattel on another person’s property have rights superior to the property owner?
Holding: Court ruled in favor of P, saying an absentee landowner has very limited expectations
Takeaway: One who inhabits property has greater expectations regarding its contents that one who does not. Intent and control are primary considerations when an owner gains title to lost goods found on premises
Policy:
- rewarding the honesty of Hannah
- Encouraging the finding of property
- Returning the items to its true owner
- implementing the expectations of the parties
Types of Gifts
Gift: An immediate transfer of property rights from the doner to the donee without payment/consdieration
Inter vivos gift: Ordinary gift of person property that one living person makes to another
Life estate: Ownership of land for the duration of a person’s life. It is an estate in real property that ends at death when ownership of the property may rever to the orignal owne, or it may pass to another person
Remainder: A future interest in a transferee that
1) us capable of becoming possessory immediately upon the expiration of the prior estate 2) does not divest (or cut short) an interest in a prior transferee. A future interest in a third person that arises immediately upon the termination of the preceding estate.
Testamentary gift: A gift made by will; trasnfer an interest to the donee only in the future when the donor dies
Inter Vivos Gift
Requires: Intent, Delivery, and Acceptance
Intent: Present transfer of ownership-give a gift now
Delivery:
Manual: physically handing over the gift
Constructive: Handing over something that accesses the gift (a key) - applies to cars/house
Symbolic: handing over something that is symbolic of the gift (a letter), symbol has to be handed over manually
Acceptance: Presumption the donee is presumed to accept the gift
Gruen v. Gruen
Facts: P received letter from father stating he was getting a painting for his birthday but father wished to retain possession for his lifetime. When father died, P’s stepmother, D, refused to give the painting. P seeking that he’s the rightful owner
Issue: Whether victor made a 1) valid inter vivos gift 2) an invalid testamentary gift?
Holding: Real transaction was to “victor for life, then to michael” giving victor a life estate and michael a remainder interest
Reasoning:
Donative intent: Donor must intend to make an immediate transfer and can be manifested by words, conduct.
Delivery: Satisfied by the letters served as a symbolic delivery
Acceptance: Manifested by the donnee’s word or conduct. The law will presume an acceptance if of high value
Takeaway: Along with meeting the elements, a donor must intend to make an immediate and present transfer to a donee for an inter vivos gift to be valid
McAvoy v. Medina
Purpose: Distinguish between Lost and mislaid property & interest of the true owner is important
Facts: P was getting a haircut in D’s barbershop. P found a pocketbook with money and left it with D to find its owner. Never found owner, P wants the money.
Issue: Is mislaid property be subject to finder of lost property?
Rule: Mislaid property is willfully placing the object somewhere with the intent to return
Holding: The act of finding mislaid property does not give the finder the right to claim ownership.
Benjamin v. Linder Aviation
Purpose: Determine how to categorize found items
Facts: D repossessed an airplane and took it to P. P found money in the airline
Issue: Whether the money was mislaid or lost?
Rule: Property that is intentionally concealed by the owner, who later forgets about it, is mislaid and belongs to the owner of the premises where it is found.
Under the common law, found property is (1) abandoned, (2) lost, (3) mislaid, or (4) treasure trove property. This classification determines the rights of the finder.
Holding: The money was mislaid and the owner of the property is the owner the plane (Bank)
