Final <3 Flashcards
because the natives were first in time (and therefore first in right), but the Court did not want to grant Natives title, how did the court articulate the new rule for discovery?
b/c the indigenous did not discover the land (meaning they had not adopted the idea of discovery), they could not OWN the land, the natives were entitled only to OCCUPANCY
what is the rule for laboring raw materials
When one in good faith applies labor to the materials of another, courts generally award the final product to the owner of the raw materials unless the labor has transformed them
Pierson v. Post (fox case)
why is this not constructive possession?
RULE OF CAPTURE
Mere pursuit is not enough.
There is no way Post could guarantee that he was going to take possession of the fox. Once Pierson captured the fox, he became the rightful owner
- needed to mortally wound the fox
Keeble (shooting over neighbor’s duck pond case)
H: When a malicious/violent act is done to hinder the livelihood of another, there is an action for damages for the usage of the property
- R: Under Pierson, Keeble has no right of First possession of the ducks b/c there is no mortal wounding,
BUT in order to protect Keeble’s livelihood and the duck markets of the nation, the court found Keeble has a right to the usage of his property
- “you have a property interest when the court says you do”
- D could’ve legally set up his own decoy pond
what is constructive possession
“pretend” possession; discourages trespass & self-help
what is relative title
compares property interests between two (or more) people to see whose is stronger
Locke’s Labor Theory of property
(resource+labor)
When a person manipulates or uses some resource, he has acquired a property right in it because he has mixed his labor with the resource to make it his own
animus revertendi
when an animal will return back to the land of the owner, there is a property right
ratione soli
an owner of land has constructive possession of wild animals that are on his land
Popov v. Hayashi
- Bonds hits a baseball into the stands, P almost catches it but gets trampled. The ball rolls out and D picks it up. (MLB abandons) who has ownership?
the middle ground is equitable division, both P & D have equal interest in the ball
Popov does not have possession, but rather a right to it (which is the level below)
Ball was encumbered by P’s pre-possessory interest in the property, even if the ball bounced off 10 people, they all have an interest.
- note: P cannot win on conversion b/c he did not do enough to reduce the ball to his exclusive dominion & control
what is an encumbrance
burden, obstruction, or impediment on property that lessens its value/ makes it less marketable
Any right/interest that exists in someone other than the owner of an estate & that restricts or impairs the transfer of the estate/ lowers its value
ex: A owns forest land but is prohibited from destroying it
Rule of capture applied to fugitive resources
Oil, gas & water: not considered owned by anyone (even if it’s under your land) until reduced to physical possession
Tragedy of the commons
- externalities
- free-riding
- hold-out
Commons = shared but can exclude outsiders
Tragedy = rational (self-maximizing) actors are compelled to exceed the limit of use while bearing only a share of the costs
- Externalities: Actor ignores some effects b/c they fall on others
Negative ex: not picking up after dog in neighborhood
Positive ex: neighbor X builds something that increases Y’s property value
- Free-riding: receives benefit at no personal cost
- Hold out: declines offer trying to get more $ (like the house in Miami)
legal realism
proper understanding of judicial decision-making is fact-centered
Public policy & social sciences should play a larger role
L + F + “X” = decision
legal formalism
judicial analysis that moved mechanically from category to conclusion
Law is self-referential
L + F = decision
right to exclude:
Jacque v. Steenberg Homes (transportation of mobile home over P’s land)
society has an interest in protecting the right to exclude; persons have right to exclusive enjoyment of their property for any purpose which does not invade the rights of another;
- nominal damages can support punitive here b/c state must protect
right to exclude:
Commonwealth v. Magadini
(homeless person taking shelter in businesses)
the lower court erred in excluding the defense of necessity
R: (1) the clear & imminent danger was established: extreme weather
(2) lack of lawful alternatives established: searched for apartments/shelters
LESSON: there is no absolute right to property b/c property rights serve human values
acquisition by find:
Armory v. Delamirie (jewel case)
- boy finds a jewel & takes to goldsmith, goldsmith refuses to return
who owns the jewel & why?
what is the value of the jewel?
the finder has absolute ownership against all but the rightful owner (finder = possessor)
F1 > F2 > F3 b/c first in time - first in right
- Jewel came w/ encumbrance(risk) that the T.O. would find & re-claim the property (F1 only has value discounted by that risk)
policy rationale for adverse possession
Avoiding stale claims → SOL bars assertion of claims that are too old or rely on unreliable evidence by limiting time frame
Quiet titles → deeds/other docs contain errors that affect transferee’s title or deed may be ineffective b/c improperly executed or contains error
Protecting personal attachments → people regard loss of asset in hand as more significant than the opportunity to realize an apparent equal gain
adverse possession elements
(1) Actual entry → when person steps foot onto property (timer begins re: SOL)
(2) Exclusive possession → cannot be shared w/ TO
(3) Open and notorious → use the property as the TO
Sleeping principle = penalize the owner who is dormant and sleeping on his rights
(4) Hostile and adverse possession → “claim of title” = does not have the permission of owner to be there; state of mind test
MAJORITY: good faith or bad faith effort does not matter
(5) Continuous and uninterrupted → possession must be continuous for statutory period but not constant
“color of title” = invalid title
subrogation
buying your right to sue others (ex: insurance)
what are trover & replevin?
trover: forced purchase
replevin: return item (courts more likely to award b/c don’t want to calculate damages)
Hannah v. Peel hypo: what if soldier hannah was trespassing onto peel’s property?
Hannah would lose b/c court would give Peel constructive possession b/c of policy interest in discouraging trespass
what is the florida law for lost/stolen property
give to police & if no one claims in 90 days, F1 can claim it
if F1 just takes it, it’s theft
Fulkerson v. Van Buren (church case)
- P obtained legal title to parcel of land that had church building; Progressive church + Van Buren (Ds) began using the parcel where the church was located; P asked Ds to leave the premises but they refused;
**Church asked Fulkerson for a quit claim deed
Person who does not demonstrate a clear, distinct and unequivocal intention to hold a property adversely for the length of statutory period cannot take by adverse possession.
- Mere possession for the statutory period is insufficient to gain title
Hollander v. World Mission Church of Washington, DC
(Church sought to recover possession of land on the boundary line that adjoining property owner (Hollander) had mistakenly possessed)
P had improved land to a definitive line
- what element is satisfied?
Holding: The hostile/adverse element is met because mistake is not the only thing Hollander is basing her claim on, she also used deed descriptions of the property
- there was a definite intention to occupy: P had claimed the land as her own + improved it to a definitive line (by continuously mowing)
A & B own adjacent lots, A has adversely possessed 3 feet of B’s land b/c of improperly placed fence, however she moves it back when B asks her to.
3 years later (10 yr SOL), A wants the land back.
who owns the 3 ft of land?
A has title because of adverse possession & therefore owns it. A wins despite the representations made to B (also, no SOF writing for transfer)
- B could also eventually gain title back through AP, but not in this hypo b/c SOL is 10 years & it has only been 3 years since the fence was moved
Howard v. Kunto
(vacation home; tacking)
- how much possession is necessary
- is there privity?
- for AP purposes, possession is sufficient when the property is used in a manner that is natural & ordinary given the nature of the property. Here, summer home, so living on it year-round not required for AP
- TACKING: REASONABLE CONNECTION
successive owners may add their occupancy times together where they share PRIVITY in the ownership interest. Here, their common erroneous belief is sufficient to establish privity
disabilities + tacking
when must the disability be present to affect tacking
disabilities CANNOT tack, even if it’s the same person.
- AND disability must be present when the cause of action arises (when SOL clock starts)
what possession is necessary for AP
ACTUAL,
constructive pos. will not do
what question should you ask for AP problems
If I am the T.O., could I eject A? if not, A had not actually possessed my property
approaches to tolling if AP leaves under threat of force (doesn’t abandon)
- A tolls the 6 months (not included in SOL period)
- A had constructive possession for 6 months (included in SOL period)
what does an adverse possessor acquire upon completion of SOL time period?
whatever title the T.O. has in that moment (could be years/life state/ fee simple)
how transfer of title & new category of title affect the AP clock
- transfers DO NOT interrupt AP clock
- switching of title (A for life, then B in FS) DOES restart AP clock
distinction of who AP elements focus on:
- hostile & adverse
- open & notorious
- hostile & adverse: focuses on actions of adverse possessor (majority doesn’t distinguish b/w g/bf)
- open & notorious: must be enough notice to T.O. to bring forth a trespass action
chattels: how does the discovery rule alter AP
- how do subsequent transfers affect SOL clock
shift focus from possessor’s conduct to the TO.
- T.O. can prevent SOL through diligence to recover property
- note: subsequent transfers are part of same continuous dispossession (privity)
acquisition by gift elements
(PIDA) (MCS)
(1) intent: present interest in property
(2) delivery: (what circumstances permit) wrench of parting w/ property; can be constructive: manual is impractical, so instead give something that provides access (ex: car keys); can be symbolic (usually a writing)
(3) acceptance (presumed if beneficial)
O gives B a check, but O dies before B cashes. Who owns the funds?
O does because death revokes check (which are revocable prior to actual payment/withdrawal)
gift: when are writings insufficient?
usually not enforceable for present transfer of small chattels; must physically hand over the chattel
are future gifts valid?
no
O says to X “I want to give you my life insurance”
gift?
no b/c no delivery
O says to X “I want to give you my bureau”
The bureau contains O’s insurance policy. Has O gifted the ins.?
no b/c although delivery, no intent
