Licenses

Question 1

Licenses

Answer 1

• Licenses are not a real property interest (unlike easement)
• Revocable privilege (not a right)
o When there is language saying “non-revocable” courts will generally interpret as an easement rather than a license
• Generally memorialized in writing
• Ex: ticket to sporting event
• “License describes the interest when people fail to create an easement or profit, because of, for example, the statute of frauds”

Question 2

• McCastle v. Scanlon – MI (1953)

Answer 2

o F: P says D agreed to sell all trees suitable for lumber for one year; P takes possession and begins cutting timber; P sends 3d party to also cut timber; D repudiates; P seeks damages/lost profits
o H: For D
 This was a license; when P sent 3d party to cut timber, this goes beyond the scope of the license
• License personal to the holder; not freely assignable (some exceptions exist for commercial licenses, but not here)
 Not an easement because this is not a continuous right – says for one year
o Note on the property – trees are considered real property until detached from the soil

Question 3

• Revocation of Licenses:

Answer 3

o General rule - may be revoked at any time
o Automatically revoked upon the death of the licensor or upon attempt to transfer
o However, estoppel principles may bar revocation
 If licensee has invested substantial $/labor in reliance on reasonable expectation that license would not be revoked
o Right to revoke cannot be exercised if coupled with an interest
 Ex: A sells B a car on Whiteacre; B has license coupled with interest to go onto Whiteacre and remove the car (license + interest)

Question 4

o Holbrook v. Taylor – KY (1976)

Answer 4

 F: P builds home on appurtenant lot, use the haul road w/ permission from D; D then demands that P pays for road, locks gate so that P cannot use
 H: For P via estoppel
• Can’t be prescriptive here easement here b/c initially had permission from D (not adverse)
• “Where a license is not a bare, naked right of entry, but includes the right to erect structures and acquire an interest in the land in the nature of an easement by the construction of improvements thereon, the licensor may not revoke the license … after the licensee has exercised privilege by license and erected improvements at considerable expense”
• P would never have built their home on appurtenant lot of access to road would be suspended (D never prevented them from using road during construction)
 If property is subsequently sold, license should continue (effectively permanent?)
o Some courts have said estoppel won’t last forever  continues only as long as the value of improvements has been achieved by the use of the license (hard to put a time on this though)