Property I Flashcards
Eight Property Law Questions:
- Is there a “property interest” at issue?
- If it is property, what type of property interest is it?
- How is this type of property interest created or acquired?
- Who “owns” the property interest? How are competing ownership claims decided?
- What “property rights” does ownership in this property entail, and with what limits/scope and duties?
- What is required to make a valid transfer of this property interest?
- How long does the property interest last? How can the property interest be terminated?
- How are property rights in this kind of property enforced?
Property Law Perspectives
- Efficient allocator of resources
- Guardian of individual liberty
- Reward for labor (usually subsumed in #1 or #2)
- Socio-Political Structure
- Personhood and Community
- Ecology/Habitat
- Sacred
- Progressive Property
- Others
Three Big Sticks in the Bundle
Right to refuse
Right to possess/use
Right to alienate
Jacque v. Steenberg Homes
Mobile home trespassing case
Nominal damages can have punitive damages on intentional trespass.
Need to be able to defend the right to exclude with consequences
State v. Shack
Men denied access to bring info to migrant workers
“A man’s right in his real property is of course not absolute.”
Necessity may justify entry upon lands of another
Reliance Interest in Property
If somebody owns some property and then they do something, that can change property interest on other people.
People may rely on something others do which may change the property right.
Ie. inviting migrant workers to live on land CHANGED the property rights
However, union had no reliance interest in Local 1330 vs US Steel
Ratione Soli and “Constructive Possession”
If I own the land, I have a constructive right to own anything on the land.
Land acts an extension of the owner for “first in time possession”
Applies as pre-possessory right to the stuff on land (ie. animals who wander on)
ie. Trespasser cannot come onto land to take animal even if they got to it first.
Pierson v. Post
Pre-possessory right to own/Possession ownership distinction made
Popov v. Hayashi
Baseball case
“Interference” with an attempt to acquire
Popov didn’t have possession but had the right to possession
Johnson v. M’Intosh
Those who conquered the land have possession.
“Rule of capture”: Pursuer has possession/occupancy (and thus ownership) if:
- Intent to appropriate, and
- Conduct: Deprive it of its natural liberty, and Bring it within certain control
Shooting may count if it dies
Principle of Derivative Title
One cannot transfer greater title than one possesses
Also, subordinate rights to possession if not from a proper transferor, or wrongful holder
Simplified rules for interpreting inter vivos grants and wills
- Apply plain meaning of language in context to effectuate grantor’s intent (=treat as unambiguous)
- If ambiguous: Admit extrinsic evidence to clarify grantor’s intent
- If still ambiguous: Apply other specific statutory and or judicial rules of construction.
- Unless contrary to other rules:
i. Unreasonable restraints on alienation
ii. Anti-discrimination law
iii. Etc.
Claim of Title
Not based on a defective document
Color of Title
Based on a defective document
Need all of the AP elements for at least part of the land
Get part of land for which all AP elements met
Still a trespasser
“Color of title” is any semblance of a title by which extent of ownership can be ascertained.
Two land applications for AP
Whole Parcel
Border Disputes
AP Six Elements
- Actual Entry/Possession
- Exclusive
- Open & Notorious
- Adverse Possession
- Under a Claim of Right
- Continuous Possession […for the Statutory Period]
Actual Entry/Possession
Objective standard: Looking at behavior and conduct. Usual management of similar lands by owners. Possessed in a fashion as we would expect from a typical or reasonable owner of similar land.
Not reasonable person standard, reasonable owner of this land in this place.
Have to analyze this element for different parts over different periods of time. Must analyze “actual possession” separately on each part.
Exclusive
Is the title owner exercising their right to exclude?
Person claiming by adverse possession is the only one using as an owner:
Must exclude true owner and any other non-owners attempting to exercise possession
If possessor allows someone else to use, that doesn’t defeat exclusivity because possessor is acting like a true owner.
For this application of AP, must be exclusive possession claim, not exclusive use.
Concurrent ownership is also possibly if agreed on and coordinated.
Open & Notorious
Objective standard: Possession must be visible and obvious to a typical reasonable owner of that kind of land in that area.
Focus is on the possessor’s actions from the standpoint of a typical/reasonable owner, not on the true owner’s knowledge about the possession.
Cave example, not open and notorious if out of sight, entrance on another land.
Adverse Possession
No permission to be there. Their possession is adverse to owner’s claim to ownership.
Acquiescence does NOT constitute permission
Need intent to give permission. Must know you owned the property for instance.
Under a Claim of Right
Jurisdictional split:
Maj: Objective standard, state of mind is irrelevant, court uses objective elements and skip this step.
Min: Innocent trespasser/Good faith. Mistaken possession, must think that it is their own land but they’re wrong.
Extreme Min: “Intent to claim”, aggressive trespasser, bad faith. Knowing and intentional possession; possessor must think does not own land to meet this standard.
Continuous Possession […for the Statutory Period]
Time and frequency of possession
As continuous to possession as you would expect a true owner to do, given the “character, location, and nature of the land”
Same objective standard as “actual” but focused on frequency of possession rather than nature of possession.
For the Statutory Period (AP)
Set by relevant statute of limitations for bringing and Action for Ejectment or other action to regain possession.
Wide range of times: 3, 5, 20 etc.
Question usually explicitly gives this fact
Quiet Title Actions
AP may want to prove they have good title (ie to sell or get loan)
To prove their title, bring a “quiet title” action against the person with “record title” and all others who might own an interest
Court declares who owner is; it does not transfer the interest
Winner can record the judgment in the public records to demonstrate ownership to others
AP Policy Justifications
Owner sleeping on her rights
Emphasizes true owner’s conduct
Possessor: earning right to property/reliance
Emphasizes trespasser’s conduct – ie Carol Rose
Public Interest
Problem of lost evidence
Value in “quieting titles”
= Efficient way to clear title and make a market in land function
Mullis v. Winchester
AP for bad title, wood chopping wasn’t constant but was continuous
Extreme Min jurisdiction for Claim of Right
Adverse and Claim of Right
Norman v Allison
“Merely building a fence” is proof it was not hostile
Claim of Title
Boundary Conflict
Stump v. Whibco
Tacking AP
Continuous because all AP’s worked together
Not Open and Notorious though because the fence was unmaintained until a point within SoL.
CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION:
- Adverse possessor who has color of title
- And possesses elements for some part of the property described in the fault deed/instrument
- Then deemed to have constructive possession of the rest of the land described in the faulty instrument
- Her “constructive possession” claim will be stronger than most other claims (except another AP for some part of that property)
When to apply Color of Title (rule)
Only apply when adverse possessor
1. Has a faulty instrument and
2. Hasn’t possessed all the property described in the faulty instrument
(Otherwise, adverse possessor doesn’t need to rely on constructive possession from Color of Title claim)
Color of Title is NOT an AP element; apply if relevant AFTER going through regular Claim of Title AP analysis for land AP possessed
Tacking
Connecting pieces of ownership claims
Privity Requirement:
In order to tack, there has to be a transfer of that property interest to the second owner that was a standard way to transfer property.
Ie. no abandonment and finding it, no forcing out
Owner’s Disabilities (AP)
If the owner has a disability at the start of the AP period, it tolls the SoL until the disability ends. Then SoL either clock starts to run from where it left off or an additional statute might provide for specific SoL after disability has ended.
Traditional Disabilities (for AP)
Minor
Military overseas
Mental disability
Some states include imprisonment
Fee Simple (what is it how does it work, and made)
Estate in the entirety. No future interest created.
To A, and his heirs (or just to A)
Rule of Construction for Fee Simple vs Life Estate
If ambiguous, rule of construction favors Fee Simple
Fee Tail
To A and the heirs of his body = Fee Tail or
To A and the male heirs of his body = Fee Tail Male
First in lines get Life Estate which goes on to the next after death. Series of Life Estates by specific heirs.
Heirs do get a future interest here, as estate holder can’t sell as FSA, only LE
Life Estate (and per autre vie)
Lifetime conveyance, returns to FSA owner after death
If transferred to someone, they only keep interest until the INITIAL PERSON dies. Life ownership only for another’s life. Pur autre vie
To X for life
Constraints faced by life tenant with legal life estate
Under Principle of Derivative title, can only unilaterally transfer LE, not FS.
Ability to transfer long-term lease
Ability to hypothecate/mortgage the property
Mortgage is a loan which is secured by property in case the borrower stops paying.
When courts can force a sale without consent of future interest holder
Can force future interest holders to sell IF:
- Must show necessity
- And for the best interest of all parties
Words of Purchase and (Words of Limitation):
“To A (and his heirs)”
White v Brown
“To live in” is ambiguous.
Use rules of construction
A will transfers all interest unless contrary intention expressed. Avoid “partial intestacy” unless clear intention expressed
Baker v Wheedon
Right to sell if necessary and best interest. Court remanded to find best interest.
If a property is mortgaged then there’s a LE and remainder holders, and the mortgage isn’t paid, who owes principal and interest on loan?
LE owns interest (current charges)
Future interest holder owes principal
Fee Simple Determinable
- Present interest created
- With a condition
- Future interest held by grantor
- Condition introduced by “durational language”
Immediately defeased by operation of law
Creates Possibility of reverter
“durational language” examples
So long as
While
During the time…
Until…
Fee Simple Subject to Condition Subsequent (FS/CS)
- Present interest
- With a condition
- Future interest held by grantor
- Condition not introduced by “durational language”
Creates right of re-entry
Note: Some states have specific statutes of limitation on when a holder of RE/PT must take action
Non-durational language examples
Provided that;
However;
But if;
Fee Simple Subject to Executory Interest
- Present interest created
- With a condition
- Future interest held by grantee
- Doesn’t matter whether condition introduced by “durational language” or not.
Future Interest: Executory interest
Immediate defeasement like FSD
Condition precedent
Condition that operates prior to someone getting the right to possess (so can make a remainder contingent)
Condition subsequent
A condition that operates after someone has the right to possess that could lead to divestment (so can make an interest defeasible)
Condition quirks
Location in the grant is not important, it’s how it operates is what matters.
A single condition can be both a precedent and subsequent
Ie. (To A for life, then B while she is a judge, then to C and her heirs)
Rule of Construction FSD vs FS/CS
If ambiguous court prefers FS/CS (not applied in Mahrenholz)
Defeasible estates create which future interests
FSD: Possibility of reverter (automatic)
FS/CS: Right of entry (must reclaim)
FS/EI: Reversion for grantor (if not immediate FSA), creates Executory interest future interest (automatic transfer when condition broken)
Four contexts where legal limitations on conditions:
- Unreasonable restraints on alienation through common law = Problem of “Dead Hand”
- Constraints on infinite conditions (to some extent in Rule Against Perpetuities)
- Discriminatory Conditions (mostly through statutes)
- Conditions interfering with other important public policies (eg. family rights)
Direct total restraint on alienation rule
Rule: Direct total restraints on alienation on Fee simples are VOID but can be enforceable against “lesser interests” (eg. life estates or leasehold estates)
Direct partial restraint ALBY balancing test factors
- Purpose: More socially valuable or less?
- Scope: Extent on impact of alienation usually measured by impact on marketability
- Duration: Longer or shorter
- Consideration: If purchased was it bargained for
- Notice: Did party subject to restriction get notice before they acquire?
Direct total vs direct partial
examples:
- Can’t sell
- Can’t mortgage within lifetime
Both are about alienation, not use which is partial
Normal Remedy for Unlawful Conditions:
Remove ONLY the invalid conditions
Indirect Restraints on Alienation
Often regarding the use of property:
“To A and her heirs so long as the property is used for residential purposes.”
But can be condition on any property right that affects alienation:
“To X and his heirs so long as allow Democrats into the house”
Alternative Tests for Indirect Restriction of Alienation: MAJ rule
Preiskorn v. Maloof:
- Is the condition a restraint on alienation or merely a restriction on use [or some other property right]? (If merely restriction on use [or other property right] then OK)
- If a restraint on alienation in effect, then apply Alby factors
Alternative Tests for Indirect Restriction of Alienation: MIN rule
Falls City v. Missouri Pacific Railroad: Use of restrictions are valid and enforceable unless have practical effect of “affecting marketability adversely” by unreasonably limiting the class of persons to whom it may be alienated.
Process for considering conditions in classifying interests
- Classify what interests are created by the grant using the rules and char. NB: grant may be ambiguous.
- Interpret the condition(s): make sure you know what they mean, how they operate, and what interest(s) and property right(s) they modify.
- Consider if condition(s) enforceable or not.
If so, consider if other facts will violate or not
If not, then strike the condition and reclassify interests
If uncertain, you may need to argue along two paths in the alternative (if condition is enforceable and if condition is not; if enforceable was it violated or not)
Legal Restraints on Discriminatory Conditions
Yes, under federal Fair Housing Act and also often under state and local laws.
Defeasible Estates and Adverse Possession
AP is a doctrine that can come into play in connection with many other rules and doctrines
Comes into play whenever there’s a trespasser on land who might fulfill the AP elements.
Reversion (and three situations when to apply)
The default name for any other interest created in (or retained by) Grantor that is not a PR or RE/PT
Three situations in which need to imply a reversion:
- Grantor doesn’t give away all of their interest (to A for life)
- Grantor only creates future interests that are “contingent” in some way (eg. contingent remainder or executory interest)
- If there is a necessary logical gap in time between rights to possess
Remainder vs Executory Interest Rule
To be a Remainder:
- The immediately preceding estate must have a natural end, AND
- The future interest under consideration must be CAPABLE (in principle) of becoming possessory immediately at the end of the preceding estate (even if it doesn’t, in fact, do so)
Otherwise it’s an executory interest
Vested Remainder vs Contingent Remainder Rule
To be a Vested Remainder: the interest must be:
- Given to an ascertained person AND
- Not subject to any unmet condition precedent.
Otherwise it’s a Contingent Remainder.
Rule of construction for Contingent Remainder or Executory Interest
If a grantee could take either as CR or as EI, prefer CR.
Mahrenholz v. County School Board
Supposed to be used for school, FSD or FS/CS?
Weird case, didn’t use rules of construction
“Only” can be durational but also not.
Transfer of interests
If holder of a defeasible estate transfers it to another person under Principle of Derivative Title, the condition is still attached to that property interest even if the condition is not mentioned in the grant.
Doctrine of Merger
Example: If a FSA estate is split into a defeasible estate and FI, and someone wanted to buy it in FSA, ie without the condition, she would have to buy all the estates so they “merge” back into a FSA (need present and future interest)
Alby v. Banc One Financial
Automatic reverter should the property conveyed ever be mortgaged or encumbered within the lifetime of either Grantor.
Direct partial restriction
Court found reasonable
Types of Waste:
Affirmative/Voluntary
Permissive
Ameliorating
Affirmative/Voluntary Waste
Affirmative action by tenant which damages the land by changing its nature, character, or improvements to the detriment of the future interest holder’s rights.
Permissive Waste
Damage by failing to maintain the land
Ameliorating Waste
When life tenant changes the nature or character of the land or its improvements, but the change increases the economic value of the land.
Alternative Contingent Remainder
ie. if B becomes lawyer it goes to B, if not it goes to C. C has ACR