Property Jawn Flashcards
Language is ambiguous then court presumes tenancy in common
James v. Taylor
Partition by sale: forced judicial sale with co-tenants dividing proceeds, partition by sale is disfavored by courts
Economic cost-relevant but not a determinable factor
Arkland v. Harper
Partition by sale only done when:
1) partition in kind is not convenient
2) sale will result in promotion of one parties interest
3) sale will not prejudice other party
Partition in Kind
physically divides land held in joint tenancy
Partition by Sale
land is sold and proceeds are distributed
A joint tenant may lease to 3rd party without severing the joint tenancy
Tenhet v. Boswell
General Rule: co-tenants must shoulder a proportional share of operating and maintenance expenses for the property even if one co-tenant had not had possession while the others did
Majority Rule: all CTs have right to occupy all of the property and a CT in possession does not owe any rent to a CT out of possession absent an ouster
Minority Rule: court may impose a credit to a CT who has never possessed the property, and where other CT has lived in the property, under certain circumstances as a matter of equity
Esteves v. Esteves
Ouster
CT who takes affirmative steps to disallow another CT from occupying the property
Professional degree not marital property
Guy v. Guy
Migrant farmers case; property owner cannot exclude medical provider from property when medical provider is called to assist workers
property rights are relative; they can be limited
No right to exclude if it interferes with another’s human dignity
State v. Shack
Right to exclude very important even when no damages occurred: cant allow a pattern of intentional trespass (Mobile Home Case)
Jacque v. Steenberg
Private nuisance law; use by one must not unreasonably impair use of anothers
Prah v. Maretti
Spite fence doctrine: need malice intent
Sundowner v. King
Private Nuisance Law
when one landowner’s use of his property unreasonably interferes with another’s enjoyment of his property
Without sufficient reason to destroy; court will stop destruction if it goes against public policy
Eyerman v. Mercantile Trust
Lose property rights over cells once they are taken out of your body
Moore v. Regents of University of California
Legal positivism; rights to land ownership exist only to the extent that the government recognizes them (Indian Case)
Johnson v. M’Intosh
“Certain Control” brought under control and power where controller does not intend to let them go (heavy reliance on labor theory)–2 cases
Pierson v. Post
State v. Shaw
Babe Ruth baseball case; hard to determine complete control law tries to favor both innocent parties
guy catches ball, unlawful acts of others cause him to lose ball, other lawful guy picks up ball. Court ruled ball belongs to both of them
Popov v. Hayashi
Unreasonableness defense to Land use restrictions
Nahrstedt v. Lakeside Village
Unreasonable Restrictions
Restrictions are presumed reasonable unless:
1) restriction is arbitrary (based on completely random selection),
2) burden of restriction substantially outweighs its benefits,
3) violates a fundamental public policy
abandonment defense to land use restrictions; person opposing restriction must prove that a reasonable person would determine restriction has been abandoned
Fink v. Miller
2 part test for determining abandonment
1) Analyze violations as to their number, nature, and severity; if these elements would lead a reasonable person to believe restriction has been abandoned then no need to analyze further. If still unsure about abandonment go to 2
2) Consider prior enforcement of restriction and possible realization of benefits. Is it still possible to realize a substantial degree of the benefit intended
Changed Conditions; firehouse case,
Vernon Fire Department v. Connor
What must party prove when claiming changed conditions?
1) original purpose materially altered or destroyed by changed conditions AND
2) substantial benefit to the community no longer applies
King of your own castle when it relates to conditions inside your own home
When others are not only undisturbed by, but completely unaware of, the presence of items inside the home, the balance of benefit and burden is rendered disproportionate and unreasonable, rebutting any presumption of validity
Fountain Valley v. Department of Veterans
Adverse Possession
1) Actual- use the land in the same way a reasonable owner would use the land
2) Exclusive- possession cannot be shared with the owner or with the public in general
3) Open and Notorious- possession must be visible and obvious
4) Adverse and Hostile- means without permission
5) Continuous- possession must be as continuous as a reasonable owner’s would be, given the character, nature, and location of the land
6) For the statutory period- set forth by statute typically 10,15, or 20 years
Good Faith; role of mistake-good faith mistake of whom owned the land
Gurwit v. Kannatzer
Bad Faith; adverse possessor must acknowledge that they are not the true title holder
Fulkerson v. Van Buren
Most jurisdictions do this; state of mind irrelevant, attempting to ascertain someone’s state of mind is guesswork at best and impossible at worst
Tioga v. Coal
Tacking is allowed as long as successive occupants are in privity
Howard v. Kunto
Privity
successive occupant has to use the property in the same nature and use as the prior occupant
finder of lost property has right to property superior to anyone but “true owner.” Kahan says should be “prior possessor” impossible to determine “true owner.”
Armory v. Delamarie
Property the owner no longer wants
Abandoned; the finder has an absolute right to the property
property the owner intentionally places somewhere and forgets about
Mislaid; goes to the owner of the premises where property is found (usually)
Property is money concealed by the owner so long ago that the owner cannot be found
Treasure Trove; finder has right against all but rightful owner
mislaid property; same rule as McAvoy; property goes to owner of premises not founder
Benjamin v. Lindner Aviation
mislaid property; chattel belongs to the owner of the locus in quo (scene of the event), not the finder. Rule gives the item to the person most likely to ensure its return to the true owner
McAvoy v. Medina
lost property; if a finder finds an object on an owner’s real property–and
1) the owner has no knowledge of property,
2) has never occupied the property
3) was not in possession of the real property when object was found
Hannah v. Peel
abandoned; moving manure case, finder of abandoned property acquires right to that property and has a reasonable time to fully collect and transport that property
Haslem v. Lockwood
Discovery rule; a cause of action will not accrue until the injured party discovers, or should have discovered, facts which form the basis of a cause of action
O’keefe v. Snyder
Discovery Rule burden shift
burden shifts from adverse party satisfying AP elements to true owner
- -true owner has to give some kind of affirmative acknowledgment that the true owner was trying to locate property but has no idea where the property is (owner must make claim know)
- -adverse possession time begins when the true owner knows or should have known that the property has been taken
defining public use, defines public use as anything rationally related to a legitimate public purpose
Hawaii Housing v. Midkiff
scope of public use, economic development as a public purpose so long as it will form a whole greater than the sum of its parts taking from one private owner to another in furtherance of economic development constitutes a public purpose
Kelo v. City of New London
Eminent Domain
government’s power to take private property. As long as government is pursuing a legitimate end, it has broad discretion to determine the means used to accomplish that end
Takings Clause of Fifth Amendment
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation
Overturned, established concept of regulatory taking–held for first time a taking can go too far
Pennsylvania Coal v. Mahon
3 part balancing test whether a regulatory taking occurred
Penn Central v. New York
Penn Central Balancing Test
1) economic impact of the regulation on the claimant
2) extent to which the regulation has interfered with distinct investment backed expectations
3) character of government action
*NOTE-before doing this test look to see if there is a per se taking
Physical invasion; permanent physical occupation = per se taking
Look at extent of which the physical occupation destroys the right to:
–possess
–use
–dispose
Lorretto v. Teleprompter
100% economic loss, owner of real property has sacrificed all economically beneficial uses = taking
Lucas v. SC council
*NOTE- test rarely applies because nearly impossible to lose all economic use
the immediate transfer of property rights from the donor to the donee without any payment or consideration
Gifts
O conveys “to A and THE HEIRS OF HIS BODY “
Transferor retains a reversion (O has a reversion)
*must have heirs of his body language
Fee Tail
NOTE- most jurisdictions do not recognize fee tail so will assume fee simple absolute
No future interest accompanies this freehold estate
Grants absolute ownership (all rights in bundle of sticks)
O conveys “to B”
O conveys “to B forever”
O conveys “to B and his heirs”
Fee Simple Absolute
NOTE- unless words of limitations are used in conveyance courts will assume Fee Simple Absolute
O conveys “to D for six months”
Term of Years
estate that is limited by time of your life or life of another person dies estate terminates "for life" "until death" "while alive" --alienable --NOT devisable --NOT descendible
Life Estate
An estate or future interest can be transferred in what 3 ways
1) Deed
2) Will
3) Intestate Succession (person dies without a will)
Estate can be sold or given away at any time–right to transfer
Freely Alienable
Estate can be transferred by will at death
Devisable
Estate can pass by the laws of intestate succession if the owner dies without a will
Descendible
Estate is….
a present possessory interest
Future interest is…
a right to future possession
A fee simple estate that automatically ends when a certain event or condition occurs "so long as" "while" "until" "during" Future interest that follows this estate is always a possibility of reverter --alienable --devisable --descendible
Fee Simple Determinable
The future interest retained by the transferor who holds a fee simple absolute but conveys a fee simple determinable
I.E. only goes with fee simple determinable conveyance
Possibility of Reverter