US Property Law - Fall Flashcards
Where does property law come from?
U.S. constitution, Common Law, Federal and state statutes and local administrative regulations.
How should we think about the property?
Possession, Control, Enjoyment, Exclusion, and Disposition.
Property as relationships between….
Owners and property, others and the property, and owners and others.
Realty, real estate and real property all mean the same thing. True or false.
True, these all refer to actual land and the improvements attached to the land.
What is personalty?
This is all property that is not real property. (Automobiles, stocks, etc.)
Johnson v. M’Intosh (1823)
Basically, the start of the doctrine of discovery rendered Indian people that they were incapable of owning land or that they didn’t own the land. Indians only have the right to occupancy of the land.
The nemo dat principle
You can not give what you don’t have.
What if the U.S. government grants a piece of land to Bob on May 1 and then grants that same piece of land to Sally on June 1. Thereafter, on July 1, at exactly the same time, Bob sells that land to Carl, and Sally sells that land to Nancy. Who owns the property?
Carl gets the land because US gov gave the land first to Bob, so Bob was the true owner of the property. After Bob owned the land, he gave it to Carl, so Carl is now the true owner of the property. On the other hand, Sally had no right to the property at the very beginning and thus she had no right to give it to others.
Pierson v. Post
Mere pursuit is not enough to show possession.
Actual bodily seizure of the animal shows possession, but “actual bodily seizure is not indispensible to acquire a right to wild beasts” if the hunter mortally wounds the animal and does not abandon pursuit of the wounded animal because that mortal wounding and pursuit shows “an unequivocal intent of appropriating the animal to his individual use.”
Doctrine of Assession
Comes into play when one person adds to the property of another through either labor or labor and new materials.
Three factors to consider:
1. The mental state of the improver
- Good faith is necessary for accession.
2. The degree of transformation of property
- Major transformation weighs in favor of compensating improver.
- Little transformation weighs in favor of giving full property to original owner.
3. The relative value contributed by improver
- If the final product is of much greater value than the raw materials, weighs in favor of compensating improver.
Alex innocently uses a bushel of Bob’s grapes to make a batch of wine. The batch of wine sells for $2500, but the bushel of grapes is only worth $50. What result?
Alex would be awarded the final product – the wine – but Bob would be entitled to damages equal to the value of the grapes – $50.
Doctrine of Increase
Rule: The offspring (or increase) of domestic/tame animals belongs to the owner of the mother (aka “the dam”)
Note: This also applies to any increase to the increase – so any offspring of the offspring of the mother.
The rule promotes certainty because it is easier to ID the mother, and it rewards investments in breeding, and the rule is easy to administer.
A cow from Alex’s herd roams onto Bob’s farm, mates with Bob’s bull, and ends up returning so often to Bob’s farm (to see the bull) that the cow ends up giving birth on Bob’s farm.
After being returned to Alex, the newly born calf spends its life wandering back to Bob’s farm. Bob feeds the calf each day and bathes it regularly, while Alex does nothing for the calf. The grown calf (now cow) then has its own calf with one of Bob’s other bulls.
Alex, because of the doctrine of increase.
Ratione Soli
Construction Possession, a landowner is considered as being in possession of a resource that is on his or her land even if they do not have physical possession of it.
or the example I gave in the Canadian portion that the hunter uses traps and nets to capture wild animals.
Another example is that a landlord has constructive possession over his/her own land although the tenants have the actual physical possession of the land.
What if, T, a trespasser, captures a wild animal on the land of O, a landowner, and carries it off to T’s own land where she confines it in a cage. Then, T2, another trespasser, trespasses on T’s land and takes away the animal.
When T2 trespasses on T’s land and carries off the animal, T does have “title” (the better right) as against T2. T’s title is relatively better than T2’s, even though it is relatively worse than O’s.
Relative title
that means you look at title in relation to the parties involved.
F has established a herd of deer that she keeps for pleasure and an occasional roast of venison. The deer roam about on open government property during the day but return to F’s farm at night. H, a hunter licensed to hunt deer on the gov’t land, shoots one of F’s deer during hunting season one day. F sues H for the return of the deer carcass.
F wins under the exception to the capture doctrine called animus revertendi.
Normally, a person who captures a wild animal loses the ownership right if the wild animal escapes. But if the animal is sufficiently domesticated to return frequently to the original capturer, then it still is owned by the capture.
What policy does this serve? The domestication of wild animals for use to the greater society.
Popov v. Hayashi
Joint ownership.
What is a finder?
A finder of lost property is a person who
(1) takes control of the lost property AND (Factum)
(2) has the intent to maintain possession of the property (animus possidendi)
Main rule for the finder
The finder has title that is good against the world – except for the true owner or prior possessors (finders).
Why protect the finder?
Protecting ownership (read property rights) encourages the productive use of resources — investment, mutually advantageous trades, and so on.
Multiple-finder rule
When there’s a sequence of finders, the prior finder wins as against subsequent ones.
True owner v. Finder
The true owner has a right to recover from the finder. The true owner’s title is relatively better, after all.
What if the finder sells the goods before the owner can stop him?
The money from the Finder’s sale stands in place of the goods – legally, a constructive trust is created, which the true owner has a right to go after.
What is bailment?
- A bailment is the rightful possession of goods by a person (the bailee) who is not the owner.
ex. If you put your furniture in storage, the storage company is the bailee. Or if you leave your coat in a coat room at an event. Or car with valet parking.
- All finders are bailees.