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.
Bailments require delivery of possession. Name all types of delivery.
Actual delivery: physically handing over the item.
Constructive delivery: transferring control of the object without actually delivering it (i.e. handing it over).
Ex. – giving the keys to a safe deposit box; or the keys to some heavy, bulky cabinet that cannot be easily moved; or the keys to a car.
Symbolic delivery: occurs when the bailor gives the bailee some “thing” symbolizing the object of the bailment.
Ex. – usually this means a transfer of use by a written instrument
A BAILMENT is the transfer and delivery of possession (from the bailor) of personal property to another (the bailee). True of false
True.
What implications of bailee’s responsibilities can be derived from bailment?
- Where the bailee’s purpose for holding the item is often for safekeeping, repair, transportation, or for some other purpose (Obligation to take care of the items), AND
- Where the return of the item in the same condition (or substantially the same) is contemplated by the bailor. (Obligation to return to true owner)
Note: This means that re-delivery of the item is required (or expected) or else the bailor would never give the item to the bailee in the first place.
- Strict liability at Common Law: A failure to return the item subjects the bailee to strict liability. (The law heavily protects bailments because they often occur in life.)
In the early evening, David parks his car with the valet at a local restaurant. He gives his car keys to the valet, who asks David how long it will be before David returns. David says he will return at 2 a.m., two hours after the restaurant valet closes. The valet says no problem, and that he’ll move the car to a well-lit space and put David’s keys just inside the car’s exhaust pipe. David can then get access to his car after the lot closes and the valet has gone home. David nods in assent to this suggestion. But when David returns at 2 a.m., his car has vanished.
David sues the parking lot owner for conversion of the vehicle. Who wins and why?
David wins. The transfer of the keys and moving of the vehicle suggest that delivery and assent was met for there to be a bailment. However, there was no delivery of the key so no assent was met. The rule of strict liability (or a presumption of negligence in some US states) applies, which would make the parking lot owner liable regardless of David’s assent.
Owner of the locus (place found) v. the finder?
Generally, the owner of the locus has many rules that protect them (e.g., the law of trespass, the right of privacy, etc.), so they have a much stronger right than a finder.
BUT…
The expectations of an owner about rights against a finder differ depending upon whether the premises are open to the public.
Compare: If the item is found in the supermarket, you own v. if it is found in your residence.
If I mortally wounded an animal in a public space, but it ran to a private land, I could capture it on a private land.
Do I have the entitlement to the animal I captured on the private land?
Yes, because when I mortally wounded an animal in a public space, I had constructive possession over that wounded animal. Although it ran to a private land, I still hold the possession right.
When is something lost?
when the owner inadvertently loses possession of it.
When is something mislaid?
when the owner intentionally places it somewhere but can’t recall where it was or forgot to retrieve it.
Mislaid vs. Lost items
If the item is mislaid, the owner of the place where the object is found (the locus) usually wins.
If the property is lost, then it usually goes to the finder if the place is open to the public (because the true owner is unlikely to find it because it is “lost”)
Abandoned Property
Abandoned property is when the owner intentionally relinquishes all legal rights to the property with no intention of conferring rights on someone else –you aren’t selling it or giving it to someone
Intent to abandon must be proven; mere passage of time isn’t enough.
When the owner abandons property, ownership goes to the finder – period. Not questionable at all.
Treasure Trove (box)
US law treats it as mislaid property or lost property.
In cases where the treasure trove is buried, American courts give it to the owner of the land where it was found. (Why do you think this is?)
Jacque v. Steenberg Homes
The right to exclude is one of the most essential sticks in the bundle of rights that are commonly characterized as property.
Ratio: Punitive damages can be rewarded when nominal damages have been rewarded.
Private landowners should be able to feel confident that wrongdoers who trespass upon their land will be appropriately punished.
When landowners have such confidence, they are less likely to engage in self-help. (Like guns)
What is civil trespass?
An unprivileged, intentional encroachment upon property owned by another.
Intent does not require the person to intend to trespass - just that they intended to do an act. (Such as walking)
doesn’t matter whether you know you’re on private land or not.
Commonwealth v. Magadini - Limitations on Right to Exclude
The common-law defence of necessity “exonerates one who commits a crime under the pressure of the circumstances if the harm that would have resulted from compliance with the law exceeds the harm actually resulting from the defendant’s violation of the law.”
Ex. If I don’t trespass, I will die. therefore I’m allowed to trespass.
The Necessity Defense (4 Elements)
Elements of Necessity Defense:
- A clear and imminent danger
- A reasonable expectation that the action will be effective to abate the danger
- There is no reasonable legal alternative that can abate the danger
- The legislature has not acted to preclude the necessity defense
Right to Destroy
Living Property Owners: U.S. State property laws usually permit a living owner to engage in these acts (subject to some exceptions for landmarked buildings, environmental protection, etc.)
Deceased Property Owners: States usually will not enforce a provision in a will directing that valuable property be destroyed.
Jane, a wealthy Michigan woman, wanted to be buried with her 10-carat, blue diamond ring. Could Jane’s heirs stop her from being buried with it?
Probably not. Many people are buried with their valuable possessions, and it’s has been routinely allowed.
Trees growing on your property?
Real property. They are attached to the land.
