Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
64 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Name the different rights in the bundle.
|
UPEST: Use Posess Exclude Sell Transfer
|
|
|
Complete the following: Property is the relationship
|
between people and things.
|
|
|
What are the four ways you can acquire property other than purchase?
|
Discover, Conquest, Capture, Creation
|
|
|
What is the principle behind Acquisition by Discovery?
|
First in Time, First in Right - Prior title is always better
|
|
|
What is the policy behind Acquisition by Discovery?
|
Provides certainty for first possessor making it easy to transfer
|
|
|
What is Locke's Labor Theory?
|
Own yourself and own your labor, so when you put your labor into something you own it, property originally comes about by the exertion of labor upon natural resources.
|
|
|
Case for Law of Accession/Locke's Labor Theory
|
Haslem v. Lockwood – Action in trover over poop
|
|
|
Define the Law of Accession
|
Accession generally refers to the addition of something to personal property through the addition of labor. Accession is derived from the civil law notion that a person has a right to not only their property, but also to that which the property produces, either through natural or artificial means
|
|
|
Under Labor Theory, how do different courts approach the issue of whether the original owner or the person adding the value gets the product?
|
Some courts say you must increase the value by 3x, some courts say 6x is not enough, some courts look to see who contributed the principle material.
|
|
|
Cases for Acquisition by Capture
|
Pierson v. Post, Ghen v. Rich, Keeble v. Hickeringill
|
|
|
Pierson v. Post
|
(Fox Case)- Possession of wild animals requires occupancy and actual corporal possession. You must not always have actual bodily possession it is sufficient to bring an animal within your certain control. You can bring an animal in your certain control through: mortal wounding, greatly maiming, or c. depriving them of their natural liberty and making escape impossible
|
|
|
Ghen v. Rich
|
Rule: When all that is practicable in order to secure a wild animal is done, it becomes the property of the securer who has thus exercised sufficient personal control over the wild animal. In this case the court considered the custom of the industry and the effects that changing that custom would have upon the industry.
|
|
|
Keeble v. Hickeringill
|
Facts: Hickeringill scared ducks from his pond, on Keeble’s land. Hickeringill invested significant time in designing pond and capturing ducks. Rule: ii. He that hinders another in his trade is subject to an action for damages. No intentional frightening of game off another's land. But if it is merely competition, no action will lie. Policy: Trying to encourage competition and preserve property rights.
|
|
|
Define Constructive Posession
|
Landowners have constructive possession over animals on their land, dissuade trespassing and provide security for land ownership and land investment.
|
|
|
Rule for Trespassers
|
If you trespass and take an animal it is not yours. If you trespass to retrieve a stolen animal it is not yours. The law wants to discourage self help.
|
|
|
Animals that have a habit of returning
|
Animals that have a habit of returning should be considered the property of the owner.
|
|
|
Animals uncommon to the area
|
Should be considered to belong to someone - individuals are placed on notice by the fact that they are uncommon to the area.
|
|
|
Government laws regarding protection of animals
|
Government owns animals in regards to fish and game laws but not in a literal sense to be responsible for damages they cause.
|
|
|
Exceptions for the Right to Exclude
|
Certain exceptions have been granted, most notably where civil rights and 1st amendment rights conflict with the right to exclude.
|
|
|
Jacque v. Steenberg Homes, Inc.
|
Driving over property case. Essence of private property is the right to exclude others. Every person has a right to the exclusive enjoyment of his own property for any purpose which does not invade the rights of another person.
|
|
|
State v. Shack
|
(Migrant worker case) An owner of property does not have the right to exclude all others from that property if by so doing he prevents invitees (migrant workers in this case) from the right to consort. Policies: Non owners can have a right of access to private property based on necessity or some other important public policy. Right to exclude does not allow the right to invade the rights of others.
|
|
|
Three categories of found property - Acquisition by Find
|
Lost, mislaid, or abandoned.
|
|
|
Rule regarding mislaid property
|
A finder of property acquires no rights in mislaid property. Goes to owner of place where found except against the true owner. McAvoy v. Medina
|
|
|
Rule regarding lost property
|
A finder of lost property is entitled to possession against everyone except the true owner. Judging from the place where found would a reasonable person conclude the owner accidentally parted with it and does not know where to find it? (Hannah v. Peel, Bridges v. Hawkesworth )
|
|
|
Rule regarding abandoned property
|
A finder of abandoned property is entitled to keep it.
|
|
|
What is abandoned property?
|
Intentionally and voluntarily relinquished property It is necessary to show an intent to give up both title and possession
|
|
|
What is Mislaid property?
|
Voluntarily placed and thereafter forgotten
|
|
|
What is Lost property?
|
Accidentally, Involuntarily or unintentionally parts with
|
|
|
FACTORS TO CONSIDER in determining if property was mislaid, lost or abandoned.
|
WASP: 1) Where it was found (public/private, on ground, laid on table, usually considered mislaid if found in public) 2.) Attached or embedded to the property (Elwes v. Brigg Gas Co. ) 3.) Status of the finder (Agent, Servant, Trespasser, Private Owner - Case: South Staffordshire v. Sharman) 4.) Policies (reward honesty, return to owner, expectations of parties both l/o and finder.
|
|
|
Armory v. Delamirie
|
(Jewel Finder v. Goldsmith) A finder of a chattel has superior title to all but the right owner. Unless the Goldsmith produced the jewel he would be held to the highest value of the jewel. Any prior possessor can have rights. Can’t be held liable twice – “by two prior possessors.” Policy: Protecting prior possessors facilitates bailments.
|
|
|
Actions for conversion
|
Trover – want the money, Replevin – want the object
|
|
|
Hannah v. Peel
|
Facts: Hannah brooch finder in home that Peel owned but never lived in, no evidence he knew the brooch existed. Rule: The finder of a lost article is entitled to it as against all persons except the real owner. Although a man possesses everything which is attached to or under his land, a man does not necessarily possess a thing which is lying unattached on the surface of his land even though the thing is not possessed by someone else.
|
|
|
Bridges v. Hawkesworth
|
Package found in public area on the ground. Packages found on the ground are labeled lost. The finder of a lost article is entitled to it as against all parties except the real owner, even if the discovery occurred on another’s property. Court awards it to the finder
|
|
|
South Staffordshire v. Sharman
|
Person cleaning pool finds rings buried in the bottom of the pool. Owner is entitled to possession of all things attached to and underneath the land. When someone is brought onto your land with a limited purpose and acting as your agents they do not have rights to anything found on your land. Wasn’t within the scope of pool cleaner’s purpose to go treasure hunting.
|
|
|
Elwes v. Brigg Gas Co.
|
(Land lessee v. Leasor) Briggs finds buried boat on land leased from Elwes Rule: Everything attached to or under the land goes to the owner of the land.
|
|
|
McAvoy v. Medina
|
Pocketbook discovered on table in barber shop. Mislaid goods are deemed to be in trust (the bailee) of the owner of the property on which they are found for the true owner. When goods are misplaced, therefore, the finder has not right to the property. Holding the owner as a bailee would best assure its return to the true owner. Bailee – person holding goods in trust, Bailor – person placing goods in trust
|
|
|
Popov v. Hayashi
|
Barry Bonds Case: Baseball became abandoned property at the time it was hit. Both men have a superior claim to the ball as against the entire world. Holding: Each man has a claim of equal dignity as to the other. Court considers Pierson v. Post: possession is physical control and the intent to exclude others.
|
|
|
Thieves as prior possessors
|
Still qualify- want to bring items into commerce, there are other remedies for punishing thieves and protecting public order.
|
|
|
Possession between multiple trespassers
|
the first trespasser will win
|
|
|
Treasure trove
|
Money or coin, gold, silver plate or bullion hidden in earth. Historically belonged to king. Today states apply the lost property rule
|
|
|
Ship wrecks
|
Under Traditional maritime law: In England belong to the crown, otherwise remained owner’s property. US Abandoned shipwreck Act: US asserts title to any abandoned shipwreck embedded in submerged lands of a state and simultaneously transfers its title to the state in which the wreck is located
|
|
|
How is the adverse possession rule implicated?
|
In some jurisdictions it can be implicated by the adverse posessor in a quiet title actions. It is usually brought as a defense in an action for ejectment.
|
|
|
What is the basis for adverse possession law?
|
Both statutory and common law.
|
|
|
Elements of Adverse Possession
|
“A Hooker ON Every Corner” - (Actual, Hostile, Open, Notorious, Exclusive, Continuous) 1) Actual Entry - coming onto land and intending to possess (Starts SOL running, Delimit the extent of your claim, Ensures Productive Use 2) Hostile: Adverse and under a claim of right Claim of right: opposed to true claim of owner; trespasser, not in subordinate title of true owner. (Not on the land w/ consent of owner, Not lulling the owner into thinking you aren’t making a claim and then suddenly making it) Different measures for adversity: objective, aggressive, good faith 3) Open and notorious (Provide notice that someone is on the property – “Unfurl the flag”, Subject to what reasonable inspection would discover, Sleeping theory) 4) Exclusive Possession (No intent to share it, Let everyone know it is your property 5 ) Continuous for the statutory period (Given the nature of the land, as a typical owner of that type of property would own it., Earning Theory, Gives owner time to see across the time period.)
|
|
|
What is the additional element of adverse possession in California?
|
You also have to pay taxes on the land in question.
|
|
|
What are the policies behind adverse possession?
|
PEETS 1) Productive use of land (Promotes certaity for the adverse possessor, he may invest in developing the property if he knows he owns it) 2) Earning Theory – keep benefits of your labor 3) Errors in Conveyance – Correcting 4) Title - Quieting Title, Aging Claims 5) Sleeping owners – punishes those who are sleeping on their rights.
|
|
|
Define each of the three Jurisdictional Splits on the requirement of Adversity/Hostility
|
GOAT 1) Good faith (minority) - “I thought I owned it” 2) objective standard (majority rule) – state of mind is irrelevant, as long as you are trespassing, you are hostile. 3) Aggressive trespass standard (Minority Standard) “I thought I didn’t own it, but I intended to make it mine” Some jurisdictions require payment of fair market value 4) Title (minority) – Color of title w/good faith. Color of title: claim founded on a written instrument (deed or will) or a judgment or decree that is for some reason defective and invalid (as when the grantor does not own the land conveyed by deed or is incompetent to convey, or the deed is improperly executed)
|
|
|
Length of statute of limitations for Adverse Possession
|
Ranges from 3-30 years
|
|
|
Adverse Possession factors as between neighbors
|
1) Neighbors can orally agree to settle boundary lines – is enforceable if they accept the settlement for a long period of time 2) Acquiescence – evidence of an agreement between parties in fixing the boundary line 3) Estoppel – when one neighbor makes representations and the other neighbor changes their position based on those representations.
|
|
|
Van Valkenburgh v. Lutz
|
Junk Collector, Gardner in Yonkers –Two overall issues in this case: Adversity and actual possession. 1) Adversity: Must satisfy the requirement of hostility – Lutz did not have the requisite state of mind, he acknowledged he knew the other side owned the property. 2) Possession A) Cultivation - Must cultivate the entire property (Dissent argues that it would be poor husbandry to cultivate the entire lot at one time.) B) Improvement - Lutz failed to improve the land, the shack, garden and chicken coops did not suffice. C) Enclosure - No substantial enclosure – which would indicate intent to take possession and make it “open and notorious” and delimit what you are taking. - Overall Rule: Title to a parcel may vest in an adverse possessor who occupies the parcel under claim of right, protects the parcel by an enclosure, improves or cultivates the parcel, and maintains that state of affairs for the statutory period.
|
|
|
Mannillo v. Gorski
|
Steps encroached on property – Three major holdings : 1) Court rejects Maine Doctrine: You have to know it isn’t your land to adversely possess (hostility) because it rewards ppl who knowingly take things and encourages them to lie about it. Court upholds Connecticut Rule (objective): To claim title by adverse possession, the possessor need not have been aware that the land in question was in fact owned by another. 2) For small encroachments, the true owner must have ACTUAL knowledge to satisfy the open and notorious requirements. Knowledge begins when you have actual notice through an inquiry. 3) Wriggle Doctrine: If the innocent trespasser cannot give back the land without great hardship, then the true owner may have to give up the land upon payment of fair value.
|
|
|
Howard v. Kunto
|
wrong land idiot case, screwed up surveyor. Two rules: 1) A party may prevail on a claim of adverse possession even if it is not completely continuous so long as given the nature of the land, it is used as a typical owner of that type of property would use it. (Ordinary use of the land.) 2.) Tacking of possession by subsequent occupants is permitted if the land is occupied under a mistake of fact provided the occupants are in privity. Tacking must satisfy the statutory period. (No tacking when there is not a voluntary transfer of title or possession.)
|
|
|
Disability of true owner as it relates to adverse possession
|
Statute of limitations extended ten years after disability removed if disability on part of true owner existed at time cause of action accrued (began). In determining end of statute of limitations in disability cases, figure two dates: date which staute of limitations would have normally ended and date disability ends plus 10 years. True owner gets the longer period.
|
|
|
Can you adversely possess government property?
|
No adverse possession against the government.
|
|
|
What are the requirements for a donation causa mortis? Gift on the occasion of death?
|
1.) intention to make the gift: donor must have the same present mental capacity to make the gift as is required for gift inter vivos 2) on the occasion of death 3.) delivery of thing given/personal property only 4.) acceptance (can be implied for anything of value). Notes: If person recovers from illness that placed her contemplation of death then the gift is revoked, If donee does not survive donor then the gift is revoked by law
|
|
|
Newman v. Bost
|
(life insurance and furniture case.) Rule: In cases of causa mortis gifts, constructive delivery is acceptable when items are incapable of manual delivery so long as there is clear donative intent. When they are capable of manual delivery, manual delivery must be made. Can be given through an agent (the nurse), if agent of donee the gift is effective when the donor delivers to the agent
|
|
|
What are the elements of an Inter Vivos Gift?
|
1) Donative Intent (Can be shown by oral evidence) 2) Delivery (Actual Delivery, Constructive or symbolic) 3) Acceptance. If symbolic delivery, the instrument must have: donative intent, description of subject matter of gift, signed by donor, delivered.
|
|
|
Gruen v. Gruen
|
(Son vs. Stepmom) Future gift of painting, given by letter, father retained life estate so painting not actually delivered, step mother won’t give it up upon dad’s death. Rule: Inter Vivos gift requires: Intent on the part of the owner to make a present transfer, delivery either actual or constructive, and acceptance. Holding: Father intended to make a present gift. Father presently gave son future interest in painting. It was constructive delivery through the letter. Acceptance was implied because the gift had value.
|
|
|
Purposes of delivery requirement
|
Wrench of delivery, Evidence of the gift, Evidence to witnesses of the gift.
|
|
|
Engagement Rings
|
Implied condition subsequent for the gift, Some courts have a no fault return policy, Some courts say it depends on fault.
|
|
|
Intestate Succession
|
First issue, if no issue, then parents, and if no parents, then collaterals. Collaterals includes: brothers, sisters, nephews, nieces, uncles, aunts and cousins. If someone dies with note of the above it escheats or goes back to the state.
|
|
|
Overall rules of construction for estates:
|
1) The calculus of estates requires that you can only divest what you own. 2) Ambiguous language is presumed to be a fee simple absolute. 3) However, also look at the intent of the author. 4) If you devise real estate, we assume you devise all of your real estate. - No partial intestacy 5) If it is ambiguous between fee simple determinable and subject to a condition subsequent, then the court prefers a fee simple subject to condition subsequent. Otherwise, the SoL for adverse possession begins. (Marenholz v. County Board of School Trustees) 6) Unless the words and context of a will clearly evidence an intention to convey only a life estate is will be interpreted as conveying a fee estate (White v. Brown). 7) Presume that if a person knows how to create a certain estate in one part of the will, they will know how to do it again in another part of the will.
|
|
|
Restrictions on Alienation
|
Three types of restrictions on Alienation1) Disabling -- Purports to deprive the conveyee of the power of alienation (“Any attempt shall be null and void.”) 2) Forfeiture -- The very attempt to alienate will forfeit the estate to the Grantor or another. 3) Promissory -- Grantee promises not to alienate. Generally held unenforceable. 4) Partial restraints – the courts are divided, the law is unclear. Rules: On fee simples all absolute restraints are invalid, but a violation of a forfeiture restraint or promissory restraint may subject an individual to liability. Restrictions on life estates may be upheld if there is a legitimate purpose. On future interests the Majority Rule is that Right of entry and possibility of reverter are freely alienable. The minority rule from the Marienholtz case, inheritable but not devisable, not transferrable intervivos.
|
|
|
Mountain Brow Lodge v. Toscano
|
A limitation on the use of property, although it might serve to impede its transfer, will not be void as a restraint against alienation.
|
