property petherbridge (2008)
Post on 03-Jun-2018
215 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/11/2019 PROPERTY Petherbridge (2008)
1/35
Theories of Property
o Property as a bundle of rights
How does one acquire property rights?
Why would society want to recognize property rights?
What kind of things can you have property rights in? chattel, P, intangible, land
!undle of rights use, possession, exclusion, disposition
Theory of "ccupancy# !lackstone descriptive approach to property rights
o !efore, there was no scarcity and so first to occupy had right to possession generally thereis a rivalrous use of property recognition of rights preserves peace and order in society
o $a%e about to resolve transient rights so that efforts could be put towards %ore efficient
use&o $hannels people's econo%ic efforts to %ore productive avenues
(abor Theory of Property ) (ocke nor%ative approach to property rights
o *an has a funda%ental right in his body&
o That which his body produces is his property
o +unda%ental proble%# Who owns the product when the raw %aterials co%e fro% one %an
and the other uses his labor to create so%ething fro% the%?
%ake soup, fro% %y own to%atoes and pour it into the ocean do now own a partof the ocean?
*oore v& egents
-tilitarianis% !entha% the foundation of %odern Property (aw
o Property rights function to %a.i%ize the benefits of property use and productivity in the
%arket for the greater social goodo /e%setz utilitarianis% property rights co%e into e.istence when it beco%es econo%ical
beneficial to do so Property rights function to internalize e.ternalities to %ake the %ost efficient use of
resources 0land1 %ore efficient use of resources lowers transaction costs
2.ternality an effect of an action that is not accounted for can be positive ornegative
own a lot of land with lots of trees on it& *y neighbors benefits fro% the clea
air produced by having so %any trees on %y property own a leather production plant and live ne.t to a river& The che%icals that
use to produce leather run into the river and pollute the water 2.ternalities beco%e internalized when the cost of the e.ternalities outweigh
the cost of internalizing the% Tragedy of the co%%ons when e.ternalities are not internalized
3buse of resources since everyone has an equal right to the property,
everyone can do what they want with the property, even if eventually to thedetri%ent of all
High transactional costs everyone has to put in too %uch to control the
behavior of others with respect to the property Tragedy of the 3nti)$o%%ons co%plete co%part%entalization of the property such
that it is difficult to obtain all the co%ponents necessary to be productive High transaction costs
$an lead to e.ploitation
-
8/11/2019 PROPERTY Petherbridge (2008)
2/35
What we can have property rights in
Rule of Capture# +irst in ti%e applies to wild ani%als and fugitive resources and to chattel in
general 0first to capture a dollar found in the street1o 3 person has rights to a wild ani%al if they are the first to kill, %ortally wound and not
abandon pursuit, or capture it to per%anently deprive it of its physical liberty or rendering
escape i%possibleo /issent# first to pursue with reasonable likelihood of capture
o Tension# what is better# a certain or uncertain rule? $ertain ule# ) provides clarity, lowers transaction costs and provides for efficient use
of 4udicial resources because less cases to go to court, unifor%ity -ncertain ule# allows for variation, e.ceptions, different circu%stances so that 4ustic
is better served& 5o%eti%es better to be right than certaino 2.ceptions to the ule of $apture# the law tends to pro%ote productive behaviors and use o
resources /octrine of constructive possession# of a wild ani%al is on a person's property, it is
constructively the property of that person& 3 taking of that ani%al on that person's
property constitutes a trespass 61 on the person's land and 71 on the personal
property of the person 0the ani%al1 5uch rights are relative if the ani%al is on ('s land and T trespasses to obtai
the ani%al, then T6 trespasses on T's land to obtain the ani%al, T's right to the
ani%al is superior to T6 and ('s right is superior to T and T6 Animus Revertendi if you do%esticate an ani%al such that the ani%al can no
longer function in its wild state, then you have gained the right to possession of that
ani%al and are provided recourse if such right is endangered pro%otes husbandry Importers Protection#if you i%port a wild, e.otic ani%al, not native to that location
and i%possible to do%esticate, you have a right to possession of that ani%alo +ugitive esources "il 8 9as apply the rule of capture such that first to access is first to
posses& f "il or 9as lie beneath the surface of 7 people's land, both have a right to that which
they can e.tract fro% under their respective lands f the "il or 9as travels such that it longer rests under your land, you no longer have
rights to it& +ugitive resources in the land are part of the real property& "nce it is e.tracted, it
beco%es the personal property of the owner
Acquisition by Creation
o Copyrights copyrights subsist in original works of authorship fi.ed in any tangible %ediu%
of e.pression, now known or later developed fro% which they can be perceived, reproduced
or otherwise co%%unicated, either directly or with the aid of a %achine or device& n no cas
does copyright protection for an original work of authorship e.tend to any idea, procedure,
process, syste%, %ethod of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the
for% in which it is described, e.plained, illustrated, or e%bodied in such work& Property rights are relative, not absolute and can shift, depending on the
relationship and context :5 v 3P
Rule of first possession# when property is attained through labor, e.pense
and organization for the purpose of sale, it beco%es property and rights to tha
-
8/11/2019 PROPERTY Petherbridge (2008)
3/35
-
8/11/2019 PROPERTY Petherbridge (2008)
4/35
Process process, art or %ethod, and includes a new use of a known process,
%achine, %anufacture or co%position of %atter or %aterial %e!, useful, non&obvious
Why is this protected?
Pro%ote the arts, creativity, innovation to pro%ote the creation of that for
which there would otherwise be no incentive to create, enriches the co%%una
co%%ons, encourages copying and i%prove%ent
Pro%otes co%%ercial activity 'ay lead to tragedy of the Anti&Commons brings a slight inefficiency to
the syste% puts li%its on the process, deterrent costs of licensing,
per%ission, increases transaction and negotiation costs (urther highlights the relative nature of property rights
9ives a right of e.clusion not a positive, but negative right $ases
5 P3T2:T3!(2
o /ia%ond v& $hakrabarty 4ustifies the biotechnology industry 9enetically engineers a bacteria that can break down crude oil
5tatute should be interpreted broadly to protect 3:= new anduseful process, %achine, %anufacture or co%position of %atter
$ongress intended a vague definition, understanding that
new technologies would co%e about 2stablishes definitions#
'anufacture# the production of articles for use fro% raw o
prepared %aterials by giving to these %aterials new for%s
qualities, properties, or co%binations
Composition of matter# all co%positions of two or %ore
substances and all co%posite articles whether %i.ed
che%ically or %echanically 0gases, fluids, powders or
solids> $hakrabarty manufactures fro% raw %aterials 0plas%ids and
bacteria1 by giving the% a ne! formand properties through
hand)labor and by %achinery and has created a ne!
)composition of matter because the new bacteria is a
co%position of two or %ore substances& Through %anufacture,
$hakrabarty gives the bacteria qualities and properties it
!ould never have in its natural stateand he does this through
human&made manipulationand which has the potential forsignificant utility&o Parke)/avis v& *ulford pure adrenalin 4ustifies the phar%aceutical
industry $istinction of degree v* $istinction of "ind
The purification process created a substance so pure that
essentially, through %anufacture by %eans of hu%an)%ade
%anipulation, the substance acquired qualities and properties it
would never have in its natural state, having the potential for
significant utility
-
8/11/2019 PROPERTY Petherbridge (2008)
5/35
o /ia%ond v& /iehr process of curing synthetic rubber While the separate co%ponents of the process are not patentabl
0for%ula law of nature, co%puter, te%perature gauge1 the
co%bination of these co%ponents used in a new, innovative, non
obvious methodis 5 :"T P3T2:T3!(2 ) +unk !ros 5eed $o& v& @alo noculant
o $o%bination of bacteria that is conducive to cultivation of legu%e
vegetableso While the co%bination was discovered, it is a natural occurring
co%bination and nothing has been done, no method or manufacture
or ne! composition of matterhas been used;created that gives the
bacteria qualities and properties it would not have in its natural stateo Trying to patent a law of nature si%ply by aggregating the bacteria
o Property in #nes Person *oore v& egents of -$(3 $ongressional intent re Patent protection is to foster ingenuity and creativity and
productivity in a %arket econo%y for the greater social good and that protection of
individuals with respect to what is taken fro% the% for that progress is protected by
fiduciary duty but that progress is so funda%ental to our society that the doctors' righto the tissue are preserved&
/octor's did not patent the cells but used a %ethod;%anufacture to create a new
co%position of %atter so funda%entally different that it no longer was the original cel 2stablishes property rights as a bundle of rights and that a right to property does no
always include all of the bundle right to use, possess, exclude, alienate
+ubsequent possession/Adverse Possession while it doesn't accrue until statutory period run
co%pletely, adverse possessor is recognized as owner fro% the first day of possession& "nce
statutory period runs, can quiet title in courto enerally does not apply against the govt*o enerally property is acquired through voluntary transfer
2le%ents# give notice to owner viewed fro% the lens of an owner of si%ilarly situated land 0rural
suburban, urban1o Actual and -xclusivePossession
%portant to the definition of what land the person actually possesses, what the
boundaries are :eeds to have enough possession to actually bring an action ensures the quality of
possession is such that it will trigger an action for the owner to kick you offo Continuous and uninterruptedfor the statutory period
5tatutory period doesn't begin to run until a P files action penalizes the owner fornonuse
/ifferent states have different statutory periods longer v& shorter?
(onger periods %ay deter people fro% trying to acquire land this way, prevents
unnecessary litigation, give the owner %ore ti%e to notice an adverse
possessor
5hort period prevents land fro% wasting by letting others co%e in and %ake
useful
-
8/11/2019 PROPERTY Petherbridge (2008)
6/35
/efined as such possession as ordinarily %arks the conduct of owners in general in
holding, %anaging and caring for property of like nature and conditiono #pen and notorious gives notice ot true owner
o Claim of title/.ostile $onnecticut rule %akes the %ental state of the adverse possesso
irrelevant so long as they are acting like they are the true owner of the property To ensure that the person in actual possession isn't there with the per%ission of the
owner
Privity/tac"ing connection or relation between the 7 parties, each having a legally recognizedinterest in the sa%e sub4ect %atter 0voluntary transfer of interests1
o Privity of possession#privity between parties in successive possession of real property
o n order for adverse possessor to tack on previous adverse possessor, there %ust be a
privity of possession with so%e sort of legal relationship between the partieso Prevents successive trespass fro% constituting adverse possession 0there is no legal
relationship between parties Adverse Possession of Personal Property "'@eeffe v& 5nyder
o The traditional ele%ents of adverse possession, particularly that of being open and notoriou
is al%ost i%possible to fulfill with respect to chattel&
o Which standard to use? 5tatute of (i%itation starts when owner is dispossessed efficient, clear, but doesn't
do 4ustice :ew =ork ule 5"( does not start until owner de%ands return of chattel favors
the owner, provides %ore incentive to adverse possessor to clarify the title to propert
b;c otherwise, can be taken away up to A yrs fro% when the person de%ands it& $I+C#-R0 R12- 3default4# cause of action will not accrue until the in4ured party
discovers or by e.ercise of reasonable diligence and intelligence should have
discovered, facts which for% the basis of a cause of action against adverse possesso
5ince 5"( is intended to punish negligence on the part of the true owner and
pro%otes stability to hu%an affairs 0adverse possessor %ay not know it isproperty of another and unfairly punished after %any years of possession1
5hifts the burden to the owner to 4ustify the defer%ent of the start of 5"(
3chieves sa%e purpose as the ele%ents of adverse possession# to vest
ownership in adverse possessor against true owner who does not act diligently
in recovering possession
Privity rules apply
$isability Rule# statutes provide e.ception for disability ":(= + disability e.isted at ti%e of
accrualo Types of disabilities# %inor, %ental disease, prison
o $annot tack on disabilitieso Will get the longer ti%e period# either statutory period or ter%ination of disability plus B of
years deter%ined by statute $ases#
o
-
8/11/2019 PROPERTY Petherbridge (2008)
7/35
not under color of title, did not sufficiently de%onstrate actual possession
because did not properly delineate boundaries of land clai%ing to possess and
did not substantially use all the land nor i%prove the property sufficiently 3s per testi%ony in previous law suit, acknowledged that the land wasn't his
when asked for ease%ent for passway /issent because (utz ca%e to adversely possess the land, cannot disclai% right to
land by oral disseisin, land was known as his by the co%%unity& 3lso, did have actua
and e.clusive possession because delineated the land 0trees;logs for border andnatural borders1 and the type of far%ing he did required hi% to rotate plots of land for
far%ing& The fact that he knew the property wasn't his didn't %ini%ize the fact that he
intended to acquire it as his own $olor of Title easier to establish adverse possession
o *anillo v& 9orski #pen 5 %otorious/Claim of 6itle +tate of 'ind of Adverse
Possessor 'aine $octrine adverse possession %ust be established by having intention to
clai% ownership of land adverse possessor knows belongs to another encourages lying, ad%inistratively challenging, sub4ective
%ay serve ot %ake honest people even %ore cautious and take e.tra steps to
ensure they are not encroaching on others' lands, therefore reduce such cases
in courts Connecticut $octrine the act of adverse possession is on its own, sufficient&
/oesn't %atter if the adverse possessor did so intentionally or by %istake& 'a7ority R12-
"b4ective, easier to ad%inister, doesn't reward the liers 8hat constitutes #pen and %otorious9 s the encroach%ent visible enough to give
P notice that such encroach%ent occurred?
When there is a %inor encroach%ent that is not open and notorious enough to
give owner notice of adverse possession#o f too costly to re%ove, either adverse possessors pays fair %arket valu
to owner for that land or owner will co%pensate adverse possessor for
re%oval of encroach%ento Howard v& @unto Continuous/Privity
$ontinuous although only used as a su%%er ho%e, constituted continuous
possession because used in a %anner appropriate for a property of such nature and
condition Privity e.isted because colored title was transferred successively between adverse
possessors therefore could tack on
Possessory -states
When deter%ining what type of property has been conveyed, %ust give effect to the grantors
intent and then fall bac" to rules of construction try to give the biggest estate that you can
that is consonant with the words of the docu%ent 0White v& !rown1o When interpreting grants of possessory estates and future interest, if there's a%biguity, give
the biggest estate you can give consistent with the estate owned by the grantor Conveying a property#
o 6ransferability# inter vivos transfer while alive
-
8/11/2019 PROPERTY Petherbridge (2008)
8/35
o $evisability# $apable of transfer by will
o Inheritability# $apable of transfer by inheritance
hierarchy of inheritability# heirs deter%ined at ti%e of death, includes spouse
61 ssue direct descendants and spouse& f there are issue, take to the
e.clusion of all others 71 parents
C1 collaterals all related by blood who are neither issue nor parents
D1 25$H23T if no heirs, property escheats to the state 6ypes of -states
o (ee +imple theoretically last forever 0practically to the person and his heirs1 $an be conveyed in all C ways
o (inite -states al!ays follo!ed by a future interesteither as a reversionheld by
grantor or a remainderheld by anyone other than the grantor (ife 2state for the life ter% of a designated person can be the person to who% such
property interest is conveyed or for the life of another 0pur autre vie1 "nly transferable, cannot be devisable or inheritable because the interest dies
with the person
Ter% of =ears for a set, li%ited, defined period of ti%e $an be conveyed in all C ways
o (ee +imple $efeasibles has a future interest
in distinguishing between a +5/ and +55$5, %ust look to the transferor's intent and
the to construction principles 0*ahrenholz v& $ountry !oard of 5chool Trustees1 +ee 5i%ple $eterminable auto%atically ter%inates at the happening or
nonhappening of an event $reated by#
o The language of a fee si%ple
o (i%ited by language that shows intent to ter%inate auto%atically
o (anguage denotes durational aspect# Eso long as, while until duringunless>
+uture interest# possibility of reverter
$onveyable under all C +ee 5i%ple +ub7ect to Condition +ubsequent does not auto%atically ter%inate
but %ay be cut short or divested at the transferor's election when a stated condition
happens When language is a%biguous, the court will favor +55$5 over deter%inable
The language of a fee si%ple
(i%ited by language that creates a li%itation# Ebut if, provided that, provided
however, on the condition that> +uture interest# Right of re&entry/po!er of termination
o While the right e.ists, it is the responsibility of the grantor to e.ecute tha
right
:ot transferable (ee +imple +ub7ect to -xecutory 2imitation treated as either +55$5 or +5/ bu
future interest rests in so%eone other than the grantor
3uto%atically cuts the prior interest regardless of language
+uture interest# 2.ecutory nterest
-
8/11/2019 PROPERTY Petherbridge (2008)
9/35
o 5pringing cuts off the possession of the grantor
o 5hifting cuts of the interest of so%eone other than the grantor
+uture nterests
$an be created in the transferor or a transferee#o n transferor#
eversion follows a finite estate
*ay be certain to beco%e possessory or contingent ight of re)entry;power of ter%ination ) +55$5
Possibility of reverter +5/
o n transferee#
-
8/11/2019 PROPERTY Petherbridge (2008)
10/35
6& /eter%ine if 3P appliess it a contingent re%ainder, vested re%ainder sub4ect to partial divest%ent, ore.ecutory interest?
7& f yes, then can the given interest vest at so%e ti%e after the lives in being plus76 years?
C& f yes, then the re%ainder is invalid, it is crossed out and the interests arereclassified without the re%ainder included
o 3P refor%# %any states have %ediated 3P by#
$y Pres# refor%ation change the will to give effect to what the grantor wanted -53P wait and see approach see if it %ight vest anyway within the 76 years of
life in being
"r, so%e states 4ust give a FG year vesting period, void if not vested by then
Co!nership/Concurrent Interests
o Potential for 6ragedy of the Commons neither a 4oint tenant nor a tenant in co%%on ca
do any at all to the pre4udice of the cotenants in their estate Partition serves to sever co)tenancies so as to %ove in the direction of individualized
ownership
6enancy in Common separate, undivided shares of property where each owner has a distinctshare and the right to possess the entire property
o $onveyable through all C %ethods
o *a4ority rule is that when a%biguous court would favor a tenancy in co%%on over a 4oint
tenancyo :o survivorship
:oint 6enants 2ach owner has a distinct share but also owns an undivided whole and has the
right to possess the entire propertyo ight of survivorship avoids probate
"ne's interest is ter%inated upon death i%portant consequences for creditors
Har%s v& 5prague mortgage doesnt destroy the 7oint tenancy &lien disappearswith the death of the 4oint tenant
2ven though there was a default, because brother died, his interest in the
property e.tinguished and so lien did not hold
There %ust be an actual severance of 4oint tenancy, not the potential for such
severance a lien does not transfer title to the lien holder but %erely gives the
potential for such transfer
2ien theory in putting a lien on a property, a future interest is created but tha
future interest will not vest until death& 3t death, however, the interest is
e.tinguished and so there is no lien on the property b;c the future interest does
not holdo When giving a lien, you are not divested of title but only give so%eone
the right to divest you of title upon the happening of so%e future event,
default
Title theory by giving over a %ortgage, you're giving over a legal title
voluntary conveyance&o Therefore, 4oint tenancy is severed, beco%es a tenancy in co%%on and
lien re%ains attached to the share of the tenancy in co%%ono D unities
-
8/11/2019 PROPERTY Petherbridge (2008)
11/35
Ti%e ) acquired or vest at the sa%e ti%e
Title by the sa%e instru%ent or by a 4oint adverse possession
nterest equal undivided shares
Possession %ust have right of possession of the whole
o oint tenants can be created even if the unity of Einterest> is not %et and property will be
divided according to the allocated share if it requires 4udicial partitiono 5everability of oint tenancy;so%e apply to tenancy in co%%on
3ny of the unities can be broken unilaterally and that, then, creates a tenancy inco%%on with the re%aining 4oint tenants
5traw%an, Trust %ethod, 4oint tenants agree to sever, declaration of election t
sever iddle v& Har%on didn't want husband to get her share as 4oint tenant so she
devised her share as 4oint tenant to herself as tenant in co%%ono $an conveying to yourself sever a 4oint tenancy? yes
o oint tenant can unilaterally convert a 4oint tenancy to a tenancy in
co%%on by conveying to one's self&o e%oves antiquated, sy%bolic procedure of using a straw %an
o "ne can create a 4oint tenancy by conveying to self and other partiessi%ultaneously
udicial Partition in kind or by sale
/efault partition is Ein kind> unless physically doesn't %ake sense and the best
interest of allco)tenants indicate partition by sale /elfino v&
-
8/11/2019 PROPERTY Petherbridge (2008)
12/35
*inority discourages partition and %aintains split ownership
leading to the tragedy of the co%%ons
5wartzbaugh wife didn't want bo.ing facility lease on her land
o (ease doesn't destroy a 4oint tenancy there's always a way out
action for partitiono The 4oint tenant has the right to lease or %ortgage interest in property
even if the other tenant ob4ects& "ther 4oint tenant are entitled to a
portion of the rent& f other 4oint tenant is ousted, then can get fair%arket value for his share of the rent
2andlord/6enant
7 ways to think about it#
o 6emporal relationshipb;wn landlord and tenant for%ation to conclusion
o eneral increase in tenants rights over time
Types of (easeholds
o 6erms of 0ears a leasehold estate that is for a fi.ed ti%e period While fi.ed in ti%e, can be ter%inable earlier upon the happening of so%e event or
condition
equires no notice to bring the estate to an end b;c the estate is e.plicit in itster%ination date
o Periodic 6enancy for a period of so%e fi.ed duration that continues for renewed
succeeding period until either landlord or tenant gives notice of ter%inationo 6enancy at !ill no fi.ed period& 2ndures so long as both landlord and tenant desire
2nds when a party ter%inates the leasehold or at the death of one of the parties
f lease provides that it can be ter%inated by one party, then can also be ter%inated a
the will of the other party
easonable notice, unless e.plicit right to tenant ":(=
ules fro% cases
o 9arner v 9arrish tenancy shall continue Efor and during the ter% of quiet en4oy%ent fro%the first day of *ay 6FII which ter% will end 9errish has privilege of ter%inating this
agree%ent at the date of his own choice> rent was paid %onthly Rule of interpretation 9ive weight to the intent of the contracting parties if in line wit
%odern co%%on law here determinable life tenancy doctrine of fitting into th
box When a%biguity err in the direction of a periodic tenancy 0easier to get out of than
ter% of years1o Hannah delivery of possession
-nglish rule is the ma7ority rule covenant requiring lessor to put lessee in actual
possession 2specially in residential situations, lessee's e.pect to enter the dwelling on the
date when their right to possession begins
-nfair to place this burden on the lessee, who, had he known that it would be
inhabitable, would not have entered into the agree%ent (andlord is in a better position to deter%ine the availability of the space and
has %ore resources;%ore knowledgeable in such situations to deal with it
accordingly
-
8/11/2019 PROPERTY Petherbridge (2008)
13/35
(andlord is %ore equipped to deal with such a situation and the loss of a
couple %onths rent is not as heavy a burden as to not have a place to live American rule lessor covenants to give lessee right to possession but should not
be held accountable for the wrongs of a C rdparty
'a"es rent cheaper if landlord is in fear of being responsible for layover
tenants and costs associated with evicting the%, will %ake rents higher to
cover those costs and the e%pty %onths
'ore efficient use of land if landlord has to ensure an e%pty space andloses a couple %onths rent for that, then wastes space and use of space
o 2rnst v& $onditt subleases/assignment 5 liability
nterpret the language of the contract by giving weight to the intent of the parties do
this by looking to what the parties are actually giving over 0here, gave over the entire
period of ti%e of the lease with no reversionary interest, therefore, was an assign%en
rather than a sublease1 Privity of estate v* privity of contract 7 legal relationships for% when entering int
a lease
Privity of estate< someone !ho has all interest for the specified period in
the property
Privity of contract< contractual rights and duties such that these duties
and rights are only binding on the parties to the contract
+ublease privity of contract and estate re%ain between lessor and original
lessee & no legal relationship through which to de%and rent;da%ages fro%
sublesseeo $an indirectly influence sublessee by evicting original lessee, essential
attacking the sublessee's possession through the original tenant
Assignment privity of contract re%ains between lessor and original lessee
0such that original lessee will still be bound by the contractual ter%s1 but privity
of estate transfer to assignee 0lessee can de%and rent;da%ages fro%
assignee through privity of estate and fro% lessee through privity of contract1o if there is a clause in the assign%ent stating Eassu%e all covenants in
the lease> landlord has no privity of contract with the assignee
subrogation when Crdparty co%es in, pays for the co%pensation and then
wants to be paid back 0( sues T, T sues T6 through subrogation1o @endall v& Pestana landlord restriction on right to sublease/assign
f lease is silent on (andlord's consent, tenant is free to do as they will free
alienability is a foundational concept in property
f the lease calls for the (andlord's consent and does not e.plicitly state that (andlordcan withhold consent at his discretion, a implied covenant of good faithto not
withhold consent unless commercially reasonablewill be read into the contract +ree alienability does not apply in residential setting
o !erg v& Wiley eviction of tenant not performing under the lease Abandonment< vacates without 4ustification, no intent to return, or defaults on rent
6raditional vie! self&help measures if
61 landlord is legally entitled to possession
71 landlord's reentry %ust be by peaceable %eans 'odern interpretation of P-AC-A;2- '-A%+
-
8/11/2019 PROPERTY Petherbridge (2008)
14/35
(aw doesn't want to encourage people taking the law into their own hands,
particularly when the courts have set up a quick legal %eans to do so
f landlord uses self)help %easures, can lead to unlawful eviction, no due
process for tenant, lead to larger da%ages suit 3ny eviction that is not based in the law is not peaceable
Critique if landlord has to take legal %easures to evict tenants, rather than
self)help, will raise tenant rents in general to cover for costs
Critique under co%%on law, if unlawful eviction, tenant could get %uch %orin da%ages, lost profits, loss of chattel& -nder new rule, if tenant found in the
wrong, %ay have to pay da%ages to landlordo 5o%%er v& @ridel, iverview ealty Abandoned Possession landlords obligation to
mitigate damages 'a7ority rule in the event tenant abandons pre%ises, landlord is obligated to
%itigate da%ages through reasonable efforts to re)let the pre%ises
Takes into account efficiency of land use, don't want land to lay idle
*oves away fro% a property law perspective of leases to a contracts law
perspectiveo 3s a %atter of basic fairnesso *odern notions of fairness and equity
(andlord carries burden of proof that he used reasonable diligence in
atte%pting to re)let the pre%ises b;c in a better position to de%onstrate ito :eed not accept less than fair %arket value or substantially alter his
obligations as established in the pre)e.isting lease Common la! rule landlord under no obligation to %itigate da%ages
!ased on principal that lease conveys an interest to tenant in the property
which forcloses any control by the landlord no one has a right to interfere wit
the interest;possession of the property by the tenant so landlord couldn't
%itigate da%ages
(andlord should not be required to %ake up for another's wrongdoing
(andlord shouldn't be forced into a personal relationship with a new tenant he
does not wish to accept 3bandon%ent of property is an invitation to vandalis% and the law shouldn't
encourage such conduct +urrender offer of a settle%ent agree%ent, inviting acceptance on the part of the
landlord and thus ter%inating tenant's liability for future rent
3bandon%ent can constitute an i%plied offer of surrender
(andlord's actions inconsistent with to the continuation of the original lease caconstitute i%plied acceptance re)letting on behalf of tenant doesn't break tenant's obligation but the re)let %itigate
tenant's obligations&
f re)let for less tenant still liable for the difference
f re)let for %ore tenant %ay have a right to the difference
o este v& $ooper =uiet en7oyment and constructive eviction & leased business space
had repeated flooding due to faulty pave%ent Rule any act;o%ission of the landlord which renders the pre%ises substantially
unsuitable for the purpose for which they are leased, or which seriously interferes wit
-
8/11/2019 PROPERTY Petherbridge (2008)
15/35
the beneficial en4oy%ent of the pre%ises, is a breach of the covenant of quiet
en4oy%ent and constitutes a constructive eviction of the tenant Permanent intereference occurs regularly and frequently enough to prevent use
and en4oy%ent of the pre%ises for the purpose of the lease 2essee must vacate !ithin a reasonable time after being e.posed to a constructiv
eviction, otherwise constitutes a!aiver of the right to vacate "bligation to pay rent is dependent upon tenant's having possession undisturbed by
the landlord if one party breaches, the other party is no longer bound Partial eviction when part of the pre%ises is unusable tenant is not relieved of the
obligation to pay rento Hilder v 5t& Peter Illegal lease/Implied 8arranty of .abitability slumlords
Rule residential rental leases have an i%plied warranty that the landlord will deliver
over and %aintain, throughout the period of tenancy, pre%ises that are safe, clean
and fit for hu%an habitation Previously landlord's obligations to tenant were independent of tenant's rent
obligation to landlord breach of one didn't i%ply the other was not bound& :o longer viable view in %odern day urban society where tenant is not
e.perienced in perfor%ing %aintenance work on urban co%ple. living units anthere is a shortage of safe, decent housing & tenant is in an inferior bargaining
position To deter%ine a breach of warranty of habitability
61 look to violations of local;%unicipal housing codes
71 /oes clai%ed defect have i%pact on the safety;health of tenant
C1 Tenant %ust show that he;she notified landlord of deficiency and reasonable
ti%e for correction *easure of da%ages difference between value of the dwelling as warranted and
value of dwelling as it e.ists in its defective condition
$an withhold pay%ent of future rent switches burden of suit on landlord Punitive da%ages are available if willful and wanton violation
$an fi. proble% then sue for recovery
$an pay rent then sue to recover full rent
2and 6ransaction Inter ivos transfer
Process
o (ocating a buyer brokers listings
Proble%s can arise fro% the very beginning
!rokers paid J off purchase price incentive to push sale through
regardless of detri%ent to partieso :ot fully knowledgeable of the process so%e info gets lost along the
way buyers aren't fully aware or educated by the broker to %ake a
fully infor%ed decisiono $urrent %arket conditions are an indication ofr buyers not really
understanding;being properly e.plained the processo *itigating factor that brokers business relies heavily on reputation
o "ffer
-
8/11/2019 PROPERTY Petherbridge (2008)
16/35
o :egotiating the contract earnest %oney !'s conditions;counteroffers The $ontract detailed, with %any contingencies
-sually a for% contract b;c co%%on transaction that
sophisticated;unsophisticated parties do
$ontingency process is beneficial b;c allows unsophisticated parties to educat
the%selves and ensure they are properly protectedo n a highly co%petitive %arket, need to %ake decisions quickly, no ti%e
to properly inspect;ensure against encu%branceso 3gree%ent 0equitable title1
5tatute of +rauds real estate transactions %ust use a written instru%ent to
consu%%ate the transaction
*ust be in writing or no action will be brought
+orces parties to use caution
Provides evidence of the transaction
o 2.ceptions# Partial perfor%ance, 2quitable estoppels 3d%ission fro%
opposing party that there was a transaction Hickey v& 9reen oral agree%ent with check deposit induced
buyer to sell their other property, then seller backed down 5eller ad%itted to oral agree%ent but clai%ed didn't %atte
b;c oral 2quitable estoppel unconscionable in4ury will deter%ine
if a written contract will be forced on the parties 0could
buyers reneg on their other sale?1 if no unconscionable
in4ury, don't want to establish precedent for quick,
unreasonable reliance 2quitable $onversion equitable title attaches at ti%e of agree%ent unless
contracted otherwise all risk born by buyer 5ituation 6 enter into contract and then property severely da%aged buyer
owns real estate with all the da%ages and seller has clai% for %oney a%ount
deter%ined at ti%e of purchase
5ituation 7 enter into contract and then seller dies will separates real and
personal property buyer is equitable owner of property, seller only has a K
interest and is therefore personal propertyo 2.ecutor period inspections;disclosures;financing;title evaluation i%plied condition in
every sale of land contract that the seller will convey %arketable title *arketable title not sub4ect to reasonable doubt that would create apprehension in
%ind of buyer -n%arketable title ) if there is a reasonable probability the seller does not own
the full title alleged, the property is sub4ect to an undisclosed encu%brance, or
the purchaser bears an unreasonable risk he or she would be sub4ect to
litigation related to the property in its current condition&o f seller fails to clear title %ake title %arketable by closing date,
buyer has right to rescind contract -nless the seller cures any defect before the schedule closing date, a
purchaser can refuse to close and can rescind the sales contract if the title is
un%arketable&
-
8/11/2019 PROPERTY Petherbridge (2008)
17/35
o 2ncu%brances -ndisclosed co)owners
*ortgages or liens
2ase%ents
Private restrictions ) eal covenants or equitable servitudes wi
not %ake title un%arketable unless undisclosed or the property i
in violation
(eases "ptions
*ineral rights
+laws in the deed records
"wnership based on adverse possession colored title
o 9overn%ent ordinances or regulations seller does not have to disclos
these and they do not %ake title un%arketable -:(255 there is a violation
o n curing the defect, the buyer does not need to accept anything %ore o
less than what buyer contracted to buy
(oh%eyer v& !ower 7 story private covenant violation 8 C ftaway fro% boundary public ordinance violation
$aveat 2%ptor 8 /uty to /isclose /efects
*a4ority ule $aveat 2%ptor so long as seller does not %isrepresent
defects to the property nor actively %isleads purchaser, seller has no obligatio
to any infor%ation re property buyer bewareo 2.ception where seller creates the pheno%enon that %aterially
i%pairs the value of the property and it is particularly within her
knowledge or unlikely to be discovered by a prudent purchaser
e.ercising due care, nondisclosure constitutes a basis for rescission as
a %atter of equity 5ta%bovsky v& 3ckley ) haunted houseo +raud is not allowed under the doctrine %aterial %isrepresentation,
with the intent to %ake so%eone rely on it, and based on that
reasonable reliance, har% is caused&
*odern trend seller has a duty to disclose %aterial latent defects to the
property, but not i%%aterial or patent defects 0visible1 applies to residential
properties only, not co%%ercial ones b;c co%%ercial buyers are %ore
sophisticatedo *aterial test
"b4ective prong would a reasonable person attach i%portance
when deciding to buy 5ub4ective prong does the defect affect the value or desirability
of the property to the buyero 5o%e states require disclosure of off)site defects like noisy neighbors,
to.ic waste du%p, etco 5o%e states require disclosure of non)physical defects haunted,
so%eone was killed,o 5o%e states have stig%a statutes shielding sellers fro% a failure to
disclose psychological;pre4udicial factors that %ight affect %arket value
-
8/11/2019 PROPERTY Petherbridge (2008)
18/35
o $losing ! give lender note and %ortgage, lender give ! KK, ! gives 5 KK, 5 delivers
/eed;Trust /eed constitutes a %erger of all pro%ises %ade in the contract buyer can no
longer sue seller on any covenants not stated in the deed
2stoppels by deed if grantor conveys property without title but then
subsequently acquires title, title passes to purchaser by operation of law
auto%atically passes
C types#o 9eneral Warranty deed warrant title against 3(( defects in title, no
%atter when they ca%e into e.istence $ontains A e.press warranties
C present covenants
o *3"T= rule ) can only be breached at ti%e the
deed is delivered 5"( starts running at the date o
deliveryo *inority rule ) "nce there is a breach of a present
covenant, the clai% can be quietly assigned to
subsequent grantees as a conveyance is essentialan assign%ent of one's interest in a property
/a%ages L original purchase price fro%
original grantor to prior grantee plus interest
fro% the ti%e when final grantee received th
property ockafellor v& 9ray
o 61 $ovenant of 5eisin grantor warrants that he
owns the estateo 71 $ovenant of ight to $onvey grantor warrants
that he has the right to convey essentially sa%e
as that of 5eisino C1 $ovenant against 2ncu%brances grantor
warrants there are no encu%brances warrants
that title is %arketable and will re%ain so after
transfer
C future covenants will be breached at so%e ti%e in the
future not considered a breach until grantee;successor i
evicted fro% the property;buys up the para%ount
clai%;otherwise da%ages 5"( begins to run at ti%e of
eviction or when covenant is broken in the futureo 61 $ovenant of 9eneral Warranty grantor warran
that will defend against (3W+-( clai%s0including
his own through adverse possession1 and will
co%pensate grantee for any loss sustained by an
assertion of superior title f buyer knows of an encu%brance that
affects the title, the encu%brance will still be
treated as breach
-
8/11/2019 PROPERTY Petherbridge (2008)
19/35
"nly encu%brances that affect the land
which are patent are not included in the
warranty but those that are latent, that buye
does not know of, will be includedo 71 $ovenant of Muiet 2n4oy%ent grantor warrants
that grantee will not be disturbed in possession and
en4oy%ent of the property by assertion of superior
title essentially identical to the covenant ofgeneral warranty
!rown v& (ober !rowns receive land with
general warranty deed fro% so%eone who
has only 6;C %ineral rights try to sell but
find out about it& Technically a breach of
present covenant of right to convey;seisin b
5"( ran out tried to sue under $& of Muiet
2n4oy& =et Muiet 2n4oy& Was not 3$T-3((=
disturbed b;c not actually interfered with Holding good b;c gives incentive to clear
title proble%s, can run risk of 3P, can fin
owner and broker a dealo $ovenant of +urther 3ssurances grantor warrants
to e.ecute any other docu%ents to perfect the title
conveyedo 5pecial warranty deed warrants only against the grantor's own acts,
but not that of preceding owners still contains all A covenants, but onl
against conduct of grantoro Muitclai% deed contains :" W33:T25 of any kind conveys
whatever title grantor had, if any
+orged v& +raudulent deeds
o 3 +"92/ /22/ 5
-
8/11/2019 PROPERTY Petherbridge (2008)
20/35
deed take effect ":(= + ohn predeceases *aurice
evaporates upon property delivery, which there was hereo nstead, could have created a 4oint tenancy with
right of survivorshipo *aurice could have given hi%self a life estate with
springing future interest in +53 to ohn 3:/
ntent by grantor to divest hi%self of the conveyed interest andnot retain the right to recall the deed 0even if the right is never
e.ercised1 ) to achieve this, can deliver deed to a Crdparty with
instruction to pass to grantee upon grantor's death osengrant v& osengrant H 8 * want to give property
to without probate so sign deed and leave with bank in
envelope for 2TH2 or H shows there isn't
necessarily a present intent to convey or at least that H
reserved the right to recall the deedo The grantor delivers a deed to the grantee
o The grantee accepts the deed *ust be Edelivered> during grantor's lifeti%e but /"25 :"T require present
possession but %ust grant i%%ediate interesto 2&g& grantor e.ecutes a deed and places it is a safe deposit bock
f grantor intends to pass title or a future interest to grantee :"W
there has been a delivery even though no present possession f grantor intends that no interest shall pass until death, there has
been no delivery during life and therefore the deed cannot take
legal effect but %ust be governed by the 5tatute of Wills $annot be cancelled once delivered 5"+ requires a writing to %ove title bac
to the grantoro Post $losing record /eed;Title insurance
ecording 5yste% allows for anyone to ascertain owner of land, preserves a secure
place for i%portant docu%ents, protects purchasers for value and lien creditors
against prior unrecorded interests
What can be recorded? 0specified in the recording statutes
o 3ny kind of deed, %ortgage, lease, option or other instru%ent creating
or affect an interest in lando 3 4udg%ent or decree affecting title
o (is Pendens 0notice of pending action1
o Wills, affidavits of heirship nde. syste% 7 types tract inde. and 9rantor;grantee inde. 0%ost co%%on
%ethod of inde.ing1o Title 5earch
61 start with the grantee inde. and go back in ti%e to an
acceptable source or Eroot title> 71 then go to grantor inde. and %ove forward searching if there
have been %ultiple grants of the property interest $"**": (3W -(2 re conflicting interests in land +5T : T*2
-
8/11/2019 PROPERTY Petherbridge (2008)
21/35
$onflicts that can ariseo $onflict between possessory estates
o $onflict between owner of a possessory estate on owner of a
nonpossessory interest 0lien, %ortgage, ease%ent, covenant1o $onflict between holders of two nonpossessory interests
*ost states have recording statutes that %odify the co%%on law to protect
innocent subsequent parties& Thus the co%%on law holds unless so%eone
can show that they are a !ona +ide Purchaser protected by statuteo !ona +ide Purchaser
5ubsequent purchaser
That purchases in 9ood faith 0without notice1
+or value
o 5H2(T2 -(2 a person who is conveyed an interest fro% a bona
fide purchaser 0protected by recording statute1 has the sa%e rights as
his grantoro Types of recording statutes
61 ace 5tatutes the person first to record their interest wins
!rightline clear rule li%its inquiry into %atters off therecord;difficult to ascertain
9ives very strong incentive to record title 71 notice statutes protects subsequent purchasers against prio
unrecorded interests even though the subsequent purchaser fail
to record so long as there was no notice and no way to have
known of the prior unrecorded interest 3T T*2 "+ P-$H352 C1 ace;notice statutes a subsequent purchaser is protected
against prior unrecorded instru%ents only if the subsequent
purchaser a1 has no notice of the prior instru%ents and 71 record
before the prior instru%ent is recorded Punishes non)recording and & provides incentive to
record
3lso punishes the subsequent purchaser who %ay have
had notice but raced to recording office firsto What constitutes :otice?
Types of :otice
3ctual :otice when one is personally aware of conflictin
interest in real property 0often due to another's possession
of the property1
$onstructive or ecord notice refers to knowledge or
notice gained by searching the deed records purchaser
is dee%ed to know all %atters contained in docu%ents
legally recorded in the deed records, even though the
purchaser did not actually search the deed records
nquiry :otice when prospective purchaser hears or
observes so%ething that would cause and ordinarily
prudent person to inquire further if such further inquiry
-
8/11/2019 PROPERTY Petherbridge (2008)
22/35
would have uncovered an unrecorded clai%, the purchase
is dee%ed to have notice of ito
-
8/11/2019 PROPERTY Petherbridge (2008)
23/35
!oard of 2d& 3nd it is recorded& Then Hughes signed and records deed
Then / 8 W record deed fro% Hoergers to / 8 W& 5ince Hughes deed did not beco%e operative until after Hughes
signed it, Hughes is actually the subsequent purchaser and as
such any recording statutes will protect hi%& While the deed fro% /8W was e.ecuted and recorded prior to
Hughes' recording, there was no way for Hughes to have notice
of their ownership b;c the deed fro% Hoergers 0Hughes' grantor1to /8W was not recorded&
n race;notice 4d., then, Hughes was the subsequent !+P,
recorded first and had no notice n race 4d. Hughes was the subsequent !+P and despite
recording 7nd, since no clean chain of title for others, Hughes still
gets it n :otice 4d. Hughes had no notice of the other conveyance
and so is protected by statuteso 3 subsequent purchaser fro% the co%%on grantor acquires title sub4ec
to the restrictions in the deed to the earlier purchaser of the subdivision *3"T= -(2 ) n a subdivision plan, the purchaser %ust
look into prior conveyances fro% the original grantor to other lots
in the subdivision to check for restrictions or ease%ents& $annot
be safe if the title e.a%iner ignores any deed given by a grantor
in the chain of title during the ti%e he owned the pre%ises in
question&
*inority rule since the restriction is not in the chain of
title, there is no constructive notice 9uillette v& /aly /ry Wall ) The /'s deed referred to a recorded
subdivision plan, and the deed to the 9uillettes referred to the
sa%e plan& !ecause both deeds referred to the sa%e plan, it wa
not i%possible for the / to check into the deed to see what the
restrictions of that plan were&o " conveys to 3& " conveys to ! and ! records& 3 records& ! conveys
to $ who records& Who has clai% to title? 3 or $? ) 5P(T 61 purchaser is not bound to e.a%ine record after the date of a
recorded conveyance to his grantor to see if preceeding grantor
conveyed to another grantee who failed to record prior to !+P's
purchase 71 purchaser is bound to e.a%ine record before and after the
date of recorded conveyance since it is recorded, it gives
constructive notice this approach 923T(= increases the cost
of title searching&
(egislative $ontrol of (and -se
-
8/11/2019 PROPERTY Petherbridge (2008)
24/35
(aw of :uisance part tort 0b;c liability arises fro% negligent;wrongful activity1;part property law
0b;c liability is for interference with the use and en4oy%ent of land1o 92:23( -(2 one should use one's own property in such a way as :"T to in4ure the
property of anothero 3nalysis#
s there a nuisance? is there a behavior on the land that interferes with the use and
en4oy%ent of another of their land?
P %ust have an interest in the land -se and en4oy%ent %ust be of an ordinary kind, not e.traordinary sensitive us
o 2&g& light interfering with %ovie)pro4ection is not nuisance b;c
e.traordinarily sensitive use
ntentional private nuisance if it is intentional, courts are concerned with the
reasonableness of the conduct 0liability e.ists when conduct is unreasonable
under the circu%stances1o ntent purpose or knowledge with substantial certainty0know or should
know1 that the conduct will cause har%o (ook at reasonableness
Traditional approach focuses on the har% to the plaintiff estate%ents balancing of the -tilities
!alance of har% to Plaintiff if not treated as a nuisance
0e.tent and character of har%, social value of P's use,
suitability to the locality in questions, burden on P of
avoiding the har%1 v& balance of har% to public and
/efendant if treated as a nuisance 0social value, suitability
to the locality, i%practicality of /'s preventing the har%1o $haracter of the har% %ust be 5-!5T3:T3( :
-
8/11/2019 PROPERTY Petherbridge (2008)
25/35
Private v& public nuisance where is line drawn? depends on the theory you
will argue as a plaintiff,o Private interferes with the rights in the use and en4oy%ent of the land
o Public interferes with a 9HT $"**": to the 92:23( P-!($
can be brought by any %e%ber of the affected public but usually only if
can show Especial in4ury> usually set out by statute, will likely be an
in4unction
5pur ndustries v& /el Webb /evelop%ent long ti%e cattleranch and developer starts buying up land closer to ranch
0%oving towards the nuisance1& To balance the operation of a
lawful business fro% a @:"W:9 3:/ W((+-( encroach%ent
with the concern for public safety and so deter%ine it to be a
nuisance but require the developer to co%pensate the ranch for
having to %ove away What should the re%edy be?
/a%ages or in4unctive relief?
!alance of the 2quities balance the har% to the plaintiff of not granting
in4unction against the utility of the /'s conduct;cost to / and public interest of
granting the in4unction versus %erely awarding da%ages are they looking at
the utility of /'s conduct or cost to /?o f utility of /'s conduct;cost to / and public interest outweigh the cost to
P of not granting in4unction, then da%ages will be awarded Te%porary da%ages all da%ages suffered up to ti%e of suit
Per%anent da%ages one ti%e pay%ent for past and future
har% resulting fro% nuisance
Per%anent da%ages are allowed where the loss
recoverable would obviously be s%all as co%pared with
the cost of re%oval of the nuisance and where the
nuisance is of such a per%anent and unabatable characte
that a single recovery can be had, including the whole
da%age past and future resulting thereforeo Procedural issues
o !y deciding who gets the rights;wins;what is;isn't a nuisance, the courts
are practically distributing wealth 2&g& cost of abate%ent is KOG and cost to P is K6GG purely
econo%ic world, P will probably pay KOG)6GG to %ake / stop 2&g& cost of abate%ent is K6GG and cost to P is KOG purely
econo%ic world, the nuisance will not stop
-nder nuisance law,
o f the court states there is no nuisance, then
essentially giving a 9HT to / to continue the
nuisance, thus giving / KOG enriching /o f the court states this is a nuisance and grants an
in4unction, then essentially giving a 9HT to P and
giving P KOG, enriching P
D re%edial resolutions once it is deter%ined to be a nuisance#
-
8/11/2019 PROPERTY Petherbridge (2008)
26/35
o 61 allow the activity to continue by denying all relief
o 71 abate the activity in question by granting in4unctive relief 0*organ 8
2stancias1o C1 allow the activityto continue if the defendant pays da%ages 0!oo%er
ce%ent co&1o D1 3bate the activity if the plaintiff pays da%ages 05pures1 would not
be a nuisance but for the behavior of the plaintiff
:uisance law only takes effect once a nuisance co%es into being and so the lawtransitioned into other, %ore efficient ways of control land use
$ases
o 2stancias /allas $orp v& 5hultz first deter%ined that the 4et engine
sounding 3;$ unit put in by 2stancias was a nuisance and then, %ust
decide whether to give in4unction or K da%ages& $ost to change would
be K6OG)7GG@& $ourt held to award in4unction b;c no real public interes
is har%ed by it and the unreasonable substantial invasion to P
outweighs the cost to 2stancias :ote if li%ited to da%ages / would only reduce the noise if
the da%ages award was %ore than the cost to fi.& f not %ore,then / would pay da%ages but continue with the noise and P
would perpetually have to sue to recover for te%porary da%ages Why are per%anent da%ages not an option here?
o !oo%er v& 3tlantic $e%ent $o / is large ce%ent plant that e%its dirt,
s%oke and vibrations so strong that crack foundations& $ourt was
concerned about its institutional inco%petence in declaring
environ%ental concerns for the state of := but want to give 4ustice so
declare it a nuisance but on the question of re%edies, given that ce%en
factory provides a social good in providing ce%ent, CGG 4obs and would
cost /, at a %ini%u%, the KDO** it cost to build the plant, this far
outweighs the cost of not providing an in4unction to the Plaintiff 0court
will not look at cost to others in the neighborhood b;c didn't co%e in as
Plaintiffs and it is the role of the courts to resolve individual
controversies1 /issent %a4ority is essentially condoning;licensing a continuing
wrong so long as they pay people off (aw of 5ervitudes purpose is to increase the total value of all parcels involved but the effect is to
burden one parcel of land for the benefit of another0others1o essentially legal theories of enforce%ent how to enforce private pro%ises and to
who%;how far do they e.tend? 3ppurtenant do%inant estate and servient estate
n 9ross servient estate but does not benefit a do%inant estate, but gives the right
to a particular persono 2ase%ents :":)P"55255"= :T225T : (3:/ ) positive pro%ises that can be
conveyed and can be +53, +5/, life estates or other finite estates sub4ect to the 5"+ and
e.ceptions to 5"+, as well as being created by i%plication or by prescription 2ase%ents v& license license is an oral or written per%ission to do so%e act on the
land that otherwise would be a trespass
-
8/11/2019 PROPERTY Petherbridge (2008)
27/35
9enerally revocable
7 e.ceptions to revocability
o (icense is coupled with an interest in the land
o (icense can beco%e irrevocable if estoppel is shown
Holbrook v& Taylor Taylor gets per%ission to use road, it's been
used before, it's the only access to the property, builds a ho%e,
spends K to i%prove the road and continues to use but when
asked to put per%ission in writing, Holbrook refuses& $ourt heldthat it was not an ease%ent acquired by 3P b;c per%ission, not
under clai% of title but instead that it was a license %ade
irrevocable due to equitable estoppels Taylor relied on the
per%ission to build ho%e Holbrook in better position to state
that road is his, encourages efficient use of land 2.press ease%ents
$reation by 2.press 9rant usually stated in the deed when the grantor
conveys a part of their parcel;lot to the grantee and also grantee a right of way
over the grantor's property $reation by reservation usually stated in the deed as grantor conveying
parcel to grantee but reserving a right of way for grantor over grantee's
propertyo eservation of ease%ent for Crdparty traditionally not accepted b;c
cannot reserve an interest for so%eone who is stranger to the title *odern rule can be reserved for a C rdparty and to invalidate it
would un4ustly enrich the grantee0or subsequent grantees1 at the
e.pense of the grantor who discounts the price based on the
reservation of such ease%ent Williard v& +irst $hurch of $hrist grantor sold 7 lots to grantee
with e.press reservation of ease%ent on 6 lot to the church
across the street for parking& 9rantee then conveyed to Willard
who sued to quiet title against the church& $ourt upheld the
ease%ent for the above %odern reasons& eservation v& e.ception? /o we need to know
%plied 2ase%ents
!y e.isting use based on quasi)ease%ent that an owner of a single
property can use one part of the land for the benefit of another part of the land
so that when the parts are severed, an ease%ent %ay be i%pliedo
2le%ents $o%%on ownership followed by severance
2.isting apparent and continuous use continuous, not sporadic
and should be apparent to the grantee and e.isted prior to easonable necessity of the use if the land %ay be used
without an ease%ent, but cannot be used without
disproportionate effort and e.pense, an ease%ent %ay continue
to be i%plied on the basis of necessity alone
-
8/11/2019 PROPERTY Petherbridge (2008)
28/35
o
-
8/11/2019 PROPERTY Petherbridge (2008)
29/35
"nce an ease%ent is created for a do%inant estate, an owner of the do%inant
estate cannot proceed to use the ease%ent for other ad4oining parcels
n deter%ining whether an ease%ent has been %isused or whether to grant a
change in use of the ease%ent, the court looks at#o intent of the parties
language of the deed
how they used the property at ti%e ease%ent was given
use of neighboring properties zoning laws in the area
have there been any in4unctions in the past and for what?
o whether change in use was reasonably foreseeable by the parties
o and whether the increase will unreasonably burden the servienttene%ent
2.ception# !rown v&
-
8/11/2019 PROPERTY Petherbridge (2008)
30/35
relinquish 8 purpose inconsistent with its future e.istence, therefore
abandon%ent in 6FIO& 3dditionally, since the use as a public trail is no
a reasonably foreseeable change in the scope of the ease%ent,
constitutes a %isuse of the ease%ent& n creating the public trails,
essentially constituted a taking b;c not within scope of original ease%en
and original ease%ent was abandoned&o $ovenants pro%ises to allow others to do things on your land, affir%ative pro%ises as to
one's own responsibilities, negative pro%ises 3ffir%ative v& negative covenants
3ffir%ative covenant requires owner of the burdened estate to perfor% so%e
act or to pay %oney
:egative covenant restrict or prohibits the uses that can be %ade of the
burdened property eal covenants depend on the fact that people succeed to particular estates in land
5uccessive owners of benefitting parcels can enforce the preceding pro%ise
again the burdened land even if they have a s%aller estate than the original
owner
5uccessive owners of servient parcels can only be held to the pro%ises of thepreceding owners if the successive owner has the sa%e estate in land as the
preceding owner
2le%ents#
o ntent to bind successors
o *ust touch and concern the land
o 5uccessors %ust have notice
o Privity of estate hori>ontal and vertical privity
o /a%ages %onetary relief or in4unction
$reation of a real covenant ) sub4ect to 5"+ even if only grantor signs it, if
grantee accepts the writing, then bound by such acceptance 2quitable servitudes do away with all the technical proble%s with real covenants
:ot concerned about privity or type of estate
2le%ents
o The parties intend to bind successors
o 3 subsequent purchaser has actual or constructive notice of the
covenanto That the covenant touch and concern the land either negative or
positive covenant that directly affects the uses to which the land can be
put and substantially affects the value
*ust affect the legal relations of the parties to the covenant as
owners of particular parcels and not %erely as %e%bers of the
co%%unity in general $aullet v& 5tanley 5tilwell 8 5ons / covneys property to P for
KDk and covenant that will have / construct the original dwelling
or building& $ourt holds that this covenant does not touch or
concern the land b;c there is not both a benefitted and burdened
property but the covenant only benefits /, personally
-
8/11/2019 PROPERTY Petherbridge (2008)
31/35
2.istence of a do%inant estate is essential to the validity
of the servitudeo When the benefit is in gross, will not be held to run
with the land don't want to unnecessarily burden
property ownership if there is no benefit to ad4acen
landso When the burden is in gross, %ay still be
considered to run with the land *ust influence the occupation, use or en4oy%ent of the
pre%iseso ertical privity only Property "wners' 3ssociations have i%plied
vertical privity b;c essentially assigned the responsibility of representing
the interests of those who have benefitted parcels through vertical privit
and therefore can enforce equitable servitudes 3dverse Possessors do not run in privity at all
o /a%ages in4unction
$reation of an equitable servitude ) can be interests in land and while %ay be
in writing, in certain situations can be i%pliedo %plying reciprocal negative covenant if an owner of a subdivision
e.tracts a pro%ise fro% a plot in the subdivision, courts will i%ply a
reciprocal pro%ise on the part of the owner with respect to all other
lands owned such that if sells other parcels in the subdivision, the court
will i%ply that sa%e reciprocal pro%ise on those parcels as well,
whether or not they are stated in the deeds& 3s such, when doing a title search on one's own parcel within a
subdivision, %ust ensure that there are no covenants on other
parcels in the subdivision 3lso, arguably inquiry notice look at how other parcels are
being used 5anborn v& *c(ean *clean wants to put gas station on parcel
and has no restrictive covenant in his deed, although deed states
that it is part of a subdivision in which another parcel previously
was conveyed with a restrictive covenant of single fa%ily
residence only& $ourt held that by requiring the restriction on tha
one parcel, owner of subdivision %ade an i%plied return pro%ise
that other parcels would be used in such a way and therefore,
i%plied a reciprocal negative covenant $o%%on nterest 3ssociations each individual unit is owned separately in fe
si%ple& The rest is owned in fee si%ple as co%%on areas and owned as
tenants in co%%on& 9overnance is established by a declaration of
condo%iniu% that is recorded before the first sale is %ade, providing all dues,
rules, etc& 2ach purchaser, by accepting a deed, beco%es an association
%e%ber and %ust abide by its covenants, conditions and restrictionso 5upre%e court held that restrictions appearing in the originating
docu%ent have a very strong presu%ption of validity trend is to strike
-
8/11/2019 PROPERTY Petherbridge (2008)
32/35
down original covenants only if they are arbitrary or violate a public
policy or a constitutional righto :eponsit v& 2%igrant privity of H"3 8 touch and concern the land
establishes that H"3's can enforce covenants and equitable
servitudes on behalf of the other owners of benefitting lands who
are in vertical privity 8 that covenant to pay 0affir%ative covenan
does touch and concern the land b;c touches and concerns the
parcel owners undivided interest in the co%%on areas andconstitutes a pro%ise as to how the parcel owner will use those
areas&o P"$":" 5P:95 v& *3$@2:Q2
o :ahrstedt v& (akeside
-
8/11/2019 PROPERTY Petherbridge (2008)
33/35
landowners violations %ust cause such a 5-!5T3:T3( change in the
neighborhood that the original purpose of the covenants has been subverted
$hanged conditions covenants can ter%inate if the conditions : the
neighborhood have so changed that the covenant no longer serves its intende
purpose conditions on land outside the neighborhood are irrelevant even
when the e.ternal conditions %ake so%e Eborder> lots poorly suited for their
allowed uses
o Western (and v& Truskolaski DG acre subdivision with restriction foronly single fa%ily ho%es& $onditions around the subdivision have
changed dra%atically due to develop%ent, population growth,
co%%ercial develop%ent close to subdivision, e.pansion of %ain roads
/ wants to build a super%arket on one plot& $ourt held that conditions
outside the neighborhood do not sufficiently frustrate the purpose of the
covenant as still provide for safety for children, quiet, tranquil area to
raise fa%ily in, therefore, not sufficiently changed conditions to ter%inat
the covenanto ick v& West ick owns A7 acres, sells one to West with covenant of
single fa%ily ho%es only then, believing that rezoning sold to developer
but West refused to consent& $ourt held that not enough evidence of
changed conditions and since ick elected to pro%ote a residential
develop%ent, %ust honor it& Qoning ca%e into play to handle %assive urbanization and industrialization of cities to prevent
har%ful effects before they aroseo Purposes
To prevent inco%patible uses fro% occurring 0thus reducing nuisance1
To increase property values by %inizing use conflicts, increasing property ta. base
To channel develop%ent into patterns that %ay serve larger social goals
o 2uclidian zoning zoning fro% highest 0single fa%ily residential1 to lowest use 0industrial,
%ay e.clude residences b;c of how nuisance)like the industrial uses are1 but cu%ulative
where higher zoning buildings are allowed in lower zoning uses
-
8/11/2019 PROPERTY Petherbridge (2008)
34/35
zoning ordinances %ust be in relation to the co%prehensive plan state%ent
of the local govt&'s ob4ectives and standards for develop%ent, based on
surveys and studies to deter%ine the best develop%ent for the general welfare nonconfor%ing uses general rule nonconfor%ing uses can continue until they end
on their own, by their own natural causes unless nuisance? 3llow variances due to previous use
3llow e.ceptions within a zoning sche%e
o $ourt have a deferential policy ) the pro%ulgation of a zoning ordinance by the %unicipalityis presu%ptively valid if it is not unreasonable or arbitrary
courts use rational basis test if there is a rational relationship b;wn police powers
and zoning, the ordinance will stand& 2ven if fairly debatable, but appears to be a
rational basis, it will likely be held valid the ordinance %ust be sufficiently definite, otherwise void for wagueness& f vague, i
would cause arbitrary enforce%ent Qoning laws %ust function to protect the 0health, safety, %orals1 general welfare of th
co%%unity
$annot zone when arbitrary and does not further the general welfare and
public interest When zoning ordinance is applied to particular parcel, it %ay reach a point
where it is arbitrary and unreasonable 3esthetic egulation ) there is a split in the 4d. but %any courts hold that even
though beauty is sub4ective, aesthetic land use regulations are 4ust to prevent
lower property values& 3rchitectural review is one such controlo 5tate e.& el& 5toyanoff v& !erkeley court held that aesthetic provision
of the land use regulations was valid because aesthetic unifor%ity of th
neighorbhood was rationally related to the general welfare in that
affected the property values of the ad4oining property owners, ta. base
of the co%%unity is affected and public suffers econo%ically as a
result & valid e.ercise of the police power 5ign restrictions ) 3 %unicipality %ay not enact a blanket prohibition against
signs on residential property& 5igns are clearly a for% of e.pression protected
by the +irst 3%end%ent&o However, they do i%plicate the rights of local govern%ents police powe
as they take up space and %ay obstruct views&o Therefore, local govern%ent does have so%e regulatory power over
sign place%ent& 3ny regulation of this nature, however, will have to wa
a fine line between legiti%ate health and safety concerns and freedo%of e.pression&
o $ity of (adue v& 9illeo anti)war signs f you regulate too little, it's discri%inatory
f you regulate too %uch, infringe on 6sta%end%ent freedo% of
e.pression
2.clusionary zoning zoning regulations that essentially %ake it i%possible fo
lower inco%e fa%ilies to live in the neighborhood, or so%e other protected
group what other groups?
-
8/11/2019 PROPERTY Petherbridge (2008)
35/35
o :33$P v& *ount (aurel %ount laurel had zoning laws that %ade it
essentially i%possible for low inco%e fa%ilies to %ove into the entire
%unicipality& While *ount (aurel argued that it was for the general
welfare, the court held that it's definition of general welfare was too
narrow& 3 %unicipality is delegated police power by the state and when
the state uses it's police power, it is for the benefit of all of its citizens&
Therefore, when a %unicipality is e.ercising its police power that has
substantial effect outside the %unicipality, on the general welfare ofother citizens of the state, then %ust take those other citizens' general
welfare into account, proportionatelyo TH22 5 3: 3++*3T
top related