Property

Philosophical Perspectives......................................................................................................................................................8
Ownership Theories ................................................................................................................................................................8
Lockean Labor Theory ...................................................................................................................................................................... 8
Personhood Theory............................................................................................................................................................................ 8
Ab Infimis Usque ad Coelum ............................................................................................................................................................ 8
Indian Ownership Structures from Changes in Land Cronon ........................................................................................................ 8

Fundamental Issues/Questions .........................................................................................................................................8

Property Triad............................................................................................................................................................................... 8
Creating Rules ................................................................................................................................................................................... 8
How to Enforce Property Rules......................................................................................................................................................... 9
Institutions ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 9
Remedies ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 9
Hohfeldian Reasoning ....................................................................................................................................................................... 9

Commons .................................................................................................................................................................................9
How to Manage the Commons .........................................................................................................................................9
Tragedy of the Commons .................................................................................................................................................................. 9
Community Property Theory Demsetz......................................................................................................................................... 10

Examples of Commons ....................................................................................................................................................10

Whaling ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 10
Oysters............................................................................................................................................................................................. 10
Lobster Gangs.................................................................................................................................................................................. 10

How to Solve Problem of Commons...............................................................................................................................11

Prescriptive Regulation............................................................................................................................................................... 11
Property Rights System .............................................................................................................................................................. 11
Privitization ................................................................................................................................................................................ 11
Penalties...................................................................................................................................................................................... 11
Payments..................................................................................................................................................................................... 11
Persuasion ................................................................................................................................................................................... 11

Acquisition of Property .........................................................................................................................................................11

Title Basics........................................................................................................................................................................11
Chain of Title.............................................................................................................................................................................. 11
Quiet Title Action ....................................................................................................................................................................... 11

Wild Animals....................................................................................................................................................................11
Pierson v. Post ................................................................................................................................................................................. 11
Keeble v. Hickeringill ..................................................................................................................................................................... 12

Oil and Gas.......................................................................................................................................................................12

Rule of Capture................................................................................................................................................................................ 12

Water ................................................................................................................................................................................12
Ground Water .................................................................................................................................................................................. 12
Types of Groundwater Law ........................................................................................................................................................ 12
Surface Water .................................................................................................................................................................................. 13
English Rule ............................................................................................................................................................................... 13
Riparian Regime (East): Evans v. Merriweather........................................................................................................................ 13
Prior Appropriation Regime (West): Coffin v. Left Hand Ditch ............................................................................................... 13
Doctrine of Waste ....................................................................................................................................................................... 13
Ways to Lose Water Right.......................................................................................................................................................... 13

Finding and Gifts .............................................................................................................................................................13

Finders Rules ................................................................................................................................................................................... 13
Lost Property .............................................................................................................................................................................. 13
Mislaid Property ......................................................................................................................................................................... 14
Abandoned Property ................................................................................................................................................................... 14
Landowners Rights.................................................................................................................................................................... 14

Property
Policy Goals................................................................................................................................................................................ 14
Practical Problem with Chattel ................................................................................................................................................... 14
Gifts ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 14

Discovery ..........................................................................................................................................................................15
Johnson v. MIntosh ........................................................................................................................................................................ 15

Accession...........................................................................................................................................................................15
Increase............................................................................................................................................................................................ 15
True Accession ................................................................................................................................................................................ 15
Does original owner get value of resource or finished product? ................................................................................................ 15
Accretion ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 15
Avulsion .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 16

Adverse Possession ..........................................................................................................................................................16

AP Against Life Estate ............................................................................................................................................................... 16
Rationale for Adverse Possession ................................................................................................................................................... 16
Necessary Elements......................................................................................................................................................................... 16
Actual Possession ....................................................................................................................................................................... 16
Hostile......................................................................................................................................................................................... 16
Open and Notorious.................................................................................................................................................................... 16
Exclusive Possession .................................................................................................................................................................. 17
Continuous for Statutory Period ................................................................................................................................................. 17
Ways to Adjudicate an Adverse Possession Claim ......................................................................................................................... 17
Ejectment Action ........................................................................................................................................................................ 17
Quiet Title................................................................................................................................................................................... 17
Sample Remedy .......................................................................................................................................................................... 17
Misc. Doctrines................................................................................................................................................................................ 17
Doctrine of Dedication ............................................................................................................................................................... 17
Doctrine of Agreed Boundaries .................................................................................................................................................. 18
Adverse Possession for Chattel ....................................................................................................................................................... 18

Intellectual Property..............................................................................................................................................................18
Types of Intellectual Property ........................................................................................................................................18
Goals With IP Rules ........................................................................................................................................................18
Theories to Create IP Rules ............................................................................................................................................18
Copyright of Ideas ...........................................................................................................................................................18
Adapting to Technological Innovation............................................................................................................................................ 18
INS v. AP ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 18
Downey v. General Foods ............................................................................................................................................................... 19
Baseball Stats .................................................................................................................................................................................. 19
Copyright Act .................................................................................................................................................................................. 19
106 - Exclusive Rights............................................................................................................................................................. 19
107 Fair Use.......................................................................................................................................................................... 19
Campbell v. Acuff-Rose ............................................................................................................................................................. 19
Perfect 10 v. Google ................................................................................................................................................................... 20
Photocopying Copyrighted Materials.............................................................................................................................................. 20
Williams & Wilkins v. US.......................................................................................................................................................... 20
American Geophysical Union v. Texaco.................................................................................................................................... 20

Patents...............................................................................................................................................................................20
Requirements for a Patent from PTO .............................................................................................................................................. 20
Cases................................................................................................................................................................................................ 20
Lear v. Adkins (1969)................................................................................................................................................................. 20
Blonder Tongue v. IL (1971)...................................................................................................................................................... 21
Brenner v. Manson (1966).......................................................................................................................................................... 21
Labcorp v. Metabolite (2006) ..................................................................................................................................................... 21
Fashion ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 21

Property in Person.................................................................................................................................................................21
2

Property

Ownership of Your Body ................................................................................................................................................21

Moore v. Regents............................................................................................................................................................................. 21
Elvis Foundation v. Elvis Enterprises Right of Publicity............................................................................................................. 21
Take Aways from Moore and Elvis................................................................................................................................................. 22

Taboo Markets .................................................................................................................................................................22

Categories of Restricted Trade ........................................................................................................................................................ 22
Why Bothered by Money Transfers in Market Inalienable ........................................................................................................ 22
Legal Approaches to Taboo Markets.......................................................................................................................................... 22

Martial Property ....................................................................................................................................................................22

Martial Property Schemes ..............................................................................................................................................22
Rights During Marriage................................................................................................................................................................... 22
Tenancy By the Entirety ............................................................................................................................................................. 22
Tenancy in Common .................................................................................................................................................................. 22
Distribution following Dissolution of Marriage.............................................................................................................................. 22
Disposition on Death .................................................................................................................................................................. 22
Disposition on Divorce ............................................................................................................................................................... 23
C/L Property & Equitable Distribution ...................................................................................................................................... 23
Community Property (French, Spanish Settled States) .............................................................................................................. 23
Quasi-Community Property........................................................................................................................................................ 23
Professional Training as Martial Property.................................................................................................................................. 23
Premarital Agreements ............................................................................................................................................................... 23

Variances from Traditional Marriage ...........................................................................................................................24

Unmarried Heterosexual Cohabitation ............................................................................................................................................ 24
Marvin v. Marvin........................................................................................................................................................................ 24
Unmarried Same-Sex Cohabitation................................................................................................................................................. 24
Baker v. State.............................................................................................................................................................................. 24

Estates in Real Property and Defeasible Interests ...............................................................................................................24

Estates in Land.................................................................................................................................................................24
Types of Estates in Land ................................................................................................................................................................. 24
Fee Simple Absolute................................................................................................................................................................... 24
Life Estate................................................................................................................................................................................... 24
Remainder................................................................................................................................................................................... 25
Defeasible Estates Basic ............................................................................................................................................................. 25
Waste ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 25
Permissible Waste....................................................................................................................................................................... 25
Active Waste............................................................................................................................................................................... 25
Ameliorative Waste .................................................................................................................................................................... 25
Brokaw v. Fairchild Blocking Ameliorative Waste ................................................................................................................ 25
Melms v. Pabst Brewing Allows Ameliorative Waste ............................................................................................................ 25

Defeasible Estates.............................................................................................................................................................26
Types of Defeasible Estates............................................................................................................................................................. 26
Fee Simple Determinable ........................................................................................................................................................... 26
Fee Simple Subject to a Condition Subsequent.......................................................................................................................... 26
Fee Simple Subject to an Executory Limitation ......................................................................................................................... 26
Rules of Construction for Defeasible Estate ................................................................................................................................... 26
General Rules ............................................................................................................................................................................. 26
Fitzgerald v. Modoc Condition or Covenant? ......................................................................................................................... 26

Future Interest in Land...................................................................................................................................................27

Future Interests in Grantors ............................................................................................................................................................. 27
Reversion Vested Interest ........................................................................................................................................................ 27
Power of Termination / Right of Reentry ................................................................................................................................... 27
Possibility of Reverter ................................................................................................................................................................ 27
Future Interests in Grantees............................................................................................................................................................. 27
Remainder................................................................................................................................................................................... 27
Contingent Remainder ................................................................................................................................................................ 27

Property
Vested Remainder....................................................................................................................................................................... 27
Executory Interest....................................................................................................................................................................... 28
Difference Between Vested Remainder Subject to Divestment and Contingent Remainder..................................................... 28
Practice of Disclaimer ................................................................................................................................................................ 28
Rule Against Perpetuities ................................................................................................................................................................ 28
Basic RAP................................................................................................................................................................................... 28
C/L RAP What Might Happen ................................................................................................................................................ 28
Statutory RAP Wait and See ................................................................................................................................................... 29
Remedy for RAP Violation ........................................................................................................................................................ 29
Rubric for RAP Problem ............................................................................................................................................................ 29

Trusts ................................................................................................................................................................................29
Basics............................................................................................................................................................................................... 29
Reasons to Setup Trust ............................................................................................................................................................... 29

Restraints on Alienability ...............................................................................................................................................29

Rule Against Restraints on Alienation ............................................................................................................................................ 29
Types of Restraints ..................................................................................................................................................................... 30
Validity on Type of Interest Restrained ..................................................................................................................................... 30
Degree of Restraint ..................................................................................................................................................................... 30
Riste v. E. Wash. Bible Camp .................................................................................................................................................... 30
White v. Brown........................................................................................................................................................................... 30

Concurrent Interests .............................................................................................................................................................30

Tenancy in Common .......................................................................................................................................................30
Creation ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 30
Termination ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 31
Rights of Co-Tenants....................................................................................................................................................................... 31

Joint Tenancy ...................................................................................................................................................................31

Purposes........................................................................................................................................................................................... 31
Creation Four Unities ................................................................................................................................................................... 31
Severance......................................................................................................................................................................................... 31
Mortgage of Joint Tenant ................................................................................................................................................................ 31
Lien Theory ................................................................................................................................................................................ 31
Title Theory ................................................................................................................................................................................ 31
Strawman Severance ....................................................................................................................................................................... 32
Notice in Joint Tenancy................................................................................................................................................................... 32

Tenancy by the Entirety..................................................................................................................................................32

Creation ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 32
Severance......................................................................................................................................................................................... 32

Rights and Duties of Co-Tenants ...................................................................................................................................32

Partition ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 32
Types of Partition ....................................................................................................................................................................... 32
Possession........................................................................................................................................................................................ 32
Ouster.......................................................................................................................................................................................... 32
Contribution..................................................................................................................................................................................... 32
Fiduciary Obligations ...................................................................................................................................................................... 33
Accounting ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 33
Rents ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 33
Depletion .................................................................................................................................................................................... 33
Depletion of Homogenous Resources Kirby v. Temple Lumber ............................................................................................ 33
Depletion of Heterogeneous Resources White v. Smyth ........................................................................................................ 33

Leaseholds .............................................................................................................................................................................34
Types of Leaseholds.........................................................................................................................................................34
Term of Years.................................................................................................................................................................................. 34
Periodic Tenancy ............................................................................................................................................................................. 34
Tenancy At Will .............................................................................................................................................................................. 34

Property
Statute of Frauds.............................................................................................................................................................................. 34

Terminating Leases .........................................................................................................................................................34

Landlords Rights ............................................................................................................................................................34
Remedies for Tenant Breach and for Holding Over........................................................................................................................ 34
Forcible Entry and Forcible Detainer ......................................................................................................................................... 34
Jordan v. Talbot .......................................................................................................................................................................... 34
Unlawful Detainer Action .......................................................................................................................................................... 34
Distrain ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 35
Normative Questions .................................................................................................................................................................. 35
Holding Over .............................................................................................................................................................................. 35
Remedies for Tenants Abandonment ............................................................................................................................................. 35
Accepting Surrender ................................................................................................................................................................... 35
Periodic Suites for Rent .............................................................................................................................................................. 35
Sommer v. Kridel ....................................................................................................................................................................... 35
Reletting on Tenants Account ................................................................................................................................................... 35

Tenants Rights and Remedies .......................................................................................................................................35

Implied Covenant to Deliver Possession......................................................................................................................................... 35
American Rule Minority Rule in US ....................................................................................................................................... 36
English Rule Majority Rule in US........................................................................................................................................... 36
Advantages of English over American Rule .............................................................................................................................. 36
Implied Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment............................................................................................................................................ 36
Eviction....................................................................................................................................................................................... 36
Constructive Eviction ................................................................................................................................................................. 36
Right to Inhabitable Premises.......................................................................................................................................................... 36
Javins v. First National Realty.................................................................................................................................................... 36
Tenant-Initiated Remedies to Enforce Habitability.................................................................................................................... 37
Right Against Retaliatory Eviction ................................................................................................................................................. 37
Elements ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 37
Remedies .................................................................................................................................................................................... 37

Traditional Nonpossessory Interests ....................................................................................................................................37

Easements .........................................................................................................................................................................37
Basics............................................................................................................................................................................................... 37
Servient Estate ............................................................................................................................................................................ 37
Dominant Estate ......................................................................................................................................................................... 37
Types of Easements......................................................................................................................................................................... 38
Affirmative Easement................................................................................................................................................................. 38
Negative Easement ..................................................................................................................................................................... 38
Easement Appurtenant................................................................................................................................................................ 38
Easement in Gross ...................................................................................................................................................................... 38
Repairs............................................................................................................................................................................................. 38
Creation of Easements..................................................................................................................................................................... 38
Express Easements ..................................................................................................................................................................... 38
Faus v. LA Function Over Form for Easements...................................................................................................................... 39
Easement by Implication ............................................................................................................................................................ 39
Easement by Necessity ............................................................................................................................................................... 39
Reese v. Borghi........................................................................................................................................................................... 39
Easement by Estoppel................................................................................................................................................................. 39
Easement by Prescription ........................................................................................................................................................... 39
Termination of Easements............................................................................................................................................................... 40
By Expiration.............................................................................................................................................................................. 40
By Easement Holder ................................................................................................................................................................... 40
By Owner of Servient Estate ...................................................................................................................................................... 40
By Third Parties.......................................................................................................................................................................... 40
Conservation Easements.................................................................................................................................................................. 41
Debt-for-Nature Swap ................................................................................................................................................................ 41

Public Trust Doctrine ......................................................................................................................................................41

5

Property
Basics............................................................................................................................................................................................... 41
Types of Public Trust Cases ............................................................................................................................................................ 41
Alienation of Trust Resources (Illinois Central) ........................................................................................................................ 41
Diversion of Resources............................................................................................................................................................... 41
Access (Matthews v. Bay Head Assn) ...................................................................................................................................... 41

Covenants .........................................................................................................................................................................42
Basics............................................................................................................................................................................................... 42
Elements of a Real Covenant .......................................................................................................................................................... 42
When original owner burdens lots, he benefits the lots he still owned on that date. Lots already sold DO NOT BENEFIT.
42
Criteria for Burden of Real Covenant to Run With Land........................................................................................................... 42
Criteria for Benefit to Run With Land........................................................................................................................................ 42
Neponsit v. Emigrant Bank Vertical Privity Issue .................................................................................................................. 43
Remedy for Breach.......................................................................................................................................................................... 43
Termination of Real Covenants....................................................................................................................................................... 43
Doctrine of Unclean Hands ........................................................................................................................................................ 43
Eagle Enterprises v. Gross.......................................................................................................................................................... 43

Equitable Servitudes........................................................................................................................................................43
Basics............................................................................................................................................................................................... 43
Elements of Equitable Servitudes.................................................................................................................................................... 44
Criteria for Burden to Run With Land........................................................................................................................................ 44
Criteria for Benefit to Run With Land........................................................................................................................................ 44
Similarities/Differences Between Real Covenants and Equitable Servitudes............................................................................ 44
Sanborn v. McLean..................................................................................................................................................................... 44
Remedies ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 44
Bolotin v. Ridge.......................................................................................................................................................................... 44
Shelley v. Kraemer ..................................................................................................................................................................... 45
Rubric for R.C./E.S. Problems: ....................................................................................................................................................... 45
Recording Acts Determine Who Owns the Land ......................................................................................................................... 45
Race Statute ................................................................................................................................................................................ 45
Race/Notice Statute .................................................................................................................................................................... 45
Notice Statute ............................................................................................................................................................................. 45

Common Interest Communities .....................................................................................................................................45

Basics............................................................................................................................................................................................... 45
Structure...................................................................................................................................................................................... 45
Common Declaration.................................................................................................................................................................. 45
Benefits of CICs .............................................................................................................................................................................. 46
Models of Judicial Review of CICs ................................................................................................................................................ 46
Problems With Judicial Review ................................................................................................................................................. 46
Narhstedt v. Lakeside Village Condo......................................................................................................................................... 46

Nuisance and Trespass .........................................................................................................................................................46

Nuisance............................................................................................................................................................................46
Elements .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 46
Private Nuisance - Restatement .................................................................................................................................................. 46
Restatement Balancing Test ....................................................................................................................................................... 47
Intentional Nuisance ................................................................................................................................................................... 47
Public Nuisance .......................................................................................................................................................................... 47
Application of Nuisance .................................................................................................................................................................. 47
Waschak v. Moffat ..................................................................................................................................................................... 47
Boomer v. Atlantic Cement ........................................................................................................................................................ 47
Remedies ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 47
Compensation/Money Damages................................................................................................................................................. 47
Injunction.................................................................................................................................................................................... 48
Do Nothing ................................................................................................................................................................................. 48
Payment from P to D to stop Nuisance....................................................................................................................................... 48
Debate Over Adopting S/L for Nuisance ........................................................................................................................................ 48
Pro-S/L Reasons ......................................................................................................................................................................... 48

Property
Anti-S/L Reasons........................................................................................................................................................................ 48

Trespass ............................................................................................................................................................................48
General C/L Rule............................................................................................................................................................................. 48
Pile v. Pedrick............................................................................................................................................................................. 48
Geragosian v. Union Realty........................................................................................................................................................ 48
Raab v. Casper ............................................................................................................................................................................ 49
Limits on Trespass........................................................................................................................................................................... 49
State v. Shack ............................................................................................................................................................................. 49
PruneYard v. Robbins (1980) ..................................................................................................................................................... 49
Justifications for Modifying Right to Exclude ........................................................................................................................... 49

Takings ..................................................................................................................................................................................49
Penn Coal v. Mahon ................................................................................................................................................................... 50
Problem With Takings................................................................................................................................................................ 50
How to Evaluate Takings Claims .................................................................................................................................................... 50

Physical Occupation ........................................................................................................................................................50

Loretto v. Teleprompter CATV (1982) ........................................................................................................................................... 50
Limits on PPOs................................................................................................................................................................................ 51

Exactions...........................................................................................................................................................................51
Nollan .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 51
Dolan v. Tigard................................................................................................................................................................................ 51
Basic Exaction Analysis .................................................................................................................................................................. 51

Regulatory Takings .........................................................................................................................................................51

Development of Regulatory Takings............................................................................................................................................... 51
Hadachek .................................................................................................................................................................................... 51
Schoene....................................................................................................................................................................................... 51
PA Coal....................................................................................................................................................................................... 51
Denominator Problem................................................................................................................................................................. 51
Big Issue ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 52
Penn Central RR v. NY ................................................................................................................................................................... 52
Lucas v. SC Coastal Commission ................................................................................................................................................... 52

Public Use .........................................................................................................................................................................52

Berman v. Parker (1954) ................................................................................................................................................................. 52
Poletown (1984) .............................................................................................................................................................................. 52
HHA v. Midkiff (1984) ................................................................................................................................................................... 52
Kelo v. New London (2005)............................................................................................................................................................ 53

Zoning....................................................................................................................................................................................53
Fundamentals of Zoning .................................................................................................................................................53
Types of Zoning .............................................................................................................................................................................. 53
Use Zoning ................................................................................................................................................................................. 53
Area Zoning ................................................................................................................................................................................ 53
Cluster Zoning ............................................................................................................................................................................ 53
Planned Unit Developments ....................................................................................................................................................... 53
Comprehensive Plan ................................................................................................................................................................... 53
Zoning Ordinances ..................................................................................................................................................................... 53
Ways to Get out of a Zoning Requirement...................................................................................................................................... 53
Benefits of Zoning........................................................................................................................................................................... 54
Disadvantages of Zoning ............................................................................................................................................................ 54

Cases .................................................................................................................................................................................54
Euclid v. Ambler Realty .................................................................................................................................................................. 54
Ladue v. Gilleo ................................................................................................................................................................................ 54
Renton v. Playtime Theatres............................................................................................................................................................ 54
Take Aways ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 55

Property

Philosophical Perspectives
Ownership Theories
Lockean Labor Theory

Ownership derives from labor. Whatever man labors over, then he takes it out of Nature and makes it
his. Labor removes from the commons
o Underlying premise is that the only thing one truly owns is labor
Very important when it comes to unclaimed resources.
o Presupposes an endless supply of land, so private appropriation of commons harms no one
Influential for IP.

Personhood Theory

Thing which you have used and enjoyed as your own for a long time, becomes a part of you and
becomes your property.
Can contradict Lockean Labor Theory. Even if transformative labor is put into your property, if it
remains so personal to you, then the ownership rights cannot be changed.

Ab Infimis Usque ad Coelum

Classic theory that your property rights extend from earth to the sky

Indian Ownership Structures from Changes in Land Cronon

Individual Ownership. Village inhabitants view of property relative within village. Owned what one
produced. Ownership did not have a sense of permanence
Collective Sovereignty. Territorial claims defined relative to other villages. Sachem vested with
village territorial rights, but needed to consult elders.
Purchase and Sale of Land. Land transactions as diplomatic exchange not economic purchases.
o Usufructory Rights (right to use anothers property without damaging or diminishing it, not
absolute title transfer)
o Indians transacted only in usufructory rights, not in fee simple.
o Indians owned things on the land, not the land itself.
Colonists viewed land as a commodity. Land rights were for fixed parcels to be bought or sold.
o Fences and livestock were pivotal elements in English rationale for taking Indian lands.
Why are property right systems different between Indians and Colonists?
o Nature of important resources. Foraging society vs. agricultural.
o What are you trying to maximize? Settled agriculture requires strong, fixed property rights.

Fundamental Issues/Questions

What does it mean to own property?

What are the rights? Burdens?
Which property allocation system best meets the goals important to you?
o Not just the nature of the property that determines the rules.
o What are the social goals you are trying to meet?
Property Triad
o Nature of resource
o Rules
o Institutions enforcing rules

Creating Rules

Rules of distribution depend on:

8

Property

o 1) relative scarcity of resource; 2) what social goal we want to achieve

How do your property rights compare to everyone elses rights? A holds B (land) against C (the
world)
o Creating relative social relationships
Argument Methods to Create Rules:
o Calls to Authority
Legal authority
Customary authority
o Instrumental
Avoid high transaction costs
Specific ends
o If you take an instrumental approach, then no need to define what is possession. Possession
is defined by the goal you are trying to achieve.

How to Enforce Property Rules

State Enforcement
Customary enforcement all share in common norms and follow the rules

Institutions

Private Norms/Customs
Public legal roles
Markets (trade, contracts, etc.)
Political institutions (legislature, zoning boards)

Remedies
Property Rule:
Get Property
Liability Rule:
Pay

P (Owner)
Chattel

D (Improver)
Chattel

Gets chattel, but

pays D for labor

Gets chattel,
but pays P
for property
value
Notes 4 possible outcomes using Property or Liability Rules

Hohfeldian Reasoning
o
o
o
o

Property isnt absolute ownership. Think of property in terms of what others can and cannot
do with the property.
Property Right: Claim, enforceable by the state, that others act or refrain acting in a certain
manner in relation to rightholder. Ex. Right to Exclude
Duty: For every right, there is a corresponding duty. Ex. With Right to Exclude is Duty not
to Trespass
Privilege: Right to act in a certain manner towards property. For every privilege, there is no
duty.

Commons
How to Manage the Commons
Tragedy of the Commons

When you have open access commons, individual economic incentives (to use more for yourself) lead
to ruin
Certain Assumptions in Tragedy of Commons:
9

Property

o Selfish behavior is rational

o Overuse of resources
o Open Access Commons (not a community property regime)
o Collective Action Problem
o No effective norms
Why Talk about the Commons?
o Negative externalities always arise
o Need to ask what is the nature of the resource and the property right
o Can you reduce costs on society w/out govt intervention?
Economists View of Tragedy:
o Problem is we assign no price on the resource or public good (air, water, etc.) Tend to
subsidize destructive activities (pay money to building fishing boats)

Community Property Theory Demsetz

Property rights over commons develop as community acknowledges and adapts to external situations
to which old property rights are poorly attuned
o Market changes drive private property rights
Ex. New market emerges (European fur traders to Indians)
o Economic incentives make it worthwhile to maintain private property
Types of Property Rights:
o Communal Ownership: right exercised by all members of the community
Disadvantage in that full costs are not borne by actor. High costs of negotiating
o Private Ownership: Community recognizes right of owner to exclude others from exercising
owners private rights
Pro: Incentivizes efficient utilization of resources. Lower negotiation costs
Con: No direct incentive to account for effects on neighbors
o State Ownership: State owns land and can exclude anyone from use of right as long as state
follows accepted political procedures

Examples of Commons
Whaling

True open access commons. Close-knit whaling communities. Developed their own set of industry
property rules, which were applied in the courts.
o Parties respected rules because of shared norms and customs
Ex. Fast-fish versus loose-fish to determine possession
o Rights go with possession

Oysters

Scarce resource is the oyster habitat- cultch (bed where oysters grow)
2 Industry Property Structures:
o Private Right Based on Leaseholds. Internalizes cost of harvesters actions. Enables
producer to get greater proportion of benefit for efforts (ie. sustaining cultch)
o Common Right System. Cost of ones actions not fully borne by him. No incentive to invest
in cultch or oysters.
Problem b/c cultch requires a lot of work to make productive
Private rights would make a big different in labor productivity and investment in resource

Lobster Gangs

Gangs, established by harbor, control entry to industry. Gang territories are long-standing, unofficial
reality
o Escalating enforcement regime (warning, then destruction of traps)
o Enforcement within the community. Outsiders warned off by threats of violence
10

Property

For communal access to work, need:

o Closed community
o Efficient monitoring
o Shared norms
o Reciprocity of sanction (no official court)
Breakdowns happen when outsiders come in; technological improvement; new markets created

How to Solve Problem of Commons

Prescriptive Regulation
Central Government regulations limiting resource destruction. To work, need accurate info
on resource, effective monitoring, enforcement
Property Rights System
Cap-and-trade. Create rights in resource, make them alienable. Regulate and require
property right in order to use resource.
Privitization
People internalize benefits and externalities. Incentivize good management.
Penalties
Tax use of resource. Self-regulation.
Payments
Reward behavior you like. Pay them not to do something (subsidy)
Persuasion
Soft approach. Give people info and hope they change.

Acquisition of Property
Title Basics

Legal claim to land and may be enforced by the state

Principles of Euclidean Title System:
Property is fixed
Traceable title to origin (see MIntosh)
Title is exclusive
Chain of Title
Go back in time to find person who had superior title to land. Court only looks at the parties
in suit, not all possible parties.
Quiet Title Action
Party will ask for court to establish a right to property. Claimant then serves notice on all
those who might have claim.

Wild Animals
Pierson v. Post

2 men chase fox on deserted beach. 1 steps in at last minute and kills it
11

Property

Formalistic Holding: Pursuit alone does not equal possession. Intent to possess by wounding an
animal deprives it of natural liberty. Brings it under partys control and possession.
Custom Argument: Follow a community standard of sportsmen. Create a reasonable prospect of
capture standard.

Keeble v. Hickeringill

Keeble owned duck decoy pond. Hick tried to move ducks to his pond by shooting a gun.
Rule: Cause of action whenever violent or malicious act to an occupation
o Court wants to encourage fair and not destructive competition for resources
Keeble can sue.

Oil and Gas

Nature of Resource: Likened to wild animals in that it moves underneath surface.

Rule of Capture
o

One who has the oil in his hands is one who owns. Owning land is not necessary to possess oil
underneath
Pros: Incentivizes exploration and investment. Simple to adjudicate. Certainty.
Cons: Race to extract. Inefficient extraction. Oversupply (concerned like Keeble with nature
of competition?)
Overcoming Rule of Capture Problems:
Trading Market. Set rights on how much can be extracted
Unitization. Force integration of competing interests over a resource area. Force communal
ownership
Rationing.
Well-spacing. Min. distance between well and property line, and max. number of wells.

Water

Value of land often linked with access to and control of water

Ground Water
o
o

Groundwater fills interstices of land

Water table connects everything, but law does not recognize this
Permeability determines how easily water moves through ground
Recharge Rate: how long it takes to replenish ground water
Safe Yield: Amount you can extract such that water table doesnt fall
Overdrafted: Going beyond the safe yield
Subsidence: as you remove water, replaced by air and land collapses
Goals of Water Use?
Keep safe yield and water sustainable
Mine the water allow resource to be depleted but at a safe rate
Types of Groundwater Law
English Rule (Capture): Water no different than wild animal. Anything in or under your
property is yours (even if underground aquifer extends under anothers land)
o Problems: No limits on taking of water; inefficient use
o Dry land farming (irrigation farming) major factor in limiting English Rule
American Rule (Reasonable Use): Can only take water for a reasonable and beneficial use.
Presumption water is used on land directly above aquifer.
Correlative (Coequal) Rights: Each property owner may take reasonable amount, but there is
a limit on reasonable use. Shares based on acreage
o Shortage: Water must be shared
12

Property

o Plenty: Pure American Rule.

Restatement (Balancing) Rule: Court looks at several factors to determine reasonable use
amount. Can limit amount pumped out, but water may be transported to other areas
Prior Appropriation: First in time, first in right. Exclusively used in West.

Surface Water
English Rule
Take as much as you want just cant divert stream from its source
Riparian Regime (East): Evans v. Merriweather
Riparian property in water is usufructuary. Use right in the flow of the water (not the water
itself)
Must be reasonable use of common streams. Test of reasonableness is whether it harms
other proprietors or not
o Natural Use: Absolutely necessary uses. Drinking water for man and cattle
o Artificial Use: Irrigation for agriculture, manufacturing.
o New Rule: 1) Each riparian proprietor can use as much water as necessary for natural
wants. 2) But, if use is for artificial need, and others below have natural needs, then
must allow enough for others. 3) If all have artificial needs, then must only use a just
amount
Above new rule is result of technological change (rise of water-powered mills)
Prior Appropriation Regime (West): Coffin v. Left Hand Ditch
First appropriator of water from a stream for a beneficial purpose has prior right to extent of
the appropriation.
o Incentivizes parties to quickly settle lands and divert water for agriculture.
o Justified on a Lockean basis. First people put in labor to irrigate. Dont want to
destroy value of those lands by successive parties
Pro: Efficiency. Assumes first use is most efficient
Con: No necessary link between first in time and efficient use. Encourages waste and
overuse of water.
Doctrine of Waste
Lose your right if you waste your water. Determine waste of appropriated water by look at
some level of implied efficiency.
Ways to Lose Water Right
Waste
Stop using it
Stop putting it to a beneficial use.

Finding and Gifts

Finders Rules

Finder of Property acquires no rights in mislaid property, is entitled to possession of lost property
against all but True Owner, or is entitled to abandoned property against all
o Key distinction between abandoned, lost and mislaid property
Relative Strength of Title: Closer you get to original owner, stronger your relative claim.
Lost Property
Found in a place where the true owner likely did not intend to set it down, and where it is not
likely to be found by the true owner.
13

Property

Rule: Finder of a lost item could claim the right to possess the item against any
person except the true owner or any previous possessors
Finder prevails against all but true, rightful owner. Armory (chimney sweep)
o

Mislaid Property
o True owner unintentionally relinquishes it.
Rule: Property becomes that of owner of the premises where it was found.
o McAvoy: Customer finds pocketbook in shop, gives it to store owner to find true owner.
True owner never found, became property of shopowner rather than customer.
Abandoned Property
o Found in a place where the true owner likely intended to leave it, but is in such a condition
that it is apparent that the true owner has no intention of returning to claim the item.
Rule: Abandoned property generally becomes the property of whoever should find it
and take possession of it first
o Hannah v. Peel: Soldier finds brooch in house owned by absentee landlord; true owner long
gone. Finder gets brooch.
Holds: Man does not necessarily possess a thing lying unattached on surface of land
even though unowned by someone else.
Landowners Rights
o Landowner generally entitled against finder to property found on land, but landowner must
have intent to exercise control over property. If property found by agents of landowner, then
as if landowner himself found property. South Staffordshire Water Co. (finds rings)
Policy Goals
o Return goods to True Owner
o Find lost goods
o Productive use of goods
o Discourage trespassing
o Encourage Honesty
Practical Problem with Chattel
o No good records system to prove ownership. Presumes possession is rightful unless proven
otherwise. Cannot protect interests of BFP and True Owner rule favors True Owner
(always get property back from BFP)

Gifts

To make a gift, need 1) Intent; and 2) Delivery

o Intention to Make a Gift
Need not be express, can be inferred from facts of delivery
Must be clear that decedent knew what he was doing and intended to make a gift
o Delivery of Thing
Actual delivery
Constructive delivery (ex. keys to a locked trunk)
Symbolic delivery. Some article delivered in lieu of intended item
Newman v. Bost: Alleged gift by intestate decedent. Balance of Public Policy goal of preventing
fraud (through statute of frauds and wills) and carrying out intent of parties.
o Constructive delivery sufficient when intent is there, but items to be donated are not
physically present or incapable of manual delivery

14

Property

Discovery
Johnson v. MIntosh

Decides basis for all title in United States

o Johnson: Purchased title first from Indians
o MIntosh: Bought land from US
Ownership Justification for MIntosh: England held property rights against all other Euros through discovery.
English conquered lands from Indians and acquired title, which transferred to US.
o Lockean Notion that Indians werent productively using the land. Indians only had temporary right to
occupy
Pragmatic Justification: Too much has already been done under English title basis to change it now
o Example of Legal Realism. Judges reach decisions by policy considerations.

Accession

Common feature is ownership of a contested resource or an unclaimed resource is assigned to the owner of
another resource b/c of some relationship between known/unknown resources.
o NO VOLUNTARY CONVEYANCES

Increase
o

Applies to wandering cattle and animals.

Ex. If your cows wander on someone elses land and they give birth there, calves belong to
original owner

True Accession

Take someone elses property (conversion), put your own labor into it (Lockean theory) and it
becomes yours.
o Depends on the amount of labor and the addition in value
o MUST pay restitution to original owner.
Does original owner get value of resource or finished product?
o Wetherbee v. Green: Cut down timber and made hoops. Original owner gets value of timber
or value of hoops?
Owner may reclaim property if there has been no substantial change in value of
property (despite addition of labor)
If property made into an entirely new thing, then product belongs to laborer and only
damages are for original value of converted property
Critical Factors:
Mental state of improver (good faith?)
Degree of transformation (big increase in value?)
Amount of labor it took to transform
o Edward v. Sims: Man found cave, explored it, built it into entertainment attraction. Neighbor
claims some of the cave under his land.
Majority favors ad coelum argument (own everything under your land)
Dissent argues for Accession. Own nothing which cannot be subject to your
dominion.
Lockean approach based on labor and conquest.

Accretion

Gradual deposit by water of a solid material producing dry land that before was covered by water.
NE v. IA
Boundary between riparian owners changes with the stream.
o Rationale that every riparian proprietor could gain or lose at whim of stream
15

Property

Disincentive because the boundary is ever changing

Avulsion

Boundary stream suddenly creates new channel and abandons old one. Change must be visible and
violent. NE v. IA
Boundary remains fixed as it was in center of old channel.
o Rationale is that there is no correlative detachment of earth from one side and addition to
other

Adverse Possession

Means by which a trespasser, over a fixed period of time, gains title to someone elses land through deliberate
or inadvertent occupancy
o Statute of Limitations enjoins True Owner from bringing suit against occupier
Adverse Possessor stakes out rights against True Owner when he first starts on the land Assumes AP
against FSA owner
AP Against Life Estate
Adverse Possessor takes True Owner as he finds her. Stakes out claim against holder of the
life estate NOT against the remainderman

Rationale for Adverse Possession

o
o
o
o

Make Productive Use of Land

No sleeping on ones rights
Minimize boundary errors encourage policing of land
Security of Investment. Occupier is investing in the property.

Necessary Elements
Actual Possession
Adverse Possessor must physically possess the land.
Goal to award title to occupier only if he has been productive with land
EXCEPTION: Doctrine of Constructive Possession (unknowing holder of a color
of title deed gains title to all land in deed, not just actual possession)
o Rule: When both have color of title, first in time first in right.
Hostile
Must occupy land without express or implied permission of True Owner
Some states require a good faith claim to land. Most require only a claim of
ownership regardless if false or mistake
Presumed or Implied Permissive Use Courts will presume permission in a range of
circumstances (ex. if possession originally began with True Owners permission)
Maine Doctrine: Adverse possessor needs to show intent to trespass. No successful claim if
occupy land through ignorance or mistaken belief you owned it
Goal is to get people to claim virgin land
Problem b/c creates incentive to lie about intent
CT Doctrine: Nature of act (entry and possession) is assertion of one title to denial of all
others. Doesnt matter if mistaken
Open and Notorious
Must occupy land openly without any attempt to hide or disguise use Gives True Owner
chance to detect adverse possessors
16

Property

Ex. Manillo v. Gorski: No presumption of open and notorious when encroachment is

so small (15 inches) it would need to be detected by survey, esp. given urban setting

Exclusive Possession
Use must be exclusive of the True Owner.
If True Owner exercises ownership rights to the land during statutory period, then use not
exclusive
To exercise rights, TO must file and successfully prosecute suit for ejectment or quiet
title
Continuous for Statutory Period
Possession must be continuous
Continuous Need be continuous but need not be constant. Simply use land as
normal occupant.
o Ex. Howard v. Kunto property regularly used as a summer home, need only
be occupied every summer to be continuous
Tacking Successive occupiers can take their periods of occupancy together for
statutory period if there is privity between them
o Ex. Howard v. Kunto need some reasonable connection between successive
occupants of real property
Statutory Period Most eastern states have 15-30 years. West is 10 years or less (in
west, need to pay taxes)
Tolling Statutory Period is tolled if True Owner is incapacitated when claimant first
takes possession. Disabilities arising after possession mostly do not toll
o No tacking of disability claims. (Ex. 1 disabled person transfers to another;
clock starts to run)

Ways to Adjudicate an Adverse Possession Claim

Ejectment Action
o Force someone off land if occupier is there wrongfully. Original owner is the first mover for
ejectment
Quiet Title
o Adverse Possessor files action to claim undisputed title.
o Under color of title when property has been conveyed improperly
Sample Remedy
P
Property Rule

Gets Property

Liability Rule

Gets Prop.,
pays FMV to D

D (good faith
improver)
Adv.
Possession
Gets Prop.,
pays FMV to P

Misc. Doctrines
Doctrine of Dedication
o State may claim title to private roadway in 2 ways:
Owner explicitly offers it to govt or offer inferred by letting public use it
Court may find public road if road has been openly and continuously used
17

Property

Doctrine of Agreed Boundaries

o Applies only to contiguous parcels of land where owners are uncertain about correct
boundary and have agreed to an incorrect boundary. Combo of implied agmt and estoppel

Adverse Possession for Chattel

Thief cant transfer good title to property. Risk on BFP.

When does SoL start to run? When property stolen, or when True Owner discovers its location?
Passage of Time: Can work for BFP (if a lot of time passed since theft) or True Owner (quick rediscovers property)
Issue of Rescue Narrative (ex. Elgin marbles)
Personhood Theory becomes important.

Intellectual Property

IP is non-excludable, non-rival (people can enjoy others IP); need IP to make other IP

Types of Intellectual Property

Copyright: Unique manner of expression. Less protection for copyrights than for patents.
o Fair Use Exception
Patents: Covers processes, machines, substances
Trademark: Limited protection for a word, logo
Trade Secrets: May not be original but are commercial useful

Goals With IP Rules

Innovation
Dissemination/Use
Incentives to Innovate
Discourage Free Riders

Theories to Create IP Rules

Labor Theory: Intellectual labor to remove an idea and harvest it

Capture: Working on idea not enough, need to bring it to fruition
Personhood: Some expensive endeavors are very person (Ex. art)
Equity (Distributive Justice): Common heritage or interest. Ex. Biodiversity as source of some
pharma drugs
Utilitarian: Need to incentive innovator, but give fewer than monopoly rights

Copyright of Ideas

Applies to literary, artistic and visual works that can be reduced to tangible form
Easy to appropriate an idea; hard to put a fence around it. Cheap to reproduce an idea. Want ideas to
be shared.

Adapting to Technological Innovation

Apply 4 Elements of Fair Use

Law and Economics View. Consider transaction costs before and after innovation (ex. creation of
Copyright Center)
Compulsory Licensing?
Scope of Copyright (Ex. Salzmans name on an outline)

INS v. AP
o

News is not within scope of Copyright Act

Literary quality of the story is protected
18

Property

o
o

Actual facts belong to the public.

Each party under duty not to interfere or unfairly injure the others business. See Keeble
News matter is quasi property b/c it is collected and distributed at great cost of
money, labor and time. Lockean Theory
Court adopts intermediate approach to get business to compete on the merits.

Downey v. General Foods

o

o
o

To get property-copyright protection, the idea must be both:

Original
Novel
Ex. Calling Jell-O, Mr. Wiggles is not very original or novel pretty obvious
System designed to promote innovation and innovations are both original and novel
When one submits an idea to another and no implied promise to pay, then for idea to be
protected it must be original and novel.

Baseball Stats

1st Amendment Freedom of Speech; Right to Publicity protection for stats. Cannot copyright player
names and stats.

Copyright Act
106 - Exclusive Rights
o Copyright holder has exclusive rights to:
Reproduce copyrighted work in copies
Prepare derivative works
Distribute copies to the public by sale, transfer, rental, lease
Perform copyrighted work publicly
Display copyrighted work publicly
Perform copyrighted work by means of digital audio
107 Fair Use
o Fair use of copyrighted permitted, including photocopies, for purposes of criticism, comment,
news reporting, teaching (incl. multiple classroom copies), scholarship or research
o Factors to determine whether Fair Use situation:
Purpose and character of the use, incl. whether commercial or nonprofit purpose
Nature of copyrighted work
Amount and substantiality of portion used in relation to whole copyrighted work
Effect of use on potential market for or value of copyrighted work
Campbell v. Acuff-Rose
o Rap parody of Pretty Woman. Must have case-by-case analysis of factors. Consider factors
as a whole
o Purpose and Character of the Use
Whether and to what extent new work is transformative (adds something new). Goal
of copyright is to support transformative works
Parody, like other comment or criticism, has transformative properties
o Amount and substantiality of part used in relation to whole
Parody requires substantial copying b/c people need to recognize original
Doesnt become excessive just b/c chorus was copied
o Effect upon market for original work
Market harm easy to determine in cases of duplication.
Must distinguish between critical review that suppresses demand and infringement
which usurps it
19

Property

Need to also consider effects upon derivative works market. Licensing of derivatives
by original owners is important source of revenue.

Perfect 10 v. Google
o Whether search engine thumbnails are copyright infringements. Issue about right to display
o Finds that Google facilitates access to original; no direct infringement.
o Applies Fair Use Doctrine Factors as well
Search engine use of thumbnails is highly transformative. Makes it reference tool
Google promotes purpose of copyright and serves public interest.
Perfect 10 already took right of publication and put work out there
Reasonable to have whole thumbnail of image for viewers to recognize
No market harm b/c no one really wants thumbnails. They want full image

Photocopying Copyrighted Materials

Williams & Wilkins v. US
o NIH libraries get 1-2 copies of a journal and then make thousands of copies for scientists
o Fair Use applies to NIH. Need to protect scientific advancement by giving access to research,
not pecuniary copyright interest. Non-profit institutions using materials for research.
Court performs slight of hand by focusing substantiality analysis on the journal issue
as a whole and not the individual article
American Geophysical Union v. Texaco
o AGU publishes scholarly journals which Texaco libraries copy for their scientists
o Finds use is not transformative (just making copies and not broader scientific advances);
commercial user
o Development of Copyright Clearance Center by journals as a way of letting users buy annual
copying licenses or pay per copy important innovation after Williams. Allows market harm
issue to be decided.
For CCC to work, need to have a lot of content producers involved and inexpensive
monitoring to catch cheaters
Consider whether the creation of a licensing/royalty scheme is enough to tip scales
against Fair Use

Patents

Patent doesnt give you an affirmative right to do anything. Only gives you the Right to Exclude others.
Your patent may be dominated by other, earlier patents.

Requirements for a Patent from PTO

o
o
o
o
o

Patentable Subject Matter process; machine; composition of matter; article of manufacture;

improvement on any of these
Utility easy to meet, just needs to have benefit
Novelty new process or thing
Non-obviousness. Requires more than a minor obvious change (thought to be in public domain)
Adequacy of Disclosure. File within 1 year of certain triggering acts, must publish (can even be on a
website)
US is a First to Invent jurisdiction not First to File.

Cases
Lear v. Adkins (1969)
Eliminated doctrine of license estoppel. Licensees can challenge patents.
20

Property

Blonder Tongue v. IL (1971)

One patent is dead to one, it is dead to all. Once patent holder loses one case about
infringement, he can no longer protect the patent.
Brenner v. Manson (1966)
Applicants need to show there was a practical application, a utility, before getting a patent.
SCOTUS reluctant to grant patent based on speculative claims of future utility.
Dont want to chill future development in the area.
Labcorp v. Metabolite (2006)
Cannot patent an obvious process or a natural phemonenon.
Cant patent the mental step of correlating results.

Fashion

Copyrights not generally given to apparel. Clothing considered useful object not a work of art.
o Copyright does protect the aesthetic elements of the useful article (ex. logo, design)
Fashion has weak IP protection. But, still is big money industry
o Undercut arguments for vigorous protection of music and arts?
o Fashion has unique market structure where copying increases prestige of original?

Property in Person
Ownership of Your Body
Moore v. Regents

Man overproduces lymphocytes, tricked by doctors to give them over 7 years his cells
o Tort Action: Breach of Duty of Informed Consent
o Tort and Property: Conversion
Regents Argument:
o Body parts are not property
o Accession: Cells are like trees and cell lines are barrel hoops. Property is so mixed together
that you cant distinguish the old right
o Abandonment: cells abandoned once removed from Moore
o Public Policy: Fear curtailment of medical research if researchers afraid of suits, issue for
legislature to decide, allow property remedy then you create market for body parts
Finds for Regents.

Elvis Foundation v. Elvis Enterprises Right of Publicity

Right to Privacy: defensive claim to protect from intrusion

Right to Publicity: Affirmative claim to put name out there. C/L Exclusive right to put trademark on
personal likeness.
o Hegelian view that we manifest ourselves in our property (and property helps define us).
Is Right to Publicity descendible?
o Under TN, it is survivable. Justified by Public Policy:
Recognize individual right of testamentary distribution
Prevent unjust enrichment by 3rd party user of celebrity likeness
Celebrity expects to create valuable asset to benefit heirs
K rights of those who have acquired celebrity likeness rights
Public interest in being free from deception in sponsorship
Unfair competition of deceptively similar names
o Issues of Fair Use and how big a fence do you put around someones name
21

Property

Take Aways from Moore and Elvis

Need to understand separate Tort and Property Doctrines

Public policy influences determinations of how far to extend personal property
o Institutional competency of the courts

Taboo Markets

Concerns only Right to Sell Property

Categories of Restricted Trade

o
o
o

Illegal Goal is to stop harmful activity, ban on trade is just incidental

Inalienable Legal to possess, but cant transfer (rights party of your identity, ex. vote)
Market Inalienable Rights Activities acceptable to do and things to have, but cant be transferred for
money (ex. kidney, sex)
Why Bothered by Money Transfers in Market Inalienable
Commodification. Sales are alienating and degrading for people involved. Sale of bodies
degrades value for all of society.
Response: Lot of things are already commoditized. Better to bring into light and
regulate. Some people really need activity to make money (dwarf tossing). Many
only affect womens sex and reproduction.
Coercion. Need for money will induce people to undertake activities and risks.
Response: Paternalistic to poor people and women. Many of these choices are
reasoned and voluntary.
Slippery Slope. Sell one thing, start selling all things.
Repugnance. Just fundamentally repulsed by the idea.
Legal Approaches to Taboo Markets
Ban Supply? Ban Demand?
Economic Development/Root problems
Regulate (safety, fix wages, disclosure)
Subsidy (pay to stop)
Free Market

Martial Property
Martial Property Schemes
Rights During Marriage
Tenancy By the Entirety
Joint ownership. Cotenants have right of survivorship.
Right extinguished only as result of joint action to dissolve the marriage.
Can disadvantage creditors by requiring conveyances of joint property to be made jointly
Tenancy in Common
Allows creditor of one spouse to reach jointly held property

Distribution following Dissolution of Marriage

Disposition on Death
Standard title rules testamentary disposition (will) or default intestacy rules
22

Property

Disposition on Divorce
Issues about property pre-dating the marriage, whether spouse put in labor
C/L Property & Equitable Distribution
General Rule: Each marital partner owns separate property. Property is owned by the party
who paid for it, inherited it, earned it.
Equitable Distribution: Applies in C/L after alimony and expenses divided. Distributes
property after court considers variety of factors
o Ex. duration of marriage, health, education, earning potential, custody of kids
o Key Issue: What things are property eligible for distribution? PAGE 224 FACTORS
Painter v. Painter: Property acquired during marriage eligible for distribution
Gifts/inheritance received by one spouse during marriage are
included in pot regardless of donors intent
Property owned individually at time of marriage remains separate
property of spouse, as does its increase in value
Courts have fact specific inquiry into what is/is not subject to
equitable distribution
Doesnt consider fault of parties
o Goal of keeping litigation/contentious divorces down, incentivize end of dead
marriages
Community Property (French, Spanish Settled States)
Spouses create a community and contribute to it equally. Each spouse owns of the
community
Community consists of earnings of either spouse during marriage and things bought during
marriage
o Excludes property acquired prior to marriage, gifts/inheritance
Quasi-Community Property
Out-of-state land owned by community property couple in an equitable distribution state.
Presumption is for property to be divided in half.
Professional Training as Martial Property
Divorced women have lower earning potential than men. Alimony and child support usually
insufficient to address inequities in earning potential
Spouse may have sacrificed and supported other spouse as they worked on education and
training to achieve higher earning potential
Problem that court needs to make an assumption about career trajectory
Ex. In re Marriage of Graham
CO finds that MBA is not fungible (not exchangeable, no market value, pure intellectual
achievement). Very formalistic view of fungibility.
o Dissent notes that in Tort law, value placed on lost earning potential of
professionals all the time.
Premarital Agreements
Value lies in avoiding complicated Equitable Distribution and Community Property
decisions
Should prenup be presumptively valid or invalid?
o Valid: Treat as regular K. Arms-length biz transaction of autonomous
individuals.
o Invalid: Paternalism about not respecting individual choices. Forces parties to
consult counsel.
23

Property

Variances from Traditional Marriage

Unmarried Heterosexual Cohabitation

Generally, unmarried persons cannot take advantage of marital property rules

Marvin v. Marvin
Courts should enforce express contracts between nonmarital partners except to the extent that
K is founded upon sexual services
In absence of express K, courts can look at conduct of parties for an implied K
Goal is giving competent adults right to order their affairs and property as they wish Want
to fulfill reasonable expectations of parties in non-marital relationship

Unmarried Same-Sex Cohabitation

Baker v. State
Turns on interpretation of Common Benefits Clause in VT CON.
o Case about common benefits in property rights (not about marriage)
Rejects argument that extending benefits to same-sex couples would weaken link between
marriage and procreation. Many hetereosexual couples dont have kids.
o Substantial property right benefits affected (divorce property rights, state benefits,
insurance, tax deducation)
In response, VT Legislature created civil unions with property rights.

Estates in Real Property and Defeasible Interests

System has 3 functions:

o Names an interest in land. Who owns what, under what conditions, when do they own it
o Problem Solving. What happens when a grant violates the rules
o Resolving Ambiguities

Estates in Land
o
o
o

Allocate land use rights over time. Ex. impose easements on the land
Estate is: 1) an interest in land that, 2) is or may become possessory and 3) has a time dimension,
including a permanent option.
When you transfer an estate, you give a present or a future interest in land.
Transfer of a Possessory Interest is present interest in land.
Future interest exists in the present (may be sold, transferred) but it cannot be exercised until a
future time. Ex. A gets land for life and then to B. B has future interest.
Tension Between the interests of Present Owners and Future Owners
Present owners need to use the land as they wish, but as some point the rights of future interests
are infringed upon

Types of Estates in Land

Fee Simple Absolute
Most you can own in a property (full bundle of sticks). Inheritable, divisible, alienable
If a grant or devise contains no conditions, then it is FSA.
No future interests associated with FSA.
Life Estate
Not as complete as FSA, b/c lasts only for a persons life.
o To A for life
24

Property

Life estateholder can possess land, use land and may even be able to sell land (but sale only
lasts for life of estateholder).
On death of life estate holder, property reverts back to original owner or goes to a 3rd party
remainderman

Remainder
Future interest which becomes a present interest upon someones death, condition occurring
o Ex. To A for life, remainder to B
Defeasible Estates Basic
Present interest terminations at the occurrence of an event other than the death of the life
estateholder
3 Factors to Consider:
o Who gets it upon occurrence of event? Reversion to original owner or to
remainderman?
o Does future interest take possession automatically? Or does future interest holder
need to assert rights?
o What is the condition of a breach? Is it a covenant?

Waste

Life estateholder has an obligation not to commit waste

Life tenant has incentive not to maximize total value of property, only its present value
earnings

Permissible Waste
Neglect property, dont maintain it, dont pay taxes. Remaindermen may pay taxes and then
impose a lien on property.
Active Waste
Life tenant intentionally causes a large change to property and future interest holder wants to
prevent it.
Ameliorative Waste
May actually increase value of property and still be prevented by remaindermen
Brokaw v. Fairchild Blocking Ameliorative Waste
Son wants to engage in ameliorative waste, tear down mansion and build apartment bldg.
Heirs seeking to prevent it. As remainderman, claim right to change/modify property
reserved to them
Conflicting Property Theories:
o Efficiency (son) tear down to max out the value of the land
o Personhood (heirs) want family mansion for themselves
Personhood theory wins. Cannot build apartment building, it would be an act of waste to tear
down perfectly good mansion.
Melms v. Pabst Brewing Allows Ameliorative Waste
Allows that in unique circumstance different from Brokaw where property has become totally
useless given a change in neighborhood, it can be torn down.
Once value destroyed through no fault of life estateholder, then no need to turn over 0 value
o Extreme inefficiency can override Waste Doctrine

25

Property

Defeasible Estates
Types of Defeasible Estates
Fee Simple Determinable
Future interest reverts automatically to grantor (possibility of reverter)
o Ex. To A so long as property not used as a farm.
Key Words: so long as, until, while used as
If estate holder breaches condition, then grantor doesnt need to know condition was
breached or do anything to get land back
Fee Simple Subject to a Condition Subsequent
Future interest must be affirmatively asserted to regain property (right of entry exercised)
o Ex. To A on condition that land not used as a farm, and if used as a farm right of
entry to grantor
o To get property back, grantor will have to do something to exercise right.
Key Words: on condition that, provided that, but if
Only restriction on the grantee is not violating the stated condition, otherwise same rights as
FSA
Fee Simple Subject to an Executory Limitation
Akin to Fee Simple Determinable. However, if condition breached, goes to a 3rd party, does
not revert to original owner
o Ex. To A, but if A uses land as a farm, then to B
Similar to possibility of reverter. B automatically becomes present interest holder

Rules of Construction for Defeasible Estate

General Rules
Is language precatory? Does it only express a desire of grantor? Ex. Grants wants or wishes
o Precatory language is not legally enforceable
If language is not precatory, then is it clearly a condition?
o Default if unclear is to construe as a covenant
o Avoid the penalty for violation of a condition which is forfeiture
If it is a condition, is it FSD or FSSCS?
o Preference for FSSCS since reverter is not automatic
Fitzgerald v. Modoc Condition or Covenant?
Issue whether provision in grant was a condition (invoking property rule) or a covenant
(liability rule)?
o If condition, then under property rules the property itself is transferred
o If covenant, then liability rules allow payment of damages
Public Policy Issue: Dont want to tie up land for inefficient uses. Dont want to make
property transfers/uses so restrictive.
o Here, with the High School, what if population shifts and no one needs a school
anymore.
Rule of Construction: Strictness against grantor in favor of an estate holder.
o To make it a condition, grantor needs to make it explicitly clear in original grant no
matter what the grantors actual intentions were

26

Property

Future Interest in Land

Future Interests in Grantors
Reversion Vested Interest
Residual future interest left in a grantor where grantor has conveyed less than the entire
present interest
o Ex. Conveying a life estate.
Reversions are alienable, devisable, and descendible
Power of Termination / Right of Reentry
Allows grantor to terminate an interest to enforce a condition subsequent in a grant
o Ex. FSSCS grant.
Possible that future interest will never mature to a present interest if all conditions adhered to
Possibility of Reverter
Arises when grantor grants a determinable interest
o Ex. FSD.
Grant is written such that possibility of reverter exists even though not expressly created
Reverter is alienable, descendible and devisable

Future Interests in Grantees

Remainder
Interest in a 3rd party that immediately follows the natural expiration of the preceding
interest.
o Ex. To A for life and then to B. B is a remainder
Main questions:
o Is remainder held by an ascertained person?
o Is remainder subject to any conditions precedent?
Contingent Remainder
Remainder is contingent if either:
o Identity of remainderman is unknown (Ex. unborn children)
Ex. To A for life then to As first child but A not yet had a kid
o Remainder is subject to a Condition Precedent
Ex. To A for life and then to B if B survives A
Condition Precedent: Express condition in grant that must occur before
potential interest can take possession of property
Can have a reversion of a contingent remainder
Vested Remainder
If remainder meets neither criteria to be a contingent remainder
Indefeasibly Vested Remainder: No condition subsequent specified in grant that might result
in interest going to someone else
o Ex. To A for life then to B
o Must meet 4 conditions:
Interest held by a born and ascertainable person
Interest certain to become possessory immediately upon termination of
preceding estate (not subject to condition precedent)
Interest is indefeasible (no condition subsequent to divest remainderman)
Interest is indivisible
27

Property

Vested Remainder Subject to Open: Grants to a class that can potentially expand in number,
such as class of grantors kids.
o Ex. To A for life, then to As siblings. As parents could still be alive and have more
children.
o At some point the class closes:
Naturally when no new class members could be created. (As parents die)
Rule of Convenience: Previous estate terminated, at least 1 class member is
eligible to take possession of share of property, then gift can be distributed
Exceptions to Rule of Convenience: Member of class has been
conceived, but not yet born, can still become member; and, if at time
of distribution, no class members yet in existence
Vested Remainder Subject to Complete Divestment: When grant contains a condition
subsequent that could divest remainderman of entire interest.
o Ex. To A for life and then to B, but if B uses alcohol then to C

Executory Interest
Springing Executory Interest: Divests grantor of his reverter interest
Shifting Executory Interest: Cuts off 3rd party interest (corresponds to FSSEL)
Interest in a 3rd party that follows meeting a condition other than natural expiration
o Ex. To A as long as A abstains from alcohol and, if alcohol used, to B
Difference Between Vested Remainder Subject to Divestment and Contingent Remainder
Vested Remainder has No Rule Against Perpetuities; Contingent Remainder has Rule Against
Perpetuities
With Contingent Remainder, property may never vest
Practice of Disclaimer
Applies to real property only, not chattels. Potential recipient can refuse property. Must be
clear and unequivocal expression. If you accept any benefit in the property, foreclose
disclaimer

Rule Against Perpetuities

Purpose is to limit the dead hand problem and free up land for transactions
RAP applies to: Contingent remainders, vested remainder subject to open and executory
limitations
When Apply RAP need to know:
o Nature of the Interest
o Under what conditions does it vest
o Who are the lives in being
o When is the interest created

Basic RAP
o No future interest in a transferee (contingent remainder, vested remainder subject to open,
executory limitation) is valid unless it must vest, if it ever does vest, not later than 21
years after death of some life in being at the creation of the interest.
o If you can think of a situation where a grant vests 21 years after a life in being, then grant can
be stricken down
o If you can show that grant will vest within 21 years, or that it never will vest, or that it must
vest, then its valid
C/L RAP What Might Happen
o Look at the facts at the time the contingent interest created in grant. Tests with all sorts of
hypos no matter how improbable
28

Property

o
o
o

If interest created via will, interest created at time of death not signing of will
Unlike waste, courts dont try to save RAP grants
Jee v. Audley Strikes down grant b/c it is theoretically possible 70-year-old couple
could have more children. Example of strike down grant even in remotest possibility

Statutory RAP Wait and See

o Wait to see for 21 years if a problem arises. Dont want to strike a grant unnecessarily
Remedy for RAP Violation
o If part of a grant violates RAP, strike that section but keep the other parts of grant.
o If everything violates RAP, then entire grant is invalid
Rubric for RAP Problem
o What is the nature of the interest created?
o RAP applies only if executory interest, contingent remainder, vested subject to open
o DOES NOT apply to reversions and other vested remainders.
If it goes back to grantor, RAP DOES NOT APPLY
o Who are the lives in being?
o Need a validating life. Someone alive at creation of interest who was mentioned
expressly or impliedly in grant
Validating life starts the 21 year clock at death.
o When is the interest created?
o If through will at death, then it is a devise and created upon death.
o If via contract, then it is a grant and created at time of conveyance.
o After killing off lives in being, can you come up with a situation where future interest vests
21 years after death of lives in being?

Trusts
Basics
o
o
o
o
o

Separates burdens of property management from benefits of property ownership

Settlor: Person who establishes trust
Trust: Document establishing trust
Beneficiary: Gets benefits of trust. Holds equity interest in property
Trustee: Manages property. Holds legal title to property. Fiduciary duty to manage property in best
interests of beneficiaries.
o Revocable: Assets may be recovered
o Irrevocable: Assets cannot be recovered from trust
Reasons to Setup Trust
o Tax benefits
o Avoid probate
o Dont trust kids
o Practice of Disclaimer
o Applies

Restraints on Alienability
Rule Against Restraints on Alienation

Means of protecting indirect restraints on alienation.

Unreasonable restraints on alienation are void.
o Conflict between Personal Autonomy (wishes of original owner) and Efficiency (putting land
to highest productive use)
29

Property

Reasonableness of restraint depends on:

o Type of restraint
o Type of interest being restrained (fee, life estate, leasehold)
o Degree of restraint (absolute or partial as to time, persons or use)
Types of Restraints
o Disabling Restraint: Prohibition on alienation.
Ex. To A, but A may not alienate land and any attempt is void
o Forfeiture restraint: An attempted alienation as a condition that either permits grantor to
exercise right of reentry or automatic divestment
Ex. To A, so long as A does not attempt to sell land
o Promissory Restraint: Attempted alienation as a breach of covenant, making covenantor
liable for breach
Ex. To A and A covenants not to transfer the land
Validity on Type of Interest Restrained
o Fee Interest: Most states all types of restraint are prohibited
o Life Estate: Forfeiture and Promissory Restraints are generally valid, but Disabling Restraints
are not
o Leasehold: All restraints are upheld
Degree of Restraint
o Partial restraints on potential grantees are often invalid
o Partial restraint more likely to be upheld if related to use of the land rather than to whom it
may be sold
Riste v. E. Wash. Bible Camp
o Clause in deed prohibiting fee simple grantee from conveying land to another without
approval of grantor (here, Bible Camp) is void.
o Irrelevant whether people knew about clause when they signed deed. Presumption of
invalidity for disabling restraints.
White v. Brown
o Presumption that a grant in estate is FSA unless intent to transfer a lesser interest is express or
necessarily implied by terms
o Will conveys all real estate unless contrary intention appears in words and context
o In case of ambiguity, construction disposing of whole estate is preferred.
Goal is to avoid Dead Hand and make land for sale immediately
o Here, debate was over whether will conveyed life estate or FSA. Holds it was FSA, so
restraint is invalid.

Concurrent Interests
Tenancy in Common
Creation

Expressly in grant or will

If ambiguous about type of current interest, courts assume tenancy in common as default
o Ex. To A for life then to As kids. Kids presumed to be Tenants in Common
Can have almost unlimited number of Tenants in Common
o Dont necessarily need to own equal shares of parcel
o Shares can be conveyed at different times
30

Property

Termination

Death of co-tenant does not terminate.

No Right of Survivorship if co-tenant dies, right goes to his heirs not to other co-tenants
Only way to terminate is by transferring all interests to a single person or by Partition

Rights of Co-Tenants

Each tenant has a common right to possess entire parcel, use entire parcel, not allowed to exclude
other tenants
Right is transferable, inheritable and can be accessed by creditors

Joint Tenancy
Purposes

Poor mans will. Right of Survivorship upon death, interest transfers to other tenants
Defeats claims of creditors of the deceased co-tenant

Creation Four Unities

Time: All Joint Tenants must take their interest at the same time
Title: All Joint Tenants must acquire interest from same instrument
Interest: Must have equal, identical interests (type, amount, duration of estate)
Possession: Equal rights of access and use. No right to exclude other Joint Tenants
Courts will not assume Joint Tenancy. Instrument must be explicit about it.
Create Irrevocable Joint Tenancy:

Severance

Contract: All Joint Tenants formally agree

Simultaneous death of all Joint Tenants
Divorce
Conveyance to a 3rd Party
o Allows Unilateral Severance of the Joint Tenancy
Foreclosure/Bankruptcy

Mortgage of Joint Tenant

Relates to unilateral act of a joint tenant. If mortgage conveys property interest to a 3rd party,
then tenancy is severed.
Depends on whether mortgage is in a lien theory (Majority) or title theory (Minority) state

Lien Theory
No severance in a lien theory.
o Ex. People v. Nogarr Mortgage just gives mortgage holder a lien on property. No
actual property interest is transferred.
o Creditor may sue to foreclose on property if lien not paid. Force sale of all Joint
Tenants
Title Theory
Severance in a title theory.
o Ex. Property actually transferred to mortgage holder, and then is purchased back by
mortgagee.
Implication: Creditors require all Joint Tenants to sign on to mortgage in a Lien Theory state,
so if one person dies, the creditors position survives

31

Property

Strawman Severance

Riddle v. Harmon: Joint Tenant can now unilaterally sever Tenancy and give interest to himself as
sole owner.
No longer need to go abide by old C/L procedure and use an intermediary

Notice in Joint Tenancy

Other Joint Tenants may not be aware of unilateral severance

Some states require change in ownership nature to be recorded
Recording serves evidentiary function

Tenancy by the Entirety

Used by 1/2 of states

Creation
o
o

4 Unities Plus Marriage

Can only be created when husband and wife are already married

Severance

Only way to destroy is by Contract or Divorce.

Cannot sever Tenancy by Entirety through conveyance to another party
Cannot enter into mortgage w/out permission of other spouse

Rights and Duties of Co-Tenants

Partition

Judicial procedure to end a Tenancy in Common or Joint Tenancy when the co-tenants no longer
agree on the management or disposition of the property
Types of Partition
In Kind: physical division of property
In principle favored by law
By Sale: Property is sold and proceeds divided in proportion to co-tenants fractional interest
In practice, favored
By Appraisal: Permitting one co-tenant to buy out others at appraisal price

Possession

Each co-tenant has a right to possess and use entire property

Each co-tenant has a right to sell, lease or mortgage his interest
Co-tenants not in possession may not demand an accounting or receive compensation in partition for
reasonable rental value of property
o Cannot force other co-tenants to pay rent
o Cannot receive compensation for profits solely by labors of another co-tenant
Ouster
o Occurs when a co-tenant bars another from using the property
o Ousted co-tenant may seek an injunction as well as damages
o Ouster can ripen into a claim for adverse possession

Contribution

Co-tenant may demand contribution from other co-tenants for certain expenditures:
o Payment of Taxes
32

Property

o Mortgage
o Insurance
o Necessary repairs
May not demand compensation for managing the property
No requirement for contribution for improvements
When partition in kind, court will try to give part of the property that has been improved upon to
the improver

Fiduciary Obligations

Co-tenants have fiduciary relationship with each other if they receive interests in same will, grant or
at same time by inheritance

Accounting
Rents
o Co-tenant out of possession may demand an accounting (or compensation at partition) for his
share of net rents collected from 3rd parties who have leased the property
Depletion
o One co-tenant is engaged in a productive activity that by its very nature injures or devalues the
land
Ex. cutting timber, drilling for oil, mining
o Akin to claim to waste made by remainderman against life estate holder
Normal remedy for waste is net profits award.
Depletion of Homogenous Resources Kirby v. Temple Lumber
o Uniform resource in timber. More timber had been cut than co-tenants share. Issue of
whether damage recovery was stumpage value or manufactured value
Court held that stumpage value was recovery. Noted that timber was uniform and could
easily be subject to partition
Depletion of Heterogeneous Resources White v. Smyth
o White holds 1/9 interest as co-tenant in land. Mines and makes asphalt
o Use Argument:
White says he was just taking out his 1/9 interest in materials.
Court holds that White cant pick out any 1/9 and take it.
o Resource is heterogeneous unlike Kirby timber. Rock is not all easily accessible.
o White didnt apply use right fairly by extracting the easiest resources and leaving
the rest for other co-tenants
o Accounting Argument:
What is the proper value of the material?
o Raw extracted rock? Or Finished ready for sale asphalt product?
o Same conceptually as Accession (timber or barrel hoops?)
Since heterogeneous resource, ordered Net Profits from sale of asphalt to be accounted.
o Rejected Labor Theory argument of White and Dissent that White takes raw
materials and by a lot of work in manufacturing he gives it value

33

Property

Leaseholds
Types of Leaseholds
Term of Years

Written (satisfy Statute of Frauds) and created for any fixed term (need not be a year).
Ends when lease ends

Periodic Tenancy

Renewed automatically at end of use unless there is notice. Tenant notice must be very explicit.

Tenancy At Will

No valid lease, but tenant took possession with landlords permission.

May be ended by either party.

Statute of Frauds

Any lease lasting for more than a year must be in writing and signed by the party to be charged.
o If statute not satisfied, then lease is void.
Courts may use part performance or equitable estoppel to avoid hardship

Terminating Leases

Mutual Agreement
Destruction of Premises
o Tradition C/L said this was not enough b/c real value was the land and not in any bldg
Death
o Doesnt terminate term of years K
o Always terminates periodic and At Will
Eminent Domain
Eviction. No more liability for lease

Landlords Rights
Remedies for Tenant Breach and for Holding Over
Forcible Entry and Forcible Detainer
Self-help remedy by landlord.
Generally illegal
Jordan v. Talbot
Traynor has overarching concern about landlord self-help remedies. Pretty much moots
landlord self-help capabilities
o Need an orderly procedure, keep the peace in tense situation
Judicial process is only way
Forcible Entry Issue: Key fact is by lack of tenant consent. Implied violence.
o Linked to removal of property.
Forcible Detainer Issue: Uses the threat of force
MODIFIED in many states to allow Peaceable Entry by Landlord
Unlawful Detainer Action
Summary proceeding for eviction used by many states to allow landlords to promptly regain
possession when tenant breaches lease provisions
34

Property

o Very expedited hearing and process

Tenant can usually avoid eviction by performing obligation

Distrain
Some states allow landlord to seize tenants belongings when tenant is in default. Types of
goods that can be seized are limited.
Normative Questions
How paternalistic should we be in not allowing parties to K away or around rights?
o Result of Jordan is much higher security deposit
What is level of bargaining power? How much do we weigh inequities?
Holding Over
Lease has expired and tenant still there
Landlord can either:
o Terminate lease and regain possession, or
o Hold tenant for a new lease
Existence of negotiations between tenant and lessor is not enough for tenant to avoid liability
of holdover
When landlord notifies tenant of changes to lease terms, silence by tenant is acquiescence

Remedies for Tenants Abandonment

Accepting Surrender
Landlord can terminate lease and tenants liability (except for rents already due) by treating
abandonment as offer to surrender and accepting surrender
Acceptance of Surrender can happen either:
o By deliberate landlord choice
o Constructively by using property inconsistent with tenants right of possession
Periodic Suites for Rent
If landlord doesnt want to accept surrender, he can sue for rent as it becomes due each month
OR sue for entire amount at end of lease
Sommer v. Kridel
Recognizes that leasing no longer solely a property transaction, strong K law influences
Establishes landlords duty to mitigate when he seeks rents due from defaulting tenant.
o Must make reasonable efforts to re-let the apartment.
Reasonableness determined on a case-by-case basis
Reletting on Tenants Account
C/L remedy allowing landlord, after notice to tenant, to find substitute tenant and use rents to
offset original tenants obligations
Landlord must either reserve right to relet or provide express notice
If new rent doesnt cover old obligations or new tenant leaves, old tenant liable for balance

Tenants Rights and Remedies

Implied Covenant to Deliver Possession

Every lease has implied covenant that landlord will deliver possession at beginning of lease term

35

Property

American Rule Minority Rule in US

o Landlord is required to put tenant only in legal possession
o Breach occurs if either 1) landlord, 2) someone with permanent title, 3) someone with
landlords consent is in possession when tenant is entitled to possession
o When Landlord Breaches, tenant may terminate lease OR stand on lease and get damages for
alternative arrangements
English Rule Majority Rule in US
o Tenant must be in actual possession at beginning of lease
o Breach occurs whenever anyone else is in possession regardless of circumstances
Tenant may terminate lease
Advantages of English over American Rule
o Landlord should know better than tenant status of possession
o Landlord is only one who can evict someone improperly in possession
o Landlord is only one who can confirm current tenant wont holdover
o Landlord usually has greater resources to proceed with eviction

Implied Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment

Neither landlord, someone with paramount title (mortgagee), nor someone acting with landlords
consent will disrupt tenants enjoyment of premises
Usually raised by tenants as a defense to landlords suit for rent
In most states, does not cover disruptive behavior of third parties, like neighbors
o CHANGING general rule in some states to hold landlord responsible for activities of other
tenants
Eviction
o Most obvious type of breach of covenant when landlord physically ousts tenant from entire
premises
Constructive Eviction
o Landlord does something or fails to perform obligation under the lease or a statute that
substantially interferes with tenants use of premises
Ex. rendering premises uninhabitable or unsuitable for intended use
o May be used by tenant as a basis to terminate lease AND raise breach of implied covenant as
a defense to suit for rent
OR tenant may remain in possession and sue for breach of K damages

Right to Inhabitable Premises

Old C/L put burden on lessee to inspect leasehold before agreeing to lease. Changed due to rise of
large urban apartment buildings and shift of leaseholds away from land to a dwelling
Implied warranty of habitability read in by courts due to ineffective housing codes
Javins v. First National Realty
o Applies modern K law principles in urban leasing
o Holds by singing lease, landlord undertakes continuing obligation to tenant to maintain
premises in accordance with all applicable law
Reads in all housing codes into leases
o Tenants obligation to pay rent is dependent upon landlords performance of his obligations,
including warranty of inhabitability

36

Property

Tenant-Initiated Remedies to Enforce Habitability

o Implied warranty breached only when defect has a substantial impact on health or safety
AND after landlord had reasonable opportunity to cure defect
o Rent Application: Repair and deduct. Tenant can use some rent to make repairs.
Use in half states
Limited by number of times it can be invoked and amount that can be used
o Rent Withholding: No payment until landlord makes inhabitable
Can only be invoked if prior judicial determination premises are uninhabitable
Rent held in escrow by court
o Rent Abatement: Tenant stops paying rent.
Tenant raises defense when sued for back rent. Court then determines amount of rent
reduction
Means of Reducing Rent:
Difference between reserved rent and actual rental value during period of
breach
Difference between fair rental value as warranted and fair rental value in
present condition
Rent reduced by percentage equal to percentage reduction in value from
breach

Right Against Retaliatory Eviction

Anti-discrimination, rent-control statutes prohibit landlords from refusing to renew for certain
purposes
Doctrine Against Retaliatory Eviction necessary to avoid undermining housing codes. Dont want
tenants to be evicted for reporting violations. Edwards v. Habib
Applied to commercial and residential leases both
Elements
o Tenant Undertook protected activity
o Landlord subsequently declined to renew lease (or took other action, ie. raise rent) for
retaliatory reasons
Remedies
o Tenants usually invoke protections as defense in unlawful detainer action
o Also allowed as a private cause of action for damages

Traditional Nonpossessory Interests

Easements
Basics

Gives holder the right to use or restrict use of another persons land
Owner of servient estate may not revoke easement at will or interfere with easement holders use of
property
Easement holder may protect his rights from interference by 3d parties
Servient Estate
o Land that is burdened by the easement
Dominant Estate
o Land that is benefited by the easement
37

Property

Types of Easements
Affirmative Easement
o Privileges holder of the easement to use of anothers land
Ex. A has right of way across Bs land
Negative Easement
o Hold has right to prevent servient possessor from using servient estate in otherwise lawful
manner
Ex. A has negative light easement can enjoin B from constructing bldg that would
block light from As land
o Only 4 Negative Easements:
Light
Air
Lateral support
Flow of an artificial stream
o Hard to get b/c they stunt development
Easement Appurtenant
o Easement passes with possession of the dominant estate.
o Not personal to original holder.
o Successor to servient estate takes possession of the interest subject to easement
Easement in Gross
o Easement personal to holder, independent of land possession.
Ex. Easement to lay utility lines
o Non-commercial, and non-exclusive gross easements are non apportionable
Ex. If you have a fishing right, cannot then let lots of others go fishing on your behalf
Non-exclusive means landowner retains right to give easement to others
o Only Commercial Easements in Gross are assignable.
Ex. If Duke Energy sells NC power biz to Con Ed, may sell easements too

Repairs

Terms of grant creating easement set duty to maintain and repair an easement
Default is that owner of dominant estate must maintain and repair easement

Creation of Easements
Express Easements
o Created by an instrument or another writing.
Must comply with statute of frauds
Created by reservation in instrument.
Ex. A conveyed fee simple to B, but reserved right-of-way across land
Created by positive grant in instrument.
Ex. A conveys right-of-way to B
o Scope: Determined largely by terms of writing.
Where language is ambiguous, courts will look to parties contemporaneous
treatment of easement
o Doctrine of Stranger to the Deed: Cannot have an express easement for a party that is not a
party to grant

38

Property

Faus v. LA Function Over Form for Easements

o Courts will prefer function over form for easements (broadly construe easement for street cars
to be about public transportation so it can be extended to city buses)
o Construe conveyance as a prospective operation and intended to accommodate future needs
Want to avoid problem of dead hand. Esp. for changing economic and technological
conditions
Easement by Implication
o ONLY WHEN parties do not discuss the issue. Rationale that parties would have bargained
for it but forgot.
o Easement will be found by courts when all conditions met:
Two parcels under single ownership
There was a permanent or continuous pre-subdivision use across allegedly servient
estate
Use was apparent upon reasonable inspection
Easement in reasonably necessary
o Ex. A irrigates northern half of plot, builds drainage ditch through southern. A sells northern
half with no mention of easement. B has easement to use ditch across As land for drainage
Easement by Necessity
o Arises when land is subdivided, and one parcel is landlocked from public road
Justification is making efficient use of land.
MUST EXIST AT TIME OF SEVERANCE. Landlocked due to subsequent
events does not qualify
o Basic Criteria:
Alleged servient and dominant estates were owned by a single owner at time of
conveyance giving rise to necessity
Easement is necessary
Many states use Reasonable Necessity standard. Takes into account of
using/building alternate routes
Some still use strict necessity. Must be no other alternatives
o Scope: Coextensive with reasonable needs, present and future, of dominant estate. Relies on
prior conduct and foreseeable changes.
Reese v. Borghi
o Example of easement by necessity
o CA requires strict necessity for right of way easement
Easement by Estoppel
o If there has been good faith reliance on a license to use and there would be detrimental
consequences from revoking the license, then court may use estoppel to prevent injustice
Easement by Prescription
o Allows user to obtain a property right (Easement) from someone else based on long,
continuous use of their land for prescriptive period
Justified on public policy grounds of maximizing use of underutilized land
o Requirements:
Actual use need not be exclusive use
Adverse use
Presumed in many states by using anothers land
Open and Notorious
Continuous and uninterrupted (only as appropriate for the easement, ex. picking
apples every Fall)
39

Property

o
o
o
o
o

Occur for length of statutory period

Tolling and tacking permitted in Majority states
Landowners avoid public easements by prescription in cities by closing their sidewalks 1 day
a year
Defeating Easement by Prescription: Landowner can post signs saying right to pass by
permission and subject to control by owner (essentially provide license to people)
Cannot obtain Negative Easement by Prescription
Finely v. Botto: If court finds that use was permissive by owner then there is no claim of right
and can be revoked by owner

Termination of Easements
By Expiration
o Easements created for life of holder or for a term of years expire at end of designated pd.
o Defeasible easements end on occurrence of the stated event
o Easements by necessity end when necessity ends
o Easement relying on a structure on the servient estate (ex. passageway through bldg) expires
if structure destroyed.
Does not revive if structure rebuilt
By Easement Holder
o Release: When easement holder transfers interest in the easement to the owner of the servient
estate. MUST BE IN WRITING
o Abandonment: easement created in a grant may be abandoned and terminated when:
Easement holder stops using easement
Independently manifests an intent to abandon easement
Intent may be shown by oral statements or actions
o Estoppel: Terminate by estoppel if following criteria met:
Easement holders words or conduct indicate he will no longer use easement
Servient owners reasonable reliance of representations
Servient owners material change in position
o Excessive Use: Small number of states all termination if easement excessively used
Excessive use could be remedied through damages and injunctive relief
By Owner of Servient Estate
o Merger: Owner of servient estate can terminate easement by acquiring dominant estate (or
when dominant estate owner buys servient estate)
Easement permanently terminated
o Sale to a BFP: Sale of servient estate to a BFP terminates easement if grantee meets
requirements of recording act
Excludes Prescriptive Easements, Easement by Necessity, and Easement by
Implication
o Prescription: Owner of servient estate may acquire easement by prescription block
easement holder from using the easement or otherwise demonstrate exclusive control over the
land for the prescriptive period
By Third Parties
o Condemnation: When govt takes servient estate by condemnation/eminent domain, then
easement terminated
Under Takings Clause, owner of easement is entitled to compensation
o Tax Sale: Some states not majority
o Mortgage Foreclosure:
40

Property

Majority Rule: Easements that exist before execution of the mortgage are not
terminated by foreclosure, but easements created after execution of mortgage are
terminated

Conservation Easements

Easements held by government or land trusts to restrict development

o Cut against old C/L notion of max. land use
May contain affirmative easements (permit public fishing rights) and negative restrictions (go beyond
traditional 4 categories of negative easements)
Concern is the Dead Hand Problem. Requiring land to remain undeveloped 100 years in future
without respect for changing externalities
o BUT, unlike most Dead Hand Probs, this is about creating enduring wild land as a benefit to
the future
Debt-for-Nature Swap
o NGOs buy debt of countries that is selling at a discount. NGOs then offer to retire debt if
country sets aside areas for parks
o Problem of enforceability and ensuring maintenance of land and, what about allowing
sustainable uses?

Public Trust Doctrine

Basics

Govt holds air, water, sea, and seashore rights in trust for the public.
Doctrine sets limit on private property and takes away some sticks from govt (right to sell, exclude)
C/L Doctrine
Often acts like an implied easement
Doesnt prevent sale of lands critical question is: What is status of public use rights before and after
sale?

Types of Public Trust Cases

Alienation of Trust Resources (Illinois Central)
People have right of navigation over the waters, carryon commerce
State can sell public lands, but it cannot do so in such a way that public interest is
severely harmed
Not an absolute doctrine. More a fiduciary standard.
There is no irrepealable contract in a conveyance of property by a grantor in
disregard of public trust, under which he was bound to hold and manage
Public Lands can be Alienated in 2 Ways:
Parcels sold to improve public interest (build a dock)
Parcels sold without harming the larger public interest
Diversion of Resources
Access (Matthews v. Bay Head Assn)
Public has right to use tidal waters (wet sand).
Holds that public has a reasonable right of passage to access wet sand.
Otherwise, right to use tidal waters could not be exercised
Leaves open Administrability issue for case-by-case basis
Here, requires Bay Head to open up membership to the public

41

Property

Covenants
Basics

Covenant is a promise to do or refrain from doing something. Real covenant is one connected to land
Attempt to impose private zoning by contract.
o Very common way to regulate the way people live
Affirmative real covenant is a promise to do an affirmative act
o Ex. Tenants covenant to pay rent, homeowner maintains a fence
Negative real covenant is agreement to refrain from some action on land which owner is legally
allowed to do.
o Ex. Covenant with HOA not to paint house purple
Covenents vs. Equitable Servitudes
o Equitable Servitude easier to establish, enforce and get an injunction
o Covenants are Ks were the remedies are damages.
Questions: To what extent can you bind the successor in interest? Do covenants run with the land? If
not, why not?

Elements of a Real Covenant

When original owner burdens lots, he benefits the lots he still owned on that date. Lots
already sold DO NOT BENEFIT.
o Previous purchasers are Strangers to the Deed

Criteria for Burden of Real Covenant to Run With Land

Writing: Covenant must be in writing. Satisfy statute of frauds.
Intent: Original parties must have intended to bind covenants successors
o Courts imply intent to run if covenant touches and concerns the land
Vertical Privity: Exists if covenantors successor has succeeded to the same estate that the
covenantor had
o Successor must acquire the same interest (although successor can acquire smaller
portion of land, ie. property can be subdivided)
Ex. If B owns FSA but only conveys life estate to C, then C not bound by
covenant.
o To succeed, may acquire land by devise, intestacy, grant or sale
Not by adverse possession fails vertical privity
Horizontal Privity: Required relationship between original covenantor and original
covenantee
o Most restrictive definition: Both parties need simulatenous interest in land subject to
covenant (ex. landlord and tenant)
o Less restrictive and more common: Covenant be created simultaneously with a
transfer of an interest in land (ex. developer selling homes in subdivision)
Touch and Concern: Real covenant relate to covenantors use of the land. Refers to physical
use or restriction of the land.
o Covenants to pay generally found to touch and concern. Also no competing business
activity covenants.
o Justified on efficiency grounds. Dont want to encumber deeds with lots of
extraneous requirements
Criteria for Benefit to Run With Land
Touch and Concern
Vertical Privity: Between covenantee and successor must have same interest (ex. FSA)
o No adverse possessor can claim benefits.
42

Property

Neponsit v. Emigrant Bank Vertical Privity Issue

Assn maintains common properties (parks, etc.) which were created by developer. Funded
by a fee in a covenant of all deeds in subdivision
Problem is that original covenant between property owner and developer Assn not party in
privity
Court runs through analysis:
o Intent Yes
o Touch and Concern Maybe, common property areas
o Horizontal Privity Yes, between original owners
o Vertical Privity No technical privity between developer and Assn
Court favors function over form.
Unrealistic to think developer will enforce covenants thats why it
created Assn. People want covenants enforced, so let Assn do it

Remedy for Breach

Only 1 party at a time has standing to enforce covenant.

Covenants enforced by damages only
Many states now allow a defense of changed conditions to a claim for damages of breach of covenant

Termination of Real Covenants

May be expressly designed to terminate at a fixed point in time, or upon a condition

Parties may agree to terminate through a formal release (must satisfy statute of frauds)
Covenantor may waive his right to enforce the covenant
Merger: once you have a common owner for benefit and burdened property
Release: Benefited owner gives written release to burdened estate.
o Need a release to each benefited party
Acquiescence/Estoppel: Benefited owner allows multiple violations of the covenant. Others come to
rely on acquiescence.
CANNOT be terminated or overruled by ZONING
Doctrine of Unclean Hands
o Equitable doctrine court can use to prevent benefited estate from enforcing a covenant against
one burdened estate when it allows another burdened party to do the act
Eagle Enterprises v. Gross
Change in conditions from when covenant created. Originally land used for summer house
and needed water from another property.
o Now, year-round house and has its own well
Court finds that payments for water do not touch and concern the land.
o Water covenant doesnt substantially affect ownership interest. Resembles a
personal, contractual promise to purchase water rather than significant interest
attaching to property
Touch and Concern Issue:
o Is covenant inextricably connected with the land?
o Does it substantially affect ownership interest of landowner?
o Very malleable test. No bright line rule.

Equitable Servitudes
Basics

Servitudes are Ks binding successive owners, respecting use of land

43

Property

Elements of Equitable Servitudes

Criteria for Burden to Run With Land
o Touch and Concern: Same as for real covenants.
o Notice: Party to be held liable had notice of servitude when acquired possession
o No vertical or horizontal privity requirements. Anyone with possessory interest in land is
bound
o ADVERSE POSSESSOR: Must comply with E.S. b/c privity not required
Criteria for Benefit to Run With Land
o Touch and Concern
o Intent: Parties must intend
o Privity: Dispensed with privity
o Notice: No notice requirement
Similarities/Differences Between Real Covenants and Equitable Servitudes
o E.S. does not require privity, but does require notice
o R.C. requires privity and not notice
o In practice, much easier to establish notice than privity
o Remedies:
R.C. is money damages
E.S. is injunction/performance/lien
o R.C. cannot be implied; E.S. could be implied
o More parties can enforce E.S.
Sanborn v. McLean
o Can you enforce E.S. against a party whose deed doesnt include servitude?
Yes. If you have common owner and restrictions on most lots in subdivision, court
may infer E.S. on all lots
Courts will imply Reciprocal E.S. if most lots have a restriction. If unrestricted lot
sold after restricted, then notice presumed.
o Run through the elements:
Intent: Original owners intent was to make it an original neighborhood.
But, isnt entirely clear since not all deeds have E.S. in them
To argue intent, must look to notice
Notice: Nothing in McLeans deed putting them on notice. Nothing in other peoples
deeds
Inquiry Notice: Look at the character of use, length of time the neighborhood
has been this way
o Justified on grounds that the community interest trumps private interes
o Many states dont recognize Sanborn
Ex. CA says restriction must be in actual deed or in original subdivision plan

Remedies

Injunctive Relief
Defense of Changed Conditions: circumstances changed so much, no longer possible to fulfill
original parties intent
Bolotin v. Ridge
o Trying to argue for changed circumstances. Utilitarian argument that the plot could be better
used as a commercial property.
o Holds that if original purpose of the covenant can be realized, it should be enforced even if it
hurts the current property owners.
44

Property

Original purpose must be entirely obsolete.

Here, aside from a few lots on corner, almost entire neighborhood is residential

Shelley v. Kraemer
o Courts refuse to enforce private covenants that violate constitutional protection, ex. racially
restrictive covenants or restrictive of free speech

Rubric for R.C./E.S. Problems:

Classify the Interest (damages or injunction)

Intent
Touch and Concern
Notice or Privity
Any implied reciprocal E.S.?

Recording Acts Determine Who Owns the Land

Property system that works well has no surprises

Functions:
o Means of collection, storing info
o Prioritizes title claims
Presumption of notice. If you dont investigate title, presumed to know
Bona Fide Purchaser (BFP): those who could not have learned of a restriction through a title search
Race Statute
o 1st party to record owns the land (N.C.). No penalty for bad faith purchaser
Race/Notice Statute
o 1st BFP to record claim. If land sold twice, original purchaser gets it
Notice Statute
o Ignores whoever records first. Interest goes to whichever party closes first

Common Interest Communities

Basics

1/5 of US housing in by CIC

Structure
o Exclusive occupancy rights over a unit
o Co-owner of common areas
o Covenants and restrictions on rights to transfer and use property
o Pay fees to CICs HOA
o Participation in CIC governance
Common Declaration
o Implemented and amended by by-laws
o When you join the CIC, everyone signs the declaration
o Regulates all manner of activities within CIC
o Forms of CICs
o Cooperatives: Use a corporation or business trust model to structure ownership interests in
multi-unit buildings.
o Condominiums: Own an individual dwelling unit in fee simple. Tenants in common on
underlying land and in common spaces.
45

Property

Subdivisions: Own dwelling and land in fee simple. Tenants in common in common spaces.
Usually have non-profit HOA to own and manage common areas

Benefits of CICs

Governs community directly and spreads costs of enforcement through community.

Avoids all problems with who has standing to enforce R.C., E.S. or Easement
Provides homeowners with shared amenities without burdening them with maintenance
Supplement or even wholly replace local government services

Models of Judicial Review of CICs

Contract/Consent: Apply K law to enforce terms of agreement.

Local Govt Model: Consider CIC as a local govt entity. Apply deference to local regulations, but
afford citizens protections
Administrative Law: Focus on process and ensuring procedural protections
Corporate Board: Only concerned with acts of bad faith (self-dealing) and breach of a fiduciary duty
Trust: Much stronger, more affirmative fiduciary duty
Problems With Judicial Review
o Extension of judicial review can undermine the fundamental premise of CICs which is private
ordering
Narhstedt v. Lakeside Village Condo
o Issue of whether review of CIC for unreasonableness should be viewed in that individual case
or for overall community
Ban on pets may be unreasonable for 3 quiet cats; but, overall community doesnt
want to be swamped with pets
o Holds that need to look at reasonableness for overall community
o Presumption of Reasonableness of restrictions.
Will enforce restriction unless it is wholly arbitrary, violates fundamental public
policy, or imposes burden on land far outweighing the benefit
o Court applies K law. Explicit agmt to no pets. Wants to uphold settled community standard.
Courts will give more weight to Original Declaration which everyone signed onto as
opposed to by-laws which are passed by majority

Nuisance and Trespass

Nuisance

Key aspect of nuisance is that there are certain harms with economic activity.
o Tension between Economic Development and Collective Rights vs. Individual Rights
o How do you deal with reciprocal harm? Nuisance suit infringes on polluters economic rights

Elements
Private Nuisance - Restatement
o Definition: Civil wrong based on conduct on Ds land that substantially interferes with Ps
use and enjoyment of his land
o Elements:
Intentional and unreasonable; OR unintentional and R or N
Substantially interfering with or disturbing
Interference could be Physical; or factor that decreases property FMV
Use and Enjoyment of Land
o Prerequisite: Ownership of a property interest in land
46

Property

Infringes on Right to Use

Restatement Balancing Test

o Intentional Conduct is Unreasonable if Gravity of Harm outweighs Utility of Actors Conduct
o Gravity of Harm Factors:
Extent of harm
Character of harm
Social value of use
Suitability of use at that locality
Burden of person harmed of avoiding the harm
o Utility of Conduct Factors:
Social value of primary purpose of conduct
Suitability of conduct at the locality
Impracticability of avoiding or preventing the invasion
Impracticability of maintaining activity if damages ensue
Intentional Nuisance
No need for ill will or malice. Just knowledge of conduct causing nuisance is enough.
If intentional, then liability if conduct is unreasonable (dont need N)
Public Nuisance
o Enforced by public officials against activities deemed detrimental to community
Ex. Operating brothel, obstructing public highway

Application of Nuisance
Waschak v. Moffat
o Culm banks (coal mining byproduct) are emitting noxious gas that is peeling paint and
causing health problems
o Majority says that release of gas is unintentional; and even it intentional, it arose from normal
and customary use of land so no negligence
Coming to the Nuisance: Ps bear some blame by moving into the town and near culm
bank
o Dissent notes that the entire town smells like rotten eggs all the time, huge culm banks
hundreds of feet long and serious health problems.
No reason why company couldnt move the culm outside of town
Need a better balance of the equities (yes, company needs to operate but in this
specific way?)
Boomer v. Atlantic Cement
o Ps live close to cement plant, alleging smoke and noise nuisance
o Court adopts Property and Liability Rule
Plant has option to make one payment for all past and future damage (incentivizes
plants to develop new technologies)
If no payment made, then Ps get an injunction
o Doesnt allow individual hold-outs to force factory to shut down. Lower transaction costs
since they must remedy option is left up to plant

Remedies
Compensation/Money Damages
o Individual compensation paid, but need to limit amount paid out so that economic
development can continue
47

Property

Fundamental Problem of trying to monetize non-market harms like listening to noise all the
time

Injunction
o Cease nuisance causing activity
Do Nothing
Payment from P to D to stop Nuisance
o Addresses Coming to the Nuisance Problem.
o Acknowledges changing conditions and recognizes entitlement of Ds pre-existing use.
Ex. Suburban sprawl surrounds pre-existing cattle stockyard which stinks.
Subdivision pays stockyard.

Debate Over Adopting S/L for Nuisance

Pro-S/L Reasons
Forces pollution costs to be incorporated in product prices
Strong incentives for polluters to invest in new tech
Spreads losses to consumers reflecting damage awards
Moral rights to a healthy environment and compensation for harm
Reducing Judicial Administrability by curbing litigation
Anti-S/L Reasons
Incentive P to avoid harm
Polluting activities may provide community benefits in taxes and jobs
Moral objection to S/L
Ease of S/L might cause sharp uptick in nuisance suits, incl. frivolous claims

Trespass

Physical invasion on land that is big enough to see.

o Ex. Rock or black goo is a trespass; noise is a nuisance
Effectively Strict Liability either there or not
Infringes on Right to Exclude

General C/L Rule

Pile v. Pedrick
Unintentionally, foundation of a bldg was less than 2 on Piles land
o Trespass, regardless of inadvertence
Party trespassed upon has choice of remedies are treating it as a permanent trespass and
paying damages; or forcing removal of trespassing objects.
Slightly modifies rule to allow for removal of foundation within a year rather than
immediately
Geragosian v. Union Realty
Part of fire escape hangs over property line and some drains go under ground. Adjudged a
trespass.
Affirms that rights in real property cannot ordinarily be taken from owner by valuation (cant
just pay damages for trespass if owner wants it gone)
o Does concede there might be some exception for estoppel, or when property owner
refuses to allow trespasser to remove trespassing objects, then injunction may be
refused
48

Property

Main holding is that landowner entitled to an injunction for removal of trespassing structures
o Cost of removal doesnt really matter

Raab v. Casper
CA has a Good Faith Improver Statute: One who makes an improvement on anothers land in
good faith and based on a mistaken belief becomes owner of that property BUT must pay
damages
o Degree of negligence calculation. Cant just be willfully mistaken; really need good
faith.
o Practical Effects of Good Faith Improve Statute:
Allows courts to make more equitable considerations rather than harsh C/L
May raise litigation costs as more people willing to take it to court
Holding: In weighing relief, court should consider any interim warning, the character and
relative cost of the improvements made before and after the warning, and the unitary or
separable character of the improvements
o Here, improver refused to make a land survey, and still finished building cabin after
he was warned he was on someone elses land

Limits on Trespass
State v. Shack
Court balancing between landowners right to exclude and the public policy of providing
essential (medical, legal, etc.) services to the poor
o Here, court finds that an employer may not deny a tenant worker a visitor or privacy
when meeting essential service provider
o Compelling reason is Congressional statute funding legal services to migrant poor
In order to have access and weaken right to exclude, it must involve a fundamental right or
have a compelling public interest
PruneYard v. Robbins (1980)
Kids wanted to use private property (shopping mall open to public) to pass out flyers and
shopping center sought to exclude them.
o CA had free speech protections in the state CON
Holds:
o Right to Exclude: Not absolute given state CON protections which are valid.
PruneYard can regulate Time, Manner and Place
o Takings Inquiry: character of the government action; its economic impact; and its
interference with reasonable investment-backed expectations
No evidence that right to exclude is so essential to use or value of property,
so no taking.
Justifications for Modifying Right to Exclude
Rights of Property are held against the Rights of Others
Economic Efficiency
Fair Use Doctrine property can be used in certain circs by others
Personhood probably cuts against this

Takings

Takings Clause in CON ensures protection for property rights. Nor shall private property be taken for public
use without just compensation
Two Broad Types of Takings Cases:
o Physical Occupation/Actual Taking: Physically taking the property from owners and reallocate its
use.
49

Property

Ex. Eminent Domain

Regulatory Taking: Property left in the hands of the property owners but govt regulates its use.
Ex. Zoning
Penn Coal v. Mahon
o If regulation of property goes too far, then it can constitute a taking.
Problem With Takings
o Impossible to compensate property owner for every diminution in value caused by govt
regulation. And almost every reg affects someones property value
o If there is no Takings Clause, then govt almost takes property at will
o All comes back to Holmes in Mahon, what is the Taking for?

How to Evaluate Takings Claims

Is it condemnation (eminent domain) or inverse condemnation (PPO, exaction, regulatory taking)?

o If PPO, then Taking.
o If exaction, then:
Would condition by itself constitute a taking?
Does condition advance a legitimate public purpose?
Is there an essential nexus between condition and public purpose?
Is there rough proportionality?
o If regulatory taking, then can you establish that its a complete wipeout? Is there a traditional
C/L defense (nuisance)?
For regulatory taking that isnt a complete wipeout, apply Penn Central.
Govt interest
Economic impact
Reasonable investment-backed expectations
Character of govt action

Physical Occupation
Loretto v. Teleprompter CATV (1982)
o NY law prevented landlords from stopping cable company from laying cable and set payment at $1.
o Test for a Taking:
o Economic Impact
o Interference with Investment-backed expectations
o Character of government action
o Court applies factors:
o Little economic impact.
o Little interference with investment
o But, character of government action is a Physical Invasion and Permanent not temporary.
Distinguish from PruneYard where right to exclude was temporarily curtailed
Strong Personhood argument a stranger (cable co.) is invading and occupying the
property.
o Holding: When govt action is a permanent physical occupation of property, then it is a taking to
extent of occupation regardless of the public benefit or minimal economic impact on owner
o Policy Issues:
o What if landlord was required to install cable for access to civic education? Landlord might be
reqd to do the same thing and not have it a taking.
o Problem with Loretto Bright Line Rule is that it doesnt admit nuance. 3rd Party/Stranger
distinction is key to opinion.
Is that really the case?
50

Property

Limits on PPOs
o Health and welfare reg not seen as PPO. Neither are % set asides for land.

Exactions
o Something required by the government to offset the burdens of development.
o Ex. If you build a subdivision, you also need put in the streets and build a school

Nollan
o Beachfront house. Wants to get a permit to knock it down and rebuild house.
o Permit made conditional on grant of an easement to provide public access to the each. Concern
with new home blocking public view of beach.
o Holds: There must be an essential nexus between the legitimate public purpose and the exaction.
o Here, giving easement to access beach is irrelevant to view of beach from road (just say 1 story
house)
o Condition needs to address the problem

Dolan v. Tigard
o To get permit to expand biz, city requires giving land to city as flood plain and to set aside land for
bike path.
o Finds: Nollan essential nexus test is satisfied.
o Holds: Adopts the Rough Proportionality Test. City must make an individualized determination that
the required dedicated is related in nature and extent of impact of the proposed development.
o RE flood plain: why does the city need to own it? Why not just say owner cant build on it?
o RE bike path: No evidence that traffic will really increase and bikers will abound.

Basic Exaction Analysis

o Apply Nollan. Need essential nexus between exaction and govt purpose.
o Apply Dolan. Rough proportionality between the condition and level of impact.

Regulatory Takings
Development of Regulatory Takings
Hadachek
Brick biz in LA. City then set limits on biz activities, destroying 90% of biz value.
Upheld as valid exercise of police power by CA SC Nuisance control does not result in
taking even if diminution in value.
Schoene
Trees were infected with bugs. State cut down trees to prevent harm to other species of tree.
No taking; valid exercise of police power.
PA Coal
PA statute prohibits coal mining from causing a structure to subside.
SCOTUS says this is a taking.
o If reg goes too far, it will be recognized as taking. No clear standard.
Denominator Problem
What is the area youre looking at to see the effect of the regulation?
o Ex. Is it your right to have these trees on your land, or is a broad right to use your
land? Narrower the right, then the stronger the effect.
51

Property

Big Issue
Should a public benefit be borne by a small number of property owners? Rather than paid for
by the public?

Penn Central RR v. NY

RR wants to build officer tower on top of Grand Central.

o Involves air rights above GCT.
City commission says you cant build over Grand Central, but gives RR Transferrable Development
Rights.
SCOTUS Analysis:
o Economic Impact: GCT can still be used as a profitable RR station. Still has value in air rights.
o Reasonable Investment-backed Expectation: Reasonable original expectation was that the station
would still be used as a RR station
o Character of Govt Action: Look at the extent of the public interest, diminution in value in
property
Upholds the regulation and does not find it is a Taking.

Lucas v. SC Coastal Commission

Under new coastal rules in place after home bought, man would be unable to build his home on
beachfront property.
Holding: Total loss of value in property due to a govt regulation is a taking.
o If less then a total wipeout, no clear rule.
If say 90% of land becomes unavailable for use, then Penn Central applies.
o Nuisance Exception: If C/L nuisance doctrine would have deprived landowner of that use (would
have prohibited use at purchase), then there is no taking b/c property owner never had the stick in
the first place.
Court assumes that legislature is up to no good w/ these land use regulations. Dismissed legislative
findings of harm. More faith in legislatures.

Public Use

In eminent domain, property owner gets compensated AND lessee to extent of leasehold

Berman v. Parker (1954)

Agency created to develop a blighted area in DC given eminent domain power.

SCOTUS held: So long as public use requirement has been satisfied, much deference to
legislature/local authorities as to how much eminent domain is necessary.
o Especially true for blighted areas.

Poletown (1984)

Detroit condemns and displaces 4200 ppl to make way for GM plant.
MI SC holds that economic development is a legitimate public use.

HHA v. Midkiff (1984)

Massive land oligopoly in HI that state need to break.

o Landowners wanted to avoid large tax liability if they were simply ordered to sell.
o State created condemnation procedure and HHA allowed lessees to acquire property and
avoid tax liability.
o Challenged as govt engineering transfer of property from one private owner to another
Holds: Applies Rational Basis Review. Eminent Domain is rationally related to a conceivable public
purpose. Public purpose needs to be legitimate as this was.
o Upholds HHA scheme. Government doesnt itself need to use property to legitimate the
taking.
52

Property

Different from Lucas b/c Lucas wasnt getting paid whereas HHA is paying for the land
Maybe different b/c a land oligopoly is such a unique situation

Kelo v. New London (2005)

NLDC sought to take houses through economic development condemnation proceedings.

Issue: Whether NLDC taking for economic development was a Public Use?
o Holds: Cited Berman and trend of great deference to legislatures.
Will defer to legislature but they need to show they take it seriously
This was carefully prepared plan; whole greater than the sum of its parts.
Takings satisfy public use requirement.
o Kennedy Concurrence: There was a real community development plan here; carefully put
together; council vote. Hard to discern whether Pfizer was just pulling the strings.
o OConnor Dissent: Cant square this with Berman and Midkiff b/c not the same dire need.
Purely private takings are not public uses
Backlash from Kelo led many states to preclude economic development as valid taking.
Is it role of Court to address the viability of the plan? Legislatures make bad plans all the time,
doesnt mean they are illegal.

Zoning
Fundamentals of Zoning

Power to zone derives from the police power.

States delegate zoning power to municipalities through Zoning Enabling Acts

Types of Zoning
Use Zoning
Divide municipality into districts. Allocate a use or uses (Residential, commercial, etc.).
Generally cumulative zoning. Zoned up to a certain use (ie. Industrial Zoning includes
commercial and residential)
Area Zoning
Regulates the size of lots, height of bldgs, setback requirements
Cluster Zoning
Closely lump together residential uses and free up land for parks
Planned Unit Developments
Put residential and commercial zones together
Comprehensive Plan
Municipalities required to create them to have formal guidance for future zoning. Changes to
zoning must comply with the general place forces cities to engage in long-range planning
Zoning Ordinances
Regulations that implement the Zoning Act.
Enforcement and Promulgation of ordinances is up to the Zoning Board.
o Usually a final appeal to the City Council

Ways to Get out of a Zoning Requirement

Challenge ordinance as inconsistent with the general plan.

Request a variance. Permits development in a way that would otherwise not be permitted.
53

Property

Must show:
Undue Hardship would result by compliance
Variance wouldnt be detrimental to the area
o Neighbors can challenge a variance
Exception. Contained in the ordinance itself. Not as common.
Ordinance cannot be arbitrary, capricious or discriminatory
o

Benefits of Zoning

Legitimate Expectations. Know in advance what the land is used for.

Lower Transaction Costs and solve Collective Action Problems
Aesthetics
Avoid Tragedy of the Commons. Restrain everyone
Can be very democratic Developers need to spend a lot of money & time winning residents over
Disadvantages of Zoning
o Zoning Boards can be bought leading to unjust enforcement
o Segregates the population
o Restrains economic growth

Cases
Euclid v. Ambler Realty

Ambler claims that after a rezoning, the land has lost 75% of its value.
o Makes a facial challenge to ordinance. Not as applied.
Holds: Zoning ordinance must be clearly arbitrary and unreasonable and have no substantial
relation to valid police power. Rational Basis Review lot of deference to legislature
o Court analogies zoning to nuisance police power. Land Uses can readily become nuisances
depending on the circumstances.
After Euclid, almost never see facial challenges to ordinances. All as applied

Ladue v. Gilleo

Gilleo wants to put up a protest sign; denied a variance. City revises ordinance and enumerates the
nuisances it wants to prevent
2 Analytical Approaches to Challenge Sign/Speech Ordinances:
o Ordinance restricts too little speech b/c its exemptions discriminate on the basis of the signs
message (underinclusive)
o Ordinance prohibits too much protected speech (overinclusive)
KEY ISSUE: Content-based versus content-neutral regulations
Holds: It is possible for states to ban some signs, but this ban is UNCON, too restrictive.
o Ladue can still regulate Time, Manner and Place of signs.
o Need to balance the Right to Use (Gilleo) and the Right to Exclude (Shack), but cases come
out differently Overriding public interest is what determines the day

Renton v. Playtime Theatres

Zoning Ordinance written to prevent Nuisances: crime and economic blight from adult theaters.
Doesnt regulate content of activities, just location of theaters.
Holds: Test is whether the evidence could reasonably be believed to support the ordinance
Rational Basis Review.
o Here, it can. City relied on actual evidence to decide how best to regulate land use for adult
theaters. Much deference to individual policy choices.
If ordinance makes it commercially difficult to build an adult theater, thats too bad.
o City can zone based on Use; or Time, Manner and Place
54

Property

Take Aways

Euclid gives municipalities enormous latitude in zoning regulations.

o Although Agins makes the test a little more beefed up. Maybe Rational Basis +

55