Property Attack Outline copy PDF

Preview

Summary

Download Property Attack Outline copy PDF

Description

Property I.

First in Time: Acquisition by Discovery, Capture, and Creation a. Discovery i. This doctrine is based on capitalistic and imperialistic beliefs. The United States “discovered” the land. ii. First in time; First in right. iii. Johnson v. M’Intosh 1. Early American history case where the Court said, among other things, that the Native Americans have the right of possession but do not have any ownership rights. 2. Supreme Court said the land belonged to the United States by virtue of discovery. – A U.S. Court will not say that the U.S. title was not better because the judiciary is a creature of the state.

b. Capture i. Three elements of capture 1. Intent to take control of the thing 2. Actions in furtherance of that intent 3. Domination that deprives the thing of its natural liberty ii. Rule: Something becomes property when there is a domination of its natural liberty, intent to control it, and an act that demonstrates that intent. iii. Pierson v. Post 1. At what point during the pursuit does a wild animal become property? a. Post: we chased it, we bought the dogs for the sole purpose of hunting this fox, we had the intent to hunt, we put in the labor, and Pierson would not have had the opportunity to kill the fox without us. b. Pierson: I killed it. I finished the job. 2. Wild animals will run away at the first chance they get, so occupancy has to be more than just holding it. You have to deprive its natural liberty. – But not necessarily kill it. 3. Hypo 1: If the wild animal is mortally wounded, then the hunter who caused the injury is able to claim possession because they deprived the animal of its natural liberty. 4. Hypo 2: Hunters shot and accidentally killed it; Pierson picks it up and takes it home. Pierson gets to keep the fox because you have to link the intent to the act. iv. Ghen v. Rich 1. Whaling case, where one group of whalers shot and killed a law but it didn’t resurface until a few days later (per usual). A different person took the whale and sold it. 2. The usage on Cape Cod for many years had been that the person who kills the whale with a bomb-lance or device showing whom did the killing owns it. 3. If the fisherman does all that is possible to do to make the animal his own, that would seem to be sufficient to acquire the right to it.

c. Creation i. Introduction 1. Assertion is that if you create something – if in that sense you are first in time – then that something is most certainly yours to exploit. 2. The foundation of property rights is the expenditure of labor and money. 1

ii. Property in One’s Ideas and Expressions 1. International News Service v. Associated Press a. This was the case between two competing news companies. D was copying news stories after plaintiff had published them. b. The news of the current events may be regarded as public property, but what the court was concerned with was the business of making it known to the world. c. Both companies were selling the news as a matter of property. D was selling the plaintiff’s “property” as its own. d. The takeaway from this case is that the actual news information itself wouldn’t have been property, because it’s public information, but the labor and work it took for P to gather the information and write a story on it gave them some right to it. iii. Property in One’s Persona 1. White v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. a. This was the case about Vanna White and the Samsung commercial that was clearly imitating her with a robot. b. It matters that the robot was obviously supposed to be her, because the injury is based on the fact that her persona is being used and the public believed the robot to be mocking her. i. Example used in class: If I personally believe this text book looks like Vanna White and show people it, it doesn’t matter because a reasonable person would not believe that to be true. c. If the celebrity’s identity is commercially exploited, there has been an invasion of his right whether or not his name or likeness used. d. The right of publicity had developed to protect the commercial interest of celebrities in their identities iv. Property in One’s Person (i.e. Body Parts) 1. Moore v. Regents of the University of California a. Case where the plaintiff underwent surgery for leukemia and the doctors ended up taking his cells. The defendants subsequently established a cell line from Moore’s cell, received a patent for it, and entered into various commercial agreements, leading to great profit. b. The Court held that the use of excised human cells in medical research does not amount to claim for conversion, but they ruled in favor of the plaintiff based on medical malpractice (i.e. doctors should have told him what was going on and had him consent to it) c. Policy rationale: Research on human cells plays a critical role on medical research, and the extension of property law into this area will hinder research by restricting access to the necessary raw materials. Plaintiff’s theory would threaten to destroy the economic incentive to conduct this important medical research. d. To establish conversion, plaintiff must establish an actual interference with his ownership right of possession. Where plaintiff neither has title to the property alleged to have ben covrted, nor possession thereof, he cannot maintain an action for conversion. e. Court ruled that not only did he not have possession of his cells, but he didn’t even have ownership rights of his cells. f. Moore didn’t give property, because Moore did not have property. 2

g. The doctor’s made the cells property by changing them to a purpose of their choice. v. Takeaways from creation 1. It seems as though in order to have a property right to your persona or to your ideas and expressions, you must have a commercial interest in them. 2. In order to make a body party property you must modify and manipulate it in a unique way of your choosing. a. Examples i. Two-headed fetus ii. Lamp made out of a human leg iii. Cells that were manipulated by the doctors in Moore. b. Policy: Courts and the law in general are reluctant in establishing property rights in human beings (slavery)

d. Exclusion/Ejectment i. Property is a relationship among people that entitles so-called owners to include or exclude use or possession of their owned property by other people. ii. This is a basic property right and should be used throughout the exam when discussing whether someone was exercising ownership rights of a property. iii. Jacque v. Steenberg Homes 1. Steenberg Homes sold a mobile home to the plaintiff, Jacque’s neighbor. The easiest route of delivery was across Jacque’s land, and despite continuous protests by Jacques, Steenberg plowed a path through their snow-covered field, and drove through that path to deliver the home. 2. Owner of property has the power to exclude other people from that property 3. In this case, the Court ruled that you can exclude others from your property for essentially any reason that you want. iv. State v. Shack 1. Case where the person that provided health service for labor workers and an attorney that represented them walked on the complainant’s property in order to administer medical and legal assistance. Laborers lived on property. 2. This case put a limit on the right to exclude. 3. If the exclusion of someone from property causes the harm of another, then there is no right to that exclusion. 4. The ownership of real property does not include the right to bar access to governmental services available to migrant workers. a. Policy i. Migrant workers do not have the knowledge of regarding available services from the government ii. The exercise of property rights caused the harm 5. Property rights have to serve human values. v. SIC ITERE TOU UT ALIENUM NON LAEDUS – Don’t use your property in a way that hurts somebody else.

II.

Acquisition by Find – Finder’ s Law a. Finder’s Law is about who should be holding on to the property i. Allocating rights to owned stuff ii. First step is to figure out, or at least guess, how the stuff originally got there. iii. The policy consideration surrounding this doctrine is that we, as a society, want to make it as easy as possible for the true owner of the property to find it. 3

iv. The reasoning behind every rule in finder’s law is that the courts believed that, in these specific circumstances, the rule will give the true owner the best chance at finding his property.

b. Lost Property i. What is lost property? Property that was unintentionally placed in the location that it was found, and the true owner is not aware of its whereabouts. ii. Intent: No intent to place or relinquish iii. Location: Found in a place where the property isn’t commonly laid (wallet in a field) iv. Who gets to keep the property? Lost property belongs to the finder subject to claim of the true owner. v. Hannah v. Peel 1. Peel bought a home in 1938, but never moved in. During World War II, the home was quartered and used by the military. The plaintiff found a brooch on a windowsill, loose in a crevice. There is no evidence that Peel knew about the brooch beforehand. 2. The finder of lost property has superior title against the owner of the land on which it was found. 3. While a person possesses everything attached to or under their land, they do not necessarily possess a thing lying unattached on the surface. vi. Armory v. Delamirie 1. The finder of a jewel, though he does not by such finding acquire an absolute property or ownership, yet he has such a property as will enable him to keep it against all but the rightful owner, and consequently maintain trover. 2. In other words, this is a restatement of the rule that the finder of property (a jewel) does not acquire property or ownership rights, but does have the right to possession subject to the rightful owner.

c. Mislaid Property i. What is mislaid property? Property that was intentionally placed in the location that it was found, but was forgotten about. ii. Intent: Intended to be placed there but no intent to relinquish rights. iii. Location: Where people commonly leave such items (purse in a restroom) iv. Who gets to keep the property? Mislaid property stays where it is found subject to claim of the true owner. (So if a purse is found in a restaurant, the restaurant owner has right to possession of it, subject to the true owner) v. McAvoy v. Medina 1. Plaintiff and customer of the defendant’s barbershop found a purse in the shop. Plaintiff gave it to the barbershop owner to hold until the true owner of the purse was found. The true owner never came back and plaintiff demanded the ownership of the purse. 2. Court ruled that property that was left accidentally in a store is considered mislaid, rather than lost, and the property rights belong to the storeowner. 3. The finder of mislaid property has the right to that property against all others except for the true owner of that property.

d. Abandoned Property i. What is abandoned property? Property that was intentionally placed in the location that it was found, and the rights to it were relinquished. ii. Intent: Intent to place at the location and relinquish rights to it iii. Who gets to keep the property? Abandoned property belongs to the finder. 4

III.

Adverse Possession a. Rule - Adverse Possession is the expiration of a statute of limitations on the owner’s right to eject a trespasser when the trespass is done in a manner that is (1) actual, (2) open and notorious, (3) hostile, (4) exclusive, and (5) continuous for the relevant statutory period.

b. Actual Element i. Actual possession is possession that is taken in a way that commits the land to a particular use of the trespasser’s choosing. ii. Domination of the land that is possessory – not mere use. iii. Building permanent things on the land, improving the land, etc. iv. Personal property and portable structures (chicken coup) is not sufficient v. On exam think about permanent structures that dominate the land because it is now the only thing that can be on that part of the property.

c. Open and Notorious Element i. Open and notorious possession is possession that puts a reasonable person on notice that a claim of ownership is being made. ii. Actual notice is sufficient but not necessary – what would a reasonable owner think? iii. On exam think about, once again, permanent structures, but also think about things that only a person exercising ownership would do. Think about property rights such as the right to exclude and include, and see if the facts show a basis for that.

d. Hostile Element i. Hostile possession is possession that is contrary to the owner’s interests as an owner. ii. Some jurisdictions require that the landowner intend to trespass in order for this element to be met, but don’t focus on this on the exam (maybe mention it though) iii. Granting permission is the easiest way to combat this element, because then it is showing the courts and the trespasser that the possession is not contrary to the owner’s interests as an owner. iv. On exam think about whether the trespasser’s actions are one that would be contrary to an owner’s interests. Take the owner’s personality into account, because if someone loves football with a passion and builds a field, then kids playing on that filed might not be contrary to the owner’s interest.

e. Exclusive Element i. Exclusive possession is the type of possession that illustrates that the possessor is the sole party exercising the rights of ownership. ii. Hypothetical: if people are picking berries on the land, or walking through it, or something to that extent, the exclusivity element can still be satisfied. iii. Policy behind it is that if the adverse possessor hasn’t excluded the owner (or others), then they haven’t demonstrated control and dominion.

f. Continuous Element i. Continuous possession is uninterrupted possession that meets all five elements of adverse possession, throughout the statutory period, in a manner that suits the land. ii. This element is a good spot to look at and mention the statute of limitations. iii. Continuity of possession may be established although the land is sued regularly for only a certain period of time (seasonal use) iv. If for some reason one of the elements stops being met, the continuity element starts over. In other words, this is a good place to wrap up an exam answer because this element is only met if all four of the other elements have been met the whole time.

g. Adverse Possession of Chattels 5

i. Discovery rule – A cause of action will not accrue until the injured party discovers, or by exercise of reasonable diligence and intelligence should have discovered, facts which form the basis of a cause of action. 1. Important in regards to the continuous element, because it determines when the clock starts (with chattels – not until the injured party discovers or should have discovered the basis for the cause of action) ii. O’Keeffe v. Snyder 1. If an artist diligently seeks the recovery of a lost or stolen painting, but cannot find it or discover the identity of the possessor, the statute of limitations will not begin to run. 2. This ruling changes the requirements for acquiring title to personal property after an alleged unlawful taking, and shifts the burden of proof at trial. 3. Under the doctrine of adverse possession, the burden is on the possessor to prove the elements of adverse possession. Under the discovery rule, the burden is on the owner as the one seeking the benefit of the rule to establish facts that would justify deferring the beginning of the period of limitations.

h. Disability Problem – Adverse Possession i. The statute of limitations is extended if specified disabilities are present at the time when the cause of action accrued. ii. If the owner is incapacitated (e.g. coma) the statute of limitations does not run.

i. Adverse Possession Against the Government i. At common law, adverse possession does not run against the government. ii. The state owns its land in trust for all the people, who should not lose the land because of the negligence of a few state offices or employees. iii. Exceptions 1. General Exception a. Where the person improves the land with the knowledge and acquiescence of government officials. 2. Jurisdictional Exceptions a. Permit adverse possession on the same terms as private land. b. Only where possession occurs for a much longer period of time. c. Only against government lands held in propriety (as opposed to a public or governmental) capacity.

IV.

Acquisition by Gift a. Rule: In order for a transfer to be a valid gift, the donor must (1) intend to make a present and immediate transfer of an existing interest in the property, (2) sufficiently deliver the property to the donee, and (3) the donee must accept the property.

b. Three requirements i. Intent 1. The donor must intend to make a present and immediate transfer of an existing interest in the property 2. Intent in a transfer is to relinquish your control of the property. 3. “By these words or actions I am, right now, giving you this property.” 4. You can keep possession of property while still relinquishing the ownership right to it and giving rights to someone else (Gruen) ii. Delivery 1. The donor must deliver possession to the donee with the manifested intention to make a gift. 2. Some act that is sufficient for the transfer to relinquish control for the property. 6

3. Three types a. Actual Delivery i. Handing the person the property in person ii. Best way to delivery the property, but if this is not practical due to size, weight, or inaccessibility, the other two may suffice. b. Constructive Delivery i. Handing over a key or some object that will open up access to the subject matter of the gift ii. Example: giving someone a key to a car or house. c. Symbolic Delivery i. Handing over something symbolic to the property. ii. In Gruen the symbolic delivery was the letters addressed to the decedent’s son. iii. Worst way to deliver the property out of the three. 4. Phone Calls are not sufficient for delivery a. Policy: it would be too fuzzy; there is no way of knowing for sure who is on the other end of the phone. Also, it would be hard to prove. b. Hypo: I left my stuff, there go ahead and keep it. This is not enough to satisfy the delivery element. iii. Acceptance by the donee 1. Easiest of the three elements to meet because there is a presumed acceptance subject to rejection by the donee.

c. Gruen v. Gruen i. This is a good case illustration of the three elements of a gift. ii. It was the case between a wife and a son of a decedent over the property rights to a valuable painting. The decedent wrote a letter to his son saying that he was giving him the painting for his birthday but that he wished to retain the possession of it for his lifetime. Plaintiff never took possession; nor did he seek to. iii. Court said all three elements were satisfied iv. Intent element 1. Evidence shows that Victor intended to transfer ownership of the painting to plaintiff in 1963 but to merely retain possession of it until he died. 2. The three letters show this intent to relinquish rights immediately. v. Delivery element 1. Under the circumstances, it would have been illogical for the law to require the donor to part with possession of the painting when that is exactly what he intends to retain. There is also no reason to require a donor making a gift of a remainder interest in a chattel to physically deliver the chattel into the donee’s hands only to have the donee redeliver it to the donor. 2. Symbolic delivery was sufficient here; they lived so far away from each other and it would have been impractical to meet just to deliver and redeliver. vi. Acceptance element 1. There is a presumed acceptance in these cases, but beyond that, the plaintiff told many people about this painting and how excited he was about it. 2. Also, the fact that the kept the letters after all these years was enough.

Real Estate I.

Introduction a. Some common things that go into real estate agreements i. A price 7

i...