B. Subsequent Possession Outline (1).docx

A. Acquisition by Find #1 Rule: The finder of lost property has a strong claim to the lost property over everyone else EXCEPT the actual owner. Bailment (Voluntary) = An agreement in common law that occurs when someone entrusts an asset to someone else for safekeeping. If a valet takes your care Inv...

A. Acquisition by Find #1 Rule: The finder of lost property has a strong claim to the lost property over everyone else EXCEPT the actual owner. Bailment (Voluntary) = An agreement in common law that occurs when someone entrusts an asset to someone else for safekeeping. If a valet takes your care Involuntary Bailment = An involuntary bailment is when someone accidentally leaves their personal property in someone else's possession without negligence. No ownership transfer. If you find something on the ground and the owner did not intend for you to find it. Analysis steps on a “finding” fact pattern Owner (#1 in the hierarchy of property owners) Where is the true owner? We usually can’t find the true owner -> then go to the “finder.” Finder How did the finder find the item? What are the facts of the finder finding it? Because it's just a strong but not irrevocable presumption that a finder will get. Ratione Soli: On whose property was the item found? The finder does have a presumption, but it can be rebutted by the ratione soli Weigh the facts to see who has the best claim to the found property and consider how/where the finder found it and why the finder found the property. Exceptions Lost Armory: Rights to found chattel > rights of others EXCEPT the true owner. (chimney sweep) NO RS Difference between Armory (finder vs. seller) & Staffordshire (property owner vs. hired staff. Bridges: An item found on public property becomes the finder's property rather than the owner's. (busy shopping center) WEAKER RS Difference between Bridges (open/public location) & Staffordshire (private property) Staffordshire: When a lost item is found on property over which the property owner exercises exclusive control, ownership of the lost item vests in the property owner. (rings found in pool) AGENCY RS Brigg: A landowner possesses the surface of the ground and everything that lies beneath it. (ancient relic found on leased land) COMPLETE RS Mislaid Medina: If the property is “mislaid”, the finder ≠ have a property claim. (mislaid purse in barbershop) Empty Homes Peel: A finder of a lost chattel on another’s property has rights to that chattel superior to the property owner's rights. Other Facts? Dirty hands, other behaviors, other issues, agency? Bridges (1874) Item found in public Facts: Bridges found a small package on the floor of a shop (chaotic shopping center) owned by Hawkesworth. After discovering that the package was full of bank notes, Bridges gave the package to Hawkesworth to hold in case the true owner showed up. Three years passed, and no one appeared to claim the lost notes. Bridges asked Hawkesworth to return the notes to him. Rule: When a lost item is found on open/public property, ownership of the lost item vests in the finder instead of the owner of the real property where the item is found. **An item found on public property (busy shopping center) becomes the finder's property rather than the owner's.** Armory (1722) Item found during duty (private) Facts: Armory, a chimney sweep, found a jewel during his duties. He took the jewel to Delamirie, a goldsmith, for appraisal purposes. Delamirie’s apprentice deceitfully appropriated the jewel and refused to return it to the Armory. Rule: A person who finds a piece of a chattel has a possessory property interest in the chattel, which may be enforced against anyone except the true owner of the chattel | Rights to found chattel > rights of others EXCEPT the true owner Staffordshire Water Co. v. Sharman (1896) (Peele case) Facts: South Staffordshire Water Company owned property that contained a pool and hired Sharman to clean the pool. Sharman found two gold rings in the pool. Staffordshire insisted that Sharman turn over the rings. Sharman declined and gave them to the police. Finding no success in locating the rings’ owners, the police eventually returned the rings to Sharman. South Staffordshire filed suit demanding the return of the rings. The court held that the precedent outlined in Bridges v. Hawkesworth applied to the facts of the case and established a right to ownership by Sharman exclusive of everyone but the true owners of the rings. Rule: When a lost item is found on property over which the property owner exercises exclusive control, ownership of the lost item vests in the property owner. Elwes v. Brigg Gas Go (1886) Own land + everything below Facts: Cary Elwes leased land to Brigg Gas Co. for 99 years. The lease permitted Brigg Gas to erect a boundary wall and gas holders, tanks and sheds on the land, provided Elwes’s surveyor or agent approved them. While excavating the land, Brigg Gas discovered a prehistoric ship embedded several feet down in the clay soil. Elwes had not been aware of the ship before Brigg Gas found it. Elwes claimed ownership over the boat and demanded that Brigg Gas deliver it/ Rule: A landowner possesses the surface of the ground and everything that lies beneath it. Hannah v. Peel (1945) Facts: Peel never lived in this house. A quartered soldier found a brooch embedded in a windowsill. The soldier reported it to the police, who held the brooch for two years. When no owner was found, the police gave the brooch to Peel, who sold it. The soldier sued for the return of the brooch or its value. Rule: If the homeowner never occupied the house & someone finds chattel in it, the finder has a greater right to it than the property owner. | A finder of a lost chattel on another’s property has rights to that chattel superior to the property owner's rights. Reasoning: The land owner possesses anything attached to or under the land's surface, but not necessarily things lying on top. McAvoy v. Medina (1866) If the property is “mislaid”, the finder ≠ have a property claim Facts: McAvoy got a haircut at a barber shop owned by Medina. McAvoy found a pocketbook that a customer had accidentally left on the table. McAvoy left the pocketbook with Medina so that efforts could be made to see if the owner would claim it. After no owner came forward, McAvoy demanded that Medina give him the money as the pocketbook's finder. Rule: Mislaid property is not subject to the rule that a finder of lost property has a valid claim to the property against everyone except the true owner. Reasoning: Putting an item in a particular location and forgetting to pick it back up is not the same as losing the item. B. Acquisition by Adverse Possession Adverse Possession Theories “Sleeping” = By favoring the adverse possessor over the true landowner, the doctrine of adverse possession rewards the productive use of land and punishes landowners who "sleep on their rights. “Earning” = An adverse possessor builds a claim to the land because he or she has made productive use of the land in a way that benefits society. The law will reward those “earning” on the property. Adverse Possession Against the Government = Under the common law rules, adverse possession does not run against local, state, or federal government. Adverse Possession Elements | Studicata Actual The claimant must physically use the particular parcel of land in the same manner that a reasonable owner would (acts required to satisfy vary from parcel to parcel, i.e., farm on farmland) Exclusive entry and possession The claimant does not share control of the property with anyone else. Open and Notorious Possession must be evident/obvious to anyone, including the true owner, who observes the property. One will not succeed with an adverse possession claim if it is a secret Adverse Under the Claim of Right: Lutz Continuous (for the statutory period) A single adverse possessor must maintain continuous possession of the property. However, the continuity between successive adverse possessors may be maintained if privity exists between them. Hostile Possession infringes on the true owner's rights (does not mean "unfriendly”) If the true owner consents or gives license to the adverse possessor's use of the property, possession is not hostile, and it is not adverse possession. A typical statute requires possession for seven years if under the color of title or 20 years if not. The threshold, however, varies by jurisdiction. Van Valkenburgh v. Lutz (1952) Under the claim of title Facts: For several years, the Appellee traveled over land they did not own adjacent to their lot. Several years later, the Appellants purchased the land that the Appellee traveled over and erected a fence across the traveled way that the Appellee claimed a right to use. The Appellee initiated a lawsuit claiming his right of way was being interfered with. The trial court found for the Appellee, and the case was appealed. Rule: To acquire real title to the property by adverse possession, clear and convincing proof must show that there was actual occupation under a claim of title for the statutory period. Occupation must be evidenced by substantial enclosure or by usual cultivation or improvement. 1. Color of Title & Constructive Adverse Possession Claim of title A way for an adverse possessor to express the requirement of “hostility” or “claim of right”...formal title transfer No documentation Color of title (defense against AP) A document or other instrument that appears to be a legitimate claim of title to a piece of land cannot transfer or convey ownership due to a title defect. Conditions where the land possessor purportedly owns the property through a defective deed (See Romero) → make an AP claim, and when you get to an adverse/hostile element, make an argument: Claim of right: when trying to prove possession was hostile/adverse, you can look at it from an objective perspective (owner gave no permission) or subjective perspective (does possessor deserve right? e.g., Nome 2000 where they cleaned up the land and built stuff) “Color of title” is a phrase used in property law that refers to a title to real property. It may have the appearance of good and valid title to a parcel of property, but in reality, does not provide full, legally recognized title to the parcel. A person who holds property under color of title does not hold actual title for a variety of possible reasons, e.g., adverse possession. Or, there is a significant defect in the written document supporting title, e.g., a deed, that makes the document invalid. In all states, entry with the color of title may have an advantage when the adverse possessor enters into possession of only a part of the property. On Lexie’s 100 acres, Vanessa occupies 10 acres, and Elizabeth occupies 5. Vanessa adversely possesses the 10 acres, which leads to AP 95 acres total. Actual possession under the color of the title of only a part of the land covered by the defective writing is constructive possession of all the writing describes. Romero v. Garcia (1976) (pg. 300) (color of title) Facts: ​​Romero and husband purchased land from his father and mother did not sign the deed, though her husband did, and the description of the property was incorrect. Romero built a home on a portion of the land and then husband died and she moved and often fell behind on property taxes. P attempts to quiet title of Garcias (neighbors) based on adverse possession for more than ten years under color of title and payment of taxes. Issue: Whether land possessor could obtain color of title for adverse possession based on a deed with inadequate description? (Yes) Rule: The deed is not void for want of proper description if, with the deed and with extrinsic evidence on the ground, a surveyor can ascertain the boundaries. Mannillo v. Gorski (1969) Mistakes = valid AP Facts: Gorski and the Mannillos owned adjacent property. Before the Mannillos acquired their land, Gorski installed steps leading to the home’s side entrance, which encroached upon the lot that the Mannillos later purchased. Rule: Any exclusive, continuous, uninterrupted, visible, and notorious entry and possession for the required time may support a claim of adverse possession, even if it resulted from a mistake. | An adverse possession claim may be based on a mistaken possession, but it must also be visible enough to notify the owner. Intent does not matter for AP cases Pile v. Pedrick (1895) NOT AP, just “encroachment” Facts: Pile and Pedrick owned adjoining properties. Pedrick hired a surveyor to locate his property’s boundary line before building a factory on it. The factory’s brick wall built on the foundation was located entirely on Pedrick’s land. Pedrick attempted to negotiate with Pile by offering to make the brick wall a common wall and paying Pile damages for trespass. Pedrick also offered to allow Pile free use of the wall on the condition that the third and fourth-floor factory windows would remain open until Pile chose to use the wall. Pile declined the offer and sought an injunction to remove the wall and windows. Rule: Even if the encroachment is negligible and unintentional, a landowner can obtain an injunction ordering a neighbor to remove the part of the structure that encroaches on his property. | didn’t satisfy “continuous”; intent does not matter for encroachment on property cases Raab v Casper (1975) Facts: P and D owned adjoining foothill tracts acquired through a common grantor. P's parcel is 20 acres, and D owns two separate parcels, one that adjoins the northern portion of P's tract and another that adjoins the southern portion. P sought a mandatory injunction and damages due to D’s continued trespass. Alleges D built a cabin entirely on P's land in the northern portion and D built a family home of which 1/3 was located on P's land in the southern portion. The north-south boundary had never been surveyed or marked. D believed in good faith that the cabin was on D's property. Rule: A court must consider whether an improver actually acted in good faith. The court must also consider the improver's negligence in ascertaining the boundaries of his land before improving it. As part of this, the court must consider any interim warning the improver received from the true owner regarding the boundaries of the land. Snape: 2 main elements of this case. Even though the D was told to stop building, it continued to build on P’s property. As a result, two legal issues: The Court of Appeals smacks down the trial court’s assumption that D made the encroachment in good faith. The trial court had not examined whether this was in good faith under the Cali statute. Introduction to easements. D has an easement over P’s property. D thought they had a prescriptive easement over P’s property. 2. Typical Use & Tacking Tacking: the process whereby an individual in Adverse Possession of Real Property adds his or her period of possession to that of a prior adverse possessor. For title to property to vest in an adverse possessor, occupancy must be continuous, regular, and uninterrupted for the full statutory period. Kunto (1970) Typical use & tacking rule allowed in privity Facts: Kunto had a property used for a summer home on Hood Canal. The land on which Kunto built his house did not belong to him (surveying errors, the land Kunto occupied was not the same as the land described on his deed). The entire neighborhood had the same issue; the land people owned differed from the land they built on. As a result, Howard owned land where Moyer's house sat. Moyer owned land where Kunto's house sat. Howard gave Moyer the deed to the property he owned in return for the deed to the land that Moyer owned (where Kunto's house was). Howard instituted an action to quiet title and take possession of Kunto's land; Kunto made a cross-claim to take possession of the land through adverse possession. Issue 1: Is a claim of adverse possession defeated because the physical use of the premises is restricted to summer occupancy? Rule 1: A claim of adverse possession is not defeated if the physical use of the premises is restricted to summer occupancy since to hold otherwise would ignore the nature and condition of the property. Issue 2: May a person who receives record title to tract A under the mistaken belief that he has title to tract B (immediately contiguous to tract A) adversely possess tract B through his and his immediate predecessor's possession? Rule 2: A person who receives record title to tract A under the mistaken belief that he has title to tract B (immediately contiguous to tract A) may adversely possess tract B through his and his immediate predecessor's possession as long as the possessor is not a wrongdoer or trespasser. Brown v. Gobble (1996) (pg. 287) (border disputes, tacking, adverse possession, privity of contract) Facts: Browns were told their property boundary extended to and included the fence enclosing their property via survey, but did nothing to exercise ownership or control of the land until five years later when they attempted to build a road there → Gobbles asserted ownership and sought to prevent Browns from building → Browns sued Gobbles and Gobbles successfully argued that their property’s previous owners had tended to and cultivated disputed tract of land (i.e. claimed title by tacking) Issue: Whether a party that is claiming title by adverse possession may tack their possession of the land to the possession of previous owners? (Yes) Rule: One who seeks to assert title in land by adverse possession must prove each of the following with clear/convincing > preponderance of evidence for a period of more than ten years that possession has been: adverse/hostile actual open and notorious exclusive continuous and under a claim or color of title Sequential owners in privity may tack their possession to satisfy the statutory time requirement after elements met. 3. Adverse Possession of Chattels (Real Property) Snape = You can hide stolen real property but can’t hide real estate. The SOL is much shorter for stolen personal property than for real estate. O’Keeffe v. Snyder (1980) Most jurisdictions use the discovery. Facts: In 1946, O’Keeffe noticed that three of her paintings were missing from a gallery, but she did not report the pieces stolen until 1972. In 1975, O’Keeffe learned that her paintings were in a gallery in New York, and in March 1976, she brought suit in replevin against purchaser Snyder. Snyder moved for summary judgment. Snyder asserted that he was a purchaser for value, he had title by adverse possession, and the applicable six-year statute of limitations barred O’Keeffe’s action. Rule: The statute of limitations for replevin will begin when the owner of the chattel should have, through due diligence, discovered facts that form the basis for a cause of action. **SOL on real property + constructive notice** C. Acquisition by Gift Requirements to make a gift of personal property (order does not matter): The donor must intend to make a present transfer of an existing interest in the property, The intent is commonly the litigated issue The donor must deliver (hand over) possession to donee. Delivery and intent interact and overlap considerably but are distinct requirements If manual delivery is not practicable because of the object's size or weight or its inaccessibility, constructive or symbolic delivery may be permitted. Constructive Delivery: handing over a key or some object that will open up access to the subject matter of the gift. (Newman) Symbolic Delivery: Handing over something symbolic of the property given.(Gruen) Acceptance by the donee (seldom an issue) 1. Gift by Constructive Delivery Newman v. Bost (1898) “Gift causa mortis” Facts: On death bead, the homeowner gave keys to Plaintiff, who was his live-in maid after his wife's death. He said the house & furniture were to be hers. A life insurance policy for $3000 was locked in a drawer. Intestate's administrator sold some household property for $200 and took the $300 in insurance on the piano and a $3k insurance policy. The plaintiff believes the property was her gift. Issue: Is a gift of “all the personal property in the house” effectively delivered by handing over the keys to the rooms of the house? Rule: Handing over keys only constructively delivers gifts that aren’t present in the home or are incapable of physical delivery (she got the bureau, but not policy). 2. Transfer property on death w/o a will | Future interest Gruen v. Gruen (1986) Facts: Victor Gruen sent letters to his son, Michael, saying he’d give Michael a valuable painting for his 21st birthday. Victor did not deliver the painting but kept it in his home and the painting was to be given upon Victor’s death. Michael acknowledged the gift to his friends and associates and held both letters for over 17 years to verify the gift after his father's death. Upon Victor’s death, Victor’s wife and Michael’s stepmother refused to give Michael the painting. Rule: To make a valid inter vivos gift, the donor must intend to make a present transfer, either actual or constructive delivery of the gift must occur, and the donee must accept the gift. Gift Elements Donative intent: Here, Victor’s letters clearly established intent to presently & irrevocably give Michael the painting Delivery: Here, Victor’s letters were symbolic delivery of the painting Acceptance: Here, the painting was worth millions. Michael acknowledged the gift to his friends and associates and that he both letters for over 17 years to verify the gift after his father's death. This also demonstrates that the gift was of value to Michael. Lifetime Gift: takes effect immediately and is irrevocable 3. Engagement Rings/Gifts Snape: Most states have engagement ring statutes that can be invoked if the couple does not get married. Maffe v. Loranger (2021) Donee can keep the ring if not at fault or unconditional gift Facts: In 2015, Maffe proposed marriage to Loranger and gave an engagement ring. M presented Loranger with a. Before their first civil marriage ceremony, M informed L that he would not marry without a prenuptial agreement. The couple postponed the ceremony and began negotiating an agreement. The negotiation lasted for two years when the couple broke up and reconciled their relationship multiple times. In 2018, L permanently ended the relationship. M filed an action against Loranger in state court to recover the engagement ring and claimed the ring was his property because he had given the ring to L on the condition of marriage. L claimed she was entitled to the ring because their failure to marry was M's fault. Alternatively, L defended that the engagement ring had transformed into an unconditional, absolute gift. L introduced into evidence a letter that M had sent in which he admitted to causing the deterioration of their relationship because of his insecurities. M also admitted to being at fault during his testimony at trial. L also introduced evidence that after the couple’s first breakup, L offered to give M the ring, but M instructed her to keep it. Rule: The donee (receiving) of an engagement ring is entitled to the ring upon the parties’ failure to marry if 1) the donee is not at fault for the failure or 2) the ring is transformed into an unconditional gift. Here, L was entitled to the ring under both approaches. M’s letter and testimony indicate that he is at fault for the couple’s failure to marry…Even if M attached the condition of marriage when initially giving L the ring, the ring transformed into an unconditional gift when M allowed L to keep the ring after their first breakup. E. The Right to Exclude, Alienate, Abandon, and Destroy Property | Problems & Questions Case Summaries Steenberg: Under Wisconsin law, a jury can award punitive damages for intentional trespasses, even if compensatory damages were not warranted and only nominal damages were awarded. Shack: Owning property does not include the right to refuse access to individuals providing government services to housed workers. Davis: An unlimited restraint on alienation of property is per se invalid. Lexmark: Under the patent-exhaustion doctrine, a patent holder cannot place a post-sale reuse or resale restriction on an authorized sale of the patented item. Hawkins: Intent to abandon property is not automatically assumed and can be refuted based on the owner's actions. Mackenzie: To legally abandon real property, the owner must successfully divest himself of all rights, titles, claims, or possessions of the land. Eyerman: When a landowner attempts to compel their successors in interest to do something to the land against public policy, a court may deem the condition void. Kievernagel: The disposition of human reproductive material upon the donor’s death is determined according to the donor’s intent. 1. The Right to Exclude and Its Limits United States v. American Bell (1897) The Court viewed the patentee's right to exclude as absolutist. The inventor discovers something valuable. It is his absolute property. When he discloses his invention to the public, he may insist on all the advantages and benefits the statute promises. Continental Paper Bag The Court reaffirmed American Bell and held that the inventor of a blocking patent was entitled to injunctive relief against an infringer as a matter of law. Special Equipment Company The dissenting justices worried that the majority had gone astray by reaffirming Continental Paper Bag’s rule: A patent isn't just another form of private property. It is a privilege with a public purpose: to promote science and the arts. The theory in Paper Bag treats the inventor's exclusive right as an absolute right. Patents should not to used to protect discoveries for the common good. Jacque v. Steenberg Homes (1997) Facts: A company drove a mobile home through a neighbor's backyard even though it refused to allow the company on the property. Neighbors sued for trespass. Rule: A jury can award punitive damages for intentional trespasses, even if compensatory damages were not warranted and only nominal damages were awarded. Reasoning: Landowners have an interest in protecting their land from trespass. State v. Shack (1971) Facts: P’s working for the NJ government (public sector) entered a private farm to provide medical care and privately discuss/give legal aid to farm workers. Rule: Owning property does not include the right to refuse access to individuals providing government services to housed workers. Reasoning: P’s rights to land did not justify refusing D’s access when they aimed to support vulnerable workers. Rights in real property are not absolute and are limited by the maintenance of the well-being of the people the owner permits on his land. 2. The Right to Transfer, and Restraints on Alienation Much of the importance of the right to exclude stems from its supportive role concerning land use. If an owner lacks the right to exclude outsiders from entering their property, their rights to use or transfer the property are substantially diminished. The Right to Transfer Frequently, someone wants to limit subsequent transfers of property by its current or prospective owner. They might wish to impose these limits because they are concerned about who will occupy the land or how it might be used by different people. The law often objects to this because the restraints on alienation may hamper the ability of the property regime to see to it that each resource is eventually possessed by the person or entity that can put it to its highest and best use. Davis v. Davis (2016) Facts: The defendant owned a beach house, and her children attempted to stop her from renting it out. Rule: An unlimited restraint on alienation of property is per se invalid. Reasoning: An unlimited restraint on the alienation of property is against public policy. This rule applies regardless of whether the burdened party agreed to or created the restraint. **Courts strongly oppose restricting property owners from freely transferring or disposing of their ownership interest.** Lexmark International, Inc. (2017) Facts: Lexmark tried to limit the re-sale of already sold/used ink cartridges. Rule: Under the patent-exhaustion doctrine, a patent holder cannot place a post-sale reuse or resale restriction on an authorized sale of the patented item. 3. The Right to Abandon Elements of abandonment The owner must intend to relinquish all interests in the property, with no intention that any particular person acquire it, and There must be a voluntary act by the owner effectuating that intent/action to abandon/effectuate to abandon. Hawkins v. Mahoney (1999) Facts: Hawkins escaped from prison. Prison officials put his personal property in storage. Days later, Hawkins was captured and asked for his items to be returned. He was only allowed to get legal papers, and the rest were destroyed or sold. Rule: The intent to abandon property is not automatically assumed and can be refuted based on the owner's actions. | Any presumption that a property owner abandoned property is a rebuttable presumption. Pocono Springs Civic Assoc. (1995) Facts: In 1969, the MacKenzies made many attempts to “abandon” their lemon of property and felt that they owed no fees to the Civic Association. Rule: To legally abandon real property, the owner must successfully divest himself of all rights, titles, claims, or possessions of the land. 4. The Right to Destroy/Abdandon Eyerman v. (1975) Facts: The homeowner passed and requested in their will to destroy an architecturally/historically significant home. Neighbors objected. Rule: When a landowner attempts to compel their successors in interest to do something to the land against public policy, a court may deem the condition void. In re Estate of Kievernagel (2008) Facts: What to do with frozen sperm when the sperm donor dies and indicates they wanted their sperm destroyed if they also passed? Rule: The disposition of human reproductive material upon the donor’s death is determined according to the donor’s intent. 5. Disabilities An action to recover the title to or possession of real property shall be brought within ten years after the cause thereof accrued, but if a person entitled to bring such action at the time the cause thereof accrues is within the age of minority, or of unsound mind or imprisoned, After the expiration of ten years from the time the cause of action accrues, such action may be brought within five years after such disability is removed.