Property I Final Review Questions Fall 2024 PDF

Property I Fall 2024 Prof. Miller FINAL REVIEW PACKET *Please do not share this document or any of these questions with anyone else, including after the course is c...

Property I Fall 2024 Prof. Miller FINAL REVIEW PACKET *Please do not share this document or any of these questions with anyone else, including after the course is complete.* (1) A landlord advertises the rental of an apartment in a 150-unit apartment building. A and B, who are dating, apply for the apartment. The landlord refuses to rent to them, saying that she objects to cohabitation by unmarried couples. A and B sue under the federal Fair Housing Act. Who wins? (5 minutes) Likely discrimination based on familial status, in violation of the FHA. Exceptions like Mrs. Murphy don’t apply both because it’s a large building and because its an advertising issue (the exception to the Mrs. Murphy exception). (2) A married couple owns Greenacre as joint tenants. The husband borrows $25,000 from a bank for a personal loan and then fails to repay the debt. The bank sues the husband. While the suit is pending, the husband dies. The bank wins the suit and attempts to seize the husband’s interest in Greenacre to satisfy the judgment. The wife claims the bank cannot do so. Who wins? (10 minutes) We’re dealing with a simple lien here, not a mortgage. A lien doesn’t sever a joint tenancy. But a lien typically does survive the death of a joint tenant and continue to burden the property if the lien was attached to the property as if it were a mortgage, so there’s a chance the bank could collect on the debt through Greenacre. However, we aren’t specifically told here that the husband’s interest in Greenacre was assigned as collateral for this personal loan. Technically it depends on state law and whether the terms of the loan would allow for this particular property interest to serve as collateral (you don’t need to know that last sentence). With this question, as with many, I’m more concerned with you walking through your reasoning than with the overall answer. (3) Classify the present possessory estates and future interests in the following scenarios: (12 minutes) (a) O conveys “to A and her heirs” A has fee simple absolute. (b) O conveys “to A until B completes medical school, then to B” A has fee simple subject to executory limitation. B has shifting executory interest. 1  (c) O conveys “to A for life, then to B if B survives C” A has life estate. B has contingent remainder. O here would also have a reversionary interest (if B doesn’t survive C it would go back to O by default). (d) O conveys “to A so long as she is a member of the Pennsylvania bar” A has fee simple determinable. O has possibility of reverter. (e) O conveys “to A, but if A ever ceases to be a lawyer, then to B” A has fee simple subject to executory limitation. B has shifting executory interest. (4) The Pub, a restaurant which serves beer and chicken wings, executes a five-year lease with independent covenants to become the tenant of Arlington Realty Company (ARC) beginning on January 1, 2025. The landlord’s building is to be a new mixed- use structure in the heart of town that will be home to multiple businesses and several apartments. Due to supply chain issues, the landlord hasn’t completed the building, and the builders now estimate that it will not be done until summer 2025. Discuss whether the Pub has any way to get out of its obligation to pay rent to ARC starting in January. (12 minutes) Note that under an independent covenants model the Pub retains a duty to pay rent as long as the leasehold arrangement exists (Paradine). You could evaluate whether the landlord has breached a duty like the duty to deliver possession (they likely did or will violate it if they can’t turn over the promised space to the Pub on time), but this would mean that the tenant might be entitled to damages, not excused of their own obligations under the lease. The Pub could attempt to surrender the lease or assign or sublet (landlord probably won’t want that because a replacement tenant would be hard to find as long as the construction is incomplete). If the Pub simply tries to abandon the lease, the landlord might have a duty to mitigate its damages depending on the jurisdiction. (5) Dwight and Mose are tenants in common on Beetacre. Unfortunately, their relationship has soured, and Dwight is threatening to occupy the whole property and do whatever he wants on the side that Mose has been living on for the past few years. How would you advise Mose? (10 minutes) Note that tenants in common have rights to fully access all of the property. Mose could have recourse if Dwight starts taking actions that “oust” Mose (action based on ouster, seeking accounting, potentially reduced by contribution). You also could advise Mose to avoid the troubles of co-ownership and simply seek partition. (6) While wandering around the woods, Alan spots a green jewel in the grass. He carries it around for two weeks, but while riding his motorcycle around, it 2 inadvertently drops out of his backpack. Sarah comes across it two hours later with her friend Peter. Peter previously saw Alan with a similar jewel, but he doesn’t mention that to Sarah. Sarah slips it into her pocket for safekeeping. A few days later, the jewel falls out of Sarah’s pocket, and later that day Peter comes across it and pockets it himself. He thought it looked like the same jewel as the one he saw before, but he wasn’t sure. In the following days, Peter masterfully carves the jewel and thus increases its value by 50%. Between Alan, Sarah, and Peter, who has what rights? (20 minutes) Evaluate whether Alan, Sarah, or Peter has the superior claim under the rules governing finders and converters. Alan’s likely first as the true owner, Sarah next as a finder, and Peter last as potential converter or subsequent finder (he’s not entirely sure whether it belonged to someone else). Then you’ll need to evaluate under the principles of accession whether Peter or someone else like Alan gets to keep the 50% value increase. Use the factors from Wetherbee v. Green to decide whether Peter can keep the value of what he added as a potential good faith improver (if so, result would probably be that Peter must pay Alan the value of the original jewel before the improvement, but Peter keeps the jewel). (7) Couchsurfing.com is a website that permits members to advertise couches or other places to stay in cities around the globe. Members leave reviews for one another and may see one another’s reviews before deciding to approve a request for lodging on a particular date. Several members have created postings stating that they “do not accept requests from couples.” Are members of Couchsurfing.com or the website itself liable for violations of the Fair Housing Act? (12 minutes) This is a bit like the Roommate.com case. At the outset, openly discriminating against couples could count as discrimination based on familial status under the FHA. You could evaluate whether the Mrs. Murphy exception would apply, and then whether the exception to the exception would apply because we’re dealing with advertising. But ultimately, you should observe that if we’re in a jurisdiction following the approach of the Roommate.com case, renting out a spot on a sofa is not renting out an entire “dwelling” and so the FHA wouldn’t apply at all. You could also address whether the website could be liable even if the FHA did generally apply to what the members on the site were doing. If, like Roommate.com perhaps did, the website affirmatively facilitates discriminatory ads (through asking members for their preferences, using a matching algorithm, etc.), then it maybe could be liable. But if the website just passively provides space for people to post what they want, then perhaps not. (8) Fiddlehead greens are the young leaves of a fern plant. They are called fiddleheads because they resemble the ornamentation on the tops of string instruments. If left untouched, each fiddlehead turns into a new set of fern leaves. However, fiddleheads have recently become a culinary delicacy. Many American restaurants and home cooks are sautéing, frying, and steaming them as a vegetable. 3 Fiddleheads grow primarily in the northeast, and they are especially widespread in Maine. Recently, however, a variety of conflicts have resulted from their newfound popularity. Leslie has owned a 40-acre tract of land in Penobscot, Maine since 2015. She received it from her father in his will, and he received it from his father in his will, and so on, back to 1900. There is a large barn and a stately home on the property. Leslie’s property is wooded, but there are hundreds of ferns and thousands of fiddleheads on her property, mostly in one area. Leslie began to investigate harvesting and selling the fiddleheads, but she came across some troubling things when she walked to that corner of her land. First, she discovered that her neighbor, Ron, had put a stone fence around a section of the fern growth that is within Leslie’s recorded property line. Leslie went to talk to Ron, who informed her that his father constructed the fence around what he believed to be his property line back in 1975. His father sold the property to him with a quitclaim deed in 1998. He told her that whatever happened, that section is his now, and he intends to sell all its ferns. While Leslie was talking with Ron, the two turned to see a group of people wandering into the ferns with scissors. Both ran over to protest. The group leader, Chris, informed Leslie that he was with “Foraging in Northern Maine,” a group that forages for mushrooms, wild greens, and other foods in the wilderness. Chris told Leslie that the group has been coming onto her property to forage for fiddleheads every May for at least fifteen years, which is how long he has been in the group. Discuss whether Leslie has a right to the disputed portion of property and the fiddleheads growing on it. (30 minutes) Evaluate whether Ron has acquired the disputed portion of property by adverse possession, or whether Leslie is the legal owner. The elements are “actual, open and notorious, hostile under a claim of right, exclusive, and continuous for the statutory period of years.” Ron and his father had a stone fence around the disputed property, and they had been harvesting from it. That supports the actual and open & notorious elements. Probably hostile because it was without Leslie’s or her father’s permission, and maybe was in good faith too (which some jurisdictions require) because Ron’s father apparently thought the property was in fact his. The fact that the foraging group has made regular visits there could interrupt Ron’s exclusivity, but if he or his father completed their adverse possession before the group started coming then maybe exclusivity is satisfied too (we don’t know for sure when the foragers started visiting, but it has been at least 15 years). As for the continuity requirement for the requisite number of years: we don’t know how many years are required for adverse possession in this jurisdiction. Most states fall in a range of 10 to 30 years. Ron’s father possessed the property from 1975 to 1998, which is 23 years. Even if that isn’t enough, Ron could 4 “tack” his subsequent time as possessor onto his father’s time because the two are in privity. So again, it would come down to whether they reached the requisite number of years before the foragers started visiting. (9) In August of 2018, Eden, the owner of a duplex property, leased the upper unit to her tenant, Maude, for a 3-year term with rent paid at the first of each month. The lease agreement included several covenants, including: 1. A covenant requiring Maude to keep the premises in good repair and refrain from making major alterations to it; 2. A covenant requiring Maude not to sublet or assign the lease without Eden’s prior written consent; and 3. A covenant requiring Eden to pay back the $1000 security deposit at the end of the term if the funds are not required to be spent to make repairs to tenant damage to the property, if any occurs. The lease also included a provision stating that “the obligations and rights of the parties hereunder shall be binding upon their respective heirs, successors, and assigns.” In 2020, Eden decided to sell the duplex property and transferred ownership to a new owner, Boynton Realty LLC. The same year, Maude decided to move out and assigned the lease to her friend, Chloe, without notifying Boynton or obtaining its consent. Chloe had a similar income and credit score to Maude. Chloe moved in and began paying rent monthly to Boynton. Chloe also began renovating the unit, including installing new flooring, repainting the walls, and replacing the kitchen appliances. Each of these modifications increased the value of the property. In December of 2021, Boynton learned about Chloe’s renovations. It demanded that Chloe restore the unit to its original condition and cease any further alterations. Boynton also claimed that Chloe had no right to be there on the property because (1) Maude’s assignment of the lease to Chloe was without Boynton’s permission, and (2) the lease term technically ended four months earlier. Chloe contests all of these assertions and also claims that if she does leave, Boynton must pay her the $1000 security deposit because she did no damage to the property. She asserts that she has a right to be there because she has paid rent monthly from when she arrived until the time of the dispute, December 2021. Discuss who is right and any obligations Chloe and Boynton might have to each other. (35 minutes) A number of issues here. First, you could evaluate whether the obligation to not make major alterations “runs with the land” to Chloe (likely yes, because (1) this is an 5 assignment, (2) there appears to be intent by the original parties for all obligations to run, and (3) this obligation seems to “touch and concern” the land). That doesn’t necessarily mean Chloe will have to undo all the renovations, though, especially since they increased the property value. The court might consider what damages if any would be appropriate for the lease violation. You could likewise evaluate whether the obligation on the landlord to repay the security deposit runs with the land to Boynton (again, likely does, because original parties intended it to, and the security deposit is for covering repairs and thus likely touches and concerns the land). Then you could consider whether Chloe had a right to be on the premises. Maude didn’t get permission to assign her leasehold to Chloe. But the landlord likely wouldn’t have had a commercially reasonable basis to deny permission anyway since Maude and Chloe are financially similar. What about the lease term being over? This is a little tricky, but you could argue that once the term was supposed to end in August of 2021, Chloe became a tenant at sufferance by holding over. And then, when Boynton continued accepting rent from Chloe, the arrangement converted into either another tenancy for years or a periodic tenancy, depending on the state’s default rules. This would mean that Chloe likely did have a right to be there. Policy Questions (10) You are the legal advisor to the State of Pennsylvania’s Senate Judiciary Committee. Senator Smith, the Chair of the Committee, has been under pressure from an organization called “Property Rights Forever” to alter the State’s common law and statutory doctrines related to property ownership. Smith wants your opinion on the following proposal. What would be the implications of this proposed statute and what is your opinion as to its advisability? The proposed statute reads as follows: “The State does not recognize the doctrine of adverse possession. No property owner who has duly recorded his interest can ever be dispossessed of her land or a portion of her land by a non-title possessor.” (20 minutes) Could discuss why adverse possession exists in the first place (encourage productive use of property, prevent volatile change after properties have been used a certain way for a long time and the users have developed expectations, etc.). Could also discuss reasons why you might not like adverse possession (fairness considerations, interference with the expectations set by what the actual property deeds say, etc.). (11) Consider the following four cases and answer the two questions that follow: 1. Pierson v. Post (the fox case) 6 2. International News Service v. Associated Press (the news case) 3. Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co. (the telephone listings case) 4. Moore v. Regents of the University of California (the cell line case) A. Can you reconcile these cases, i.e., explain their actual outcomes by one principle, policy, or theory of property? If not, would you recommend that any of the cases come out differently than they did? In other words, if you were to start with a basic principle of property and generate outcomes from it, what would that principle be and what outcomes would it produce in these cases? (20 minutes) Many directions you could go here. Very open ended. Perhaps you could identify a general rule along the lines of John Locke’s labor theory of property – that property rights should vest in those people who have worked to improve property or convert it to productive use. Then from there explain which of these case outcomes fits with that concern and which don’t. B. Now choose one or two major property doctrines (rule or set of rules) or doctrinal areas and defend your principle as the best account of how those existing doctrines operate. Or, alternatively, choose one or two major doctrines or doctrinal areas that would have to undergo significant changes in order to comport with your principle. (20 minutes) Again, many different ways you could go. If, like my example above, you went with a Lockean Labor Theory approach, you could, for example, discuss how adverse possession pays respect to labor theory. Or even mention how it might be reflected in the rules about how a good-faith converter of property might be entitled to the value they add to the property if they improve it. Or water rights issues, like under the prior appropriation rule. Conversely, there are many areas where labor isn’t the key question for who has what rights, like some manifestations of the right to exclude when a doctrine like adverse possession doesn’t apply. 7