Property Law Outline PDF

Property Law Outline Chapter 1 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE LAW OF OWNERSHIP A. Possession Part I - The Law of Personal Property Possession plays a central role in many legal rules relating to the ownership of personal property. Classic Incidents of ownership:...

Property Law Outline Chapter 1 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE LAW OF OWNERSHIP A. Possession Part I - The Law of Personal Property Possession plays a central role in many legal rules relating to the ownership of personal property. Classic Incidents of ownership: ❖ Possession: The state of having, and controlling something ❖ Alienation: Can transfer ownership to someone else ❖ Exclusion: Can keep others out Real property: is ownership of land and buildings that are physically attached to the land. Discovery, adverse possession, exclusion Intellectual property: Property in human body: Personal property: is ownership of all other items. Capture, bailments, finding, gifts 1. The Rule of Capture Pierson v. Post FACTS: Post was hunting and saw a fox he started chasing the fox. Pierson saw the fox running and then killed it, put it over his shoulder and went home. ISSUE: Was Post’s pursuit enough to give him ownership of the fox? RULE: Mere pursuit does not vest title in the pursuer, unless it is accompanied by intent to capture the animal, bodily seizure of the animal is not indispensable to acquire right to. Mortal wounding or physical capture. Possession = Intent + Control  HOLDING: Pierson owns the fox. Post’s pursuit was not enough to give him possession of the fox. Notes and Questions Fox is considered personal property. Post Pierson Plaintiff Defendant Trial Court Winner Trial Court Loser Appellee Appellant Hunter Captor 1. What concept of possession does each judge use? Livingston: (favor of Post) “Whether a person who is with his own hounds starts and hunts a fox on waste and uninhabited ground, and is close to capturing the prey, has a right of action against the other who sees them in pursuit of the animal with knowledge of the chase.” Disagreed on relying on common law and feels the answers would have found better with someone more familiar with fox hunting. Tomkin: (favor of Pierson) “Possession or occupancy of animals within the limits  of the authors cited. If the first seeing, starting, or pursuing such animals without having wounded, circumvented or inshared them, as to deprive them of natural liberty and subject them to the control of their pursuer should afford the basis of action…. Even though Pierson may have been unkind to Post there was no injury or damage for which legal remedy can be applied. Opinion was erroneous and should be reversed”. 2. Bailments ❖ Bailment: the rightful possession of goods by one who is not the true owner. ❖ Bailor: the owner of the goods in a bailment. ❖ Bailee: the non owner in rightful possession of goods in a bailment. You can have custody of something but not possession of it because you may not have manifested intent to relinquish control. ❖ Accession: title to personal property might pass from the original owner to a person who innocently and in good faith adds significant value to the item ❖ Intent distinguishes between bailment and non-bailment situations.  -The common law rules on the bailees liability turn on 3 categories, classification of bailments: 1. Bailments solely for the benefit of the bailor ❖ The bailee is liable for only gross negligence and is expected to exercise only slight care over the bailed good. 2. Mutual benefit bailments: The bailee and the bailor are both getting something from the bailment ❖ Most bailments created as part of a commercial relationship are considered mutual benefit bailments. ❖ Bailee is liable for ordinary negligence and expected to exercise ordinary care over bailed goods. Category Standard of Care Solely for Benefit of Bailor Slight care; Bailee only liable for gross negligence Mutual Benefit Ordinary care; Bailee liable for ordinary negligence Solely for Benefit of Bailee Great car; Bailee liable even for slight negligence Misdelivery Strict liability 3. Bailments solely for the benefit of the bailee.  ❖ With bailments solely for the benefit of the bailee, the bailee is liable for even slight negligence and is expected to exercise great care over the bailed good. Peet v. Roth Hotel Co. FACTS: A woman left her engagement ring, a platinum piece set with a large cabochon sapphire surrounded by diamonds, with the concierge of a hotel where her jeweler was one of its regular patrons and personally known to the management. The ring was meant to reach her jeweler for certain repairs. The ring was not properly stored and was lost. The woman now filed an action seeking to recover against the hotel for the value of a lost ring. The trial court awarded judgment to the woman, for the value of the engagement ring and denied the hotel's alternative motion for judgment or for a new trial. It held that the hotel, as bailee, was under a duty of exercising ordinary care over the items of those in the hotel. ISSUE: Was the hotel a bailee that was required to exercise ordinary care? RULE: In bailments, the legal norm is a care commensurate to the hazard, i.e. the amount and kind of care that would be exercised by an ordinarily prudent person in the same or similar circumstances. The character and amount of risk go far, either to decrease or increase the degree of care required. The value of property, its attractiveness to light-fingered gentry, and ease or difficulty of its theft have much to say with triers of fact in determining whether there has been exercised degree of care commensurate to risk,  whether bailment be gratuitous or otherwise. However unsatisfactory it may be, until legal acumen has developed and formulated a more satisfactory criterion, that of ordinary care should be followed in every case without regard to former distinctions between slight, ordinary, and great care. HOLDING: The Court agreed with the trial court that the hotel was a bailee under a duty of exercising ordinary care. Further, the court held that the bailee had the burden of proving that the loss did not result from his negligence. This burden was not merely the burden of going forward with proofs, nor shifting the burden, but the burden of establishing before the jury that his negligence did not cause loss. Because the care required was that of the ordinary person in the same or similar circumstances, it was obvious that, whatever the defendant's care of its own property may have been, it would not alter the standard of care applicable to plaintiff's own property in its hands as bailee. First American Bank, N.A. v. District Columbia FACTS: The courier for the appellant bank parked the bank's vehicle in a no-parking zone. When the towing company came, it refused to allow the courier to drive the vehicle away or to remove the locked dispatch bags from the vehicle. When the bank retrieved the vehicle from impoundment, one of the bags was missing. The bank brought an action against the district and the towing company for breach of bailment  and conversion. The trial court found in favor of the district and towing company. Appellant bank appealed. ISSUE: Could the appellant bank recover from the district and the towing company on a showing of failure to exercise ordinary care? RULE: A bailee that takes possession of goods solely for the benefit of the owner is a gratuitous bailee and liable only for gross negligence, willful acts or fraud. In contrast, a bailee that receives compensation for its services is held to a standard of ordinary care. A person becomes a bailee for hire when he takes property into his care and custody for a compensation. The nature and amount of the compensation are immaterial. The law will not inquire into its sufficiency, or the certainty of its being realized by the bailee. The real question is, was the contract made for consideration? If so, then it was a locatum, and not a depositum, and the defendant was liable for the want of ordinary care. The law does not undertake to determine the adequacy of a consideration. It is sufficient if the consideration be of some value, though slight, or of a nature which may inure to the benefit of the party making the promise. HOLDING: On appeal, the court affirmed in part and reversed in part. The district's impoundment of the vehicle involved a mutual benefit and so created a quasi-bailment for hire. The district and towing company thus were obliged to exercise ordinary care toward the vehicle. The illegal parking did not constitute contributory negligence or assumption of  the risk. No conversion occurred because the district had authority to tow the vehicle. The court remanded with directions to the trial court to determine whether the district and towing company had exercised reasonable care. Notes and Questions Common law classification system - We should adjust the liability standard to the benefit that the bailee receives from the bailment. - Law of bailments distinguishes between the rules for loss or damage to the good, on the one hand, and failure to return the good or delivery of the good to the wrong person. Misdelivery: Failure to return the good or delivery to the wrong person. 3. Finding 4 Characteristics found in finding cases - Owner - Finder - Subsequent possessor - Owner of the location (Locus) Armory v. Delamirie FACTS: Plaintiff is a chimney sweepers’ boy who found a jewel and carried it to the defendant’s shop, a goldsmith, to find out what the jewel was. Defendant took out the stones and called it to the master who  then offered the boy money. The boy refused the money and wanted his jewel back and when it was returned back to the boy the stones were missing. HOLDING: The finder of the 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 may maintain trover. Benjamin v. Lindner Aviation, Inc. FACTS: A finder discovered money within the wings of an airplane. The money was wrapped in aluminum foil wrapped in handkerchiefs. Benjamin took one packet to his jeep then reported what he found to his supervisor. The supervisor reported the discovery to the owner of Lindner Aviation. The owner insisted that they turned it over to the police. ISSUE: Is hidden money considered "mislaid" property? RULE: The finder of mislaid property acquires no rights to the property. The right of possession of mislaid property belongs to the owner of the premises upon which the property is found, as against all persons other than the true owner. HOLDING: The court held that the district court's finding that the money was mislaid property was supported by substantial evidence because (1) the district court correctly looked to the common law classifications of found property to determine the rights, and (2) the place where the money was found  and the manner in which it was hidden supported an inference that the money had been intentionally placed in the wing. The court held that the district court erred in awarding a finder's fee because § 644.13 only applied to lost, and not mislaid, property. Carliss v. Wenner FACTS: Wenner hired Anderson Asphalt Paving to construct a driveway. Larry Anderson (Owner of co.) and his employee (Corliss) dug up a glass jar containing paper wrapped rolls of gold coins. Anderson and Corliss agreed to split the coins that dated from 1857-1914. Anderson retained possession of all the coins and they ended up arguing over ownership. Anderson later gave possession of the coins to Wenner in exchange for indemnification on any claim Corliss might have against him regarding the coins. ISSUE: The major distinctions between characterizations of found property turn on questions of fact. Should it be treated as a treasure trove or embedded property? RULE: The finder of lost or abandoned property and treasure trove acquires a right to possess the property against the entire world but only the rightful owner regardless of the place of finding. HOLDING: The owner of the land has constructive possession of all personal property in or under his/her land. The landowner is entitled to possession to the exclusion of all but the true owner. Notes and Questions  1. In Armory v. Delamire who gets to keep the jewel and why? ❖ The finder of the jewel, though he does not by finding acquire an absolute property or ownership, yet he has such property and will enable him to keep it against all but the rightful owner. The finder wins against everyone else except the true owner and any prior possessor. ❖ The true owner always wins. This rule holds in all circumstances other than abandonment. 2.Classification of Found Property ❖ a) Abandoned Property: Property is abandoned when the owner no longer wants to possess it. ❖ b) Lost Property: When the owner unintentionally and involuntarily parts with its possessions and does not know where it is. ❖ c) Mislaid Property: Voluntarily put in a certain place by the owner who then overlooks or forgets where the property is. ❖ d) Treasure Trove: Coins or currency concealed by the owner. Contraband: Property used in certain crimes, or the proceeds gained from crimes. 3. Distinctions between the lost, mislaid and abandoned property turn on possession. The distinctions turn on how the object left the true owner’s possession, rather than how the object came into the owner’s possession. 4.The Modern Rule If mutual assent, was the item misdelivered?  If mutual assent but not misdelivered did Bailee lose or damage the item. - Abandoned property - Finder is the owner - Lost property - Finder has a right to possession against all but true owner - Mislaid property - Owner of locus has right to possess against all but the true owner. - Treasure Trove - Finder has the right to possess against all but the true owner. - Embedded property - Landowner has right to possess against all but the true owner. 4. Finding Remedies and the Rule of Capture Popov v. Hayashi FACTS:Popov and Hayashi were spectators at a baseball game in San Francisco. A ball was hit by baseball start Barry Bonds in their direction. Initially, Popov caught the ball but due to crowding by the people surrounding him, he somehow lost balance and lost grip of the ball. Hayashi picked up the ball that had fallen and kept it for himself. Popov tried to recover the ball from Hayashi and this resulted in a struggle over who the rightful owner was. Popov filed an action for conversion. RULE: Where an actor undertakes significant but incomplete steps to achieve possession of a piece of abandoned personal property and the effort is interrupted by the unlawful acts of others, the actor has a legally cognizable pre-possessory interest in the property. That pre-possessory interest constitutes a qualified right to possession which can support a cause of action for conversion.  ISSUE: Can an action for conversion proceed where the plaintiff has failed to establish complete possession or title? HOLDING: Mr. Popov has a pre-possessory right to ball even though Mr. Hayashi ended up with the actual item. This means that both men had a right to the ball, and neither claim was stronger than the other. Therefore, the court ruled that the ball be sold and the proceeds divided between the men. Notes and Questions ❖ Identify the rule the judge used for possession of the baseball. Pg. 52 Where an actor undertakes significant but incomplete steps to achieve possession of a piece of abandoned personal property and the effort is interrupted by unlawful acts of others, the actor has a legally cognizable pre-possessory interest in the property. 5. Gifts of Personal Property “Inter vivos” means during life, inter vivos gifts are made while the donor is alive. - The law treats gifts made at death very differently 3 Elements of a valid inter vivos gift of Personal Property 1. Intent - Did the donor intend to make a gift? - Did the donor intend to make a gift during life, or did the donor intend to give a gift at death? 2. Delivery 3. Acceptance  3 types of Delivery 1. Actual delivery: Involves an actual physical transfer of the object from the donor to donee. 2. Constructive delivery: Involves the transfer of some object, usually a key, that will give access to the property that is the subject of the gift. 3. Symbolic delivery: Involves the transfer of a written document that evidences intent to make a gift of personal property. Gift Vocab Donee - receiving the gift Donor - person who makes the gift Decedent - person who died Died w/o issue - Died without children Gift inter vivos - gifts made during life Gift causa mortis - gift anticipating death Interstate - Died without a will Carter v. Percy FACTS: Prior to Edward Lamplaugh's death, appellee Deborah Carter performed housekeeping and other household duties for him. The deceased appellee two checks; one was for a small amount for cleaning services, and the other was for $80,000 to enable the housekeeper to buy a liquor store. The appellee deposited the checks in her account on the day the deceased died. The bank, however, upon learning of the death, reversed the transaction and placed the deceased account on hold. Appellee filed a petition for allowance of claim against the estate for the amount of the checks, and judgment was entered in her favor. The trial court found that the check showed sufficient indicia of donative intent to be a valid gift and rejected the appellant’s claim that the deceased's  death before redemption of the check nullified the gift. Appellant Charles Percy, successor personal representative of the estate, appealed the judgment. ISSUE: Was there a donative intent on the part of the deceased? RULE: To make a valid and effective gift inter vivos, there must be an intention to transfer title to the property, and a delivery by the donor and acceptance by the donee. One of the essential elements of a gift is the intention to make it. A clear and unmistakable intention on the part of the donor to make a gift of his or her property is an essential element of the gift, and this contention must be inconsistent with any other theory. HOLDING: The court affirmed the trial court but on different grounds. The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence presented at trial to support the trial court's finding of donative intent on the part of the deceased. In addition, the court held that the delivery of the gift was accomplished at the time when the deceased died. The court held that regardless of any common law rules regarding donative intent and presentment of checks after the death of the drafter, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-2723(d) provided that the deceased's estate was liable to the payee, appellee, for an unpaid request for payment. Furthermore, the court noted that the legislature made a clear policy decision to use statutory language that supplanted any common-law rules. Thus, the gift was completed by operation of law upon the deceased's death under § 30-2723(d). Gruen v. Gruen FACTS: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking a declaration that he was the rightful owner of a Klimt painting that he alleged his father, now deceased, gave to  him as a birthday present. Plaintiff conceded that he has never had possession of the painting but asserted that his father made a valid gift of the title in 1963 reserving a life estate for himself but retaining possession of the painting until the father died in 1980. Defendant, plaintiff's stepmother, has possession of the painting and refused plaintiff's requests that she turn it over to him. She argued that the purported gift was testamentary in nature and invalid insofar as the formalities of a will were not met or, alternatively, that a donor may not make a valid inter vivos gift of a chattel and retain a life estate with a complete right of possession. Following a seven-day nonjury trial, the Special Term found that plaintiff had failed to establish any of the elements of an inter vivos gift and that in any event an attempt by a donor to retain a present possessory life estate in a chattel invalidated a purported gift of it. The Appellate Division reversed, holding that a valid gift may be made reserving a life estate and, finding the elements of a gift had been established by the son, remitted the matter for a determination of value of the painting. Defendant stepmother sought further review to the Court of Appeals of New York. ISSUE: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking a declaration that he was the rightful owner of a Klimt painting that he alleged his father, now deceased, gave to him as a birthday present. Plaintiff conceded that he has never had possession of the painting but asserted that his father made a valid gift of the title in 1963 reserving a life estate for himself but retaining possession of the painting until the father died in 1980. Defendant, plaintiff's stepmother, has possession of the painting and refused plaintiff's requests that she turn it over to him. She argued that the purported gift was testamentary in nature and invalid insofar as the formalities of a will were not met or,  alternatively, that a donor may not make a valid inter vivos gift of a chattel and retain a life estate with a complete right of possession. Following a seven-day nonjury trial, the Special Term found that plaintiff had failed to establish any of the elements of an inter vivos gift and that in any event an attempt by a donor to retain a present possessory life estate in a chattel invalidated a purported gift of it. The Appellate Division reversed, holding that a valid gift may be made reserving a life estate and, finding the elements of a gift had been established by the son, remitted the matter for a determination of value of the painting. Defendant stepmother sought further review to the Court of Appeals of New York. RULE: A valid inter vivos gift in a possession may be made reserving a life estate in the possession as long as the elements of the gift -- intent on the part of the donor to make a present transfer; delivery of the gift, either actual or constructive to the donee; and acceptance by the donee are established by clear and convincing evidence. HOLDING: The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's holding that the son had established by clear and convincing evidence that his father had made a valid inter vivos gift of a painting's title while reserving a life estate for himself and retaining possession of the painting. Notes and Questions - In Gruen v. Gruen Victor has a life estate, Michael has remainder rights in the painting. - Courts held that when a gift is a remainder gift interest, actual physical delivery is not required. B. Possession Part II - Possession of Real Property 1. The Doctrine of Discovery  ❖ Doctrine of discovery: gave title to the government by whose subjects, or by whose authority, it was made, against all other European governments which title might be consummated by possession. ❖ Possession = Intent + Control ❖ Engagement Rings - 2 rules Must be returned regardless who called off the engagement or Some states, returned if the donee is the one who called off the engagement. Johnson v. M’Intash ❖ Justice Marshall states that it is not the Court's role to consider matters of “original justice” or “natural law” as they relate to discovery doctrine. ❖ Justice Marshall states “the tribes inhabiting this country were fierce savages, whose occupation was war, and whose subsistence was drawn chiefly from the forest. To leave them in possession of their country a wilderness” Notes and Questions Present and Future Interest Howie CAR Jennifer Jerome (Original Owner) (Present) (Future Interest) - Howie dies and leaves the car to Jennifer but after she dies he wants the car to go to Jerome. - Jennifer has a life estate but Jerome has the car forever.  - Future interest exist at the time they are created. - To be valid an inter vivos gift needs to be done in the present. - When a gift is of value to the donee the law is going to Presume acceptances. 2. Adverse Possession Elements of Adverse Possession 1. Actual entry giving exclusive possession: The adverse possessor must be in actual possession. 2. Open and Notorious: “Must be visible and open to common observer so that the owner or his agent on visiting the premises might readily see that the owner’s rights are being invaded” 3. Adverse and under claim of right: This element goes to the state of min. 3 approaches to this element a. The “objective standard” (CONNECTICUT) requires that the state of mind of the adverse possessor state of mind is irrelevant. b. The “good faith” standard requires that the adverse possessor honestly believe that the adverse possessor owned the property. c. The “bad faith” (MAINE) standard requires that the adverse possessor know that the property was owned by someone else. 4. Continuous for statutory period: This element requires that the statutory time period be met. Ad Coelum - The surface owner, owns the airspace above and the sub surface below (Can be transferred or sold) Constructive Adverse Possession and Color of Title ❖ Title to property gives owner of land constructive possession. ❖ Actual possession obtains only the land that the adverse possessor. ❖ Adverse possessor obtains only the land that the adverse possessor or actually possessed. Color of the title is an exception  Color of title gives the adverse possessor Constructive possession of all of the land so long as the land is not actually possessed by the owner. ❖ Surveyors: Make precise measurements to determine property boundaries. Property Ownership ❖ Right to possess ❖ Right to use ❖ Right to alienate ❖ Right to exclude Marengo Cave Co v. Ross ❖ After 20 years of secret user, he now urges the statute of limitation as a bar to appellee’s action. Appellee did not know of the trespass of appellant, and had no reasonable means of discovering the fact. It is true that appellant took no active measures to prevent the discovery, except to deny appellee the right to enter the cave for the purpose of making a survey. ❖ Courts cannot assent to the doctrine that would enable one to trespass upon another’s property through a subterranean passage and under such circumstances that the owner does not know… ❖ ISSUE: Are the elements which are essential to establish title by adverse possession present in this case? ❖ HOLDING: We are of the opinion that appellant’s possession for 20 years or more of that part of “Marengo Cave” underlying appellee’s land was not open, notorious, or exclusive, as required by the law applicable to obtaining title to land by adverse possession. Manillo v. Gorski ❖ 2 elements discussed: open and notorious; adverse and under claim of Right  ❖ Trial Court used Maine Doctrine Maine Doctrine: requires the adverse possessor to have a bad faith state of mind. Mistaken possessor loses under the Maine Doctrine ISSUE: Did the defendant hold adverse possession that was notorious in nature? ❖ Are minor encroachments open and notorious? Manillo: Minor encroachment is open and notorious if the actual owner had actual knowledge of encroachment. Majority view: Minor encroachment is open and notorious if the existence of the improvement is open and notorious. Howard v. Kunto ❖ Element discussed : Continuous for statutory period. ❖ Does Summer occupancy constitute continuous possession? Yes. Trial court said - no, the Appellate court said- yes it does because acting as a typical owner would be to use the home for the summer. ❖ Adverse Possessor is required to possess the property in a manner “as ordinarily as owners would, maintaining the land etc” ❖ ISSUE: Tacking: if one adverse possessor transfers possession to another, they will be in privity and the subsequent possessor can use the prior possessor time of possession to satisfy the statutory. Adverse Possession Problems Disabilities and the Adverse Possession Clock ❖ An action to recover the title to or possession of real property shall be brought within the ordinary 21 year period or within 10 years after such disability is removed, whichever is longer.  The owner is disabled not the adversor When the adverse enters is when the disability takes place 1. Was the true owner disabled at the time of possession? 2. When will 21 years pass? 3. When will/was the disability be removed? 4. When will 10 years pass? 5. Which date benefits the owner? C. Exclusion ❖ Exclusion: Right to keep someone off property The Hermit’s right: excludes everyone The Bouncer’s right: landowners right to discriminate among various parties. Exclusionary vibes: Don’t prevent people from coming but if you do you won’t be welcomed or feel welcomed. Exclusionary Amenities: a common amenity that is embedded in a residential community at least in part b/c willingness to pay functions. Rights to Exclude: Protected by at least three causes of action ❖ Conversion ❖ Ejectment ❖ Trespass Jacque v. Steenberg Homes, Inc.w2121 State v. Shack Notes and Questions