Property Law Notes PDF

Property Class #1 - 1/13/25 ★​ Property Law focuses on individual and allows for customization ○​ Right to authorize ★​ Food Lion v. ABC: ○​ Relates to property law because... ​ It is a claim of trespass ○​ Trespass: an intentional unauthoriz...

Property Class #1 - 1/13/25 ★​ Property Law focuses on individual and allows for customization ○​ Right to authorize ★​ Food Lion v. ABC: ○​ Relates to property law because... ​ It is a claim of trespass ○​ Trespass: an intentional unauthorized intruding onto property ​ Generally one trespasses onto land Class #2 - 1/15/25 ★​ Trespass ○​ Intentional ○​ Unauthorized ○​ Intrusion ★​ Specific rights allows parties for negotiation via the market ★​ “Property = A bundle of sticks” ○​ The bundle of rights is made of more little rights, i.e. the right to use, the right to exclude, right to sell, transfer at death, right to destroy, ect. ★​ The right to exclude - the central property right ○​ “Get off my lawn” principle ○​ Stronger in land property rights ★​ Jacques v Steenberg Homes ○​ punitive damages are allowed to... ​ Deterrence / Respect for property rights ​ Encourage bargaining ​ Account for subjective harm ​ Property rights > efficiency Class #3 - 1/17/25 ★​ Right to Exclude ○​ The right to exclude: broad, common law right to exclude ​ Protected through trespass tort and criminal trespass (Jacques) ○​ Constitutional Limits? ​ Only against state action (Lloyd Corp.) ​ Ex. “Twitter is limiting my speech” ​ No not really, it is not a state entity and therefore are not held to the first amendment rules ​ State constitution provides more rights than the federal constitution - the federal constitution is a negative document as it says what the government cannot do, not what the individual can do Property ○​ Common law limits? ​ No exclusion if there is no actual damages for chattel (Hamidi) ​ You can't tell someone to not touch your personal goods unless there is damage caused by that touch ​ No exclusion if there is outweighing human needs (Shack) ​ No exclusion if there is extreme necessity (Magadini) ○​ Statutory limits? ​ Public accommodation laws (state and federal anti-discrimination acts) ​ One cannot exclude based on sex, gender, race, etc. ★​ State v Shack: a title to real property cannot include dominion over the destiny of persons allowed on the property by the owner ○​ There are human needs that trump property rights ○​ Private property ​ Doesn't always need to be associated with wealth and power - the human needs of those on the property lawfully supersede rights to property ○​ CLASS QUESTION: what is the holding for this case ​ A property owner cannot refuse access to persons residing on their property if such exclusion was to their detriment. The rights to a property does not supersede the dignity of those on the property. ​ The workers were on the plaintiff’s property which gave them a personal interest in the property and the plaintiff cannot refuse for them to receive public governmental assistance. ★​ Commonwealth v Magadini: one can use the defense of extreme necessity if they prove: ○​ 1) a clear and immediate danger ○​ 2) a reasonable expectation that his or her actions will be effective as the direct cause of avoiding said immediate danger ○​ 3) there is no legal alternative which would be effective in avoiding the danger ○​ 4) the legislature has not acted to preclude the defense by a clear and deliberate choice regarding the values at issue ​ Cost benefit analysis - is the harm caused by the transgression more than the benefit gained by the transgressor? ​ Sleeping in an empty hallway for warmth on a freezing night is more permissible than breaking into an occupied home for the same reason Property Class #4 - 1/22/25 CLASS REVIEW - Right to Exclude ​ Broad, common law right to exclude, protected through criminal and tort trespass ​ Constitutional Limits? ○​ Only against state action (Lloyd Corp.) ​ Common Law Limits? ○​ Actual Damages for Chattel (Hamidi) ○​ Basic Human Needs (Shack) ○​ Extreme Necessity (Magadidi) ​ Statutory Limits? ○​ Public Accommodation Laws (state and federal anti-discrimination laws) ★​ Public Accommodation Laws ○​ Round 1 (Reconstruction Era) ​ Civil Rights Act of 1866 - judicial interpreted NOT to apply to private conduct; thus, no barrier to private racial discrimination ○​ Round 2 (Civil Rights Era) ​ Civil Right Acts of 1964 (Title II): COngress creates anti discrimination laws... missed some slides, go back ★​ 47 USC § 2000a ○​ Elements: ​ Discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin ○​ “Place of Public Accommodations” ​ The establishment must fit into a list of facilities named or implied ​ Must “serve the public: and not constitute a “private establishment and not open to the public” ★​ Problem 1: are retail stores with a buzzer a public establishment ○​ Exercise: Yes, it is a private establishment ○​ The buzzer indicates that the store intends to maintain an exclusive patronage, not everyone is welcome in and the store has the discretion to allow whom they want in. In 47 USC § 2000a (e), private establishments are those that are not in fact open to the public nor is the establishment one that could fall into the categories in 47 USC § 2000a (b) ★​ Pierson v Post: First Possession ○​ When does first possession of a wild animal occur? ​ Possession and ownership of a wild animal occurs when one fatally wounds and captures the animal ○​ Rule: First possession of a wild animal occurs when: ​ Unequivocal intention of appropriating the animal to his individual use ​ Deprivation of natural liberty, and ​ Brought him within his certain control Property Class #6 - 1/27/25 CLASS REVIEW ​ Natural property becomes owned by the ‘First Possessor’ if they have... ○​ Intent to own/use land ○​ Deprivation of other’s use ○​ Control the land ○​ Elements of land ownership ​ Clarity ​ Incentives ​ Labor ​ Customs ​ Efficiency ​ Caveats to absolute property rights: no right to property if... ○​ Their use of the land interferes with the true owner’s use (baseball case) ○​ Their acquirement of the property cannot be unreasonable (Elliff) ○​ Their use of the land is waste ​ What happens when there is a 1st possessor, but also a 2nd or 3rd? ○​ Ex. old lady purchases jewel, a worker who found the jewel, and the store that sold the jewel ​ Possession does dive rights ​ 1st > 2nd > 3rd ​ Earlier possessors will have more rights ​ Lawsuits between P2 vs P3: ○​ P2 would win if they lost/mislaid the property or the property was stolen ○​ P3 would win if P2 abandoned or relinquished the property (no take-sy back-sy) or if there is a contract stating P3 bought it ​ If P2 abandons the property, they are out and cannot reenter the equation without negotiation ○​ Whoever has the property at the time of the lawsuit would be the presumed owner ★​ “Discovery” & Conquest ○​ Ejectment: to remove someone from a property (order to leave) ★​ The Doctrine of Discovery: European Sovereigns can ‘discover’ and claim valid property rights to land, native tribes never had a claim to the property ○​ Johnson v M’Intosh: train of ownership problem ​ Main Issue: which ownership is more valid and to be recognized? ​ Tribe sold property to johnson (plaintiff) - argued that he bought it fair and square Property ​ Government sold property to M’Intosh (defendant) - argue that the tribe did not have actual ownership of the land nor the concept of ownership in general ​ This case is a backbone to establishing the US’s method/rule of land ownership Class #7 - 2/29/25 CLASS REVIEW ​ ★​ Adverse Possession: when trespassers take title to a property when a trespasser possesses another’s property by clear and convincing evidence for a statutorily defined period of time (usually 10 years). The elements required to prove ownership (Brown v Gobble): ○​ Continuous: on the land constantly ○​ Exclusive: nobody else uses the land and it is not open property ○​ Adverse: without the true owner’s permission ○​ Open and Notorious: use the land in an obvious way that would put the owner on notice of their use ★​