1 / 77

PROPERTY B SLIDES

Oregon. PROPERTY B SLIDES. 3-8-19 National Orgeon Day National Proofreading Day.

brownjack
Télécharger la présentation

PROPERTY B SLIDES

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Oregon PROPERTY B SLIDES 3-8-19 National Orgeon Day National Proofreading Day

  2. Music to Accompany Mahrenholz: Isaac Stern, 60th Anniversary Celebration (1981)New York Philharmonic Orchestra; Violins: Isaac Stern, Itzhak Perlman, PinchasZucherman1982 Grammy Award for Best Classical Performance (Soloists with Orchestra)DF Today Here @ 9:40Lauren: Rev Prob 2K(a)

  3. PROPERTY B: 3/8 SORRY!! Daylight Savings Time DOES BEGIN SATURDAY NIGHT FAJER & FAJER’s BuRRO (Origins of Important Mexican Food)

  4. PROPERTY B: 3/8 SPECIAL PRE_BREAK Pop Culture Moment THE “READY BETTY” JOKE (to accompany Problem 3F)

  5. Mahrenholz v.County Board“For School [of] Porpoises”cont’d

  6. BADLANDS: DQs 3.05MahrenholzMajor Events: Effect of Different Interpretations of the Grant NORBECK PASS

  7. Badlands DQ3.05: MahrenholzMajor Events • 3/51: Grant to SD#1 • 2/69: Mrs.H dies intestate; HH sole heir • 5/73: Property used for storage only • 5/77: HH conveys interest to Ms • 9/77: HH releases interest to SD#1

  8. Badlands DQ3.05: MahrenholzMajor EventsFee Simple Determinable & Poss. of Rev. (from Wednesday)9/77: HH Release to SD GRANT VIOLATED NO VIOLATION SD-FSD HH-PRRelease to Holder of Fee Allowed; School District’s Interests Merge SD-FEE SIMPLE ABS. Ms-FEE SIMPLE ABS. HH has Nothing, So Release Ineffective Ms-FEE SIMPLE ABS.

  9. Badlands DQ3.05: MahrenholzMajor EventsFee Simple on Condition Subsequent & Right of Entry • 3/51: Grant to SD#1 SD=FSCS + Hs=RE • 2/69: Mrs.H dies intestate; HH sole heir  ?

  10. Badlands DQ3.05: MahrenholzMajor EventsFee Simple on C.S. & Rt. Of Entry • 2/69: Mrs.H dies intestate; HH sole heir  SD=FSCS + HH=RE • 5/73: Property used for storage only • 2 Possibilities: Violation or Not  ?

  11. Badlands DQ3.05: MahrenholzMajor EventsFee Simple on C.S. & Rt. Of EntrySD=FSCS + HH=RE5/73: Property used for storage only GRANT VIOLATED NO VIOLATION SD-FSCS HH-RE 5/77 HH  Ms SD-FSCS HH-RE Right of Entry Only Can Become Fee if Holder Acts: HH Didn’t 5/77 HH  Ms

  12. Badlands DQ3.05: MahrenholzMajor EventsFee Simple on C.S. & Rt. Of EntrySD=FSCS + HH=RE5/77: HH  Mahrenholzes GRANT VIOLATED NO VIOLATION SD-FSCS HH-RE Can’t Transfer RE in Illinois Except to Holder of Fee, so No Change 9/77 HH release to SD? SD-FSCS HH-RE Can’t Transfer RE in Illinois Except to Holder of Fee, so No Change 9/77 HH release to SD?

  13. Badlands DQ3.05: MahrenholzMajor EventsFee Simple on C.S. & Rt. Of EntrySD=FSCS + HH=RE9/77: HH Release to SD GRANT VIOLATED NO VIOLATION SD-FSCS HH-RE Release to Holder of Fee Allowed; School District’s Interests Merge SD-FEE SIMPLE ABS. SD-FSCS HH-RE Release to Holder of Fee Allowed; School District’s Interests Merge SD-FEE SIMPLE ABS.

  14. Mahrenholz: Summary of Possibilities

  15. Badlands: Mahrenholz & DQs 3.06-3.08: Distinguishing FSD from FSCS NORBECK PASS

  16. Badlands: Mahrenholz & DQ3.06Distinguishing FSD from FSCS The court says: “The type of interest held governs the mode of reinvestment with title if reinvestment is to occur.” (Top para. S83) What does the court mean by “reinvestment”?

  17. Badlands: Mahrenholz & DQ3.07Distinguishing FSD from FSCS “In Northwestern Univ. …, a conveyance was ‘made upon the express condition that… Wesley Hospital… shall erect a hospital building on said lot … and that on the failure of … Wesley Hospital to carry out these conditions the title shall revert to Northwestern University.’ This language cannot be interpreted as creating anything but a fee simple subject to a condition subsequent…” (S85, 3d full para.) WHY NOT?

  18. Badlands: Mahrenholz & DQ3.07Distinguishing FSD from FSCS Northwestern Univ.: • Grant to build hospital building on lot conveyed. • If FSD: Very difficult to identify precise moment when condition is violated and grantee loses fee • Interpret as FSCS • Grantor can exercise discretion about when grantee has sufficiently shown non-compliance. • Court doesn’t have to do line-drawing about when a building isn’t built.

  19. Mahrenholz & DQ3.08Distinguishing FSD from FSCS In its discussion of McElvain, the court says that “as an action in ejectment was brought…, the difference between a fee simple determinable and a fee simple subject to a condition subsequent would have no practical effect….” (S86) Why does it believe this? If the action is brought essentially as soon as condition is violated, little or no time gap betw. violation and change in ownership.

  20. MahrenholzDistinguishing FSD from FSCS (3d Para. S83) • Use FSD to give property “for so long as it is needed for the purposes for which it is given and no longer” (a “limited grant”) • Usea FSCS “to compel compliance with a condition by penalty of a forfeiture.” (an “absolute grant to which a condition is appended”) • Pretty fine distinction • Court is describing idealized use of the forms (not always true) • Can use to argue a particular grant is FSD or FSCS

  21. MahrenholzDistinguishing FSD from FSCS (S78) Use FSD to give property “for so long as it is needed for the purposes for which it is given and no longer.” • To Xavier, so long as he operates his dental practice on the premises. • To Yelan, so long as she doesn’t remarry. [Purpose presumably is to provide home and/or income for widow; if she takes a new spouse, she is the spouse’s problem.] • To Zebulon University, so long as it is used as a research laboratory.

  22. MahrenholzDistinguishing FSD from FSCS (S78) Usea FSCS “to compel compliance with a condition by penalty of a forfeiture.” • To Xavier, but if the property is ever used for commercial purposes … • To Yelan, but if alcohol is ever used on the premises … • To Zebulon University for construction of a science building, but if the building is not completed within 5 years or if it ever ceases to be used for educational purposes …

  23. OLYMPIC: Mahrenholz & DQ3.09-3.11 EEL GLACIER

  24. Olympic: Mahrenholz & DQ3.09Distinguishing FSD from FSCS "to be used for school purpose only; otherwise to revert to Grantors herein.” • Arguments for FSD?

  25. Olympic: Mahrenholz & DQ3.09Distinguishing FSD from FSCS "to be used for school purpose only; otherwise to revert to Grantors herein.” • Arguments for FSD • “only” suggests automatic • Condition in clause creating fee, not subsequent clause • “to revert” (v. “may re-enter”) suggests automatic • Similar grants held FSD • Arguments for FSCS?

  26. Olympic: Mahrenholz & DQ3.09Distinguishing FSD from FSCS "to be used for school purpose only; otherwise to revert to Grantors herein.” • Arguments for FSCS • 2 Clauses usually used for FSCS • No time words • “Otherwise” looks like “but if” • Most states presume FSCS

  27. Olympic: Mahrenholz & DQ3.10Distinguishing FSD from FSCS: Possible Consequences of the Distinction: • Transferability after breach (Mahrenholzissue) • Adverse Possession (Clock starts running immediately when condition violated if FSD) • Income from land after breach • Goes to future interest holder if FSD (See Lasater @ P532) • Waiver/Estoppel by future interest holder • Only possible if FSCS

  28. Olympic: Mahrenholz & DQ3.10Distinguishing FSD from FSCS: Consequences Given significant consequences, why do so many grants fail to indicate clearly which interest is intended?

  29. MahrenholzDistinguishing FSD from FSCS: Test Note #2: Test Will Include At Least One Grant (Yielding Multiple Questions) with a Present Estate That Could Be Either Determinable or on Condition Subsequent, So You Need to Know Arguments Distinguishing the Two. E.g., Problem 3I Includes This Kind of Ambiguous Grant

  30. Olympic: Mahrenholz & DQ3.11Meaning of “School Purpose” IS STORAGE A “SCHOOL PURPOSE”? • Parties’ Likely Arguments • For School District? Yes, because … • For Future Interest Holder? No, because …

  31. Olympic: Mahrenholz & DQ3.11Meaning of “School Purpose” IS STORAGE A “SCHOOL PURPOSE”? • What legal research could you do to help resolve this question?

  32. Olympic: Mahrenholz & DQ3.11Meaning of “School Purpose” IS STORAGE A “SCHOOL PURPOSE”? • Useful Legal Researchincludes: • CASES ON “SCHOOL PURPOSE” • CASES ON “CHURCH PURPOSE” ETC. • OTHER LEGAL LIMITS ON SCHOOL ACTIVITIES (to demonstrate what the term could reasonably be understood to mean)

  33. Olympic: Mahrenholz & DQ3.11Meaning of “School Purpose” IS STORAGE A “SCHOOL PURPOSE”? • Useful Factual Researchincludes: • Use of Space: Relevant Qs/Investigation? • Grantor’s Intent

  34. Olympic: Mahrenholz & DQ3.11Meaning of “School Purpose” IS STORAGE A “SCHOOL PURPOSE”? • Useful Factual Researchincludes: • Use of Space • What is stored & how used? • Alternatives (Crowding? Cost?) • How regularly is storage accessed? • Grantor’s Intent: Relevant Qs/Investigation?

  35. Olympic: Mahrenholz & DQ3.11Meaning of “School Purpose” IS STORAGE A “SCHOOL PURPOSE”? • Useful Factual Researchincludes: • Use of Space • Grantor’s Intent • Check Grant or Related Documents • Witnesses to Transaction • Ask Grantor if Still Alive • Witnesses re Grantor Beliefs

  36. Mahrenholz Meaning of “School Purpose” Test Note #3: Test Will Include At Least One Grant Containing an Imprecise Term Like “School Purpose” and You Will Be Asked to Consider Arguments About Whether a Particular Action or Activity Falls Within that Term.

  37. Mahrenholz & DQ3.12 Why should we allow grantors to have any control at all of what happens to land after they have died? We’ll come back to after Spring Break w Shapiracase.

  38. LOGISTICS: Chapter 3 Test Preparation • I’ll Post onCourse Page by Thurs. Midnight of Break: • General Test Info & Instructions Page; E-Mail Me if Qs • Assignments for Classes after Break including • Additional Instructions for Problems 3I & 3O • Additional Instructions for DQs following Shapira • Bank of Sample Qs & Entire Fall 2007 Test Along with: • List of Qs That Require Material We’ll Cover After Break • Answers to Qs You’re Ready For

  39. LOGISTICS: Chapter 3 Test Preparation • DF: 3/18 (2015 Test); 3/20 (2016 Test); 3/22 (2016 Test) • I’ll Post by Afternoon of Wed. 3/20: • Rest of Answers to Already Posted Qs (that we are covering) • Additional Tests & Answers • In Addition to Regular Office Hours 3/18 & 3/21, I’ll Post & Hold Additional Office Hours: • Fri afternoon 3/22 • Sat afternoon 3/23 • Sun afternoon  early evening 3/24

  40. OTHER LOGISTICS I’ll Post on Course Page During Break: • Chapter 4 Materials & Updated Syllabus • Updated Assignment Sheet Covering the Rest of March • Updated Versions of Info Memos on Chapters One and Two • Comments/Best Answers for Some Other Posted Exam Qs Additional Final Exam Preparation • 1st Sample Exam Question (Optional) Due Sun. 3/17 @ Noon • Follow Instructions on Course Page • If you do a Lawyering Q, first look at comments on Rev Probs 1M/1N • I’ll Be Around Most of Break; E-Mail to Make an Appointment

  41. Executory Interests

  42. Executory Interest • Future interest in grantee. • Cuts off prior vested interest (present estate or reversion or vested remainder) rather than waiting for it to expire naturally.

  43. Pre-1536 (= Pre-“Common Law”) Limitations on Future Interests in Grantees • Must follow finite estate. • Must be capable of taking effect at the expiration of preceding estate. • Must not take effect before the expiration of the preceding estate.

  44. Pre-1536 (= Pre-“Common Law”) Limitations on Future Interests in Grantees • Must follow finite estate. • Must be capable of taking effect at the expiration of preceding estate. • Must not take effect before the expiration of the preceding estate. Elimination of these Rules in 1536 Allows Creation of Executory Interests

  45. Executory Interests Shifting v. Springing Executory Interest • No legal consequence; just categorization • Shifting Executory Interest cuts off interest of another grantee • Springing Executory Interest cuts off grantor’s fee simple or reversion • Physical Model/Analogy (if helpful)

  46. Executory Interests EXAMPLES Shifting Executory Interest: To Daisy & her heirs so long as no tobacco is grown on the land, otherwise to Amber and her heirs.

  47. Executory Interests EXAMPLES Springing Executory Interest: To Kenya if she passes the California bar exam. Grantor who started with Fee Simple Absolute is left with Fee Simple on Executory Limitation

  48. (3F) Reggie “to Veronica for life, then to Betty and her heirs if Betty attains the age of 21.” Let’s Return to Problem 3F & Riverdale High

  49. (3F) Reggie “to Veronica for life, then to Betty and her heirs if Betty attains the age of 21.” • Veronica: Life Estate • Betty: Contingent Remainder in Fee Simple • Reggie: Reversion • What if Veronica dies while Betty is still age 17? • Life Estate is Over • Betty Can’t Take; Condition Not Met • So Who Gets What?

  50. (3F) Reggie “to Veronica for life, then to Betty and her heirs if Betty attains the age of 21.”Veronica dies while Betty is still age 17 Common Law • If contingency not met when prior estate ends, contingent remainder is destroyed. • Betty has nothing. • If Betty isn’t ready, she loses her “table.” • Reggie’s Reversion becomes Fee Simple Absolute

More Related