Presentation Transcript

1. Property DTS Session 1

2. Exclusion Jacques v. Steenberg: Intentional trespass to land violates the right to exclude and punitive damages without actual injuries are ok State v. Shack: Title to real property cannot include dominion over well-being (welfare of individuals is of paramount concern of the system of law) Franceschina v. Morgan: The status of migrant workers does not matter, either as servant to the company or as tenants of the company. The right to be visited is at the discretion of these workers.
3. Exclusion - Exceptions Emergency Recovery of property without causing damage (self-help) “hot pursuit”
4. Nuisance RS – A non-trespassory interference with property rights General Rule – Reasonableness Public v. Private Right of Society v. Right of Individual A substantial and unreasonable interference with the enjoyment or use of land
5. Harm must be Substantial Minor or insignificant harms are understood to be necessary consequences of owning property “offensive or inconvenient” to the ordinary person Plaintiff cannot be unusually sensative
6. Interference Deemed Unreasonable Ask: What is the reasonableness of the consequences of the defendant’s conduct? Factors: The extent of harm Character of harm Social value of use or enjoyment Suitability of use or enjoyment to the locality Burden of avoiding harm
7. Water Rights Natural Flow – prohibits owners from discharging water in any way other than through natural drainage paths Common Enemy (Absolute Dominion Rule) – Grants each owner the privilege to expel unwanted water (some jurisdictions: malice exception) Reasonable Use – Allows reasonable discharge without substantial harm
8. Capture Pierson v. Post – claimants must capture wild animals to have control over them Merely giving chase is not sufficient Comes from common law obligation of having control over one’s possessions
9. Finders On public property – The finder of a lost object has superior rights to that object as against everyone except the true owner On private property – Courts are split as to whether the object belongs to the finder or the landowner Landowner because object is on their property Finder because but for their effort object may never have been found
10. Conquest Discovery Doctrine – Explorers discovered land on behalf of their country. European power gained sovereignty over land discovered. Discovering power has the exclusive right to transfer/sell/dispose of that property Native-Americans on land had a mere right of occupancy Johnson and Graham’s Lessee v. Macintosh
11. Property Rights Theories Use First Possession Labor (Locke) Utilitarian (Blackstone) Personhood (Hegel) Distinctive Connection to the Land
12. Adverse Possession Actual and exclusive possession Adverse or “hostile” possession Claim of right (jurisdictional) Open and notorious Continuous Duration (jurisdictional) Standard of proof – “clear and convincing”
13. Adverse Possession (IN Statute) Control – Exercise a degree of use and control that is normal and customary Intent – Have intent to claim full ownership Notice – Actions must be sufficient to give actual or constructive notice Duration – Continuously for 10 years (15 years before Sept. 1, 1982) Pay all taxes (statutory)
14. Claim of Right v. Color of Title Claim of Right – Merely a statement by the adverse possessor Objective standard: Reasonable person Good faith: Must have good faith, but mistaken belief that property belongs to them Bad faith: Act intentionally to acquire property that does not belong to them
15. Claim of Right v. Color of Title Color of Title – Adverse possessor must have something that looks like a good title, but is in some way deficient Good faith belief that title is real Describe land in question

16. Freehold Estates and Future Interests

17. Defeasible Fees: fee estates limited by condition or temporal terms
18. Future Interests
19. Rule Against Perpetuities This is used to invalidate contingent remainders or executory interests that may fail to vest within 21 years after the death of a life in being at the creation of the interest. The main question is whether the future interest could fail to vest within that time period. If an interest is certain to vest or certain to not vest then it will be valid. However, if the interest may not vest within the time period, then it may be stricken as invalid by a court.
20. Example of Rule Against Perpetuities “O to A for commercial purposes, then to B.” Perpetuities Period Creation of the Interest Lives in being plus 21 years Why does the above conveyance violate the Rule? Because A may or may not use the property for commercial purposes for the duration of the perpetuities period (from the creation of the interest to the time of the lives in being plus 21 years) and there is then a chance that B’s interest may not vest within the perpetuities period.
21. Your Turn!Determine the type of estate created and who, if anyone, retains a future interest. “O to A for life, then to B.” Life estate in A, vested remainder in B. “O to A, provided that the city does not change the property’s zoning classification, otherwise to B.” Fee simple subject to a condition subsequent in A, contingent remainder in B. “O to A while A is attending State University, then to B.” Fee simple determinable in A, vested remainder in B.
22. “O to A so long as A does not divorce B, then back to O.” Fee simple determinable in A, possibility of reverter in O. “O to A, but if A mines the property, then to B and her heirs.” Fee simple subject to executory limitation in A, executory interest in B.

23. Race, Inequality, and Property

24. Three reasons why race is an important topic: We still have a pervasive system of zoning (Euclidean Zoning) Racial zoning created land use patterns that are still with us today Buchanan v. Warleysets up future decisions on racially based property use (this case is the foundation of 21st century Civil Rights)
25. In re Lee Sing Petitioner is under arrest for the violation of Order No. 2190 (the Bingham Ordinance: Chinese people, including citizens, must not live or work in San Francisco, except in “a portion set apart for the location of all the Chinese.”) Held: this is a violation of the Constitution and Article 6 of the Burlingame Treaty Involves international laws and treaty application so likely won’t be tested (I disclaim all liability for this forward looking statement)
26. Buchanan v. Warley Case was set up by the NAACP The statute was unconstitutional: can’t deprive a white man of his rights to sell to whom he wishes to sell Violated Substantive Due Process Clause Note: the court suggested that segregation is okay, but this is a case about the rights of a white man to dispose of his property
27. City of Birmingham v. Monk Monk and others challenged zoning laws that discriminated on the basis of race Issue: whether the zoning laws are a legitimate exercise of police power of the state or whether they are unconstitutional Held: (majority reiterated the unconstitutionality of racial zoning) the zoning statute is a violation of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution Cf. Shelley, this is about state action (zoning laws)
28. Shelley v. Kraemer Seeking to restrict Shelley from taking possession based on a private covenant Problem: there is no basis for the court to review private covenants. Corrigan v. Buckley Held: judicial enforcement is a state action (violation of the 14th Amendment) You can sign the covenant, but the court can’t enforce them Note: still state action case
29. Hurd v. Hodge This is a D.C. federal district case, 14th Amendment does not apply, and the 5th Amendment does not have an equal protection clause Issue: may federal courts enforce racially motivated covenants Held: no, federal courts may not enforce racially restrictive covenants Can use §1982, (1866 Civil Rights Act) Even if not held on the statute, it would be the same result based on public policy
30. Katzenbach v. McClung Ollie’s Barbecue Challenge to Civil Rights Act of 1964 No State Action, 14th doesn’t apply Can’t use the 13th Amendment either Commerce Clause Held: the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is Constitutional Discrimination at a Local Restaurant Substantially Affects Interstate Commerce Therefore, Congress could regulate
31. Levitt v. DAD Federal assisted housing; Complaint for racial discrimination against the developer Levitt; NJ statute prohibited racial discrimination in public assisted housing (FHA). Held: these houses are government-funded public assistance Unless you are in a state with an anti-discrimination law (such as NJ, BY), you have no way of challenging even with public housing assistance There were no federal laws that prohibited racially discriminatory housing practices
32. Jones v. Mayer Refusal of the defendant, real estate broker Alfred Mayer, to sell Jones a property solely because Jones was black Efforts to ban racial segregation in housing beyond federally assisted housing Held: §1982 bars all racial discriminations: private and public, and is a valid exercise of the 13th Amendment
33. Differences between 42 U.S.C. § 1982 and Title VIII 42 U.S.C. § 1982 Deals with discrimination on the basis of race only Requires proof of intentional discrimination Only protects U.S. citizens Applies to real and personal property Title VIII – Civil Rights Act of 1968 Per se discrimination beyond just racial discrimination Only requires a showing of disparate Not limited to citizens Limited to dwellings with certain exceptions for real property Several exemptions
34. More Things to Know Be sure to know the history of VA FHA Know the two Civil Rights statutes Know which Amendment applies to which case, (state action vs. private, constitutionality vs. statutory ban) and why Know the Civil Rights Movement history and its connection with the housing discrimination litigations
35. Questions from the Midterm 7. In which if any of the following conveyances does O NOT have a property interest in Blackacre after the conveyance? A. O conveys Blackacre to A; B. O conveys Blackacre to A if A survives O and to B if A does not survive O; C. O conveys Blackacre to A for the life of A and then to B if B survives A; D. None of the above – i.e., O has a property interest in Blackacre after each conveyance; E. All of the above – i.e., O does not have a property interest in Blackacre after any of the following conveyances
36. Answer: O conveys Blackacre to A. Why? Because O always retains a possibility of reversion after a contingent remainder. There is always a chance that all conditions could be met and the property will ultimately revert back to O. Answer A, however, conveys a fee simple absolute upon A which then belongs to A alone and is freely alienable by him. It will never revert back to O.
37. 16. In Indiana, O owned Blackacre in fee simple absolute. X, an adverse possessor, entered the property and satisfied all the common law and statutory requirements for adverse possession. X entered the property in 2000. In 2001, O died, leaving Blackacre to her daughter, D, who was 2 years old in 2001. Which if any of the following statements is true under the IN statute? The statute of limitations will be tolled until after D becomes 18; The statute of limitations will be tolled until after D becomes 21; The statute of limitations will not be tolled; The statute of limitations will be extended for 10 more years; The statute of limitations will be extended for 20 more years.
38. Answer: C. The statute of limitations will not be tolled. Why? It is important to always read all materials carefully. This question is asking you to apply the IN statute which states that the statute of limitations does not get tolled unless the record owner is under a disability at the time the adverse possessor enters the property. In 2000 when X entered the property, O was still alive and was under no disability. Therefore, the statute of limitations is not tolled.
39. Email addresses Ashley Tyler – aatred@gmail.com Kathryn Box – kmbox@indiana.edu Jin Kong – kongjin@iupui.edu