1 / 58

And Down the Stretch They Come …

And Down the Stretch They Come …. Expectations/Preparation for a Closed Book Exam. Your Questions Will Look Like Old Exam Questions in Terms of Form & Level of Difficulty Most of “Best Student Answers” are from Closed Book Exams; I Expect Your A Answers to be Similar

marge
Télécharger la présentation

And Down the Stretch They Come …

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. And Down the Stretch They Come …

  2. Expectations/Preparation for a Closed Book Exam • Your Questions Will Look Like Old Exam Questions in Terms of Form & Level of Difficulty • Most of “Best Student Answers” are from Closed Book Exams; I Expect Your A Answers to be Similar • Do Old Qs Under Exam Conditions, Meaning: • With Exam Syllabus Beside You • With Key Statutory Provisions Beside You • At Review Session, I’ll Talk in Detail About Common Problems with Each Type of Exam Q

  3. Chapter 7: Easements • Issues from This Chapter Will Be Tested on Exam (But Not on Opinion/Dissent Q) • I’ll Lecture Today & Monday with Focus on Issues That Might Appear on Test (E-Mail Qs) • Review Problems Next Tuesday/Thursday; More Detailed Instructions are Posted on Course Page

  4. Chapter 7: Easements • Overview & Terminology • Interpreting Language • Easement v. Fee • Scope of Express Easements • Implied Easements • By Estoppel • By Prescription • By Implication and/or Necessity

  5. Interpreting Language: Easement v. Fee • Recurring Issue: Document creating the interest says “right-of-way” or similar, but doesn’t say either “easement” or “fee”; which is created? • Good introduction to examining language & purpose of interest created • We’ll look at: • Chevy Chase (MD) [Primary Case P826] • City of Manhattan (CA) [See Note 1 P832]

  6. Interpreting Language: Easement v. Fee • Courts looking for evidence of parties’ intent. Look at both: • Language • Circumstances Surrounding Grant • Presumption? (DQ107) • From Chapter 4: Normal Presumption is Ambiguous Language Creates a Fee Simple. • Should there be a presumption in context of “Right of Way” favoring either fee or easement?

  7. Interpreting Language: Easement v. Fee • Evidence of parties’ intent (Chevy Chase): • Language: • P826: to RR, “its successors & assigns, a free & perpetual right of way” • P827: “right of way” slightly ambiguous • Legal right to use (technical meaning) • Strip of land itself (common non-legal usage: “She left her bicycle on the right of way”) • Court says most likely understanding is easement

  8. Interpreting Language: Easement v. Fee • Evidence of parties’ intent (Chevy Chase): • Language: • P826: “a free & perpetual right of way” • P826: separate grant for RR station in “fee simple” • Use of different terms suggests different meaning • Common interpretation argument • E.g., White v. Brown • E.g., Statutes

  9. Interpreting Language: Easement v. Fee • Evidence of parties’ intent (Manhattan): • Language: (Ambiguous) • “remise, release & quitclaim” (looks like giving up all rights, therefore fee) • “right of way” + “upon, over & along” (look more like easement)

  10. Interpreting Language: Easement v. Fee • Evidence of parties’ intent (Chevy Chase): (ii) Circumstances Surrounding Grant: • Nominal Consideration: Suggests Easement. Why? (Ct isn’t explicit.) • Giving Up Fee is Big Change in Value of Servient Estate (Especially if Bisects Lot) • Thus, would expect more than nominal consideration for Fee

  11. Interpreting Language: Easement v. Fee • Evidence of parties’ intent (Manhattan): (ii) Circumstances Surrounding Grant: • Motivation is to Get RR to Extend Tracks to Additional City (Important to Local Economy) • Might be Consistent with Fee • Arguably need bigger carrot to convince RR • City might be willing to give up more to get

  12. Interpreting Language: Easement v. Fee • Evidence of parties’ intent (Manhattan): (ii) Circumstances Surrounding Grant: • Motivation is to Get RR to Extend Tracks to Additional City (Important to Local Economy) • Other documents (unspecified) indicated fee.

  13. Interpreting Language: Easement v. Fee • Chevy Chase: Presumption of Easement • Little Purpose for Fee Interest in RR Strips; Not Necessary for Original RR Purpose • Lot of RR Rights of Way Get Abandoned • If Easement, merges back into servient tenement • If Fee, RR still owns: cuts across & severs servient tenement

  14. Interpreting Language: Easement v. Fee B. Manhattan: Applies Presumption of Fee Simple; BUTUsual Rationales Don’t Fit Well • Likely Meets Ordinary Expectations (Unclear) • Furthers Alienability (No) • Giving All Grantor Has Avoids Uncertainty/Partial Intestacy (Not relevant when grantor retains adjoining/underlying lot)

  15. Chapter 7: Easements • Overview & Terminology • Interpreting Language • Easement v. Fee • Scope of Express Easements • Implied Easements • By Estoppel • By Prescription • By Implication and/or Necessity

  16. Interpreting Language: Scope of Express Easements • “Scope” is Primary Testable Issue for Express Easements • Q is whether use contemplated by dominant tenement-holder allowed • Generally interpret scope issues like contracts • Objective indications/manifestations of parties’ original intent • NOT hidden understanding • Often arises with changed circumstances: which party should bear different burden?

  17. Interpreting Language: Scope of Express Easements Sample Cases • Chevy Chase: Common Transition from RR Rights of Way to Recreation Trails • Marcus Cable: Common problem of improved technology

  18. Interpreting Language: Scope of Express Easements Sample Blackletter Tests (S167) • “Use must be reasonable considering the terms of the grant” • “Evolutionary not revolutionary” changes allowed. • “Burden must not be significantly greater than that contemplated by parties”

  19. Interpreting Language: Scope of Express Easements Sample BlackletterTests (S167) • “Use must be reasonable considering the terms of the grant” • Initial focus on literal language • Then check if proposed use is reasonable in light of language

  20. Interpreting Language: Scope of Express Easements Sample BlackletterTests (S167) • “Evolutionary not revolutionary” changes allowed. • Focus on nature & speed of change • Fair to characterize as “evolution”?

  21. Interpreting Language: Scope of Express Easements Sample BlackletterTests (S167) • “Burden must not be significantly greater than that contemplated by parties” • First ask what parties intended • Then look for change in relative burdens

  22. Scope of Easement: RR Easement  Recreational Trail Common Transition with Decline of RRs • Federal statute encourages and gives RRs authority to transfer rights-of-way • BUT doesn’t purport to resolve state law issues re allowable scope after transfer • We’ll compare Chevy Chase (MD) to Preseault(Fed. Cir. 1996) (P833 Note 2)

  23. Scope of Express Easements:RR Easement  Recreational Trail Chevy Chase: Tests for Scope (DQ108) • Start with Language of Grant (If no limits, presumption in favor of grantee’s desired use). • Is Proposed Use of “Same Quality”/Consistent w Purpose? • Check for Unreasonable Increase in Burden (“so substantial” that creates “a different servitude.”) Looks like slight variation on my three blackletter tests in same order.

  24. Scope of Express Easements:RR Easement  Recreational Trail Chevy Chase: Tests for Scope (Application to RR Easement) • Start with Language of Grant • “Primary Consideration” • If no limits, presumption in favor of grantee’s desired use. • Cf. “Use must be reasonable considering the terms of the grant”

  25. Scope of Express Easements:RR Easement  Recreational Trail Chevy Chase: Tests for Scope (Application to RR Easement) • Start with Language: To RR, “its successors & assigns, a free and perpetual right of way.” • No express limits (e.g., to RR or freight RR) • “Free & Perpetual” suggests “few, if any” limits contemplated; can change w evolving circumstances • “Successors & Assigns” • Means Transferability (Not Ltd. to RRs) • Also suggests possibility of changing use

  26. Scope of Express Easements:RR Easement  Recreational Trail Chevy Chase: Tests for Scope (Application to RR Easement) • Is Proposed Use of “Same Quality”/Consistent w Purpose & Reasonable Expectations • cf. “Evolution, not Revolution” • Not necessary that use was specifically contemplated by parties • Depends on Characterization of Purpose • Lawyering Task/Game • How do you Generalize from RR Use?

  27. Scope of Express Easements:RR Easement  Recreational Trail Chevy Chase: Tests for Scope (Application to RR Easement) • Is Proposed Use of “Same Quality? • Chevy Chase: “Forms of Transportation” • Hiking/Biking = Transport, so OK • Relies on Cases Broadly Reading Grants for “Public Highway” to Include New Types of Transport • Analogy Seems Suspect: Could You Change RR Easement into Highway for Cars?

  28. Scope of Express Easements:RR Easement  Recreational Trail Chevy Chase: Tests for Scope (Application to RR Easement) • Is Proposed Use of “Same Quality? • Chevy Chase: “Forms of Transportation” • Preseault: Use by Commercial Entity as Part of its Business • Here, Individual Recreation, So Too Different • Hard to Believe w/in Contemplation of Parties

  29. Scope of Express Easements:RR Easement  Recreational Trail Chevy Chase: Tests for Scope (Application to RR Easement) • Is Proposed Use of “Same Quality? • Chevy Chase: “Forms of Transportation” • Preseault: Use by Commercial Entity as Part of its Business • For You on Test Q: • Try out two or more ways to characterize. • Then discuss which characterization seems more convincing

  30. Scope of Express Easements:RR Easement  Recreational Trail Chevy Chase: Tests for Scope (Application to RR Easement) • Unreasonable Increase in Burden • Can’t be “so substantial” that creates “a different servitude.” • Cf. “Burden must not be significantly greater than that contemplated by parties” • Here: Trains  Hikers/Bikers

  31. Scope of Express Easements:RR Easement  Recreational Trail Chevy Chase: Tests for Scope (Application to RR Easement) • Unreasonable Increase in Burden: Chevy Chase says no: • Says less burden than RR w/o specifying; clearly bigdecrease in noise & safety concerns. • “Self-Evident” that change “imposes no new burdens” (You need to do better in 2 ways). • Plus new use adds benefit to servient tenements (access to trail)

  32. Scope of Express Easements:RR Easement  Recreational Trail Chevy Chase: Tests for Scope (Application to RR Easement) • Possible Increases in Burden? IMAGINATION EXERCISE

  33. Scope of Express Easements:RR Easement  Recreational Trail Chevy Chase: Tests for Scope (Application to RR Easement) • Possible Increases in Burden? Preseault: • No limits on location, number, frequency • No schedule (at whim of many individuals) • Trains stay on tracks; hiker/bikers might wander off trail & trespass • Other: privacy; litter; total amount of time easement in use

  34. Scope of Express Easements:RR Easement  Recreational Trail Chevy Chase: Tests for Scope (Application to RR Easement) • Unreasonable Increase in Burden? Hard Q: • Primary Burdens Decrease • Lots of New Smaller Ones Arise • Hard to Weigh; Might Suggest Preseault is Correct That Should “Same Quality” Test • In determining “reasonable,” court might also weigh strong public policy behind hiker/biker trails against harms to servient owners.

  35. Scope of Express Easements:Change in Technology • Common Problem: When Technology Changes, Can Dominant Tenement Holder Adjust Use of Easement? • Carry Water  Water Pipes? • Use Road on Foot/Horse  Automobiles? 

  36. Scope of Express Easements:Change in Technology • Common Problem: When Technology Changes, Can Dominant Tenement Holder Adjust Use of Easement? • Marcus Cable (P834) & Cases Cited on P836: Development of Cable TV & Use of Easements for Electrical or Telephone Wires. • NOTE: Much Cheaper and Easier for Cable Co. to Negotiate One Deal with Telephone or Electric Co. Than Easements Over Each Parcel Wires Might Cross

  37. Scope of Express Easements:Change in Technology DQ109: Marcus Cable Majority Analysis • Start with language of grant • Give undefined terms ordinary meaning • Determine purposes of grant from language • Use can change to accommodate technological development, but must fall within original purposes as determined from terms of grant • Again, not necessary that proposed use was contemplated at time of grant

  38. Scope of Express Easements:Change in Technology DQ109: Marcus Cable Majority Analysis Overlap with Blackletter Tests? • “Use must be reasonable considering the terms of the grant” (Court employs) • “Evolutionary not revolutionary” changes allowed. (Maybe OK if w/in purposes as defined by language) • “Burden must not be significantly greater than that contemplated by parties” (No burden analysis in Marcus Cable)

  39. Scope of Express Easements:Change in Technology DQ109: Marcus Cable Majority Analysis • Language: “electric transmission or distribution line or system.” • Majority: Cable TV not w/in Ordinary Meaning • Distinguishes cases where “electric + telephone” • Cts characterize combination as “communications” = cable. (Plausible but not only possibility) • Note majority doesn’t endorse these cases, just distinguishes

  40. Scope of Express Easements:Change in Technology DQ109: Marcus Cable Analysis • Language: “electric transmission or distribution line or system.” • Majority: Cable TV not w/in Ordinary Meaning • Dissent: w/in language in two ways • Literally (as technical matter) • As language has come to be understood w tech. changes

  41. Scope of Express Easements:Change in Technology DQ109: Applying Blackletter Tests to Marcus Cable Facts • “Evolutionary not revolutionary” changes allowed. • Couple more wires unlikely to be “revolutionary”

  42. Scope of Express Easements:Change in Technology DQ109: Applying Blackletter Tests to Marcus Cable Facts • Couple more wires unlikely to be “revolutionary” • “Burden must not be significantly greater than that contemplated by parties” • Probably trivial increase in burden.

  43. Scope of Express Easements:Change in Technology DQ109: Applying Blackletter Tests to Marcus Cable Facts • Couple more wires unlikely to be “revolutionary” • Probably trivial increase in burden. • Probably Why Many Courts Agree With Dissent on this Issue

  44. Scope of Express Easements:What’s at Stake? Policy Considerations Relevant to Deciding Disputed Scope Qs

  45. Scope of Express Easements:What’s at Stake? • Parties in long term relationship governed by terms of original agreement. • Changing circumstances make change desirable (at least for one party). • Parties always could bargain for new agreement, but administrative costs may be very high, especially when large number of parcels affected by similar easements as in both cases we’re looking at.

  46. Scope of Express Easements:What’s at Stake? • Parties in long term relationship governed by terms of original agreement face changing circumstances. • Strict adherence to original terms provides certainty for servient owners. • Helps protect their property value. • Marcus Cable majority position.

  47. Scope of Express Easements:What’s at Stake? • Parties in long term relationship governed by terms of original agreement face changing circumstances. • Strict adherence to original terms provides certainty for servient owners. • Flexibly allowing change better meets dominant owners’ needs & expectations • Again, helps maximize property value • Can limit (to protect Servient Os) by saying, e.g., • Use must be similar • No great increase in burden

  48. Scope of Express Easements:What’s at Stake? • Parties in long term relationship governed by terms of original agreement face changing circumstances. • Strict adherence to original terms provides certainty for servient owners. • Flexibly allowing change if similar use & no great increase in burden better meets dominant owners’ needs • Desire to promote valuable new technology? • E.g., Cable TV to rural areas • Like internet no-tax subsidy • Arguably similar: Promoting hiker/biker trails

  49. Scope of Express Easements:Negative Easements • Negative Easement = Agreement not to use servient estate in any way that causes specific type of harm to dominant estate • Limited # of harms can be protected this way. • E.g., Access to Light & Air; Access to View; Unimpeded Flow of Artificial Stream • States Vary on Which They Allow

  50. Scope of Express Easements:Negative Easements • Negative Easement = Agreement not to use servient estate in any way that causes specific type of harm to dominant estate • Limited # of harms can be protected this way. • Most forms essentially negative rights of way: path that cannot be impeded for light/view/water to get to dominant estate across servient estate

More Related