Class Notes Property 26/03/2015 12:10 PM -What Does Kings Bench mean? English case before the Kings Court (royal court)- Important to know which court decides the case. Tells you the binding nature of case. Also, tells you how important the case is. Difference b/t Kings bench and Queens Bench (who was in ruling at time) all practical purposes same court. In Armory v. De Lamirie it is a trial court -What about 1 Strange 505? Citation system. Strange reports were prepared by Sir John Strange. Didn t have official scribe back in the day. Sir John Strange sat at back of courts and took notes of the cases (not for public purposes). Wasn t his actual job. Weren t published until 5 yrs after he died. These reports are called Nominate Reports named after someone -What is Trover? Monetary damages. Armory wants cash value. -Armory voluntarily hand it to the apprentice and apprentice weighs it. The apprentice takes out the stone. Armory wanted a value. Say s I m not taking 1 and ½ cents for it. -Suspect the apprentice didn t think armory could/would sue him so took advantage of him. Or a Charitable explanation would be: he thought Armory stole it and wanted it to give it back to rightful owner (but why give back socket) -Good reason to bring in trover is that: you don t think you will get stone back; already sold it; lost it Lawyer wants to get paid; so ask for money vs. jewel Money is what Armory really wants If owner comes back to claim jewel- then armory gets nothing- so asked for money then Armory can spend money. in retrospect, smart decision the value was generous for P Generally, speaking P must prove how much the item is worth Armory got lucky on generous favor; since he didn t know the value took it in to get appraised.
How is armory ownership different than the rightful owner Ct says some ownership with it. What can he do with it? o Sell it (subject to rts of True owner OR prior Possessor) o Abandon it o Keep it/ wear it (subj to rts of true owner or pp) o Pledge it pawn broker (subj to rts of TO or PP) o Trade it (subject to rts of TO or PP) o Destroy it (change it s form) (subj to TO or PP) o Give it back or away What can true owner do with jewel? Everything on the list of Armory except not subject to anybody else s rights. How valuable is armory interest in this jewel? Depends how likely the true owner is to come back Court got it wrong in that Armory has right to property except for rightful owner it should say Armory has right to property except for anyone who has better claim to property. Class 8/28/14 Hypo: Teacher took book from student in class. We said she had stronger claim to property because she had prior possession Property rights are relative (among individuals). Different people have different claims with varying strengths of title. Does a thief have a property interest in an item he stole? Yes, through possession but not as strong as prior possessor Generally, if you buy stolen property you still subject to rightful owner because you bought the property interest in the book that the thief had. Good faith is not a defense to buying stolen property.
There are exception to this don t have to worry about these yet. Theme of class: How do we divide up property? Armory Case: Ct says even a finder has sufficient title in property that he can recover it from subsequent possessor. Question: Why? What is justification of giving chimney sweeper almost true ownership? Benefit of our system? o Rewards Finders! To give incentive to finder to come forward that he has it, if it got stolen from him he wouldn t have grounds to prove he had it first.! Society is better off! If we encourage people to come forward when they find things it s more likely to get back to the rightful owner. The legal system should protect the true owner.! Found property has to go somewhere. If give to finder it rewards them he performed useful service. o Protect Public Order! If all you have to do is be in possession then it would encourage thief s to go around stealing things! Give to finder then people aren t fighting about it o Evidentiary Convenience! Private property doesn t work unless you protect rights of true ownership! Proving true ownership is very difficult. Don t always have receipt or bar code, etc. so protecting possession is a easier way to protect true owner. Possession is enough to create title. o Give effect to expectation! We all expected that jeweler couldn t keep the jewel from the boy! Law doesn t work if it goes against what is expected " Not always a good thing (slavery was expected), but generally expectation is a good thing o Facilitates bailment-
! Ex: dry clean clothes, valet parking for car! If we don t protect prior possession then discourage people from using bailment system. We want bailments to work Bridges v. Hawkesworth What is 21 LJ (QB) 1851- Volume, name of report law journal, queens bench, in yr 1851 Still unofficial report- but different from Strange- its institutionalhire people to go to ct and report on them. Plaintiff= Bridges also the Appellant. Plaint - inferior court cause of action (old English words) What the difference of this case and Armory? o Defendant saying found in my shop so I should have claim! D claims he is not true owner but says he has prior possession bc he found it in his shop he owns and possess the land!! To what extent of ownership of land locus of quo give you possession to things connected to land?! What does it take to constitute possession? " One possibility is that he Has to be aware Has to have possession Has to exercise control " Constructive possession-didn t really have possession but law treats it as possession. What does it take to establish this? The ultimate goal is to get it back to true owner? o In this case are you more likely to get it back from Landowner or finder?! Probably landowner bc true owner knows where he left it or knows where he has been, plus there is multiple customers
! More likely to go back to the owen of the shop versus all customers of the shop to find wallet! But then the finder may not be as likely to give it to shopkeeper bc won t get it back How far does Armory go in deciding this case (Bridges)? Class 8/29 South Staffordshire Water Co. v. Sharman County court ruled in favor of the finder Armory v. Delamiri and Bridges v. Hawksworth o County Ct found that Bridges state that location doesn t matter (doesn t matter if you own the land or not) o Issue here does Sharman have prior possession to water co? o Or did water co. have possess before sharman? Appeal. Lord Russell gives opinion o One way the court could have looked at it is the employment contract. Stating that if found in the course of the employment should be the employers property o BUT Lord Russell didn t state that. He specifically states that whether by an employee of the owner or by a stranger court doesn t distinguish employee rule as relevant How can we bridge the discrepancy bt Bridges and South Stafford? How can we state that both are correct? o Degree of control exercised by the land owner! But skeptical bc in water co. case it s just a pool of water in the city anyone could get in there just like the store in Bridges! Prof argues water co not exercising that much control. o Attached to or under versus ON the land! Pollock and Wright Essay
" How sensible is this policy if we look at the reason the rights were set up anyway? The reasons we have the rights is so it s more likely to get back to the rightful owner If it s under the ground bc you put it there youre more likely to go back there to get it If it s under the gound bc its been there for a long time then you re probably dead or long gone Hypo: Ms. Hypo invites all student over to her house for a party Hannah finds a $100 bill in the house Ms. Hypo admits that she never seen $100 Should Hannah keep it or is it Ms. Hypo s? Someone must of dropped it at the house. True owner o We know that $100 wasn t there when Ms. Hypo s open up home. Wills J. dissuade thievery by letting the owner keep it o Meaning don t let people come on the property to find that aren t really lost o More like it dissuades trespassers Policy Question Reward finder o Which finder is more likely to be rewarded?! Finder by nearly tripping over it (accident/luck) OR! Harder working finder go on beach with metal detector looking for treasurer " Ct says opposite in theses two cases. Lucky guy keeps it the guy that worked to find under ground gets nothing Water Co. case- only found it under course of employment (was hired to clean pool) never would have found it otherwise.
Secondary commentary on Hawkesworth --- need intent to exclude to other Hawkswroth didn t have intent to exclude CLASS NOTES 9/3/14 Hannah v. Peel - House was owned by Peel but never occupied -House was requisitioned for military personnel. Hannah, P, living there at the time found a brooch above window frame. How did it get there? Persumably somebody hide it there. Unlike the rings or bank notes found there were accidentally dropped. -How long had it been there? Presumably a long time. Had cobwebs on it. Might have been there before Peel bought house. -give it to police to try and find new owner -Police give the brooch to Defendant Peel who sells it for $4,000 and they sell it for $5,500. -P mad bc he is found and wants the money for the brooch. Claims based on Armory he is the finder and has title to brooch. -Bridges case (shop owner with 55lbs). -Peel had right to control the house but he didn t occupy it. Does he have to sleep there to have possession? How much does his failure to occupy mean don t have possession? o English court never adopted (lost mislaid) distinction. Whether or not Peel had possession of brooch before Hannah? As long as Peel was in possession of it before Hannah then he should have superior claim to the brooch. Hypo: lets suppose that someone else had owned it before Peel and whoever that was did occupy the house at that time? Assume lost before Peel bought house. And that it was lost before the previous occupier/owner? Would that make a difference? Lets examine the Pollock Wright issue. The brooch is it more like on top of ground like (bridges) or like buried in mud (sharman water case). Split class vote.
The judge is critical of Lord Russell in Bridges case. The trouble with Hannah v. Peel The Judge gets C on exam if this is exam question Doesn t make any effort to tie the cases he referenced in his opinion, just threw up his hands and said Hannah wins because his act was meritorious One possibility is to distinguished from the case he doesn t like (Sharman) could have said that it was an employment case and that water co. was acting as agent and this case isn t like that o But he doesn t do that Why might we want to distinguish attached to versus on land? o If the item was attached to the land when bought the land then he bought all of it? Would you expect to get everything in the house if you buy it? I would say yes. o Bridges says it the notes were easily kicked to street o Not the case here. Harder to find o Not sure how embedded brooch was in property (house is treated has real property like land) seems that it more buried in land than on the land. But not sure.! Chair example more like lying on surface than embedded in land What is Dicta? Hypotheticals that the court thought about. Reasoning- for holding there will be stuff that is necessary for holding and stuff that is not necessary for holding Dicta is hypo s court makes up not necessary for holding Dicta would change the holding of the case. o Lord Russell says doesn t matter who found it employee or stranger it would be Dicta. Holding- is what the court actually holds. jugement for plaintiff for $66 -Not going to resolve Hannah v. Peel
McAvoy v.medina -Similar to Bridges (notes on floor case). This case found pocket-book on table in Barber Shop. -Court looks at Bridges and decides this case is completely different from Bridges. Whats different? o They claim wallet wasn t lost it was mislaid. Somone deliberately put it there and left it! Mislaid goes to the property owner! Lost property goes to the finder o What is the difference bt mislaid vs. lost?! Mislaid parted possession with liberty and then could find it (knew you were putting there and then forgot where it was)! Lost didn t know that it was being lost at the time " Distinction is on intention of person at time have to make assumptions on where it was found. If on table then assume mislaid If on ground assume lost But the example in class of backpack on ground intentionally put it there. That would be mislaid. So negates our initial distinctions.! Case doesn t explain distinction of mislaid vs. lost.! Owners of lost/mislaid property most likely to retrace steps so why is is stronger for mislaid property to go to owner of
The System of Estates 26/03/2015 12:10 PM Intro to Estates Doctrine Most of the law developed as English law. Look at stuff developed in 1500. Rules still the same to day with some tweaking. -In order to understand it, need to look at how it developed. History stuff won t be on exam but understanding it will help you with rules today. We are looking at how property is divided? Last classes looked at title (who has ownership) how title is divided Can divide property horizontally and vertically. Left /Right tract; surface level/cave; condominiums system is vertical Looking at dividing property on a temporal scale (time) o Two people can own property same property at the same property. Present possessive vs. Future interest. present right to future possession. Grasp this: Can own property that you don t currently have right to possess. Keep up with step by step. It builds on it. What is the most/biggest interest you can have? Fee simple absolute (FSA)- o Does it mean you can do anything you want on property? No. Still have abide by laws (can t build nuclear waste on it). You as property owner has limits on how to use your property can t be a nuisance to your neighbor. o How long will it last? Potential to last forever. o Heritable means it can be inherited. On the death of the owner it will pass by operation of law to owners heirs. (inherit, inheritance) o Alienable- can dispose of it in owners life time. Transfer it. o Devisable- means it was in the WILL. Could be the heir or someone else (wasn t until 1540 that cts recognized this) List in this order because order of which it was develop and acknowledged in time
o How do we create a fee simple? X and his heirs! Heirs get nothing under this language (because X could transfer before he dies)! X = words of purchase! His heirs = words of limitation! This terminology continued to be rule until 20 th century (TX got rid of it in 1963) Fee Tail o Idea is that it is heritable in a limited sense o Alienable in very limited sense o Devisable not at all o When direct line of descent runs out it expires o If expire and no heirs then property escheats to government or king o Why would any one want to have fee tail?! Want property to stay in family! Imagine wealthy landowner has daughter and wants to get married but dad doesn t trust husband. In the past women were not allowed to own property. Husband can still take ownership of property but can t sell it as easily. On her death the property will still go to children.! Can have Fee Tail Special if divorce then only the kids of first wife! Fee Tail Male only o Not relevant today. No one uses this anymore. Some states even ban it. Life Estate Very straightforward Estate measured by the life of a human Measuring life doesn t have to be the life of the tenant. Can be someone else.
Alienable but you can t change terms of it by conveying it. If you transfer it it will still be measured by that person life. Can t convey more than you have. Life estate pur autre vie for another life once dead then the life estate expires Fee Simple Determinable (FSD) Has potential to last forever May be cut short prematurely when something happens. Event that cut it short Aka fee simple subject to limitation To A and hh so long as no alcohol drank on property Automatic termination NEED Durational language as long as during the time o Don t have to say what happens next. It will come back to you automatically. Fee Simple /CS Has potential to last forever May be cut short prematurely to A and HH on the condition that no drinking of alcohol on property, if it is then can have right of reentry NEED conditional language but if provided that on condition that o Have to explicitly state what will happen after breach. If you say To A on condition that not used for alcohol Not FSD--- because not language everyday Not FSCS----because doesn t state what happens next. What difference FSD determines (ends) automatically as soon as event happens FSCS- not automatically it creates a right in the grantor to reenter to terminate it.
In practices the probably wont find out you drank on it so wouldn t really exercise automatically Conceptual difference o FSD gives right to possess away but keep stick if they start drinking o FSCS give everything away and ties string around stick if they start drinking Some restrictions won t work. Law will not enforce illegal contracts. Can t say as long as you commit a crime everyday. Can t have unreasonable restraints on alienation. To A on his heirs on condition that it can t be sold to a Lutheran. Courts have sometime upheld them and some have not. Can t have unreasonable Restraints based on marriage. Throughout on 19 th century courts tried to prevent people from using property to encourage or discourage marriage But reasonable restrictions were ok If you say to my beloved daughter to provide for until marriage But if you say to my beloved daughter until she gets married so she will take care of me forever. That s not ok FUTURE INTEREST BEFORE 1536 What does O (had fee simple) have immediately after he give A a life estate? REVERSION (Future Interest) --- it s a present right to future possession. It s a property interest in the property (just not right to possess) o Reversion lives on whether or not O lives on Someone will get usually O s heirs. o Fee Tail and Life Estate. o Fee Tail also has a reversion but no guarantee that it will become possession.
o These rights are greater protection than mere expectancy. How long does Fee simple absolute end? The O and all his heirs can be found. It will escheats. If O gives A a fee simple what does he get? NOTHING How long does Fee simple determinable last? A long as the limitation is met What does grantor have? Possibility of REVERTER How Long does Fee simple condition subsequent A long as condition is met What does grantor have? Right of Entry or Re-entry What is difference between PR and PE vs. Reversion. Heritable but not alienable O conveys his reversion to A. What does A have? REVERSION (not remainder) technicality O conveys to A life estate then to B. What does B have? REMAINDER. Remainder is future interest. Still recognized as property interest. CAN T transfer Possibility of Reverter or Right of Entry (these are not alienable) Can only transfer Reversion. Can t create future interest in 3 rd party after FSD or FSCS! Only have FEE Tail or a LIFE ESTATE. Seizin- Possession. You can have possession and right kind of possession you have seizin to your property. Landlord Tent law- tent doesn t have siezin Landlord does. o Whoever have seizin is responsibility for paying royal feudal dues. It was important to keep track of who had seizin so Lords would know who was responsible for feudal dues. How did future interest come into this?
o Theory was Johnathon asks agent to future interest o Doesn t work if there was a gap. Rule was can t have any gap. And Can t shut short the life estate. NO remainder can have gap (springing) or cut short (shifiting) remainders the preceding interest. Look at a 3 rules Did it follow expirable estate? Is there a gap bt expriarition of preceding estate and future interest? Does is cut short preceding estate? After need to look at the language used to create remainder to see what kind of remainder. Remainder can be any type of the present possessory estate o Remainder in fee simple o Remainder in life estate o Remainder in fee simple determinable o Remainder in conditional subsequent Figure out what kind of remainder going to get? Vested or Contingent Vested Requirement o MUST be a remainder (meet those rules first) o X is person born and ascertainable o No condition other than expiration of the preceding estate must by met before X s interest becomes present possessory. President Carters widow is not ascertainable (no living person can have widow) so don t know who will be the vested remainder. To A and children that have graduated college. If no child has yet graduated college then it s not vested (because condition) Some contingent remainder don t become vested remainder IF say To Pres. Carter and then to his widow. Once he dies it will be a vested present possessory right (no longer future interest)
If not vested remainder then contingent remainder. Need to be able to distinguished condition precedent from other things -has to be satisified before take possession -if the survive age 25 Condition subsequent but if usually a key word this is something that happens after conveys Becomes tricky when looking at Alternative Contingent Remainders A for life, then if B marries C, to B and his heirs, but if B does not marry C, then to D and his heirs o MUST be mutually exclusive o O still has reversion CH.3 Family of Remainder Law gives more protection to vested remainder o They are alienable and not subject to doctrine of destructibiliy like contingent remainder o Other things being equal much better to have vested remainder Contingent remainders are subject to doctrine of destruction o Expriartion o Merger o Forfeiture (irrelevant this day in age--- convicted of crime its forfeited but you don t see that these days) BUT can still renounce it Ex: To jonathan for life, then to Caroline and her heirs if she survives to age 50 J has life estate Caroline contingent remainder in Fee simple absolute o When she makes it to 50 it will be come vested remainder O has reversion
Suppose Jonathan dies when Caroline is 49. J life estates expires Caroline contingent remainder is destroy Goes back to O as Fee simple absolute Can t have gap because someone Always had to have seizin of it. EX: To Jonathon for life, then to Caroline and her heirs if the US has a Republican president when Jonathan dies; but if the US does NOT have a Republican president when Jonathan dies, then to Hannah and heirs J life estate C has alternative contingent remainder in FSA H has alternative contingent remainder in FSA O has reversion Three possibilities: O heirs buy back life estate from Jonathan J can go to O heirs and buy the reversion from O Now, doctrine of merger comes in destroying the contingent remainders *particularly in the era law protects vested remainder better than contingent remainder Three different Kinds of vested remainder Indefeasibly vested remainder (what we have looked at so far) Vested remainder subject to open o Ex: To alex for life, then to such of Blair s children as survive to age 25 and their heirs! Class group! Law presume that everyone can have more babies o A has life estate o Blairs children have Contingent remainder in FSA o O has reversion
What happens when on member of the class has statisfied the condition? o O no longer has reversion o C reached 25, vested remained in FSA subject to open or subject to partial divestment! C interest may be reduced in the future o Other kids still have contingent remainders Ex: To Amanda for life, then to Ben and heirs A life estate Ben vested remainder in FSA Ex: To Amanda for life, then to Ben and heirs, but if Ben uses the land for the sale of alcoholic beverages, grantor may reenter and reclaim the land A life estate Ben vested remainder in FSCS (when ben gets it it will be a different present possossery estate) O has right of reentry Ex: To Amanda for life, then to Ben and his heirs; but if Amanda uses the land for the sale of alcoholic beverages, grantor may reenter and reclaim the land A life estate subjected to condition subsequent (FSCS) O has right of entry B Vested Remainder subject to total divestment in FSA o Not failure to satisfy condition precedent but grantor can pull back life estate and b interest if condition subsequent Difference b/t 2 and 3 EX2 is Ben sells alcohol after he gets possession EX3 is Amanda sell before Ben gets possession (subject to being cut short total divestment ) it may never become possessory