Past Assignments Property Spring 2014

Tuesday, January 7:  No Property class.  Introduction to Legal Skills meets in this time slot.

Thursday, January 7: No Property class.  Introduction to Legal Skills meets in this time slot.

1.     Tuesday, January 14:

a.     The first Property class will meet on Tuesday, January 14th at 8:00-9:15 am in LH2 (1st floor).

b.     Read Pages 1-5 of the photocopied Supplement.  Consider carefully the questions posed at pages 4-5 of the Supplement.

c.      Read and brief the case of Johnson v. M'Intosh at Pages 3-10 in Dukeminier and notes 1, 2, 3 & 7 following the case.

2.     Thursday, January 16:

a.     Review Johnson v. M'Intosh:

i.       What rule(s) of law did the court apply to determine that the attempted transfers by the Piankeshaw Indians to Johnson in 1773 and 1775 were invalid?

ii.      Why did the Supreme Court follow the pre-constitutional, Colonial rules about land conveyances by Indians?  Could the Court have chosen not to follow the Colonial rules?

b.     Pierson v. Post at pages 18-22 and notes 1-4 following the case.

i.       What is the legal rule (and its elements) for when a person gains title to property in unowned animals that are free in nature on public land?

ii.      Do you agree with the judge in the dissenting opinion?  What test does the dissenting judge propose for when a person gains title to wild animals like foxes?

c.      Ghen v. Rich at pages 26-28 and notes 1-3 following the case.  Why did Ghen get title to the whale?  Did he fulfill the elements of Title by Occupancy?

3.     Tuesday, January 21:

a.     Review Ghen v. Rich at pages 26-28 and notes 1-3 following the case.  Why did Ghen get title to the whale?  Did he fulfill the elements of Title by Occupancy?

i.       Identify three policy reasons to explain why the court in Ghen found the whaler to be in “constructive possession” of the whale.

b.     Consider the following hypothetical: Megan Rich is a multi-billionaire treasure hunter.  She has built a ship at a cost of $100 million and installed state-of-the-art technology capable of finding any treasure buried in the ocean bottom.  At the moment, Megan is pursuing a Spanish sunken ship full of treasure off the coast of San Diego.  When should Megan be held to be in possession of the sunken treasure and, therefore, obtain title by occupancy? Possible scenarios:

(1)   Launches the ship from San Diego harbor?

(2)   Finds the Spanish vessel and positions her ship over it?

(3)   Sends a sub down to retrieve the treasure?

(4)   Actually retrieves some gold treasure?

c.      Keeble v. Hickeringill at pages 30-31 and notes 1-3 following the case.   Do problem 1 on page 33 and read notes 1 and 2 on pages 37-38.

i.       Summarize, in writing, the rules and dicta from Pierson v. Post, Ghen v. Rich & Keeble v. Hickeringill concerning “possession” of an object by a finder sufficient to satisfy the possession element of “title by occupancy.”  Bring a print copy of your summary to class.

ii.      Questions:

(1)   If Lodowick Post used Keeble v. Hickeringill as authority, would he succeed in an action to recover damages against Pierson?

(2)   Should mortal wounding of a fox be enough to satisfy the possession element of Title by Occupancy?

(3)   Should we apply the rule of “Title by Occupancy” to water, oil and other “fugitive” resources?

4.     Thursday, January 23:

a.     Read Deer Hunting in CA

b.     Why did we study Title by Occupancy?  Read this

c.      Pages 4-5 of the Supplement. 

d.     Dukeminier pages 39-50 and notes 3, 4 and 5 at pages 52-53.

e.     Board of Regents of State Colleges, et. al. v. Roth, at pages 6‑12 of the Supplement and the notes following the case.

i.       What are the meanings of these Quotes?

(1)   Liberty and property are broad and majestic terms.  They are among the great constitutional concepts… purposely left to gather meaning from experience… They relate to the whole domain of social and economic fact and the statesmen who founded this nation knew too well that only a stagnant society remains unchanged.”

(2)   “It is the purpose of the ancient institution of property to protect expectations upon which people rely.”

(3)   “Property is a man-made institution which creates and maintains certain relations between people”

(4)   “The basic problem of property is nothing more or less than determining the relationship of the individual to the community in regards to the use and exploitation of resources.”

f.       State v. Shack at page 90-92 and notes 1-3 following the case.  In New Jersey, the statutory definition of crime of “Trespass” is: “The [non-consensual] [entry or intrusion] onto the [real] [property] of [another].  The N.J. Supreme Court found that the defendants, Tejeras & Shack, were not guilty of trespass.  Which element of the crime of trespass was not satisfied by the prosecution?

5.     Tuesday, January 28:

a.     Review Dukeminier pages 39-50 and notes 3, 4 and 5 at pages 52-53.

b.     Cheney Brothers v. Doris Silk Corp. at pages 61-62 (including the case summaries).  Notes 1-2 at pages 63-65. Read this excerpt.

i.       Listen to the following radio excerpt:  Fashion Design Piracy – September 13, 2010 (click on the “►” button to play the excerpt)

c.      Factors Etc., Inc. v. Pro Arts, Inc. at pages 13-18 of the Supplement. Consider the following questions:

(1)   Can a newspaper print a photograph of Elvis or Tiger Woods?

(2)   Can I take a photograph if I see him in a diner & sell that photograph for $100,000 to the National Enquirer?

(3)   Can I duplicate that photograph and sell copies for $5 apiece?

(4)   Can I imitate Elvis?

(5)   Would the following be misappropriations?

(a)   News specials? Documentaries on NBC with copious video clips and pictures of Elvis? Would it matter if it’s on HBO as a pay-per-view item?

(b)   A movie at commercial theaters on the life of Elvis, showing 60 minutes of Elvis clips? 

(c)   A movie using an actor to play Elvis?

(d)   A glossy book with 100 photos of Elvis, selling for $75 on the 25th anniversary of his death?

(6)   Can modern-day artists make a living dressing up like Elvis and performing at weddings?

(7)   Can a modern-day rock musician use the deep drawl style of Elvis and imitate Elvis’ sway on stage, but singing his/her own music?

6.     Thursday, January 30:

a.     Review Factors Etc., Inc. v. Pro Arts, Inc. at pages 13-18 of the Supplement. Consider the following questions:

(1)   Can a newspaper print a photograph of Elvis or Tiger Woods?

(2)   Can I take a photograph if I see him in a diner & sell that photograph for $100,000 to the National Enquirer?

(3)   Can I duplicate that photograph and sell copies for $5 apiece?

(4)   Can I imitate Elvis?

(5)   Would the following be misappropriations?

(a)   News specials? Documentaries on NBC with copious video clips and pictures of Elvis? Would it matter if it’s on HBO as a pay-per-view item?

(b)   A movie at commercial theaters on the life of Elvis, showing 60 minutes of Elvis clips? 

(c)   A movie using an actor to play Elvis?

(d)   A glossy book with 100 photos of Elvis, selling for $75 on the 25th anniversary of his death?

(6)   Can modern-day artists make a living dressing up like Elvis and performing at weddings?

(7)   Can a modern-day rock musician use the deep drawl style of Elvis and imitate Elvis’ sway on stage, but singing his/her own music?

b.     Adverse Possession: Krona v. Brett at pages 20-24 the Supplement.

i.       Was the trial judge making a sensible decision evicting Krona from the 3’ strip and giving the land to Brett?  What policies would be served by such a decision?

ii.      Was the appellate court making a sensible decision when it reversed the trial judge and let Krona keep the 3’ strip?  What policies would be served by such a decision?

iii.     Notes 2-3 in Dukeminier at pages 131-134 and the notes and problems at pages 134-136.

iv.    Take a look at the California statutes dealing with Adverse Possession:  California Adverse Possession Statutes

v.      What are the elements (and sub-elements if applicable) that a possessor must satisfy to gain title by adverse possession?

c.      Mannillo v. Gorski at pages 136-140 and the notes following the case.

i.       Can you reconcile the “open & notorious” requirement in Krona and Mannillo?  Do these two courts interpret the elements of open & notorious consistently?

7.     Tuesday, February 4:

a.     Review the California Code of Civil Procedure dealing with Adverse Possession and see if the statutes are consistent with our class discussion:  California Adverse Possession Statutes

i.       Make sure you read §323 of the California Code of Civil Procedure carefully.

b.     Review Mannillo v. Gorski at pages 136-140 and the notes following the case.

i.       Can you reconcile the “open & notorious” requirement in Krona and Mannillo?  Do these two courts interpret the elements of open & notorious consistently?

c.      Explain the meaning of “color of title.”

d.     Explain the meaning of “constructive possession”

e.     Howard v. Kunto at pages 142-147 and the notes following the case.

8.     Thursday, February 6:

a.     Review Howard v. Kunto at pages 142-147 and the notes following the case.

b.     Marengo Cave Co. v. Ross at pages 25-29 of the Supplement. 

i.       Query: After reading Marengo Cave Co. v. Ross, is it possible for an underground possessor to ever fulfill the “open & notorious” element of adverse possession?  Some student treatises say no, underground possessors can never claim title by adverse possession due to an inability to fulfill the open and notorious element.  Do you agree? 

ii.      Answer the Olive & Paula Hypothetical

c.      Good Faith Claim of Right & the California View:

i.       Gilardi v. Hallam at pages 30-34 of the Supplement and the relevant California Adverse Possession Statutes.

(1)   In Gilardi v. Hallam, the California Supreme Court held that the Hallam’s did not satisfy one of the elements for title by adverse possession (the payment of taxes under §328 of the California Code of Civil Procedure). 

(2)   Why did the court remand the case to the trial court and why did the trial court deny recovery to the Gilardi’s?

9.     Tuesday, February 11:

a.     Challenge:

i.       Supposedly, many states do not require a “good faith” claim of right.  Nevertheless, courts are unlikely to find in favor of an adverse possessor who acts in bad faith & attempts to knowingly gain title to land of a neighbor using the doctrine of Adverse Possession.  The challenge is two cases, in any state, in the last 20 years that gave title to a squatter who knew he was not making a GFCR or based on Color of Title.  You cannot use the case of Chaplin v. Sanders

ii.      To participate in the challenge, email your response to me by no later than Monday at 4:00 pm.

b.     Good Faith Claim of Right & the California View:

i.       Gilardi v. Hallam at pages 30-34 of the Supplement and the relevant California Adverse Possession Statutes.

(1)   In Gilardi v. Hallam, the California Supreme Court held that the Hallam’s did not satisfy one of the elements for title by adverse possession (the payment of taxes under §328 of the California Code of Civil Procedure). 

(2)   Why did the court remand the case to the trial court and why did the trial court deny recovery to the Gilardi’s?

c.      Adverse Possession – The Statutory Period & “Disabilities”:

i.       In some states, the statute of limitations will be “tolled” & extended for the period of the disability if, at the time the possession commences, the true owner is:

(1)   A minor

(2)   Insane

(3)   Imprisoned

ii.      Read these provisions from the California Code of Civil Procedure: CCP §328 and 328.5 and answer the following hypothetical:

(1)   Suppose in Howard v. Kunto Lot C (the lot possessed by Kunto) is technically owned by Howard.  There is a 10 year statute of limitations:

(a)   1995: Kunto pays $400k & takes possession of Lot C after receiving a deed to “Lot D” from his seller (everyone is on wrong lot)

(b)   1999: Howard dies.  His sole heir is his five year old daughter, Helen.

(c)   2012: Helen turns 18.

(d)   2016: Helen brings an ejectment action (21 years after the Kunto’s mistakenly occupy).

(2)   Keep in mind that the Kuntos are in actual possession, under a good faith claim of right, continuously, etc. for 21 years and the state statute is 10 years.  Will the Kuntos gain title by adverse possession?

d.     Acquiring Rights To Property - Gift

i.       Pages 164-167 and Gruen v. Gruen at pages 174-180 and notes 1-2 following the case.  Then, answer the following question:

(a)   Question: What is required for a valid transfer of tangible personal property while the grantor is alive?  Suppose that you have a brother or sister who lives in New York.  As a graduation gift you want to give him or her title to your laptop computer.  You call your sibling by telephone (who is 3,000 miles away), or you text him/her, and state:  “Happy graduation, the laptop is now yours.”  Five minutes later you change your mind and call/text again, stating: “Sorry, I decided to keep the laptop.”  Who owns the laptop?

(i)     You because a verbal gift is not valid unless the property, or a written instrument, is physically delivered to the grantee.

(ii)    You because you validly revoked the gift before delivery could occur.

(iii)  Your brother or sister because title to the laptop was validly delivered and cannot be revoked.

(iv)  Your brother or sister because they can use the doctrine of promissory estoppel, or equitable estoppel, to compel completion of delivery.

10.  For Thursday, February 13:

a.     Acquiring Rights To Property - Gift

i.       Pages 164-167 and Gruen v. Gruen at pages 174-180 and notes 1-2 following the case.  Then, answer the following question:

(a)   Question: What is required for a valid transfer of tangible personal property while the grantor is alive?  Suppose that you have a brother or sister who lives in New York.  As a graduation gift you want to give him or her title to your laptop computer.  You call your sibling by telephone (who is 3,000 miles away), or you text him/her, and state:  “Happy graduation, the laptop is now yours.”  Five minutes later you change your mind and call/text again, stating: “Sorry, I decided to keep the laptop.”  Who owns the laptop?

(i)     You because a verbal gift is not valid unless the property, or a written instrument, is physically delivered to the grantee.

(ii)    You because you validly revoked the gift before delivery could occur.

(iii)  Your brother or sister because title to the laptop was validly delivered and cannot be revoked.

(iv)  Your brother or sister because they can use the doctrine of promissory estoppel, or equitable estoppel, to compel completion of delivery.

b.     Introduction to Estates in Land & The Fee Simple

i.       Pages 183-201.

ii.      Answer, in writing, hypotheticals 1-6 at pages 35-38 of the Supplement.  Don’t answer questions 7-12 at this time.  Make sure you bring your written answers to class.  This is a required writing assignment.  Bring a hard copy to class with you.  If you will not be attending class, you must email the responses to Prof. Ehrlich before the start of class.  On line copies of the hypotheticals: PDF, Word

c.      Interpretation of Deeds & Wills:

i.       White v. Brown at pages 202-207 and notes 1-2 following the case. Read the note at pages 209-210. In White v. Brown, pay close attention to:

(1)   The discussion of will interpretation.

(2)  The discussion of restraints on alienation

(3)  In White v. Brown, what are the rules regarding “restraints on alienation” Suppose that Jesse Lide wrote the following in her will:  “I Jesse Lide hereby grant my house to Evelyn White in fee simple absolute, however . . . :”

(a)  Evelyn shall not have the right to convey the land.”  Or

(b)  Evelyn must live on the land during her natural life.”  Or

(c)   if Evelyn sells the land it shall revert back to my estate.” Or

(d)   Evelyn promises to live on the land during her natural life and not sell the land.

Tuesday, February 18: NO CLASS.  President’s Day Holiday

11.  Thursday, February 20:

a.     Introduction to Estates in Land & The Fee Simple

i.       Pages 183-201.

ii.      Answer, in writing, hypotheticals 1-6 at pages 35-38 of the Supplement.  Don’t answer questions 7-12 at this time.  Make sure you bring your written answers to class.  This is a required writing assignment.  Bring a hard copy to class with you.  If you will not be attending class, you must email the responses to Prof. Ehrlich before the start of class.  On line copies of the hypotheticals: PDF, Word

b.     Interpretation of Deeds & Wills:

i.       White v. Brown at pages 202-207 and notes 1-2 following the case. Read the note at pages 209-210. In White v. Brown, pay close attention to:

(1)   The discussion of will interpretation.

(2)  The discussion of restraints on alienation

(3)  In White v. Brown, what are the rules regarding “restraints on alienation” Suppose that Jesse Lide wrote the following in her will:  “I Jesse Lide hereby grant my house to Evelyn White in fee simple absolute, however . . . :”

(a)  Evelyn shall not have the right to convey the land.”  Or

(b)  Evelyn must live on the land during her natural life.”  Or

(c)   if Evelyn sells the land it shall revert back to my estate.” Or

(d)   Evelyn promises to live on the land during her natural life and not sell the land.

(4)   In White v. Brown the court refers to three earlier Tennessee cases.  How did the court interpret the grants in each case:

(a)   Green v. Young (1931), in a will, the decedent disposed of all of her property to her husband "to be used by him for his support and comfort during his life."

(b)   Williams v. Williams (1933), in a will, the decedent disposed all of his real property to his children "for and during their natural lives" without provision for a gift over at their death.

(c)   Webb v. Webb (1964), in a will, the decedent disposed of his personal property to the his wife "for her maintenance, support and comfort, for the full period of her natural life" with complete powers of alienation. The will was silent as to any reversion or remainder.

12.  For Tuesday, February 25:

a.     Essay Exams: I have put some Adverse Possession Final Exam Essay questions on line.  You can find them in the Links section below

b.     Life Estates & Waste:

i.       Baker v. Weedon at pages 210-214 and read notes 1, 2 & 4 following the case. Read the note on Seisen at pages 221-222.  We will be discussing life estates & waste (voluntary and permissive).  Make sure you use some outside resources for some insights into the doctrines of voluntary and permissive waste.  Any of the following will help:

(1)   Moynihan & Kurtz (West Hornbook)

(2)   Bernhardt (Black Letter Series)

(3)   Makdisi (Little Brown Examples & Explanations Series)

(4)   Gilbert’s, Emanuel’s

c.      Can you distinguish the following types of “waste”:

(1)   Permissive Waste

(2)   Affirmative Waste

(3)   Ameliorative Waste

(a)   What, exactly, is “ameliorative waste”?  If Ann (the life tenant) is engaging in ameliorative waste, can Bob (the remainder holder) succeed in an action seeking damages or injunction for waste by Ann?  To answer this question, read Melms v. Pabst Brewing Co.  For an interesting article about the Melms case see this link: Melms Article

d.     Waste Hypotheticals:  Respond to the following hypotheticals.

i.       Grant dies, leaving his land to his wife, Ann “for Ann’s life, then to the American Cancer Society.”  Ann is 25 years old and healthy.  The land is 5,000 acres in size and has a sub-surface pool of oil. The fair market value of the land is $1 billion.  There is also a small house on the land.  The surface can be rented for about $2,000 per month, which is enough to pay all current taxes and expenses.  Can Ann pump some of the oil and sell it if:

(1)   Grant knew about the oil but was not pumping it?

(2)   Grant didn’t know about the oil?

(3)   Grant was already pumping oil?

e.     Adverse Possession & Life Estates

i.       Grant deeded land “To Ann for life, then to Bob.”  The deed was defective.  Ann took possession for 45 years.  After 45 years, Ann brings an action alleging that she has gained title to the FEE by adverse possession.  Should Ann succeed in this action?

ii.      Grant deeded land “To Ann for life, then to Bob.”  The land was vacant.  Grantor then executed a deed: “To Xavier in fee simple absolute.”  Xavier did not know about the prior grant to Ann & Bob.  Xavier took possession and built a home.  He lived there for 45 years.  Ann died 3 weeks ago.  Today Bob brings an action alleging that he is the rightful owner.  Xavier alleges that he has gained title by adverse possession.  Who will succeed in the action of Bob v. Xavier?

13.  For Thursday, February 27:

a.     Ameliorative Waste

i.       What, exactly, is “ameliorative waste”?  If Ann (the life tenant) is engaging in ameliorative waste, can Bob (the remainder holder) succeed in an action seeking damages or injunction for waste by Ann?  To answer this question, read Melms v. Pabst Brewing Co.  For an interesting article about the Melms case see this link: Melms Article

b.     Waste Hypotheticals:  Respond to the following hypotheticals.

i.       Grant dies, leaving his land to his wife, Ann “for Ann’s life, then to the American Cancer Society.”  Ann is 25 years old and healthy.  The land is 5,000 acres in size and has a sub-surface pool of oil. The fair market value of the land is $1 billion.  There is also a small house on the land.  The surface can be rented for about $2,000 per month, which is enough to pay all current taxes and expenses.  Can Ann pump some of the oil and sell it if:

(1)   Grant knew about the oil but was not pumping it?

(2)   Grant didn’t know about the oil?

(3)   Grant was already pumping oil?

c.      Adverse Possession & Life Estates

i.       Grant deeded land “To Ann for life, then to Bob.”  The deed was defective.  Ann took possession for 45 years.  After 45 years, Ann brings an action alleging that she has gained title to the FEE by adverse possession.  Should Ann succeed in this action?

ii.      Grant deeded land “To Ann for life, then to Bob.”  The land was vacant.  Grantor then executed a deed: “To Xavier in fee simple absolute.”  Xavier did not know about the prior grant to Ann & Bob.  Xavier took possession and built a home.  He lived there for 45 years.  Ann died 3 weeks ago.  Today Bob brings an action alleging that he is the rightful owner.  Xavier alleges that he has gained title by adverse possession.  Who will succeed in the action of Bob v. Xavier?

d.     Brief Introduction to Leasehold Estates: Page 222.

e.     Defeasible Estates:

i.       Pages 222-225.

ii.      Answer, in writing, hypotheticals 6-12 at pages 35-38 of the Supplement.  Make sure you bring your written answers to class. This is a required writing assignment. On line copies of the hypotheticals: PDF, Word, If you will not be in class, make sure you email the assignment to me before class.

iii.     Mahrenholz v. County Board of School Trustees at pages 226-231 and notes 1-4 following the case.

(1)   Note that this case is a mid-level appeals court.  Carefully note the cases referred to in the opinion, which are opinions of the Supreme Court of Illinois. 

(2)   This mid-level appellate court is clearly wrong in applying Illinois law about interpretation of deeds and wills.  Why? Concentrate on the bottom of page 228 and the top of 229.  Is the intent of the grantor to create a fee simple determinable clear – or is the court engaging in speculation about the intent?

14.  For Tuesday, March 4:

a.     Review hypotheticals 6-12 at pages 35-38 of the Supplement.  On line copies of the hypotheticals are here: PDF, Word,  At the beginning of class I will return your copies of the hypotheticals.

b.     Review Mahrenholz v. County Board of School Trustees at pages 226-231 and notes 1-4 following the case.

i.       Note that this case is a mid-level appeals court.  Carefully note the cases referred to in the opinion, which are opinions of the Supreme Court of Illinois. 

ii.      This mid-level appellate court is clearly wrong in applying Illinois law about interpretation of deeds and wills.  Why? Concentrate on the bottom of page 228 and the top of 229.  Is the intent of the grantor to create a fee simple determinable clear – or is the court engaging in speculation about the intent?

c.      Mountain Brow Lodge No. 82, Independent Order of Odd Fellows v. Toscano at pages 236-241 and notes 1-2 following the case.  Also read the note on page 243. The will in that case stated:

(1)   "Said property is restricted for the use and benefit of [Mountain Brow Lodge], only; and in the event the same fails to be used by [Mountain Brow Lodge]-- or -- in the event of sale or transfer by the [Mountain Brow Lodge] of all or any part of said lot --  the same is to revert to the first parties herein, their successors, heirs or assigns."

ii.      Why should both provisions be unenforceable as restraints on alienation?

d.     Read Defeasible Life Estates at pages 249-251.

e.     Modern Curtailment of Defeasible Fees:  Read the statutory provisions of the California Civil Code at pages 39-41 of the Supplement.  Be prepared to explain the purpose of each statutory section.  Prepare, in writing, a short explanation of the purpose of each statutory section. 

15.  For Wednesday, March 6: Property Meets During the Civil Procedure Time Slot (1:30-2:15 in Room 2B)

a.     Mountain Brow Lodge No. 82, Independent Order of Odd Fellows v. Toscano at pages 236-241 and notes 1-2 following the case.  Also read the note on page 243. The will in that case stated:

(1)   "Said property is restricted for the use and benefit of [Mountain Brow Lodge], only; and in the event the same fails to be used by [Mountain Brow Lodge] -- or -- in the event of sale or transfer by the [Mountain Brow Lodge] of all or any part of said lot --  the same is to revert to the first parties herein, their successors, heirs or assigns."

ii.      Why should both provisions be unenforceable as restraints on alienation?

b.     Read Defeasible Life Estates at pages 249-251.

c.      Modern Curtailment of Defeasible Fees:  Read the statutory provisions of the California Civil Code at pages 39-41 of the Supplement.  Be prepared to explain the purpose of each statutory section.  Prepare, in writing, a short explanation of the purpose of each statutory section. 

d.     Future Possessory Estates.

i.       Possibilities of Reverter, Rights of Entry (Powers of Termination):

(1)   Pages 42-43 of the Supplement.

(2)   Dukeminier pages 253-257.

e.     Remainders:

i.       Pages 258-263. Do all notes, examples and problems.

ii.      Answer, in writing, the hypotheticals at pages 44-47 of the Supplement.  Make sure you bring your answers to class. This is a required writing assignment. Click here for online copies: PDF Word

16.  For Thursday, March 6:

a.     Executory Interests: Pages 264-273.

b.     A Brief Introduction to Trusts: Pages 273-275.

c.      Remainders & Executory Interests

i.       Review your answers to the hypotheticals at pages 44-47 of the Supplement. 

ii.      Answers to the Remainder Hypos: The answers to the Remainder hypos are on-line.  Take a moment to review them and compare your own answers.

17.  For Tuesday, March 11:

a.     Midterm Exam Info

b.     Do the “Estates In Land Worksheet”: PDF, MSWord

i.       The answers to the Worksheet are also available online.  Answer the Worksheet hypos first, then check your answers against the answers. Answers to Estates in Land Hypos

c.      Some Anomalous Doctrines - Preventing Limitations on Marketability:  Don’t stress out trying to master the following strange rules.  They are no longer applied in modern American jurisdictions.

i.       Read about the Rule in Shelley's Case, and the abolition of the Rule, at pages 283-284.

ii.      Read about the Doctrine of Worthier Title at page 284.

iii.     Read about the Destructibility of Contingent Remainders, and the abolition of the Rule, at pages 280-283. 

18.  For Thursday, March 13

a.     Extra Office Hours:  I will hold Office Hours immediately after class on Thursday for 45 minutes.

b.     The Rule Against Perpetuities:

i.       Read Supplement pages 48-49.

ii.      Read Dukeminier pages 285-289. Do problems 1-4 on pages 289-290.

iii.     Grantor’s Interests: pages 291-292.

iv.    Answer the following Rule Against Perpetuity hypos:  PDF, MSWord

v.      The answers to the Rule Against Perpetuities Hypos are online.  Answer the hypos first, then check your answer against these: Answers

19.  For Tuesday, March 18:

a.     Midterm Exam.  More information can be found here: Midterm Exam Info

b.     BE IN SEAT & READY TO START AT 8:00 AM

c.     No books, food, drinks, computers, phones or electronics at seat except for 2 pages of notes and pen or pencil.  Please, no strange color pens.  Use blue or black.

For Thursday, March 20:

d.     Civil Procedure will be taught in the Property class time slot (8:00-9:15)

20.  For Tuesday, March 25:

a.     Concurrent ownership

i.       Review Riddle v. Harmon at pages 324-328 and notes 1-2 following the case. 

(1)   Challenge Question:  In Riddle v. Harmon, the co-owners took title as Joint Tenants With Right of Survivorship.  Either co-owner could easily sever the joint tenancy survivorship feature at any time prior to death by a new conveyance of his or her 50% interest to a strawman (such as a lawyer), who then immediately conveys it back to him or her.  This would break the four unities.  Write a simple grant to Ann and Bob in a manner that the survivor will take 100% when the other co-owner dies, and no co-owner can unilaterally change that outcome.

b.     Harms v. Sprague at pages 330-333 and notes 1-3 following the case.

c.      Respond to this Hypothetical:  Ann & Bob own Blackacre, as joint tenants with right of survivorship. Blackacre is worth $1 million.  Ann needs to borrow $100,000 so she applies to Bank for a loan.  Bank requests a mortgage lien on Ann’s 50% interest in Blackacre as collateral for the loan.  Ann executes a “mortgage” of her 50% interest to Bank.  Does the granting of the mortgage to Bank sever the survivorship component of the JTWROS between Ann and Bob?  Should it sever? If we apply the hyper-technical “4 unities” then the answer will depend on whether or not we are in a “Lien Theory” state or a “Title Theory” States.  In lien theory states, the lien is just an encumbrance on the fee and does not sever.  In title theory states, the mortgage is seen as a conveyance in trust to the Bank and will sever the right of survivorship.  Why are both points of view problematic?

21.  For Thursday, March 27: [Morning Session]

a.     Partition & Relations Among Concurrent Owners:

i.       Pages 337-338 and Delfino v. Vealencis at pages 338-343. Notes 1-2 and 4-5 following the case.

ii.      Notes at pages 347-348. Spiller v. Mackereth at pages 348-350 and notes 1-3 following the case.

22.  For Thursday, March 27: [Afternoon Makeup Class, 1:30-2:45, Room LH2]

a.     Relations Among Concurrent Owners:

i.       Swartzbaugh v. Sampson at pages 351-355 and notes 1-3 following the case. It is helpful to note that Mrs. Lola Swartzbaugh is the plaintiff and there are two defendants: Sam Sampson (the lessee) and Mr. John Swartzbaugh (Lola’s husband and co-owner).

ii.      Read the notes at pages 356-358.

b.     Read the following interesting excerpt from Powell on Real Property

c.      Accounting & Contribution:

i.       Read & answer the hypos at this link:  Accounting & Contribution Hypos.  Pay special attention to Hypo #5.  Many treatises state that Ann is liable to her cotenants for all of the profits received by Ann.  Why are the treatises probably wrong?

23.  For Tuesday, April 1:

a.     Marital Interests: 

i.       Introduction: Pages 348-361. Do not do the problem on page 361.

ii.      Tenancies by the Entireties: Sawada v. Endo at pages 361-366 and notes 1-2 following the case. Read pages 369-371.

iii.     Protecting Spouses Upon Death or Dissolution: Pages 384-387.

iv.    Community Property: Pages 387-392.

b.     Introduction to Easements:

i.       Part IV(A)(1): Pages 763-768

c.      Creation of Easements:

i.       Willard v. First Church of Christ, Scientist at pages 768-772 and notes 1-4 following the case. Read about licenses on pages 773-774.

24.  For Thursday, April 3

a.     Final Exam Information

b.     Creation of Easements:

i.       Willard v. First Church of Christ, Scientist at pages 768-772 and notes 1-4 following the case. Read about licenses on pages 773-774.

c.      Easements Created by Estoppel

i.       Holbrook v. Taylor at pages 774-777 and notes 1-3 on pages 778-779.

(1)   Why were the Taylor’s unsuccessful in establishing an easement by prescription?

(2)   Why were the Taylor’s successful in establishing an easement by estoppel?

(3)   What are the elements required to establish an easement by estoppel?

25.  For Tuesday, April 8

a.     Easements Created by Implication:

i.       Van Sandt v. Royster at pages 779-785 and notes on pages 785-786.

b.     Easements Created by Necessity:

i.       Othen v. Rosier at pages 786-792 and notes 1-4 following the case.

26.  For Thursday, April 10

a.     Easements by Prescription: 

i.       Notes 1-3 at pages 794-797. Respond to the following two hypotheticals:

(1)   Hypo #1: In 1978 Sam, owner of Lot A, expressly granted a 20' wide access easement, in writing, to Donna, owner of Lot B, as follows: “A non-exclusive, appurtenant access easement for the benefit of Donna and Donna’s successors over the following described strip. . .” Unfortunately, the deed was technically invalid due to a failure to comply with statutory formalities. Donna used the road for 30 years for access & right of way to her parcel.  Over the years, Donna maintained the road, re-graded the road and used it continuously to gain access to Donna’s land. In 2010, Sam’s successor, Rose, discovered the defect in the deed and brought an action to enjoin Donna’s use and quiet title to Rose’s land in fee, free of the easement. Donna has responded that an easement was created by prescription. What should the outcome of the case be?

(2)   Hypo #2: 30 years ago, Dante owned two adjacent lots, Lot 1 and Lot 2. In 1978, Dante granted Lot 1 to Sally but retained Lot 2.  In the deed to Sally, Dante expressly reserved an appurtenant easement for the benefit of Lot 2 over the land granted to Sally described in the deed as “an easement over the northerly 20 feet of Lot 1.”  Both Dante and Sally intended the easement to traverse the southerly 20 feet of Lot 1 but mistakenly stated the “northerly 20 fee” in the deed.  Dante built and used a road over the southerly 20 feet of Lot 1 and used it for 6 years before conveying his land to Dana, who continued to use the southerly 20 feet of Lot 1 for access to Lot 2.  After 20 years, can Dana claim title to an easement by prescription over the southerly 20 feet?

b.     Creation of Easements:  Respond to this hypothetical:

i.       In 1904 Laura Bailey sold Lot 19 to John Jones, retaining Lots 20 & 4.  No easement by implication was established because there was no pre-existing use. In 1905, the sewer is installed when John Jones grants “permission” to Laura to install.  No deed of easement was executed.  Laura installed the sewer line and used it for Lots 4 and 20.  In 1938, Van Sandt (John Jone’s successor to Lot 19) brought an action to enjoin use of the sewer line, claiming no easement exists in favor of Lots 20 & 4. Could Royster & Gray (owners of Lots 20 & 4) assert some other method(s) of easement creation?  Be specific as to the possible success of each method of creation.  You should come up with at least 3 methods of easement creation.

c.      Scope of Easements:

i.       Brown v. Voss at pages 820-826 and notes 1-5 following the case.

ii.      Miller v. Lutheran Conference & Camp Association at pages 812-819 and notes 1-3 following the case. ß We will not cover this material

iii.     Formulate responses to the following hypos:  Scope Hypos

d.     Termination of Easements: Pages 50-52 of the Supplement.

27.  For Tuesday, April 15

a.     Scope of Easements:

i.       Formulate responses to the following hypos:  Scope Hypos

b.     "Negative" Easements: Pages 842-845.

c.     Reminder about Backups: This is the magical time of year when students’ laptops break down, get lost or are stolen.  It’s always a good idea to back up essential data like outlines, briefs, notes, papers, etc.  Two backups are better than one: USB flash drives, Dropbox or other cloud storage, etc.

d.     Evaluations & Feedback

e.     Review of Multiple Choice Questions:  Questions

f.       Essay Question review.  We will review the following essay question:  Sample Essay Question