Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
68 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
Johnson v. McIntosh
|
Issue: Does occupancy= title? Who has title and the right to confer title?
Rule: Discovery- the first to discover land gains title to the land. Occupancy does not equal title. Key Points: • There is a difference between occupying land and merely possessing land. o Occupying- traveling over the land o Possessing the land- setting up agriculture, businesses, becoming a sovereign, etc. • Only the owner of the land can convey title. |
|
Pierson v. Post
|
Issue: Can one claim rights to ferae naturae based on pursuit alone?
Rule: Pursuit alone does not entitle one to property; one must deprive the animal of its natural liberty. Key Points: • Pursuit is not enough; wounding is not enough • Capture or kill is the deciding factor • Ratione Soli- the owner of land has constructive possession of wild animals on the owner’ land. o If it’s open land, then the fox is wild. o If the property is owned, the owner of the land has possession of the property. • The idea of first in time and ability to claim animal o If you owned it and it escapes, first in time allows possession if it goes onto someone else’s property. • Dissent- a person in full pursuit of an animal and is on the point of seizing his prey acquires an interest in the animal, as to have a right of action against another. |
|
Ghen v. Rich
|
Issue: Does custom allow for ferae naturae to be considered within ownership of the person who found it?
Rule: One can claim rights to ferae nature if the animal is marked, and if the customs of the time allow for such. Key Points: • Customs of the time took precedence- a whale drifts almost 20 miles. If someone besides the fisherman finds to whale, they send word to Provincetown. • Most decisions w respect to judicial decisions are local. • How do you abide by the custom if you don’t know about it or don’t want to abide by them? • Customs in an area should cause everyone to know that the whale should be tied back to whoever’s name is on the bomblance. |
|
Keeble v. Hickeringill
|
Issue: Does a landowner have the right to property without malicious interference of another?
Rule: An act that would normally be okay is not okay where there is a violent of malicious intent to interfere w another person’s occupation, profession or livelihood. Key Points: • Can be interference w the use of land or a disturbance in the marketplace • Malicious intent does not necessarily have to occur on the property, but the act itself may disturb business. • You cannot maliciously interfere, but you can compete. • Example of setting up a new school next to an old one and letting students decide which they want to attend versus setting up a new school and threatening students if they don’t attend the new school. |
|
INS v. AP
|
Issue: Is there property rights to the news and do the rights survive once it is published?
Rule: If two competing businesses have the same thing to market, the first to move should reap the benefits, unless it is in the better of the public. Key Points: • Publici juris- “in the interest of the public” and being able to obtain the history of the day and the most up to date news. • The who, what, where, why, and how is difference if I’m making my own comments about the events of the day. • Court treated the rights to the news as quasi property since both were in the same business and both were seeking to make profits at the same time. • Taking information and using it as their own is unfair business dealings. • Misappropriation by merely copying the news of another constituted unfair competition. |
|
Cheney Bros Silk v. Doris Silk Corp
|
Issue: Can an expression or design that is not copyrighted be copied?
Rule: In the absence of a copyright or patent or some other recognized right at common law, a man’s property is limited to the chattels which embody his invention; others may imitate these at their pleasure. [So long as they are not trying to pass off the imitation as the original] Key Points: • Allowing one to place patents or copyrights on the mere style or pattern of a chattel would place a monopoly on the industry and would unfairly prohibit other from imitating patterns or styles at their pleasure. |
|
|
Smith v. Chanel
|
Issue: Can one use Chanel [or other name] in comparing their product to Chanel [or other product]?
Rule: Since there is not patent, you can use the name in you advertising, as long as you’re not trying to pass off the imitation as the original. Key Points: • If it is for the public good, the amount of money spent, the effort invested, skill, and ability, are not important. • A large expenditure of money does not in itself create legally protectable rights. • One cannot monopolize the public’s desire for the unpatented product, even though they themselves created that desire at great effort and expense. • The Public Policy= what is in the best interests of the public- the ability to have more than one option. |
|
|
White v. Samsung
|
Issue: Can a person claim rights to their persona?
Rule: A person does have rights to their own person, but it must be more then a mere likeness or name. Key Points: • Depends on the audience’s ability to match up the persona to the celebrity. • Must go beyond a likeness or name; it has to embody more than that. • It is not a tort for advertisers to simply remind the public of a celebrity if you’re not using a celebrity’s name, voice, signature, or likeness, and not implying the celebrity endorses a product • You have to be able to identify one by taking the items away, i.e., game board. To not require this would allow property rights to be placed on anything that reminds one of her, i.e., jewelry, hair, dresses, etc. o This would further grant the power of the image evoked in the public’s mind, which cannot be congruent w the First Amendment. • One cannot have exclusive rights to anything that many simply remind viewers of the celebrity in question when it is not directly associated by using a name, voice, signature, or anything of the like. • Dissent: It is harmful to allow this appropriation because you are stifling creativity. |
|
Moore v. Regents of University of California
|
Issue: Can Moore claim property rights cells excised from his body?
Rule: Rights cannot be converted, only property can be converted. Where there is no title to the alleged property to be converted, not possession, one cannot maintain an act for conversion. Key Points: • Public interest- We don’t want to create a disincentive in conducting research. • Public Policy- there is an importance in preserving health for others. • How the court views their role and some roles are better left for the legislature to decide, i.e., disclosure. o Policy does have an impact, whether you’re in the legislature, judicial branch, etc. o The fiduciary duties and consent disclosures should have been met. • Where there is no intent to retain an ownership interest in remains, one cannot maintain an ownership interest in anything that may come out of those remains or be derived from those remains. • Dissent: references the bundle of rights – principally the right to possess the property, to use the property, to exclude others from the property, and to dispose of the property by sale of gift. o Some of the rights have prohibitive measures, such as what you can gift or sell, yet the rights themselves still protect the property interest. • Negligence from nondisclosure must demonstrate a causal connection between a person’s injury and the physician’s failure to inform. |
|
Jacque v. Steenburg Homes
|
Issue: Does one have the right to exclude others from their property?
Rule: An owner of property has the right to exclude others from his property. Key Points: • An individual has a strong interest in excluding others from his property and society has an interest in preserving the integrity of the legal system. • Private landowners should feel confident that wrongdoers who trespass upon their land will be appropriately punished. • When landowners have confidence in the legal system, they are less likely to resort to ‘self-help’ measures. |
|
State v. Shack
|
Issue: Can one exclude others from his or her land if they are providing necessary services such as medical and legal?
Rule: The ownership of real property does not include the right to bar access to government services available to migrant workers. Key Points: • A landowner cannot exclude government services. • Property rights serve human values. They are recognized to that end and are limited by it. • Title to real property cannot exclude dominion over the destiny of persons the owner permits to come upon the premises. Their well-being must remain the paramount concern of a system of law. • Since migrant workers are outside the mainstream of the communities in which they are housed and unaware of their rights and opportunities and of the services available to them, they can be reached only by positive efforts tailored to them. o That necessity, private or public, may justify entry upon the lands of others. |
|
Armory v. Delamirie
|
Issue: Was the chimney sweeper entitled to damages for the taken jewel?
Rule: The finder of lost property has rights superior to all others, except the true owner. Key Points: • The court awarded damages equivalent to that of what a jewel of the finest water that would fit the socket would be worth. o Reasoning: we want to award honest finder. This is congruent with public policy in that honesty is the only policy. • The jewelry is considered ‘lost’ property. b. Notes and Questions • The title of the finder is as good against the whole world but the true owner. |
|
Hannah v. Peel
|
Issue: Is the finder of property entitled to property rights superior to all others, except the true owner, if the property was found on someone else’s land?
Rule: A man possesses everything that is attached to or under his land. A man does not necessarily possess a thing that is lying unattached on the surface of his land, even though the thing is not possessed by someone else. Key Points: • No occupancy of the property • Did not have physical possession at the time • Became a finder’s keepers game bc the property was unattached. • Cites Bridges v. Hawkesworth o Plaintiff found stack of notes in defendant’s shop by accident o Court found that the notes were dropped in the shop by accident. This deems them as lost. The finder of the lost article is entitled against all other persons, except the true owner. |
|
McAvoy v. Medina
|
Issue: Who has property rights in mislaid or misplaced property?
Rule: A finder acquires no rights in mislaid property Key Points: • There is a distinction between the case of property thus placed by the owner and neglected to be removed. • A finder of property acquires no rights in mislaid property, is entitled to possession of lost property against everyone except the true owner, and is entitled to keep abandoned property. • Reasonable person could retrace steps in recovering mislaid property. |
|
Van Valkenburgh v. Lutz
|
Issue: Can one claim adverse possession to an easement used to travel to and from his property as a result of the length of time he had tended to and built on the property in dispute.
Rule: To acquire title to real property by adverse possession, it must be shown by clear and convincing proof that there was an “actual” occupation under the claim of title, for it is only the premises so actually occupied “and no others” that are deemed to be held adversely. Key Points: • Essential elements of proof being either that the premises (1) are protected by a substantial inclosure, or are (2) usually cultivated or improved • Dissent: Once title has vested by virtue of adverse possession, it is elementary that it may be divested, no by an oral disclaimer, but only by a transfer complying with the formalities prescribed by law. Hence, an oral acknowledgement of title in another, made after the statutory period is alleged to have run, “is only evidence tending to show the character of the previous possession.” o That Lutz knew that he did not have record title to the property- a circumstance relied upon by the court- is of no consequence so long as he intended, notwithstanding the fact, to acquire and use the property as his own |
|
Mannillo v. Gorski
|
Issue: Can one adversely possess property if she did not knowingly wrongfully take the property?
Rule: A minor encroachment under mistaken belief does not constitute adverse possession. Key Points: • Maine Doctrine- there must be an intentional encroachment in order to adversely possess. |
|
Howard v. Kunto
|
Issue: Can Kuntos claim adverse possession to property under the mistaken belief that he and his predecessors had title to for the past 10 years?
Rule: Tacking on successive possessions of property is permitted for purposes of establishing adverse possession if the successive owners are in privity. Key Points: • Tacking- Adding periods of time together (there must be privity of estate) • Privity of Estate- Voluntary transfer from first adverse possessor to secondary adverse possessor. • If there is not voluntary transfer between the parties, there is not voluntary transfer, then there is not continuous uninterrupted possession. |
|
O'Keefe v. Snyder
|
Issue: Did Georgia O’Keefe exercise sufficient due diligence in attempting to recover her stolen paintings to evoke the discovery rule?
Rule: The statute of limitations is suspended if the owner of the property makes a diligent effort in locating the property Key Points: • Owner should notify when the loss happens or when the loss is discovered • This focuses on the owner’s due diligence. • Discovery Rule- A cause of action will not accrue until the injured party discovers, or by exercise of reasonable diligence and intelligence should have discovered, facts which form the basis of a cause of action |
|
Newman v Bost
|
Issue: Can Newman claim possession to property given to her as a gift by an intestate if there was no actual delivery of the property?
Rule: To constitute a donatio causa mortis, two things are indispensibly necessary: an intention to make the gift, and a delivery of the thing given Key Points: • The intention to make the gift need not be announced by the donor in express terms, but may be inferred from the facts attending the delivery, and it must always be clear that he knew what he was doing. • If manual delivery is not practicable because of size or weight of the object, or its inaccessibility, constructive or symbolic delivery may be permitted. (physical delivery is impossible or impractical. o Constructive- handing over a key or some object that will open up access to the subject matter of a gift o Symbolic- handing over something symbolic of the property given, i.e., a written instrument declaring a gift as the subject matter. |
|
Gruen v. Gruen
|
Issue: Did the deceased make a valid inter vivos gift of the painting to his son when he never physically delivered the painting?
Rule: To make a valid inter vivos gift, there must exist the intent on the part of the donor to make a present transfer; delivery of the gift either actual or constructive to the donee; and acceptance by the donee. Key Points: • There was manifested intent in letters and conversation; His son told his friends about the painting and saved the letters from his father • There was delivery by means of the language in the letters • There was acceptance by saving the letters and discussing them with his friends. |
|
White v. Brown
|
INSTANT FACTS Jessie Lide died leaving a will stating ‘‘I wish Evelyn White (P) to have my home to live in and not to be soldTTTT My house is not to be sold.’’
Issue: Unless a contrary intention appears by the terms of the will and its context, does a will convey a testator’s entire interest? BLACK LETTER RULE Unless a contrary in- tention appears by the terms of the will and its context, a will conveys a testator’s entire interest. |
|
Baker v. Weedon
|
INSTANT FACTS John Weedon left a life
estate to Weedon (P) and a remainder to the Bakers (D). Weedon (D) wishes to sale the land now to reap its value; Baker (P) wishes to retain ownership of the land to allow its value to in- crease. Issue: Shall a trial court order a judicial sale only if it is in the best interest of all parties? BLACK LETTER RULE A trial court shall order a judicial sale only if it is in the best interest of both the freehold tenant and the holder of the future interest. |
|
Woodrick v. Wood
|
ADD
|
|
Mahrenholz v. County Board of School Trustees
|
INSTANT FACTS The Huttons conveyed land
to the School Board (D) ‘‘to be used for school purposes only.’’ Subsequently, the school used the land for storage. Issue: Does language such as ‘‘to be used for school purposes only’’ create a fee simple determinable? BLACK LETTER RULE Language such as ‘‘to be used for school purposes only’’ creates a fee simple determinable. |
|
Mountain Brow lodge No. 82 v. Toscano
|
INSTANT FACTS A deed provided that a lot
shall revert back to the grantor if the grantee, a lodge (P), either failed to use the lot or attempted to sell it. ISSUE: May the use of land be restricted in a conveyance? BLACK LETTER RULE The use of land may be restricted in a conveyance. |
|
Ink v. City of Canton
|
INSTANT FACTS The descendants of Harry
Ink conveyed to The City of Canton (P) land to be used for park purposes only. Subsequently, the state of Ohio instituted eminent domain pro- ceedings against the land. Issue: ISSUE Should the proceeds from an eminent domain proceeding be divided between the holder of the fee simple on condition subsequent and the holder of the reverter? BLACK LETTER RULE The proceeds from an eminent domain proceeding are to be divided between the holder of the fee simple on condi- tion subsequent and the holder of the reverter. |
|
|
City of Palm Springs v. Living Desert Reserve
|
ADD
|
|
|
Broadway National Bank v. Adams
|
ADD
|
|
Symphony Space Inc. v. Pergola Properties
|
INSTANT FACTS A property owner filed a
declaratory judgment action when the holder of a buy-back option notified the owner of its intent to buy back the property covered by the agree- ment. Issue: Are options to purchase commercial property exempt from the Rule against Perpetuities and its prohibition of remote vesting? BLACK LETTER RULE There is no exception to the Rule Against Perpetuities for commercial option agreements. |
|
Riddle v. Harmon
|
INSTANT FACTS Mrs. Riddle did not want her
husband to get their land automatically when she died, so she tried to sever the joint tenancy without him. ISSUE Issue: Can a joint tenant unilaterally sever a joint tenancy without the use of an intermediary by conveying his or her interest to himself or herself? BLACK LETTER RULE A joint tenant can unilaterally sever a joint tenancy without the use of an intermediating third party by conveying his or her property interest to himself or herself. Holding: A JOINT TENANT MAY SEVER A JOINT TENANCY BY CONVEYING HIS OR HER INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY TO HIMSELF OR HERSELF WITHOUT THE USE OF A THIRD PERSON ‘‘STRAWMAN’’ |
|
Harms v. Sprague
|
INSTANT FACTS As a favor to Sprague, John
mortgaged his and William’s land, without telling William, and later devised everything to Sprague when he died. Issue: ISSUE (1) Is a joint tenancy severed when one joint tenant mortgages his or her interest in the property? (2) Does such a mortgage become a lien on the property after the death of the mortgagor? BLACK LETTER RULE A mortgage does not sever a joint tenancy, and the surviving joint tenant takes the interest of a deceased joint tenant without being encumbered by the mort- gage. Holding: A MORTGAGE GRANTED BY ONE JOINT TENANT DOES NOT SEVER THE JOINT TENANCY AND DOES NOT SURVIVE THE DEATH OF THE MORTGAGOR AS A LIEN ON THE PROPERTY |
|
Delfino v. Vealencis
|
INSTANT FACTS The Delfinos owned 99/144
of the property and wanted a residential develop- ment, while Vealencis owned 45/144 and wanted to keep her garbage business on it. ISSUE Can a partition by sale be ordered when a physical partition is possible, and a partition by sale would protect the interests of the owner of a larger share of the property over the owner of the other share? BLACK LETTER RULE A partition by sale should only be ordered if the physical attributes of the land in question are such that a partition is impracticable or inequitable, and the interests of the owners would be promoted by a partition by sale. Holding: WHERE THE HOME AND GARBAGE BUSINESS OF A TENANT IN COMMON ARE LOCATED ON CONCURRENTLY OWNED PROPERTY, A PARTITION BY SALE CANNOT BE ORDERED AS IT WOULD NOT BE IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF ALL PARTIES INVOLVED |
|
Spiller v. Mackereth
|
INSTANT FACTS After another tenant vacated
their building, Spiller used it as a warehouse, and Mackereth demanded he pay rent or vacate half of the building. Issue: ISSUE Is a cotenant in possession of property liable to other cotenants for rent when there is no evidence the cotenant in possession has done anything to exclude the other cotenant from the property? BLACK LETTER RULE In the absence of an agreement to pay rent, a cotenant in possession is not liable to his or her cotenants for the value of his or her use and occupation of the property unless there is ouster of a cotenant. Holding: WHERE NO AGREEMENT EXISTS BETWEEN COTENANT TO PAY RENT, A COTENANT IN POSSESSION IS NOT LIABLE FOR RENT TO OTHER COTENANT UNLESS OUSTER IS ESTABLISHED |
|
Swartzbaugh v. Sampson
|
INSTANT FACTS Mr. Swartzbaugh leased part
of some land for a boxing pavilion, but Mrs. Swartzbaugh, the joint tenant, never signed the lease and wants to cancel it. Issue: Can one joint tenant, who has not joined in the leases executed by a cotenant and a lessee in exclusive possession of the leased property, maintain an action to cancel the leases? BLACK LETTER RULE A joint tenant, during the existence of a joint estate, has the right to convey or mortgage his or her interest in the property, even if the other joint tenant objects. Holding: EACH TENANT IN A JOINT TENANCY HAS THE RIGHT TO POSSESSION OF THE WHOLE PROPERTY, AND THUS CAN LEASE OUT OR TRANSFER HIS OR HER RIGHT TO OCCUPY OR USE AS HE OR SHE SEES FIT |
|
Sawada v. Endo
|
INSTANT FACTS Kokichi and Ume Endo con-
veyed their property to their sons the same day that Kokichi got into an auto accident that injured the Sawadas. Issue: Is the interest of one spouse in real property, held in tenancy by the entireties, subject to levy and execution by his or her creditors? BLACK LETTER RULE An estate by the en- tirety is not subject to the claims of creditors of only one of the spouses because neither spouse acting alone can transfer his or her interest. Holding: THE CONVEYANCE OF MARITAL PROPERTY BY A HUSBAND AND WIFE TO THEIR SONS DID NOT DEFRAUD THE HUSBAND’S JUDGMENT CREDITORS BECAUSE A TENANCY BY THE ENTIRETY IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE CREDITORS OF ONE SPOUSE |
|
In re Marriage Graham
|
INSTANT FACTS Flight attendant supports husband through business school, covering seventy percent of their expenses, and after he graduates they get a divorce.
Issue: Does a person’s education constitute property which can be divided between spouses in the event of a divorce? BLACK LETTER RULE An educational degree is not property, and therefore is not subject to division upon divorce. Holding: A MASTER’S DEGREE IN BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION AND THE INCREASED EARNING POWER IT PROVIDES DO NOT CONSTITUTE MARITAL PROPERTY AND THUS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO DIVISION UPON DIVORCE |
|
Elkus v. Elkus
|
INSTANT FACTS Beginning opera singer mar-
ries a voice coach, and after her career skyrock- ets while he coaches her during marriage, he wants his share upon divorce. Issue: Does an increase in the value of one spouse’s career, when brought about by the efforts of the other spouse, constitute marital property which can be equitably divided? BLACK LETTER RULE An increase in the value of one spouse’s career, when it is the result of the efforts of the other spouse, consti- tutes marital property and is thus subject to equitable distribution. Holding: AN INCREASE IN THE VALUE OF ONE SPOUSE’S CAREER, WHEN BROUGHT ABOUT BY THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE OTHER SPOUSE, CONSTITUTES MARITAL PROPERTY |
|
|
Varnum v. Brien
|
ADD
|
|
Garner v. Gerrish
|
INSTANT FACTS Donovan leased house to Gerrish (D) for as long as Gerrish (D) wished.
ISSUE: If a lessee may terminate a lease when he pleases, is a determinable life tenancy created? BLACK LETTER RULE If a lessee has the option of terminating a lease when he pleases, a determinable life tenancy is created. Holding: COURT REVERSES OLD COMMON LAW AND ALLOWS PARTIES TO CREATE A DETERMINABLE LIFE TENANCY |
|
Hannan v. Dusch
|
INSTANT FACTS When Hannan’s (P) lease was to begin, Dusch (D) failed to evict a holdover tenant.
BLACK LETTER RULE A landlord only has a duty to deliver the right to possession of the premises to a tenant, not actual possession. Issue: Must the landlord deliver actual possession to the tenant? Holding: COURT RULES THAT A LANDLORD NEED NOT PLACE A TENANT IN POSSESSION; THE LANDLORD NEED ONLY GIVE A RIGHT OF POSSESSION. |
|
Ernst v. Conditt
|
INSTANT FACTS Rogers, the original lessee, transferred his interest to Conditt (D).
Issue: In determining whether an assignment or a subleasing has occurred, must the court look to the intentions of the parties? BLACK LETTER RULE In determining whether an assignment or a sub-leasing has occurred, the court looks to the intentions of the parties. Holding: COURT APPLIES CONTRACT LAW IN LEASE AGREEMENT: IN DETERMINING WHETHER AN AS- SIGNMENT OR A SUB-LEASE HAS OCCURRED, THE COURT WILL LOOK TO THE INTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES |
|
Kendall v. Ernest Pestana, Inc.
|
INSTANT FACTS Ernest Pestana (D) demanded increased rent in exchange for consent to assign a lease.
ISSUE: May a lessor unreasonably and arbitrarily withhold his or her consent to an assignment? BLACK LETTER RULE A lessor may not unreasonably and arbitrarily withhold his or her consent to an assignment. Holding: LESSOR MUST ACT REASONABLY: A LESSOR MAY NOT ARBITRARILY WITHHOLD CONSENT TO AN ASSIGNMENT |
|
Berg v. Wiley
|
INSTANT FACTS Wiley (D) changed the locks on property that he leased to Berg (P).
ISSUE: May a landowner use self-help to retake possession of his property? BLACK LETTER RULE A landlord may not use self-help to regain possession of his land. Holding: LANDLORD MAY NOT USE SELF-HELP TO EVICT TENANT |
|
Sommer v. Kridel
|
INSTANT FACTS Sommer (P) failed to make efforts to re-let an apartment when Kridel (D) abandoned it.
Issue: Is a landlord under a duty to mitigate damages by making reasonable efforts to re-let an apartment wrongfully vacated by the tenant? BLACK LETTER RULE A landlord is under a duty to mitigate damages by making reasonable efforts to re-let an apartment wrongfully vacated by the tenant. Holding: LANDLORD NOW HAS DUTY TO MITIGATE DAMAGES |
|
Reste Realty Corp v. Cooper
|
INSTANT FACTS Whenever it rained, the basement that Cooper (D) was leasing flooded.
Issue: May a tenant vacate premises and terminate the lease if his quiet enjoyment is interfered with by the landlord? BLACK LETTER RULE A tenant may vacate premises and terminate the lease if his quiet enjoyment is interfered with by the landlord. Holding: A TENANT MAY VACATE PREMISES AND TERMI- NATE THE LEASE IF HIS QUIET ENJOYMENT IS INTERFERED WITH BY THE LANDLORD |
|
Hilder v. St Peter
|
INSTANT FACTS St. Peter (D) leased an apartment unfit for habitability to Hilder (P). Though Hilder (P) informed St. Peter (D) of these defects, he failed to remedy them.
BLACK LETTER RULE There is an implied warranty of habitability in every residential lease. ISSUE: Is there an implied warranty of habitability in every residential lease? Holding: THERE IS AN IMPLIED COVENANT OF HABITABILITY IN EVERY LEASE |
|
Chicago Board of Realtors, Inc v. City of Chicago
|
INSTANT FACTS Chicago enacted a rent control ordinance which made minor re-allocations of rights between landlords and tenants.
Issue: Is a rent control ordinance which makes minor re-allocations of rights between landlords and tenants reasonably related to a legitimate public goal? BLACK LETTER RULE A rent control ordinance which makes minor re-allocations of rights between landlords and tenants is reasonably related to a legitimate public goal. Holding: COURT UPHOLDS RENT ORDINANCE, BUT IS NOT HAPPY ABOUT IT |
|
Willard v. First Church of jesus Christ, Scientist
|
INSTANT FACTS McGuigan sold Petersen a lot with an easement allowing nearby churchgoers to park on it, but Petersen sold it to Willardwithout mentioning the easement.
ISSUE: Can a property owner, in granting his or her property to a second person, reserve an easement in the property for a third person? BLACK LETTER RULE A grantor can reserve an easement in property for a person other than the grantee. Holding: AN EASEMENT CAN BE CREATED IN FAVOR A THIRD PERSON BY RESERVATION |
|
Holbrook v. Taylor
|
INSTANT FACTS Holbrook tried to block off a road on his property after Taylor used it extensively while building a tenant house for himself.
ISSUE Can an easement be established by estoppel, or reliance? BLACK LETTER RULE A license cannot be revoked after the licensee has erected improvements on the land at considerable expense while relying on the license. Holding: A LICENSE IS IRREVOCABLE ONCE THE LICENSEE HAS RELIED ON THE LICENSE TO HIS OR HER EXPENSE OR DETRIMENT |
|
|
Henry v. Dalton
|
ADD
|
|
Van Sandt v. Royster
|
INSTANT FACTS Van Sandt claimed he never granted an easement for a sewer drain which connected his house to two others and flooded his basement.
Issue: Can an easement be created by implication when it was used by a previous owner, yet was not readily visible to a party to the conveyance of the property? BLACK LETTER RULE The implication of an easement will depend on the circumstances under which the conveyance of land was made, including the extent to which the manner of prior use was or might have been known by the parties; each party will be assumed to know about reasonably necessary uses which are apparent upon reasonably prudent investigation; an easement may be implied for a grantor or grantee on the basis of necessity alone. Holding: AN EASEMENT CAN BE IMPLIED FROM THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE CONVEYANCE OF THE LAND, INCLUDING THE PRIOR USE OF THE LAND |
|
Othen v. Rosier
|
INSTANT FACTS Othen used a roadway on Rosier’s property to access the public highway, but Rosier later built a levee which made the road impassable for Othen.
Issue: AN EASEMENT CAN BE IMPLIED FROM NECESSITY BASED ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES, OR BY PRESCRIPTION IF THE USE WAS ADVERSE BLACK LETTER RULE An easement can be created by implied reservation only when it is shown that there was unity of ownership between the alleged dominant and servient estates, that the easement is a necessity and not a convenience, and that the necessity existed at the time the two estates were severed; an easement by prescription can only be acquired if the use of the easement was adverse. Holding: AN EASEMENT CAN BE IMPLIED FROM NECESSITY BASED ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES, OR BY PRESCRIPTION IF THE USE WAS ADVERSE |
|
Raleigh Avenue Beach Assn. v. Atlantis Beach Club
|
ADD
|
|
Miller v. Lutheran Conference & Camp Association
|
INSTANT FACTS Rufus Miller’s executors licensed the Association to use the lake without referring to Frank Miller, who owned three-fourths of the interests in such rights.
ISSUE Can one of two owners of an easement in gross grant a license to another party independently of the other owner? BLACK LETTER RULE When two or more persons own an easement in gross, the easement must be used as ‘‘one stock,’’ meaning that any actions involving the easement must be made with common consent of all the owners. Holding: AN EASEMENT IN GROSS CAN ONLY BE USED OR TRANSFERRED AS ‘‘ONE STOCK,’’ WITH THE CONSENT OF ALL COMMON OWNERS |
|
Brown v. Voss
|
INSTANT FACTS Voss (D) blocked off a private road easement for parcel B after Brown (P) started building a house that would sit on both parcels B and C.
ISSUE Can the holder of a private easement use it to access a parcel of land that is not the dominant estate when there will be no increased burden on the servient estate? BLACK LETTER RULE If an easement benefits its owner in the use of a particular parcel of land, any extension of the easement to other parcels is a misuse of the easement. Holding: AN EASEMENT WHICH IS APPURTENANT TO ONE PARCEL OF LAND CANNOT BE EXTENDED TO BENEFIT ANOTHER PARCEL |
|
Preseault v. United States
|
INSTANT FACTS Property owners sued the Government for an unauthorized taking after the Government authorized the conversion of an abandoned railroad easement into a nature trail across the owners’ property.
ISSUE (1) Does governmental use of land that goes beyond the scope of an easement constitute a ‘‘taking’’ of the servient estate? (2) Is an easement terminated by mere nonuse? BLACK LETTER RULE An easement is terminated by abandonment when nonuse is coupled with an act manifesting either a present intent to relinquish the easement or a purpose inconsistent with its future existence. Holding: CONVERSION OF ABANDONED RAILROAD EASEMENT INTO PUBLIC NATURE TRAIL CONSTITUTES UNAUTHORIZED TAKING OF SERVIENT ESTATE |
|
Tulk v. Moxhay
|
INSTANT FACTS Tulk had a covenant which required maintenance of a garden on some land, but Moxhay later tried to put buildings on it after
buying it. ISSUE Is a covenant enforceable against a purchaser of land when that purchaser acquired the land with knowledge of the covenant? BLACK LETTER RULE A covenant will be enforceable in equity against a person who purchases land with notice of the covenant. HOLDING: ENGLAND COURT OF CHANCERY HOLDS THAT IT WOULD BE INEQUITABLE FOR A COVENANT THAT IS ENFORCEABLE AGAINST A SELLER OF LAND TO BE UNENFORCEABLE AGAINST A PERSON WHO PURCHASES THE LAND WITH NOTICE OF THE COVENANT |
|
Sanborn v. McLean
|
INSTANT FACTS The McLeans tried to build a gas station on their lot in a residential district, but were enjoined from doing so by their neighbors.
ISSUE Can a restriction on the use of property be implied on a lot purchased in a subdivision when the restriction is not contained in the deed, but is contained in the deeds of other lots in the subdivision that were previously sold? BLACK LETTER RULE An equitable servitude can be implied on a lot, even when the servitude is not created by a written instrument, if there is a scheme for development of a residential subdivision and the purchaser of the lot has notice of it. Holding WHERE A PROPERTY OWNER SELLS OFF LOTS BY DEEDS CONTAINING COVENANTS MEANT TO CARRY OUT A SCHEME OF A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, AND A LOT PURCHASER HAS NOTICE OF THOSE COVENANTS, THAT PURCHASER IS BARRED FROM BUILDING A GAS STATION ON HIS LOT BY AN IMPLIED COVENANT |
|
Neponsit Property Owners' Association v. Emigrant Industrial Savings Bank
|
INSTANT FACTS Emigrant Bank took title to land previously deeded by Neponsit Realty, and the Neponsit Association tried to foreclose a lien contained in the earlier deed.
ISSUE Does a covenant to pay money for maintenance done in connection with, but not actually on, an area of land touch and concern the land and thus become enforceable against subsequent purchasers? BLACK LETTER RULE An affirmative covenant to pay money for improvements or maintenance done in connection with, but not upon the land which is to be subject to the burden of the covenant does touch and concern the land, and a homeowners’ association, as the agent of the actual owners of the property, can rightfully enforce the covenant. Holding A COVENANT REQUIRING MEMBERS OF A RESI- DENTIAL COMMUNITY TO PAY A MAXIMUM FOUR-DOLLAR-PER-YEAR CHARGE FOR MAINTENANCE OF PUBLIC AREAS IS ONE THAT TOUCHES AND CONCERNS THE LAND, AND THEIR PROPERTY OWNERS’ ASSOCIATION HAS THE RIGHT TO ENFORCE THE COVENANT |
|
Shelley v. Kraemer
|
INSTANT FACTS A black couple was buying a house while unaware of a racially based restrictive covenant on that street; the white homeowners tried to stop them.
ISSUE Can a restrictive covenant based on race be judicially enforced? BLACK LETTER RULE Judicial enforcement of a restrictive covenant based on race constitutes discriminatory state action, and is thus forbidden by the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. Holding WHERE MISSOURI SUPREME COURT ENFORCED A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT WHICH BARRED NON-WHITES FROM OCCUPYING PROPERTY, ITS ACT CONSTITUTED DISCRIMINATORY STATE ACTION AND WAS BARRED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION |
|
Western Land Co. v. Truskolaski
|
INSTANT FACTS Homeowners want to prevent a shopping center from being built in their subdivision, even though the surrounding area has become more crowded and more commercialized.
ISSUE Can a restrictive covenant for a residential subdivision be terminated when the nature of the surrounding area has changed and the homeowners within the subdivision still value the residential nature of the subdivision? BLACK LETTER RULE A restrictive covenant establishing a residential subdivision cannot be terminated as long as the residential character of the subdivision has not been adversely affected by the surrounding area, and it is of real and substantial value to the landowners within the subdivision. Holding WHERE A COMPANY WISHED TO BUILD A SHOPPING CENTER IN A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION AFTER THE SURROUNDING AREA BECAME INCREASING- LY COMMERCIAL, THE RESIDENTIAL COVENANT COULD BE ENFORCED BECAUSE IT WAS STILL OF SUBSTANTIAL VALUE TO THE HOMEOWNERS |
|
Rick v. West
|
INSTANT FACTS West bought land from Rick under a restrictive covenant, and refused to release the covenant when Rick attempted to sell similar land to a hospital.
ISSUE Is a restrictive covenant still enforceable when only one landowner in a subdivision refuses to consent to the release of the covenant? BLACK LETTER RULE A landowner in a subdivision under a restrictive covenant has the right to insist upon adherence to the covenant even when the other owners consent to its release. Holding WHERE NEIGHBORING LANDOWNERS ATTEMPTED TO SELL LAND IN THEIR RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION TO A HOSPITAL AND ONLY ONE LANDOWNER DID NOT WISH TO RELEASE THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT, THE LOT OWNER HAS THE RIGHT TO INSIST UPON ADHERENCE TO THE COVENANT |
|
Pocono Springs Civic Association, Inc. v. MacKenzie
|
INSTANT FACTS The owners of a vacant lot in a housing development attempted to abandon the lot in order to avoid having to pay association fees.
ISSUE Can property be considered ‘‘abandoned’’ even though the owner still possesses perfect title? BLACK LETTER RULE A covenant running with the land cannot be terminated by abandonment when the owner still holds title in fee simple absolute. Holding COVENANT CONTINUES TO RUN WITH LAND DESPITE INTENT TO ABANDON |
|
Nahrstedt v. Lakeside Village Condominium Assn, Inc
|
INSTANT FACTS Nahrstedt wants to continue living with her three cats in her condominium, in violation of the recorded covenants, conditions and restrictions governing the condominium.
ISSUE Can a condominium association’s enforcement of a restriction on pets be considered reasonable by a court without hearing evidence on the circumstances of the homeowner challenging the restriction? BLACK LETTER RULE The enforceability of restrictions on the ownership and possession of pets should be decided in a trial court after evidence is heard as to whether the restriction was reasonable as applied to the particular facts of a case. Holding WHERE A CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION LEVIED FINES AGAINST A UNIT OWNER FOR VIOLATING A RESTRICTION AGAINST ANIMALS IN HER UNIT, SUCH A BLANKET PET RESTRICTION WAS OVERLY BROAD AND THUS WAS UNREASONABLE |
|
|
40 West 67th Street Corp v. Pullman
|
ADD
|
|
|
Mulligan v. Panther Valley Property Owners Assn.
|
ADD
|
|
|
South Staffordshire Water Co. v. Sharman
|
o Defendants found two rings embedded in the mud while cleaning out a pool of water on the Plaintiff’s land.
o The court held that the possession of land carries with it, in general, possession of everything that is attached to or under that land, and in the absence of a better title elsewhere, it makes no difference that the possessor is not aware of the thing’s existence. |
|
|
• Cites Elwes v. Brigg Gas Co.
|
o Land was demised to gas company for 99 years with a reservation to lessor of all mines and minerals.
o Pre-historic ship was discovered by lessee when they were digging to make a gas holder. o The court held that the boat, whether regarded as mineral or as a part of the soil in which it was embedded when discovered, or as a chattel, and did not pass to the lessees by demise, but was the property of the lessor, even though he was unaware of its existence at the time. |
