black letter law Flashcards
(22 cards)
US bank v. Ibanez
**a foreclosing party must hold both the mortgage and the **promissory note **at the time of the foreclosure sale; otherwise the foreclouser is void.
balance: the need for an orderly mortgage market v/ protection of homeowners
Baskurt v. beal
a non-judicial foreclosure sale may be set aside if the sale price is** grossely inadequate** less than 20%
or greather than 20% combined and there is fraud, unfairness or denial of due process
balance Cr’s rights v. constutional protecion of owership + fairness
externalities: potential windfall exploiter of distressed sale and confidence of foreclosure procedures
village of euclid v. ambler realty
farm land was in multiple different zones thus lowering its value
zoning ordinances are constitutional if they are related to public health, safety or general welfare
ext: urban sprawl, traffic, neighborhood stability
balance: private property v. public need for orderly development
town of belleville v. parilloas
strip club
non-conforming uses may not be expanded or be materially changed
ext: noise, traffic disruption of residential live
balance: continuation of existing use vs. impact on residential characher
Durand v. IDC bellingham
powerplant contract zoning case
zoning amendments are presumed valid if they serve a** legitimate public purpose**
job creation, energy needs, enviromental impact
private benefit v. community wide economic and environment interest
Krummenacher v. Minnetonka
non-conforming garage
variances require a showing of
aesthetic consistency, zoning erosion and fairness to others
Balance: homeowner preferences v. maintaining zoning integrity and precedent
southern burlington NAACP v. Mt laural
Takeaway: zoning that excludes low income people from housing whether intentional or not is presumtivlely contrary to the genearl welfare of the community
Enternalities: rural and exonomic exclustion, urban inequality
Balance: locan zoning discretion v. low and moderate -income housing
Anderson v. city of Issaquah
zoning ordinances must contain clear, objective standards or they are void for vagueness
ext: arbitrary permitting, chilling of development, fairness
Balance: aesthetic regulation v. due process and predictibility
Tee-Hit-Ton Indians
No compensation is required for taking of aboriginal title unless recognized by congress
ext: lack of formal title, potential disruption of land use authority
nature of tribla land claims v. need for federal resounce use
Penn Central
regulatory takings are assessed using a multiple factor balancing test: 1. economic impact, 2. investment backed expections and 3. charachter of the govenrment action
urban planning, preservving cultural landmarks
economic loss v. historic preservation
lucas v. south carolina coastal council
A regulation that deprives land of all economically beneficial use is a per se taking requireing compensation
beachfront conservation, flood control, ecological protection
balance: total loss of property v. environmental goals
Babitt v. youpee
Babbitt v. youpee
A Statute that abrogates inheritance rights without compensation constitues a per se taking
It is unconstitutional to severely restrict the way land is bequeathed without compensation.
admin. burden of fractional land titles, intergenerational equality
Balance: fractional land interests v. protection of vested property rights
state department of ecology v. grimes
water rights exist only to the extent that water is bring aplplied for beneficial use. a claiment is only entitled to water that is put to actual and beneficial use.
Rule: Water rights are property rights, and are appurtenant. However, you can’t waste
water. In determining how much water is needed (and therefore rightful),** a
generous guess is OK.**
sustaniable managemetn of scarce water resources, prevent horfing of H2O
balance: private expectation v. proven historical use, beneficial use v. waste prevention
Westchester Day School
under RLUIPA, zoning regulations that impose a “substantial burden” on religious exercise msut be justified be a** compelling govt interest **and must be the least restrictive means of achieving that interest
balance between freedom of religion v. Local land control
Kelo v. City of new london
The government’s use of eminent domain to take private property for economic development constitutes a “public use” under the Fifth Amendment, so long as the taking is part of a comprehensive plan serving a public purpose.
It’s not enough for the government to say:
“We care about traffic, safety, or preserving community character.”
It has to prove:
“Denying this school’s expansion is necessary to avoid serious harm that cannot be avoided any other way.”
Sebastian v. Floyd (1979)
In installment land sale contracts, the seller’s interest is treated as a lien, similar to a mortgage. Upon the buyer’s default, the seller must pursue** judicial foreclosure** rather than enforcing a forfeiture clause to retain payments made.
koenig v. van reken
Takeaways - Koenig v. Van Reken
- Is it a mortgage? Look to intent of the parties (she didn’t want to ‘sell’ her home)
- Financial condition of buyer + inadequacy of purchase price = mortgage
this lady was cheated out of her house
Bethany beach
Changed conditions doctrine: Covenants will not be enforced of conditions have
changed so drastically inside the neighborhood restricted by the covenants that
enforcement will be of “no substantial benefit” to the dominant estates.
Blakely v. Gorin - Takeaways
- Original purpose might not be **stretched beyond what is reasonable **
- Concerns about efficiency/tax base might come into play
covenant
Burns v. McCormick - Takeaways
Burns v. McCormick - Takeaways
- Real estate conveyance must satisfy the statute of frauds. HOWEVER, there
is a part performance exception. What does part performance need to look
like in order to overcome the presumption that SOF will be satisfied? - Part performance must be “unequivocally referable” to agreement
- The law does not compel halsey to keep his promise. He made a will before
the promise. The law needs a writing
Hurtubise - Takeaways
guy how added on to yard
Hurtubise - Takeaways
- Here, we are arguing estoppel.
- Such an agreement “may be specifically enforced notwithstanding failure to comply with the Statute of Frauds if it is established
that the party seeking enforcement, in reasonable reliance on the contract and on the continuing assent of the party against whom
enforcement is sought, has so changed his position that injustice can be avoided only by specific enforcement.” - “However, a contract is not to be held unenforceable ‘if, when applied to the transaction and construed in the light of the attending
circumstances,’ the meaning can be ascertained with reasonable certainty.”
johnson v. davis
-Fair disclosure of all
material facts needed.
-Duty to disclose:
I. Known facts
II. That are material to the
sale, and
III. are not within reach of
the diligent attention of the
buyer.
