BLL essentials

Question 1

US bank v. Ibanex

Answer 1

foreclosure is void

Question 2

Baskurt V. Beal

Answer 2

grossly inadequate

Question 3

village of euclid

Answer 3

zoning ordance

constitutional: general health, safety, moral and welfare of community

Question 4

town of bellevile v. perollies

Answer 4

non-conforming change

cannot expand outside footprint

Question 5

bellingham

Answer 5

zoning amendment:

presumtivley valid if serves public purpose

Question 6

NAACP v. Mt Laural

Answer 6

presumtivley contrary to general welfare

Question 7

issaquah

Answer 7

ordinacnes clear and objective

Question 8

tee hit ton

Answer 8

recognized by congress

Question 9

penn central

Answer 9

economic impact, investmetn backed expectation, nature of gove action

Question 10

lucas

Answer 10

economically beneficial use

Question 11

babitt

Answer 11

restricting land bequeathed w/o compensation

Question 12

grimes

Answer 12

cannot waste water, appurtenant, best guess

Question 13

westchester day school

Answer 13

RLU IPA, substantial burden, compelling govt issue, narrowly tailored

substantial burden if: forces modification to religious practice, prevents from enganing in core religous exercise; or effectivley bars or severly inhibits the institutions mission.

Question 14

Kelo

Answer 14

comprehensive plan serves a public purpose

Question 15

sabastian v. floyd

Answer 15

if treated like a mortgage, then its a judicial foreclosure

this is about using a forfieture strategy to cut off right of redemption

Question 16

keonig v. van raken

Answer 16

• She applies in equity to declare this K a equitable mortgage.
  § Intent of the party
  - Like the last case there is not lien,
  § Humans are always trying to mitigate the downside
  □ Do we superimpose the legal framework of a mortgage onto this K
• the court converted the deed into an equitable mortgage
• they intended this to be a loan

Question 17

bethany beach

Answer 17

changed conditions = not substantial benefit

Question 18

blakely v. gorin

Answer 18

covenants cannot be stretched beyond what is reasonable

Question 19

burns v. mccormick

Answer 19

performance needs to be unequivolcallu refferable ot a written agreement

Question 20

hurtiboise

Answer 20

estoppel

Question 21

johnson

Answer 21

nondisclosure

Question 22

granite properties

Answer 22

extent of previous use strenthens argument for necessity

Question 23

finn v. williams

Answer 23

dormant easement

Question 24

neponsite

Answer 24

PUPE: touch and concerm

Question 25

in re ward

Answer 25

valid deed and deliver, 2 parts 1. granter must place deen w/in control of grantee 2. w/intention that instrument beceomes operative as a conveyance

Question 26

horvath

Answer 26

outside the chain of title

Question 27

brock v. yale

Answer 27

no title transer with forged document

Question 28

mccoy v. love

Answer 28

title can transfer to bonafire purchases with fraud doucment

Question 29

davidson brothers

Answer 29

8 part test/ negative covenant must 1. reasoanble time, not resctrictiv, espress, public policy, changed cricumstance, , viable purpose, consideration, notice , restraind and monopole.

Question 31

westchester part 2

Answer 31

compelling interest, **not mere general concerns,** traffic parking and neighborhood character do not usually rise of a compelling interest unless specific evidecne whoing a **serious imminent threat** | traffic mittigation: times use restrictions and traffic mitigation

Question 32

westchester part 3

Answer 32

religous animud may support a seperate claim under RLUIPA equal term provisions

Question 33

penn factors applied to keystone coal

Answer 33

Key Penn Central Factors Applied: Economic impact: Limited; the company still had profitable use of most of the coal. Investment-backed expectations: **Reasonable regulation of a dangerous activity.** Character of government action: **Public safety regulation.**

Question 34

concrete pipe

Answer 34

Reasoning: There was no physical appropriation or permanent occupation of property. The law imposed a financial obligation, not the taking of specific property. The company voluntarily entered into a regulated industry and was on notice of its obligations. The Penn Central factors weighed against a taking. Key Penn Central Factors Applied: Economic impact: The company could still operate; the financial burden was not ruinous. Investment-backed expectations: Participation in a regulated pension plan included risks and statutory obligations. Character of government action: A general financial obligation for a broader public purpose, not a specific physical seizure.

Question 35

penn central analysis

Answer 35

Penn central analysis: - economic impact does some viability remain - Investment backed expectation. Was the zoning rule prior to the purchase thus the expectation unreasonable or did the zoning rule come in after property was acquired. - Character of government action is important if it's a physical invasion or a general public regulation. If we're a public purpose the law applies generally and cannot single someone out.