Property Flashcards Preview

Property > Property > Flashcards

Flashcards in Property Deck (359):
1

2

AP: special rule re gvt

can't AP vs gvt

3

if AP doesn't work out: other ways to get property from someone in a boundary dispute

--oral agreement --acquiesence --estoppel --laches

4

Romero v. Garcia

F: P bought land 30 yrs ago from parents in law, but only one of them signed deed, both supposed to H: P keeps the land--lack of signature dnm deed insufficient for color of title. . Physical descritption of land suficient.

5

AP: claim of right

you just establish yourself and dnh color of title

6

AP: adverse or hostile: nonpermission -- exception

exception to the PRESUMED non-permission: permission given at some point in the past, continues until revoked

7

AP: adverse or hostile: state of mind

Westmoreland has objective test, just need possession. Minority rule -- subjective test

8

AP: adverse or hostile: state of mind: minority rule tests (2)

1) intentional dispossession: only have a claim if AP'er knew land wasn't theirs and still tried to take vs opposite 2) good faith -- AP'er must show acting in good faith

9

AP: continuous

continuous use as a regular owner would (dnh to be there every day). --distinct from statutory period

10

AP: statutory period

W: 15 years for COR or 10 years for COT

11

AP: stattuory period: tolling: factors (5)

1) infancy 2) insanity 3) incompetence 4) imprisonment 5) absence from state

12

F: 2 feet of P's property is on D's side of fence. H: AP is found bc meets 6 elements. Objective perspective re adverse/hositle

Brown v. Gobble

13

AP: statutory period: tolling: "from when COA first accrues"

from when circumstances that led to the lawsuit began. (so which was first? the AP or the tolling condition?)

14

AP: statutory period: tacking

--allowed in W --can add up time you (or your predecessor) were AP'ing under various owners --2 parties must be in privity

15

AP: extra element

paying property taxes (NOT W.)

16

Brown v. Gobble

F: 2 feet of P's property is on D's side of fence. H: AP is found bc meets 6 elements. Objective perspective re adverse/hositle

17

F: native Alaskans took over recreational land by building small improvements every other summer H: meets elements of AP use -- quality/quantity of acts required depends on character of land in question (rural so less) hostile--objective test N: only got land they were actually using (COR) anthropologist testified that couldn't own it

Nome 2000 v. Fagerstrom

18

AP: tacking: exception

per Gobble court, if first owner had it for statutory timeframe dnh to tack bc it passes to next owner as already part of parcel)

19

Nome 2000 v. Fagerstrom

F: native Alaskans took over recreational land by building small improvements every other summer H: meets elements of AP use -- quality/quantity of acts required depends on character of land in question (rural so less) hostile--objective test N: only got land they were actually using (COR) anthropologist testified that couldn't own it

20

F: P bought land 30 yrs ago from parents in law, but only one of them signed deed, both supposed to H: P keeps the land--lack of signature dnm deed insufficient for color of title. . Physical descritption of land suficient.

Romero v. Garcia

21

rship btwn AP and trespass

AP turns T.ers into owners. (T can ripen into AP if you dn sue to eject)

22

ways to raise AP in lawsuit (2)

as D: defense to ejection suit as P: affirmiatve case to quiet title

23

adverse possession: standard of proof (W)

clear and convincing evidence

24

adverse possession: elements (6)

1) actual 2) exclusive 3) open and otorious 4) averse or hostile under color of title or claim of right 5) continuous 6) for the statutory period

25

AP: actual

actually using the land --dnh to be constant, just how a true owner would --ex. fence, sig activities

26

AP: exclusive

exclusive OF THE OWNER (no permission of owner) --NOT: no one else can ever enter it

27

AP: open and notorious

--puts reasonable owner on notice that property being occupied --DN require actual notice

28

AP: adverse or hostile (3)

nonpermissive from owner --presumption of nonpermission if you're possessing --W: no SoM requirement (so dn require hostile intent/attitude)

29

AP: color of title: def

you thought you had title but there was a defect in the title

30

AP: color of title: result

you get the WHOLE AREA of land defined in the title as "constructive possession" (contrast: CoR have to show you were acutally using whole area) --time must AP is shorter

31

extent of land you get (AP

color of title: full amount in deed claim of right: just what you were actually using

32

jt, leases and survivorship -- cool way to say it

"there is no right to devise one's interest in a joint tenancy"

33

unreasonable covenant: majority view (CL/W)

strong presumption of reasonability

34

Nahrstedt v. Lakeside Village Condo Assn

F: condo owners has 3 cats inside, silent, clean, sues D HOA over no pets restriction H: reasonableness must be considered vis a vis EVEREONE not any one owner, presumed reasonable, would have to show arbitrary/brudensome so much so that it substantially outseighs benefits to EVERYONE or fundamental public policy (majority)

35

IRNS: what's different?

--exception to nl requirements bc dn TC land

36

Daivdson Brothers Inc v. Katz

F: P had 2 grocery stores, sold one w noncompete covenant, food desert H: against public policy so won't enforce covenant. 8 pronged reasonability test: intention, impact on consideration, clear, written/actual notice, reasonable re time/area/duration, unreasonable restraint on trade, interferes w public interest, change circumstances make it unreasonable now? (minority)

37

F: subdivision w restricted covenants re lakefront homes, othe rlarge sections dnh specified covenants an dlate rowner tried to build a marina there. H: it's possible for the IRNE to intentionally onl apply to certain areas of the development

Evans v. Pollock

38

F: condo owners has 3 cats inside, silent, clean, sues D HOA over no pets restriction H: reasonableness must be considered vis a vis EVEREONE not any one owner, presumed reasonable, would have to show arbitrary/brudensome so much so that it substantially outseighs benefits to EVERYONE or fundamental public policy (majority)

Nahrstedt v. Lakeside Village Condo Assn

39

F: restrictive cov no alcohol sales, changed conditions: brown bagging, sold other places H: cov has changed so much that justifies eliminating (relig com to tourist area) --> change was significant enough to "render the benefits underlying imposition of the restriction incapable of enjoyment"

El Di Inc v. Town of Bethany Beach

40

F: HOA covenant banning black people H: racial HOA covenants are covered by 14th am state action requirement, bc state courts enforce them N: pretty much limited to these facts now bc of very broad application of state action doctrine

Shelley v. Kramer

41

F: HOA suing bank for nonpayment of assn fees which are to maintain common areas H: meets requirements to run w the land. T+C: may not have met old requirements re direct c to land, but this court: it gives them right of use and so appropriate for cost of ammenities to be borne by those who use them, AND privity: HOA can be party to privity even tho not itself owner of nearby land, bc the entity wsa developed by Ps to advance their common interests

Neponsit Property Owners Assn v. Emigrant Industrial Savings Bank

42

in privity

transferred title to each other

43

CC&Rs

conditions, covenants, and restrictions

44

IRNE rship w developer / orig owner (2)

--usu inclues grantor's own covenant -- they will continue to restrict future buyers --if developer dn still own any land usu can't sue for enforcement (unlike the HOA, not a rep of owners)

45

IRNE: what to do about unrestricted lots? owned by neighbors

buyer usu on constructive notice

46

IRNE: unrestricted lots owned by neighbors, contrast 2 cases

Sanborn v. McLean (NR): Ds want to build gas station behind house, covenants on 53/91 lots. Held: uniform nature of properties created inquiry notice, majority restricted, so, common plan, so, IRNE compare: Riley v. Bear Creek Planning Committee: Ps build snow tunnel, orally knew there'd be restrictiosn but weren't written into plan yet and dn appear in their deed. CA courts: can only enforce if it is written into deed OR declaration recorded w restrictons BEFORE property sold

47

IRNE: unrestricted lot owned by grantor

determinative: is it on the map/declaraction? (can also depend on if it's in subdivision...)

48

Evans v. Pollock

F: subdivision w restricted covenants re lakefront homes, othe rlarge sections dnh specified covenants an dlate rowner tried to build a marina there. H: it's possible for the IRNE to intentionally onl apply to certain areas of the development

49

HOAs: how governed

by the declaration itself --sometimes allows modification of rules by board, sometimes requires supermajority of votes

50

Real covenants vs. equitable servitudes

1) one elements difference: RC needs privity, ES dn. (so harder to prove RC) 2) different remedies: RC also offers possibility of damages

51

Real Covenants: remedies

damages or injunction

52

equitable servitudes: remedies

injunctive only

53

real covenants, need:

ES + PRIVITY

54

real covenants: elements: writing

1) SoF compliant 2) usu in deed or lease

55

covenants by implication?

rare (contrast: e.b.i) -- can happen if seller fraudulently promises covenant and buyer detrimentally relies, use estoppel theory -- extreme cases like forged deeds

56

RC: elements: notice

1) actual 2) inquiry 3) constructive 4) NOTICE NOT REQUIRED FOR BENEFIT TO RUN W LAND JUST FOR BURDEN

57

RC/ES -- SEPARATE analysis of...

benefit and burden (does each run w the land?)

58

RC elements: notice: inquiry notice

rarer than E. bc RC is a promise NOT to do something, so likely less visually obvious at the property...but some courts have found that eg all the houses look alike = inquiry notice

59

RC elements: touch and concern

must connect directly to use of the land -- will benefit dominant estate and future owners

60

no covenants in gross (?)

msut concern THE LAND not something you come to do on my land

61

remedies: injunctive

declaration from court to eg stop building

62

remedies: declaratory judgment

the property is yours

63

Real covenants / equitable servitudes: def

commitments people make in reference to property that bind others and are intended to run w the land

64

RC: elements: privity

--horizontal --vertical NOTE: HP not required for ben to run w the land, just burden

65

covenants -- 2 elements that DN APPLY TO BENEFITS JUST BURDENS

notice HP

66

horizontal privity: common law requirement

ongoing interest in same land at same time (eg LLT, mortgager/ee, leaser/ee)

67

simultaneous horizontal privity

old common law requirement

68

term/not enforce cov: marketable title acts

c easements, must re-record the cov or it goes away

69

instantaneous horizontal privity

--current stadard --moment of privity btwn 2 contracting parties REQUIREMENTS: must be established at time of sale (so NOT jusg agreement btwn neighbors, and not a few days later -- those would just be ks, not covenants that run w the land) (ppl get around this via straw man transactions)

70

term/not enforce cov: language i ninstrument

cov title itself sets time limit in cov, possibly w renewal option

71

Vertical privity (in general)

rshp btwn owner and subsequent owners

72

term/not enforce cov: merger

burdened and benefitted estates come under common ownership

73

strict VP

grantor retains NO interest in land (eg not someone w a life estate)

74

term/not enforce cov: release

all parties affected by cov (burdened and benefitted) agree in writing to term the cov

75

term/not enforce cov: prescription

open and notorious use, w/o permission, for statutory period

76

Shelley v. Kramer

F: HOA covenant banning black people H: racial HOA covenants are covered by 14th am state action requirement, bc state courts enforce them N: pretty much limited to these facts now bc of very broad application of state action doctrine

77

Implied Restricted Negative Servitudes/Easements: why? (3)

--last parcel sold ends up w/o covenant bc orig seller has no remaining land for covenant to benefit --might accidentally leave restrictions off some lots --traditional system problem that later buyers could sue earlier buyers for not following cov (bc they bought on reliance of others) but earlier couldn't sue later)

78

F: HOA covenant banning black people H: racial HOA covenants are covered by 14th am state action requirement, bc state courts enforce them N: pretty much limited to these facts now bc of very broad application of state action doctrine

Shelley v. Kraimer

79

covenants in gross?

No -- rule against covs in gross

80

can HOAs sue?

to enfroce covs, yes -- but usually their RTS needs to be stated in deed

81

IRNS: requirement

evidence of a common plan or scheme

82

Fontainebleau Hotel Corp v. 4525 Inc

F: D hotel building 14 story addition that will cast shadow over beach area of P hotel H: no right to free flow of light and air across adjoining land of neighbor (unless zoning)...

83

limits on covs: reasonableness test W

even if somewhat unreasonable, cov will be enforced if: 1) everyone has notice 2) dn violate pbulic policy

84

14 ways to terminate or not enforce a cov

the big 2: 1) changed conditions 2) undue hardship in common with e. 3) express release 4) by its own terms 5) merger 6) AP/prescription 7) marketable title acts 8) abandonment bad behavior 9) acquiesence 10) unclean hands 11) estoppel 12) laches extra 13) racially restrictive 14) specific state statutes

85

remedies "property rule"

injunctions

86

term/not enforce cov: changed conditions (3)

1) conditions have changed so drastically, that enforcement wll be of no substantial benefit to dom estates 2) condition changes INSIDE THE NEIGHBORHOOD 3) focus is on benefitted/dom estate, have they lost the benefit? (NOT burdened)

87

remedies "liability rule"

damages

88

term/not enforce cov: changed conditions -- who do we focus on?

benefitted estate, have they lost benefit? (NOT the burdened estate or extent to which they're burdened)

89

term/not enforce cov: undue hardship: aka

relative hardship

90

El Di Inc v. Town of Bethany Beach

F: restrictive cov no alcohol sales, changed conditions: brown bagging, sold other places H: cov has changed so much that justifies eliminating (relig com to tourist area) --> change was significant enough to "render the benefits underlying imposition of the restriction incapable of enjoyment"

91

term/not enforce cov: undue hardship

1) proof of great hardship to servient estate RELATIVE TO SMALL BEN TO DOM ESTATE -- greater by a "considerable magnitude." (if it's just a burden to servient estate, not impressive--it's a covenant! after all)

92

Blakely v. Gorin

F: build high rise hotel w sky bridge vs 16 feet of open space covenant (light, air) H: under state statute, cov should not be enforced--changes in ch/property and neighborhood, impede reasonable use of land for best suited purpose, public interest (taxes) N: MA statute vs CL doctrine -- the statute is anti-enforcement

93

term/not enforce cov: abandonment

benefitted estate has tolerated violations by owners of OTHER restricted parcels in the area for so long that it seems you've abandoned your cov

94

term/not enforce cov: unclean hands

benefitted estate (aka person trying to enforce) has itself violated the cov

95

term/not enforce cov: laches

unexcused delay -- cov has bene ignored or breached for substantial period fo time, and delay in enforcing prompted investment, so now would be unconscionable to enforce

96

F: P had 2 grocery stores, sold one w noncompete covenant, food desert H: against public policy so won't enforce covenant. 8 pronged reasonability test: intention, impact on consideration, clear, written/actual notice, reasonable re time/area/duration, unreasonable restraint on trade, interferes w public interest, change circumstances make it unreasonable now? (minority)

Daivdson Brothers Inc v. Katz

97

unreasonable covenant: minority view (restatement)

broader reasonability test that includes public policy considerations

98

F: build high rise hotel w sky bridge vs 16 feet of open space covenant (light, air) H: under state statute, cov should not be enforced--changes in ch/property and neighborhood, impede reasonable use of land for best suited purpose, public interest (taxes) N: MA statute vs CL doctrine -- the statute is anti-enforcement

Blakely v. Gorin

99

Factors that show common plan or scheme

1) presence of restrictions in all or most deeds to property in the area,

2) recorded plat showing restrictions, presence of restrictions in last deed,

3) observance by owners of similar development of their land and conformity to written restrictions,

4) language stating the covenatns are intended to run w the land,

5) recording of declaration sting intended to be mutually enforceable

100

IRNS: notice requirement (3)

relaxed compared to notice requirements in other contexts --inquiry notice when buy in (nature of property) --constructive notice even if it's just in title of nearby deed

101

IRNE: who can sue to enforce?

--owners --HOA if says so in declaration --developer, IF retains parcels (restatement more realxed, anyone can)

102

limits on convenants: examples of possible reasons why (4)

1) public policy/reasonableness, 2) constitutional violations, discrimination under Fair Housing Act 3) restrictions on alienability 4) claims on unreasonable restraint on trade

103

Real covenants: elements (5)

NOTE: must do separate evaluation for burden and benefit 1) writing 2) notice 3) intent 4) touch and concern 5) privity

104

equitable servitudes elements

all the same as RC, just dnn privity (iow): 1) writing 2) notice 3) intent 4) touch and concern

105

real covenants: elements: writing: exception

sometimes exception for IRNS (eg HOAs)

106

RC elements: notice: inquiry notice--aka

actual implied notice

107

RC elements: notice: constructive notice

deed research, must also search for other deeds from comon grantor around the same time

108

factors tending to show NO common plan/scheme

some unrestricted, restrictions not uniform.  

109

RC elements: intent

in deed--clear language indicating runs w the land (ex. "heirs and assigns"). USU courts hold that if it benefits land, it is presumed to run w the land

110

Neponsit Property Owners Assn v. Emigrant Industrial Savings Bank

F: HOA suing bank for nonpayment of assn fees which are to maintain common areas H: meets requirements to run w the land. T+C: may not have met old requirements re direct c to land, but this court: it gives them right of use and so appropriate for cost of ammenities to be borne by those who use them, AND privity: HOA can be party to privity even tho not itself owner of nearby land, bc the entity wsa developed by Ps to advance their common interests

111

IRNS followed by all courts?

no, sometimes only if restrictions explicit in deed

112

to enforce IRNS against homeowner, need (2)

1) evidence of common plan or scheme

2) notice to that homeowner

113

HOA's suing is...

exception to rule against benefits in gross

114

do noncompete covenants T+C the land?

generally yes

115

W: strict VP or relaxed?

STRICT!

116

relaxed VP:

ok for grantor to retain some interest in land

117

term/not enforce cov: statute

sometimes statutes change the standards or specify other ways to get rid of a cov (MA)

118

when do covenants run w the land? (3)

PRESUMED to run, if --benefits owner of neighboring land --touches and concerns --continues to benefit dominant land (similar to e: presumption for appurtenant)

119

covenants in gross--exception

allowing HOAs to sue (bc they're agents of homeowners)

120

IRNS: purpose

allows for planned communites to exist, covenants that mutually bind and benefit (all parcels intended 3rd party beneficiaries). --mutually enforceable (parties can sue each other)

121

IRNS: def

WHEN: owner sells parcels w evidence of intent to create common plan or scheme of development, THEN: covenatns made to the seller benefit all parcels w/in the plan AND all parcels w/in the plan are bound by the covenants

122

IRNS: ways to show common plan or scheme (7)

(not exactly req'd elements tho): --presence of restrictions in all or most deeds to property int eh area --recorded plat showing restrictions --presence of restrictions in last deed --observance by owners of similar development of land and conformity to written restrictions --language stating covenants are intended to run w th eland --recording of declaration showing that covenatns are nitended to be mutually enforceable, providing buyers notice of CCRS (IMPORANT) AND: NOTICE--REQUIRED

123

term/not enforce cov: acquiesence

benefitted estate has tolerated or failed to object to violations by owner of servient estate

124

term/not enforce cov: estoppel

reasonable reliance: usu owner of dom estate orally represents to serv estate that she won't enforce the cov, other party detrimentally relies

125

servitudes

turns a k btwn 2 ppl about use of land into a k that RUNS WITH THE LAND when it's sold

126

affirmative servitude

right to use another's land for a limited purpose

127

profit a prendre

easement that lets nonowners collect resources (eg coal) from the land

128

negative servitude/easement

covenant, restriction on land use

129

easements vs licenses (and 1 exception)

E: formal, usu permanent, right, interest in land, subject to SoF, transferable -- licenses none of these But note: implied easesments are less formal, blurring the line

130

the only ko transferable license

movie tickets

131

license examples

come over for dinner (until I revoke at end of nigth), swim in my lake

132

easements v. leases

lease: possessory rights to use defined space for all uses (unless otherwise specified), Easements are nonposessory

133

Lobato v. Taylor

F: CO landowners want easement to access Taylor property from back int he time of Mx law H: court finds e. (prescriptive, estoppel, AND prior use) --> previous use permitted, reasonable to foresee change in position (survival/food) and they DID change position (settle land) N: contextual interpretation vs formalist legal analysis

134

F: CO landowners want easement to access Taylor property from back int he time of Mx law H: court finds e. (prescriptive, estoppel, AND prior use) --> previous use permitted, reasonable to foresee change in position (survival/food) and they DID change position (settle land) N: contextual interpretation vs formalist legal analysis

Lobato v. Taylor

135

E. by estoppel element #2

licensor KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN that reliance would occur

136

how to interpret ambiguities in e.s?

language, circumstances

137

courts presumption: appertenant v. in gross?

strong presumption for appertenant

138

easement: definition

nonpossessory interest to use land of another

139

F: P claims easement over portion of gravel lot used by trucks to turn around H: prescriptive easement elements...dnh to prove area used w absolute precision, just generally where it was. (C AP: bc claim of right, must look at actual use to define Bs of easement

Community Feed Store Inc v. Northeastern Culvert Corp

140

equitable limitation --> what is the SCOPE of your easement? (2)

1) is use of the kind contemplated? 2) place an unreasonable burden on the servient estate?

141

F: P owned full parcel of land w shopping center and apartment building, sold in-between land to D but P wanted driveways to be e. H: Elements work together -- apparent and continuous helped fulfill elastic / necessity requirement

Granite Properties Limited Partnership v. Manns

142

scope of easement: use of kind contemplated: majority/W view (and an ex)

right of way can be used for any reasonable purpose --eg RoW road can be used for utility lines, and ok read broadly to accommodate changes in tech

143

scope of easement: use of kind contemplated: minority view

limits e. to specific things listed (narrow)

144

scope of easement: use of kind contemplated: territory of easement

usu can't expand territory of your easement (that would be an unreasonable buren...c)

145

scope of e.: use of kind contemplated: location (majority/W)

majority/W: can't change the location of your easement --defined by grantor's intent and instrument at the time created

146

scope of E: use of kind contemplated: location (minority)

servient estate owner can change the location if s. pays for it

147

Ps suing Ds who had e. to provide phone and elc but now want to add tv cables H: were E. in gross apportionable to other companies in the future? yes bc exclusive of servient owners

Henley v. Continental Cablevision of St Louis County Inc

148

scope of e: use of kind contemplated: sub-elements in W (3)

1) RoW can be used for any reasonable PURPOSE 2) usu can't expand TERRITORY of e. 3) and can't change LOCATION of e.

149

scope of e: unreasonable burden on servient estate -- (and, distinct inquiry...)

grantor's intent distinct inquiry from use of kind contemplated (ex. Green--motorcycle use is of kind contemplated (it's a road) but still mgith be unreasonable burden (they're racing them)

150

F: Ps have landlocked parcel, now can no longer exit over another's property so want E.B.N. over D's land (used to be 1 parcel) H: landlocked parcel can't waive its right to EBN even if it lay dormand through transfers of title

Finn v. Williams

151

scope of e: unreasonable burden on servient estate: grantor's intent -- what to consider?

1) in document? 2) circumstances

152

ean e. be subdivided? depends on:

appurtenant v. in gross

153

F: P owns resort and old easement to owner who now wants to build subdivision on what used to be his single family parcel, wants to widen road. H: E. must be divisible or it would destroy its appurtenant character. E. not limited to use contemplated in original grant (acces/egress by single family) N: but they can't widen the road -- so opposite result, bc now can't build subdivision

Cox v. Glenbrook Co.

154

can e. be subdivided? apurtenant

majority view: YES -- e benefits entire dominant estate and can be apportioned among subsequent owners

155

5 kinds of easements

1) express (the other 4 are implied): 2) prescription 3) implication 4) necessity 5) estoppel

156

express (formal) easement: elements (3)

1) in writing 2) intent 3) notice

157

express easement: in writing (4 requirements)

--subject to SoF --usu conveyed in deed but not required to be mentioned in subsequent deeds --must be written AT MOMENT CREATED --must specify: grantor, grantee, what easement is actually granting

158

express easement: intent

by grantor, to run w the estate (if ambiguous, circumstances...)

159

express easement: notice (3 kinds)

actual inquiry constructive

160

easement: actual notice

eg a writing

161

F: P had easement over D's strip of land and using fro road, builds mobile home park and they are racing motorcycles H: the E. is appurtenant bc of presumption in favor (and wasn't clear from writing) N: ex. of e. being divisible also (applying to all the mobile home owners). Court did agree to equitable limitations--dnw undue burden on servient owner's estate, so ok limit motorcycle racing

Green v. Lupo

162

easement: inquiry notice

knew or should've known, visible signs of use by nonowner on property

163

easement: constructive notice

chain of title--reasonable search of registry would lead to discovery of the deed (again, knew or should've -- dn search registry isn't a defense)

164

easement by prescription aka

"the adverse possession easement"

165

easement by prescription (def)

similar to AP but at the end you get use instead of title

166

F: CO landowners want easement to access Taylor property from back int he time of Mx law H: court finds e. (prescriptive, estoppel, AND prior use) --> previous use permitted, reasonable to foresee change in position (survival/food) and they DID change position (settle land) N: contextual interpretation vs formalist legal analysis

Lobato v. Taylor

167

can e. be subdivided? appurtenant: basic scenario

owner of dominant estate now wants to divide his estate (eg sell part of it to someone else, or create a subdivision...)

168

can e. be subdivided?: contrast

just bc you bought a new piece of land next to your old land that was also going to need an e. (eg RoW) -- NOT expanded. But if you had divided your land, it would be

169

Cox v. Glenbrook Co.

F: P owns resort and old easement to owner who now wants to build subdivision on what used to be his single family parcel, wants to widen road. H: E. must be divisible or it would destroy its appurtenant character. E. not limited to use contemplated in original grant (acces/egress by single family) N: but they can't widen the road -- so opposite result, bc now can't build subdivision

170

Can e. be subdivided? in gross: 2 kinds

1) exclusive -- YES approtionable (you can sell e. to someone else 2) nonexclusive - nonapportionable (you can swim in my lake but I'm going to swim in it too...)

171

Can e. be subdivided?: in gross: typical example

e. sold btwn utility cos

172

Can e. be subdivided: in gross: "exclusive" def

exculsive of the grantor

173

Henley v. Continental Cablevision of St Louis County Inc

Ps suing Ds who had e. to provide phone and elc but now want to add tv cables H: were E. in gross apportionable to other companies in the future? yes bc exclusive of servient owners

174

How to end an e? (6 ways)

1) express release 2) by its own terms 3) merger or unity of title 4) abandonment 5) AP or prescription 6) marketable title acts

175

ending an e.: why do you need to?

easements are forever, unless ended

176

ending an e: express release

bargain for a k to end the e.

177

ending an e: by its own tersm

eg written e. says expires after x yeras

178

ending an e: merger or unity of title

can't have an e. on your own land, so if they merge it's gone (if later land divided again you'd have to start over to try to get an e)

179

ending an e.: abandonment

owner of e. indicated by conduct intent to abandon the e. --> hard to show

180

ending an e: abandonment: EXCEPTION

e.b. necessity can lie dormant

181

ending an e: AP/prescription

if someone else AP's your e. (ex. e. holder isn't using it, someone from another parcel starts benefitting from it)

182

ending an e: marketable title acts

statutes aying that interests in land have to be re-recorded every x years (by true owner), otherwise not binding

183

appurtenant e.

easement attaches to the land / runs with

184

dominant estate

benefitted parcel

185

servient estate

burdened parcel

186

Green v. Lupo

F: P had easement over D's strip of land and using fro road, builds mobile home park and they are racing motorcycles H: the E. is appurtenant bc of presumption in favor (and wasn't clear from writing) N: ex. of e. being divisible also (applying to all the mobile home owners). Court did agree to equitable limitations--dnw undue burden on servient owner's estate, so ok limit motorcycle racing

187

dividing e. appurtenant vocab

"divisibility"

188

e. in gross

attaches to people

189

e. in gross example

right to run the phone wires attaches to the utility co (NOT to another piece of land)

190

e in gross -- dom / serv estates?

no, dn exist

191

dividing e. in gross vocab

"apportionability"

192

e. by necessity: elements (3)

1) dominant and servient estate were formerly 1 parcel 2) at time of severence, dominant estate became landlocked 3) necessary

193

e. by necessity: dominant and servient estates formerly 1 parcel (qualifier) (2)

dnh to be immediately before in teh chain of title, and dnn prior use (ok easement be dormant for a time)

194

e.b. necessity: necessary

more than reasonably necessary -- higher standard (now usu means to get there w motorized transportation)

195

Finn v. Williams

F: Ps have landlocked parcel, now can no longer exit over another's property so want E.B.N. over D's land (used to be 1 parcel) H: landlocked parcel can't waive its right to EBN even if it lay dormand through transfers of title

196

E. by estoppel c/c license

E. by estoppel starts out as license, goes on or so long and in such a way that it ripens into EBE

197

E. by estoppel: elements (4)

1) license by the owner to use the land 2) licensor's knowledge or reasonable expectation that reliance will occur 3) reasonable reliance 4) necessary to prevent injustice

198

E. by estoppel: license by owner to use land

normally for access purposes

199

E. by estoppel: c/c prescriptive easement or AP

E.b.E: permission by grantor becomes basis for claim of right...vs in AP permission by grantor is a defense to rights of others

200

E. by estoppel: licensor's knowledge or reasonable expectation that reliance will occur (2)

grantor's intent: NOT did he intend for it to turn into an easement, sino did he allow the use? did they induce reliance? do they actually know that the other party is relying? would reasonable person know?

201

E. by estoppel: reasonable reliance: define reliance

claimant changed position in reliance on right (usu financially -- make investment etc)

202

E. by estoppel: reasonable reliance: Define "reasonable" (6)

consider --conduct of parties, --oral assurances --social context --amount of time --if LL was expressly withholding e. and why --parties actions

203

E. by estoppel: extra non-W element

fraud/deception on part of grantor

204

constructive trust

can force a person to do something w land for benefit of another --> alternative to e.

205

constructive trust: example

Rose v. Castle Mtn Ranch: rancher lets peopel build cabins on his land but written licenses say revocable 30 days notice, they live there 50 years and he sells land. Remedy--they can stay 13 years

206

implied easements run w the land IF (3) *a whole separate question!!

1) intended to do so (not just about what grantor wanted, more about circumstances etc as above) 2) reasonably necessary for the enjoyment of dominant estate but (3) relatively high standard for courts to find them

207

servitude

private agreement between owners

208

easement by prescription: elements (6)

Use must be: 1) actual 2) nonexclusive (contrast AP) 3) open and notorious 4) adverse/hositle under claim of right or color of title 5) continuous 6) for a statutory period

209

easement by prescription: adverse/hostile element

NO PERMISSION -- hard bar, bc ppl often grant neighbors permission tow alk over their land etc

210

easement by prescription -- c/c AP element (2) and result

Element: PE is nonexclusive of true owner, AP exclusive 2) PE is USE, AP possession Result: 2) PE leads to non-fee interest (no-title)

211

Community Feed Store Inc v. Northeastern Culvert Corp

F: P claims easement over portion of gravel lot used by trucks to turn around H: prescriptive easement elements...dnh to prove area used w absolute precision, just generally where it was. (C AP: bc claim of right, must look at actual use to define Bs of easement

212

can't get e. by prescription bc it's not adverse or hostile? then try

otherwise if license could be e.b.e maybe

213

Easement by Implication, aka

easement by prior use

214

easement by prior use aka

easement by implication

215

E. by implication: elements (3)

1) 2 parcels previously owned by common grantor 2) 1 parcel previously used for benefit of the other parcel in manner that was apparent and continuous 3) use "reasonably necessary" for the enoyment of the dominat esatate

216

E. by implication: use reasonably necessary (2)

--no absolute necessity standard --necessity burden is higher when grantor is the dominant estate (You're the one who sold the land, should've put it in the deed then) -- but not impossible (dominant estate holder had one in Granite Properties0

217

Granite Properties Limited Partnership v. Manns

F: P owned full parcel of land w shopping center and apartment building, sold in-between land to D but P wanted driveways to be e. H: Elements work together -- apparent and continuous helped fulfill elastic / necessity requirement

218

takings analysis

1) was there a taking? (all the factors)

2) public use (Kelo)

3) just compensation

219

landowner vs. finder

--landowner always wins if trespassing

--landowner always wins if it's in the house or ground (unless treasure trove)

--if in common area, landowner wins if mislaid, finder wins if lost

220

Original owner over finder

lost or mislaid

221

finder over original owner

abandoned

222

landowner where property is found vs finder: landowner gets

finder was trespassing OR private home or embedded in soil (exception: 100+ yo treasure trove) OR mislaid (implied that owner entrusted to landowner)

223

landowner where property is found vs finder: finder gets

permission to be on property AND property open to the public, OR found in common area (exception: treasure trove) AND: it was lost

224

finders rule: found on someone else's land

--landowner always wins if finder trespassing --if finder had permission, but private home or embedded in soil, to landowner --if finder had permission, and open to the public, to finder

225

finder vs. subsequent possessor

finder always over subsequent possessor (owner/finder varies)

226

def: mislad

owner intentionally left it somewhere but then forgot where

227

def: abandoned

owner intent to abandon all rights -- lost or mislaid can convert to abandoned if owner INTENTDS to give up claims

228

Charrier v. Bell

F: P discovers, excavates Indian burial site w/o permission H: legal concept of abndonment does not extend to burial goods (intended to remain in the ground, not to be taken possession of)

229

lost or mislaid property can become...if...

abandoned, if owner intends to give up claims

230

F: P discovers, excavates Indian burial site w/o permission H: legal concept of abndonment does not extend to burial goods (intended to remain in the ground, not to be taken possession of)

Charrier v. Bell

231

finders law: treasure trove exemption

normally, if embedded in soil landowner gets. BUT if finder has permission to be there and it's a 100+yo treasure trove, finder gets

232

finders rule: lost

original owner wins

233

finders rule: mislaid

original owner wins

234

finders rule: abandoned

finder wins

235

def: lost

owner accidentally misplaced

236

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act

if federal land, must repatriate to descendents if can prove cultural affiliation

237

finder statutes (3)

try to eliminate lost/mislaid/abandoned distinction --finder must bring to police, --gets if not claimed, sometimes rewards required

238

life estate: reverter?

has REVERSION in O, unless otherwise specified

239

term of years: reverter?

has REVERSION IN O, unless otherwise specified

240

restraints on alienation (CL vs now)

CL per se void, now: subject to general test of reasonableness.  BUT total restraint on alienation generally void.

241

times when O can convey

at death, OR WHILE ALIVE

242

trusts: purpose/relationship

--an alternate way to resolve some future interests issues

243

trusts--def

grantor conveys property to trustee, for benefit of beneficiary -- trustee has legal title but bound to use the trust for the beneficiary

244

trusts: grantor aka

settlor, trustor

245

future interests: 3 interpretive rules

(1) can't grant more than you have [if your estate is encumbered by eg F.I. and you pass it to someone, theirs will be encumbered in the same way too] (2) unless grant has limiting language, presumption that you gave away the full interest (3) whatever is not granted remains with the grantor (ex. if you don't specify what happens after, it goes back to grantor)

246

future interests: technical process (6 steps)

1) classify the possessory estate 2) ID the limitations if any 3) is there a future interest 4) is the future interest enforceable? 5) if yes, has the trigger event occurred? 6) if yes, what is the legal effect?

247

term of years (3)

expires naturally by its own terms after certain # of years --O has revision (unless otherwise specified) --possible have conditions

248

term of years ex.

O to A for 10 years

249

future interests: 4 kinds of possessory estates

*you can only have 1!* 1) fee simple absolute 2) fee tail 3) life estate 4) term of years

250

fi: fee simple absolute

the largest estate you can get -- every stick in the bundle, do whatever you want with it

251

O to A

fee simple absolute

252

fee simple absolute, ex.

O to A O to A and her heirs*

253

fee tail

mostly obsolete. will pass to actual blood relatives until bloodline runs out

254

fee tail: what do courts do when someone tries to make one?: majority

give an FSA instead

255

fee tail: what do courts do when someone tries to make one?: minority

allow FT for 2 generations (where A is generation 1), in 2nd gen converts to FSA

256

O to A "and the heirs of his body"

fee tail

257

life estate

--you can (live?) in property for whole life, but then it reverts back to O (or goes to someone else if designated)

258

life estate ex

O to A for life O to A for as long as A lives

259

O to A for life

life estate

260

O to A for as long as A lives

life estate

261

life estate per autre vie

life estate measured by someone else's life: O to A for the life of B. B is the measuring life.

262

O to A for the life of B

life estate per autre vie

263

selling life estate?

yes, you can if A sells to X, then X has what A had X has life estate per autre vie -- A remains the measuring life

264

total restraints on alienation generally void bc (2)

—> repugnant to the fee —> NW realty, bundle of sticks

265

life estate: duties of life tenant to remainderman (3)

1) fudiciary/quasi fiduciary rship 2) can't injure or dispose of property to injury of rights of remaindermen 3) maintain property in repair, prevent decay and waste

266

life estate: duties of life tenant: can't injure or dispose of property to injury of rights of remaindermen -- def

ok to use for LE's benefit as has been used before. If open mine, ok for LE to mine and take the minerals. But if no previous mine, not ok start one

267

life estate: duties of life tenant: can't injure or desposte of property to injury of rights of remaindermen -- exception

OK TO USE PROPERTY for exclusive benefit of LE (w/in confines of the rule...not reall an exception...)

268

life estate: duty to keep property in repair: exception/limitation

dnh to improve value of property

269

life estate: duty to keep property in repair: 2 components

1) pay certain costs 2) not commit waste

270

life estate: duty to keep property in repair: costs must pay

1) interest on mortgage (BUT PRINCIPAL PAID BY FUTURE GRANTEE) 2) taxes and insurance (but could k around)

271

life estate: who pays mortgage?

LE holder: pays interest remainderman: principal

272

life estate: duty to keep property in repair: 3 kinds of waste to not commit

1) voluntary 2) permissive 3) ameliorative

273

life estate: duty: voluntary waste

acts of COmission to damage property (cutting down trees, demolish the house)

274

life estate: duty: permissive waste

acts of Omission (failure to make repairs on home)...

275

reasonableness test for restraints on alienation

weigh harm of restraint vs utility of enforcing

276

life estate: ameliorative waste

improvements that may improve value of property but remainderman dn nec want (destroys house and makes mansion) NOTE: this was actionable at common law but less favored now

277

O to A for 10 years

term of years

278

O to A and her heirs, what does "and her heirs" mean?

fee simple absolute NOTE: THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE HEIRS ACQUIRE ANY RIGHTS...A can still sell it to someone else etc

279

fee tail ex

O to A "and the heirs of his body"

280

LL dnh duty to mitigate if

commercial!

281

IWH

exception

defects must be so substantial that a reasonable person would find the premises uninhabitable.  De minimis violations will not suffice.

282

elements of quiet enjoyment:

existence of a condition that substantialyl inferfered w T’s use and enjoyment,

notice given +

LL reasonable time to cure +

ten T move out ((basically, needs to lead to CE))

283

for CE or QE must move out w/in...

a reasonable period of time

284

nusiance elements (4)

1) substantial and 2) unreasonable 3) interference with 4) use and enjoyment of land

285

nuisance: unreasonable (W) -- def

--gravity of harm outweighs the utility of actor's conduct

286

Page County Appliance Center v. Honneywell

F: P sold TVs and D's computer emitted radiation which interfered w displays H: unreasonable interference must consider manner, place, circumstance notice; Negligence not required...can be liable for nuisance even if used highest possible degree of care

287

nuisance: i relationship w intent and negligence

requires intent (but see def) does NOT require negligence in how you're doing your activities on the property -- more about the EFFECT on others than what you're doing

288

nuisance: interference: intent

knew or substantially certain (DNM that your purpose was to annoy your neighbors). but you knew that all that dog noise would result or subtantially certain to result in annoyance to neighbor

289

difference btwn nuisance and trespass

n. is non-t. inferference (use of MY OWN Property is harming property interests of neighbors. right to quiet enjoyment less than near absolute right to not have physical invasions on land

290

trespass and nuisance at the same time

if it's quasi-physical, like smoke

291

F: P had solar panels on top of his house, D wanted to build HIS house next dor but wold've put shade on panels H: P MIGHT have nuisance claim, reasonable use doctrine N: compliance w zoning laws dn automatically bar a nuisance claim NOT LAW NOW

Prah v. Maretti

292

nuisance: strict liability standard for______

ultrahazardous activities

293

F: D hotel building 14 story addition that will cast shadow over beach area of P hotel H: no right to free flow of light and air across adjoining land of neighbor (unless zoning)...

Fontainebleau Hotel Corp v. 4525 Inc

294

nuisance: unreasonable (W) -- factor test

1) extent of harm 2) character of harm 3) economic and social value of conflicting activities 4) suitability of the particular use or enjoyment invaded to the particular locality 5) ability of either party to avid the conflict and practicability and fairness of making the party to do so

295

nuisance: defenses (5) (not nec. absolute)

1) P consented or acquiesced 2) SOL, laches 3) P too sensitive 4) coming to the nuisance 5) right to farm

296

F: 69 dogs in rural area, barking H: nuisance established, but injunction to have just 6 dogs is inappropriate, need more facts to establish less broad injunction

Dobbs v. Wiggins

297

F: P sold TVs and D's computer emitted radiation which interfered w displays H: unreasonable interference must consider manner, place, circumstance notice; Negligence not required...can be liable for nuisance even if used highest possible degree of care

Page County Appliance Center v. Honneywell

298

nuisance: right to farm defense

farms immune from nuisance liability if facts giving rise to claim ahve existed for specified period of time

299

nuisance: light and air

generally NO right to light and air under nuisance law

300

nuisance: light and air rule EXCEPTION

spite fences -- if malice is FULL MOTIVE then may be nuisance (but malice as partial motive irrelevant)

301

ancient lights

NO LONGER IN EFFECT nuisance/easement rule: you could get an easement over the light and air through your neighbor's inaction for eg 20 years

302

Prah v. Maretti

F: P had solar panels on top of his house, D wanted to build HIS house next dor but wold've put shade on panels H: P MIGHT have nuisance claim, reasonable use doctrine N: compliance w zoning laws dn automatically bar a nuisance claim NOT LAW NOW

303

nuisance: ways to get your light and air protected (2)

statute easement k

304

Dobbs v. Wiggins

F: 69 dogs in rural area, barking H: nuisance established, but injunction to have just 6 dogs is inappropriate, need more facts to establish less broad injunction

305

relationship btwn nuisance and zoning

compliance w zoning laws dn automatically bar nuisance claim (tho in practice if often would) (see Prah v. Maretti)

306

nusance: substantial (2)

more than aesthetic, effect on reasonable person...

307

nuisance per se

activity is so disfavored that it will be a nuisance regardless of where or what consequences (criminal activity)

308

who has standing to enforce covenants?

usu not some other neighbor -- just the parties and hteir successors (Neponsit important bc gave HOA privity to enforce)

309

Popov v. Hyashi

F: P began to catch record baseball in upper web of glove but dnh absolute dominion or control, interrupted by attacking mob. D gets from ground H: both have ownership (P prepossessory interest) and H actual

310

Pierson v. Post dissent

--social customs (decide by the arbiter of sportsmen) --good for society: foxes are bad for society so must incentivize killing them

311

Eliff v. Texon Drilling Co.

F: P owned oil rights for reservoir, their oil flowed to neighbors side and then was destroyed by D's negligence H: law of capture doesn't absolve D of negligence liability...

312

law of capture

oil drilling: oil migrates and belongs to whoever takes it out. (bc each owner has equal opportunity to develop)

313

legal requirements for gifts

--present intent to transfer title --delivery (physical or constructive) --acceptance

314

gifts revocable? (W)

no -- not even for engagement rings

315

constructive delivery of a gift (ex)

eg of key to locked box

316

Moore v. Regents of UC

F: Ds took blood and made T cell line, P says it's still his property bc his body H: P dn retain ownership interest in blood after removed from his body (statute)

317

is sperm property?

wasn't in recent unpublished case -- "all my property" to my kids, but fiancee got sperm

318

F: ppl who bought land from tribe directly vs. ppl who bought from US gvt (who had gotten from tribe by treaty) H: --US gvt will not recognize title of lands sold by Indians to individuals. --Natives keep occupancy (legal right) bc --US gvt has exclusive right to acquire lands from Indian nations --Soveirgnty justification--courts bound by principles of own nation --Discovery/conquest --Indians dn own property by European standards and can't be incorporated into our society

Johnson v. M'Intosh (6 pt Holding)

319

F: Ds took blood and made T cell line, P says it's still his property bc his body H: P dn retain ownership interest in blood after removed from his body (statute)

Moore v. Regents of UC

320

F: P began to catch record baseball in upper web of glove but dnh absolute dominion or control, interrupted by attacking mob. D gets from ground H: both have ownership (P prepossessory interest) and H actual

Popov v. Hyashi

321

H: P did not, by mere pursuit, acquire property interest in fox. Would need seizure, mortal wounding, deprive of liberty

Pierson v. Post

322

F: quasi-public NJ nonprofit limits access to dry sand H: public has right to enjoy tidal lands, this extends to right to gain access through dry sand owned not just by a municipality, but a quasi-public body (policy). Must open assn membership N: dn reach issue of fully private lands but leaves door open that may be nec in future "to satisfy the public need"

Matthew v. Bay Head Improvement Association

323

F: P owned oil rights for reservoir, their oil flowed to neighbors side and then was destroyed by D's negligence H: law of capture doesn't absolve D of negligence liability...

Eliff v. Texon Drilling Co.

324

3 types of remedies

damages injunctive declaratory judgment

325

public trust doctrine: def

the beaches (or at least the waters) are for everyone

326

Matthew v. Bay Head Improvement Association

F: quasi-public NJ nonprofit limits access to dry sand H: public has right to enjoy tidal lands, this extends to right to gain access through dry sand owned not just by a municipality, but a quasi-public body (policy). Must open assn membership N: dn reach issue of fully private lands but leaves door open that may be nec in future "to satisfy the public need"

327

3 kinds of remedies

damages injunctive declaratory relief

328

public trust doctrine: current status

SC has given it to the states some states: swimming/sunbathing/sand all part of it other states: very limited -- just fishing sometimes addressed through prescription/easements or custom of access

329

post M'Intosh native property rights

M'Intosh still law -- Indian lands held in trust by secretary of state, need gvt permission to buy or sell

330

Pierson v. Post

H: P did not, by mere pursuit, acquire property interest in fox. Would need seizure, mortal wounding, deprive of liberty

331

bundle of sticks (7)

give/sell, divide, exclude, limit, possess, enjoy fruits/profits, destroy

332

possible justifications for property rights (5)

first possession labor and investment (inc "mixing") efficiency distributive justice soveirgn authority

333

Johnson v. M'Intosh (6 pt Holding)

F: ppl who bought land from tribe directly vs. ppl who bought from US gvt (who had gotten from tribe by treaty) H: --US gvt will not recognize title of lands sold by Indians to individuals. --Natives keep occupancy (legal right) bc --US gvt has exclusive right to acquire lands from Indian nations --Soveirgnty justification--courts bound by principles of own nation --Discovery/conquest --Indians dn own property by European standards and can't be incorporated into our society

334

current state of human-body-as-property law

usu ok compensate for fully renewable body resource (sperm, hair, eggs...)

335

trespass -- elements (4)

1) unpriviledged 2) intentional 3) intrusion 4) on property possessed by another

336

trespass: unprivileged -- exceptions (2)

necessity public policy

337

trespass: unpriviledged -- ways owner can limit consent (2)

--can revoke any time --License can be LIMITED (come here but not play blackjack)

338

F: P excluded from casino for card-counting H: owner of a property open to public dnh right to exclude individual at their discretion OJO! MINORITY VIEW!

Uston v. Resorts International Hotel Inc

339

F: D drove mobile home across P's property despite P's adamant refusal H: intentioanl trespass justifies award of punitive damages despite minimal compensatories. Actual harm in every trespass. Policy considerations.

Jacque v. Steenberg Homes

340

F: D legal aid atty trespassing charges for coming on farmer's land to visit farmworkers H: owner's right to exclude dn extend to providers of gvt services attempting to visit farmworkers (policy)

State v. Shack

341

'trespass' -- private property open to the public

majority: no right to access even 'public' places EXCEPT: illegal (protected class) discrim --common carriers

342

Uston v. Resorts International Hotel Inc

F: P excluded from casino for card-counting H: owner of a property open to public dnh right to exclude individual at their discretion OJO! MINORITY VIEW!

343

private property open to the public -- current majority rule (inc 2 exceptions)

no right to access (exclude anyone for any reason) except --common carriers --protected class based illegal discrimination

344

private property open to public: common carrier exception def and reason

transit (plane/trainbus), inkeepers BC: monopolies limit freedom, big consequences for people if they have to sleep outside

345

interstate commerce act

sets common carriers as an exception to nl rule that dnh to allow anyone in your 'public place'

346

private property open to public MINORITY VIEW

reasonable right of access

347

private proeprty open to public -- 2 exceptions

--common carriers --protected class based illegal discrimination

348

civil rights statutes impacting public access

--1964 --1866

349

Civil Rights Act 1964

full and equal enjoyment of public accom (hotel/restaurant/amusement) based on protected class

350

Civil Rights Act 1866

can make/enforce ks -- recently interpreted by some courts as granting borader rights since 1964

351

trespass: unprivileged: necessity exception

ok if to prevent more serious harm (save someone from burning building)

352

trespass: unrivileged: public policy exception

--ex: antidiscrim statutes, free speech, etc --different rules of access/occupancy when property open to public

353

State v. Shack

F: D legal aid atty trespassing charges for coming on farmer's land to visit farmworkers H: owner's right to exclude dn extend to providers of gvt services attempting to visit farmworkers (policy)

354

trespass: intentional

voluntary act --strict liability, so mistake still liable (walked vs was carried)

355

trespass: intrusion (2 exs)

the moment you enter the property --includes object extending over boundary --above or below the surface

356

trespass: intrusion: limits of property

column from core of earth to top of sky.

357

Jacque v. Steenberg Homes

F: D drove mobile home across P's property despite P's adamant refusal H: intentioanl trespass justifies award of punitive damages despite minimal compensatories. Actual harm in every trespass. Policy considerations.

358

trespassing: intrusion: when?

the moment you enter the property

359

trespass: limits of property: EXCEPTIONS (2)

overhanging airplanes deep down fracking