Property I -- Through RAP Flashcards
(71 cards)
Fariness Based Arguments
- Rights based, morality based
- As humans, what obligations do we have to each other
- Why this course of action/standard etc. treats parties fairly/equally or not
- Why a given solution is morally fair or not
Utility Based Arguments
- “What are the overall consequences for society that comes from this?” What does the law incentivize/disincentivize?
- What types of behaviors will this given rule or dispute incentivize for other people in the future?
- What are the benefits for society answering this question one way or another?
- “Best overall consequences”
- Maximizing general welfare, etc.
Institutional Arguments
- In what situations is it appropriate for these competing claims to be resolved by the legislature/judiciary/juries/municipalities?
Administrability Arguments
Bright line rules vs. Discretionary Standards
Right / Duty
Right to exclude / duty to not enter
Privilege / No-Right
Pilots have privilege of access above a certain altitude / Jaques have no-right to raise a problem with this in court
Immunity / Disability
Immunity from being forced to make easements / The party who would impose easements is disabled
Defenses to Trespass
*Necessity
*Consent (habitability cannot be contracted around, minimum standard)
*Public Policy
CRA 1964
*Protected Categories: Race, color, religion, national origin
*Places: PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS: Lodging, restaurants, entertainment; + contained within another place
Public Trust Doctrine
All tidal waters are held in trust for the public
Beach Access Standards
*Robust Exclusionary Rule
*Strong Right To Exclude
*Statutory Unfettered Access
*Reasonable Access Standard
Robust Exclusionary Rule (Severance v. Patterson)
All dry sand beach titled in private hands is closed to the public unless the state can deliberately prove that one of the common law doctrines (implied dedication, prescription [adverse possession], custom) appears.
Strong Right to Exclude (TX)
*1959: TX Open Beaches Act – Set out procedures under which the state gains access to a beach based on other common law doctrine (ex. implied dedication, prescription [adverse possession], custom) all of which take time to develop and ripen into a claim [formalized these procedures]
Statutory Unfettered Access (OR)
Custom of public use creates a perpetual easement
Reasonable Access Standard (NJ) (Matthews v. Bay Head)
- Only within the context of a quasi-public organization that was basically acting like a town, which pushed them to consider the beach as public –> reasonable access to the beach) (later expanded to private beaches as well)
- Public Trust Doctrine
Dedication
Private owner gifts (OFFERS) real property to general public (who ACCEPT).
Prescription
- (Easement by)
- “Public has used property possessed by another for a particular purpose for a long time”
- Basically AP but not EXCLUSIVE. Confers usage rights but not ownership rights.
Adverse Possession (6 Elements)
- Actual entry (Not shared w/ possessor or public at large)
- Exclusive (Exclude others as if owners of land)
- Open and Notorious (Owner: constructive notice)
- Adverse Under a Claim of Right (State of Mind, presumption of non-permittance. Defense: owner permission)
- Continuous (Using the property in the usual way that a reasonable true property owner would use the property)
- For the Entire Statutory Period
Adverse Occupant State of Mind Requirements by Jdx
- Objective (DGAF)
- Good Faith
- Intentional Trespass / “Bad Faith”
Color of Title
Defective and thus invalid deed, but that entitles one to the property. Can affect ACTUAL (though only AP’d a portion, can expand to whole if had CoT) and SoL (lessens period) requirements.
An adverse occupant with CoT must still hit all 6 elements to qualify.
Tacking (Brown v. Gobble)
IF F and G were in PRIVITY (voluntary transfer either of an estate and land [recognized legal interest in land] OR possession of that land) then the time periods of their ownership can be tacked together (considered uninterrupted) [Applies to both applicants and owners alike]
Private Nuisance Elements (3)
- Substantial Interference
- Unreasonable Interference (Dobbs Considerations Here)
- Relating to the use and enjoyment of land
6 “Reasonability” Nuisance Considerations (Dobbs v. Wiggins)
- Utility of D’s conduct (whether D is engaged in a useful enterprise) (valuable conduct?)
- Gravity of harm to P (how bad?)
- Suitability to the area (why here)
- Priority of use (#first)
- Cost to P and D of avoiding the harm; (just move lol? /j) and
- Abatable (can D or P mitigate the effects of their property, practicability of abating nuisance) (try harder? /j)
Affirmative Defenses for Nuisance
- Unusual Sensitivity (Gravity, not gonna win bc based on reasonable person)
- Coming to the nuisance (Prio of Use)