Property Rights Flashcards
(13 cards)
What are the 4 general components of property rights?
right to transfer, right to exclude, right to use, and right to destroy
Each right has its own set of rules and limitations.
Johnson v. M’Intosh (1823)
Right to Transfer
Johnson acquired land from a Native American tribe, but later, M’Intosh acquired a grant to the same land from the U.S. government. Johnson sued, claiming his title was valid.
Held that only the federal government could transfer title to land. The Native American land transfers were not recognized.
(established property transfers are only valid if made under the authority of the recognized government, underscores the First Possession theory but limits it to the government’s recognition of ownership.
Native American land transfers were not recognized.
What does the right to exclude entail?
The right to exclude others, considered fundamental but not absolute
Exceptions include privileged entry or public policy concerns.
Define trespass in the context of the right to exclude
- Intentional
- physical entry
- onto the land of another
- without permission
Can involve legal consequences.
Jacque v. Steenberg Homes (1997)
Right to Exclude
Steenberg moved a mobile home across the Jacques’ property without permission, despite being explicitly told not to.
Held: Even without actual harm (no compensatory damages), the court awarded punitive and nominal damages to uphold the right to exclude.
(emphasizes importance of protecting the right to exclude as a core property right, even if the actual harm is minimal)
State v. Shack (1971)
Right to Exclude
A legal aid worker and a doctor entered private property to assist migrant workers living there. The landowner tried to exclude them.
Holding: Property rights are not absolute and must yield to human values when necessary to provide essential services.
(court balanced right to exclude with social policy, showing property rights are not inviolable when human welfare is at stake)
Highlights the balance between property rights and social policy.
Nuisance Law
Right to Use
Intentional, non-trespassory, substantial, and unreasonable interference with another’s use or enjoyment of property.
Prevents unreasonable interference with another’s use and enjoyment of property
Sundowner Inc. v. King (1973)
Right to Use
King built a massive fence solely to block Sundowner’s view w/ no legitimate purpose (a “spite fence”).
Holding: found the fence to be a nuisance based on malice, constructed solely to annoy.
(illustrates even lawful use of property can become unlawful if the primary purpose is to harm another)
Prah v. Maretti (1982)
Right to Use
Maretti built a house that blocked Prah’s solar panels. Prah argued that the construction unreasonably interfered with his solar access.
Holding: recognized changing social values (e.g., energy conservation) could redefine nuisance law to protect solar access.
(highlights evolving nature of property law where courts may adjust traditional doctrines to address new societal priorities)
Reflects evolving priorities in property law.
What is the Coase Theorem?
When property rights are clearly defined and transaction costs are low, parties can negotiate solutions to conflicts without legal intervention.
i.e. Courts may choose between awarding a liability rule (paying damages) or a property rule (granting an injunction) based on economic efficiency and fairness.
What is notable about the right to destroy property?
Courts may limit destruction when it conflicts with public policy.
Eyerman v. Mercantile Trust Co. (1975)
Right to Destroy
A woman’s will instructed her executor to destroy her historic house after her death, despite its aesthetic and historic value.
Holding: The court refused to enforce the will, reasoning that the destruction served no useful purpose and harmed the public interest.
(This case illustrates that courts may limit the right to destroy when it creates unnecessary waste or offends public policy)
What does the right to use entail?
right to use property is limited by nuisance law, which prevents one person’s use of property from unreasonably interfering with another’s use and enjoyment
