US Property Fall 1L Hypos Flashcards
Alex innocently uses a bushel of Bob’s grapes to make a batch of wine. The batch of wine sells for $2500, but the bushel of grapes is only worth $50. What result?
(Accession) Alex would be awarded the final product – the wine – but Bob would be entitled to damages equal to the value of the grapes – $50.
A cow from Alex’s herd roams onto Bob’s farm, mates with Bob’s bull, and ends up returning so often to Bob’s farm (to see the bull) that the cow ends up giving birth on Bob’s farm. Who own the calf?
Alex does under the doctrine of increase.
After being returned to Alex, the newly born calf spends its life wandering back to Bob’s farm. Bob feeds the calf each day and bathes it regularly, while Alex does nothing for the calf. The grown calf (now cow) then has its own calf with one of Bob’s other bulls.
Who owns the newly born calf?
Alex does because it’s offspring of offspring – doesn’t matter that Bob fed it – he voluntarily did it.
T, a trespasser, captures a wild animal on the land of O, a landowner, and carries it off to T’s own land where she confines it in a cage. Then, T2, another trespasser, trespasses on T’s land and takes away the animal.
In a suit by T against T2, who owns the animal? Why?
When T2 trespasses on T’s land and carries off the animal, T does have “title” (the better right) as against T2. T’s title is relatively better than T2’s, even though it is relatively worse than O’s.
NOTE: T, the trespasser, has no rights as against O, the owner of the land from which T took the animal without O’s permission, because O had constructive possession.
This is called relative title – that means you look at title in relation to the parties involved.
F has established a herd of deer that she keeps for pleasure and an occasional roast of venison. The deer roam about on open government property during the day but return to F’s farm at night. H, a hunter, licensed to hunt deer on the gov’t land, shoots one of F’s deer during hunting season one day. F sues H for return of the deer carcass.
Who prevails?
F wins under the exception to the capture doctrine called animus revertendi.
Normally, a person who captures a wild animal loses the ownership right if the wild animal escapes. But if the animal is sufficiently domesticated to return frequently to the original capturer, then it still is owned by the capturer.
What policy does this serve? The domestication of wild animals for use to the greater society.
Alex finds a watch in an old storage locker – Alex bought the storage locker at auction. Alex later loses the watch, which is found by Bob. Alex sues Bob for return of the watch. Who wins?
Alex wins because he was the prior finder.
Multiple-finder rule: When there’s a sequence of finders, the prior finder wins as against subsequent ones.
In the early evening, David parks his car with the valet at a local restaurant. He gives his car keys to the valet, who asks David how long it will be before David returns. David says he will return at 2 a.m., two hours after the restaurant valet closes. The valet says no problem, and that he’ll move the car to a well-lit space and put David’s keys just inside the car’s exhaust pipe. David can then get access to his car after the lot closes and the valet has gone home. David nods in assent to this suggestion. But when David returns at 2 a.m., his car has vanished. David sues the parking lot owner for conversion of the vehicle. Who wins and why?
David wins. The transfer of the keys and moving of the vehicle suggest that delivery and assent was met for there to be a bailment. The rule of strict liability (or a presumption of negligence in some US states) applies, which would make the parking lot owner liable regardless of David’s assent.
You are helping your friend clean out his pool for the winter. After the water is drained out, you are at the bottom of the pool scrubbing the pool floor, when you see a glimmer coming from the drain area. You go over to the drain area and find a woman’s necklace. You know it’s not your friend’s because he is a live-alone bachelor. You show it to him, and he says he’s never seen it before. But a dispute ensues about who gets to sell it and keep the money. Who has the right to the necklace? You or your friend?
Your friend, who owned the property. Even though he didn’t know about the necklace until you found it, it was his private property, so the expectation is that things on it are his. Plus, this might help facilitate the return to the true owner, who may come back looking for it.
John, while shopping at a department store, discovers that his watch band just broke. He wants to take it over to the watch counter – which is on the other side of the department store – but he wants to finish his shoe purchase first. As a result, John lays his watch, with the broken band, on a counter near the shoe displays. He intends to grab it when he’s done buying the shoes.
Frank sees the watch and takes it. Frank looks around for someone to inquire about this lost watch, but John had forgotten to take the watch with him when he left the department store, and the sales clerk said she had never seen the watch before.
Is this watch lost or mislaid?
It is mislaid. John knew where he left it; he just forgot to get it.
You are helping a friend dig a new garden in your friend’s back yard when you find, buried several inches below the surface, an old tin box containing old silver bullion (coins). It turns out these coins are worth $25,000.
Who is entitled to the box and the coins? You or your friend?
Your friend under the American rule for treasure troves because it was buried in your friend’s land.
Tanya loses her watch. Frances finds the watch, but she loses it a week later while playing in the park. Georgia finds the watch in the park. Four days later, Georgia walks into a crowded room, with Frances in it, and announces that she found a watch in the park. Frances gives a description of the watch she lost in the park, and it matches the watch Georgia is holding up. Despite this identification, Georgia doesn’t give the watch to Frances. Who should get the watch?
Frances, because she has greater rights to the watch than Georgia, thus, she should get the watch.
In year 1, Charles buried $25K in coins and paper money in tin cans and glass jars in his backyard. It was commonly known that Charles did not trust banks and hid money on his property. Charles died in year 12.
All his property passed to his son, Ozzie. Ozzie sold the land to David in year 20. Later, David hired Ellison to tear down and replace a garage. In removing the garage, Ellison found the tin cans and glass jars containing the money. Was the money lost, mislaid, abandoned, or treasure trove?
The money was not lost but was probably mislaid. By putting it in cans and jars, this indicates Charles’s intent to hide.
It was not abandoned. Charles intended to keep it.
It might be a treasure trove, but usually those need to be things of antiquity, and 20 years might not be enough.
In year 1, Charles buried $25K in coins and paper money in tin cans and glass jars in his backyard. It was commonly known that Charles did not trust banks and hid money on his property. Charles died in year 12.
All his property passed to his son, Ozzie. Ozzie sold the land to David in year 20. Later, David hired Ellison to tear down and replace a garage. In removing the garage, Ellison found the tin cans and glass jars containing the money. Ozzie, David, and Ellison all claim the 25K. Who wins?
Ozzie gets the money. He inherited all of Charles’s property, including the money and the land. He is the true owner, and prevails over David, the current landowner, and Ellison the finder.
Money and land are separate assets (unlike mineral rights in land, etc), so David won’t win.
You are helping your friend clean out his pool for the winter. After the water is drained out, you are at the bottom of the pool scrubbing the pool floor, when you see a glimmer coming from the drain area. You go over to the drain area and find a woman’s necklace. You know it’s not your friend’s because he is a live-alone bachelor. You show it to him, and he says he’s never seen it before. But a dispute ensues about who gets to sell it and keep the money. Who has the right to the necklace? You or your friend?
Your friend, who owned the property. Even though he didn’t know about the necklace until you found it, it was his private property, so the expectation is that things on it are his. Plus, this might help facilitate the return to the true owner, who may come back looking for it.
John, while shopping at a department store, discovers that his watch band just broke. He wants to take it over to the watch counter – which is on the other side of the department store – but he wants to finish his shoe purchase first. As a result, John lays his watch, with the broken band, on a counter near the shoe displays. He intends to grab it when he’s done buying the shoes.
Frank sees the watch and takes it. Frank looks around for someone to inquire about this lost watch, but John had forgotten to take the watch with him when he left the department store, and the sales clerk said she had never seen the watch before.
Is this watch lost or mislaid?
It is mislaid. John knew where he left it; he just forgot to get it.
