Property Final

Golden Press, Inc. v. Rylands

(Building Encroachment) Foundation encroached a few inches onto neighboring property court ruled that when the encroachment was unintentional and the cost would be unreasonable to take down the wall, then money damages should be given. • Balancing of the Equities • De Minimis: A slight harmless encroachment if it was unintentional

Uston v Resorts International Hotel

Businesses open to the public do not have the right to arbitrarily or unreasonably exclude individuals.

Easement creation

By deed (grant): conveyed in writing, specifying the nature of the easement (95%+ of all easements) Necessity Implication Prescription Reliance/estoppel (probably the most common outside of grant)

Equitable estoppel

Common law doctrine that requires transfer of title to property if seller acquires title only after a purported sale of the property to someone else; intended to prevent unjust enrichment. Requires: Admission or act inconsistent with asserted claim before the claim is brought. Action by other party in reliance on statement/act Injury when first party repudiates the statement/act.

Baseball Publishing Co v Bruton (1938)

Contracts allowing party to engage in specific use of land create easements. Distinction between lease and license: lease conveys interest in land and transfers posession--this is not a lease because BPC doesn't possess wall--Bruton still possesses. Grants specific performance. Numerus clausus: there are limited number of ppty rights available, court doesn't want to create new one even for case that doesn't fit into existing category

Easements

Contracts in which owner waives his or her right to exclude certain kinds of intrusions, giving other party a right to use. Run with the land. Kind of property right. Violations trigger injunctions. Convey right to particular USE of land, not to possession. Possession right conveys full bundle of sticks, easement right is just a single stick.

Adams v. Cleveland Cliffs Iron Co (1999)

Dust from mine case. 1) Trespass is only available when there's a direct or immediate intrusion onto land by a physical, tangible object. "Directness" requires that the invader should have known her actions would likely result in invasion. 2) Nuisance requires 1) significant harm and 2) unreasonable interference.

Easements appurtenant

Easement belongs to parcel of land. Ex: grants benefit of crossing Land A to Land B's owner. Land A is servient (burdened) tracts and Land B is dominant (benefitted) tract.

Easements in gross

Easement belongs to particular person. American courts more sympathetic to easement in gross because of railroad industry. Most courts interpret those for rec purposes as not inheritable or transferrable

Kelo v. City of New London

Eminent domain case: Local governments may force the sale of private property and make way for private economic development when officials decide it would benefit the public.

U.S. v. Miller (1943)

For purposes of just compensation, fair market value of a property is assessed at the moment the decision to take is made. Just compensation disregards landowner's idiosyncratic preferences. Avoids unfair advantages to holdouts.

State of Oregon ex rel. Thornton v. Hay

State may restrict private citizen's ability to develop/exclude others from beach area. Ppty owners want to fence off ara of beach. Trial court found that public had acquired easement to William and Hay's beach. Longstanding custom of public use of sand. Custom must be ancient, exercised without interruption, peaceable and free from dispute, reasonable, visible boundaries, obligatory, not repugnant with other customs or laws.

Carol Rose, Comedy of the Commons

Three theories of beach cases: public trust, implied grant, custom

Holbrook v. Taylor

(Creation of Easements) P used a road through D's property to build a home. He fixed the road a little ($100) and built a $25,000 home. The owner gave permission, or at least stood by and watched as P spent money and built a home in reliance on the use of the road. Court held that this was an easement by estoppel. • Akers v. Moore: Awareness is sufficient to constitute permission

Hendricks v. Stalnaker

(Trespass Nuisance Divide) `Man rushed to put in a water well when he learned neighbor was seeking permit for septic tank. Balancing the interests of the competing landowners, the court held that the installation of the water well by the landowner was not an unreasonable use of the land, and the plaintiff failed to show that the balancing of the interest favored the septic tank Balancing the interests of the competing landowners. Private Nuisance (Substantial and Unreasonable interference with private enjoyment)

Hinman v. Pacific Air Transport

(Trespass to Land/ Conception of Property) Guy seeks injunction of planes over his house. Flight over the house is not trespass. We own so much of the space above the ground as we can occupy or make use of Without dominion and possession, no right can be maintained. Ad coelom: Owner owns the ground below and the sky above--exception carved out of this ancient principle because "experience of mankind" has to be accounted for

Pile v. Pedrick

A landowner has the right to order removal of an encroaching building, even if the encroachment is minor. D's used surveyor who was just a little bit off. They have to rebuild encroaching part.--they have no legal right to occupy P's land

Spur Industries v Del Webb Development (1972)

A lawful activity may nevertheless become a nuisance if a public area is established/grows near it, and may be enjoined to protect the public. Senior citizen development in rural town. Webb wasn't only person injured--so it's public. But Webb had to pay for moving fees, even though there's no coming to the nuisance for pub nuisance. Equitable solution. Difference between private/pub nuisance is matter of degree. Injunction is appropriate for significant injury

City of Milwaukee Post v. Redevelopment Authority of Milwaukee (2009)

A leaseholder in a worthless piece of property is not entitle to just compensation in a taking. Long-term lesses have property interest entitled to just compensation. Unit rule/undivided fee rule: on value given for ppty and apportioned as needed by multiple owners. Protects public from having to pay excess value attributable to private contracts between multiple owners of a single ppty

Trespass v. Nuisance

Act occurred on plaintiffs land / act did not occur on plaintiff's land Harm to land was direct / harm to land was indirect Invasion was tangible / invasion was intangible Intrusion deprives owner of possession / intrusion deprives owner of use or enjoyment

Shelley v. Kraemer (1948)

Anti-discrimination. State courts cannot enforce racially restrictive covenants. Violation of 14th. Existence of covenant isn't unlawful--making people participate by state courts counts as state action. This all becomes moot with passage of CRA and FHA.

Fontainebleau Hotel Corp. v. Forty-Five Twenty-Five, Inc.

Blocking sunlight isn't nuisance, and landowners aren't entitled to easement for free flow of air/sun. Some jurisdictions have said you can have easement for flow of sunlight, but more common solution is negotiating restrictive covenant that limits height of neighboring building

Easement termination

Can be terminated by deed, extinguishing easement, as matter of law when ppty comes under common ownership, through adverse possession/prescription, and through abandonment

Bolotin v. Rindge (1964)

Changed conditions can only make a deed restriction unenforceable if enforcement would be oppressive or if the changed conditions have rendered its purpose obsolete. Economic consequences arent determinative.

Tulk v. Moxhay

Covenants can run with the land and bind future landowners. Proper remedy is injunction.

Neponsit Property Owners' Association v. Emigrant Industrial Savings Bank (1938)

Covenants touch and concern the land if they impose burdens/benefits on (aka substantially affect) the parties' land rights. Privity exists between property owners and corporate entities representing common interests.

McConico v Singleton (1818)

Customary right to hunt on unenclosed land supersedes right to exclude

Benefit of promise to run

Fewer requirements: Intent Vertical privity Touch and concern. No horizontal privity requirement. We don't care as much if someone unknowingly benefits, so reqs are less stringent.

Equitable servitude theory--running

For burden to run at equity, you need: ● For the burden to run at equity, you need: ○ Intent ○ Notice (characteristic of equity): covenant must be in the deed, or "actual or inquiry notice" must be present (or constructive notice via filing in the land records) ■ Inquiry notice = facts that would make a reasonable person inquire further and find the covenant ■ If no notice, than the burden can't be enforced against the purchaser ■ Designed to operate in basically the same way as in real covenants ● In the olden days, equity courts were stronger and more robust than common law courts and didn't have to rely on formalistic rules—could operate with fluffier "notice" requirements. ○ Touch and concern

Sanborn v. McLean (1925)

If owner of lots sells one with restrictions of benefit to land retained, servitude becomes mutual, and owner of lot or lots retained can do nothing forbidden to the owner of the lot sold. This is an implied reciprocal negative easement.

Schwab v Timmons (1999)

If ppty owner has bargained away road access, she is not entitled to easement by necessity to access a different road.

Easement by Estoppel

If someone acquires license giving right to construct improvements, grantor can't revoke license and restore premises to original condition after license is up. Doesn't need to be adverse--requires permission/acquiescence by landowner, and reliance by easement-seeker

Producers Lumber & Supply Co. v. Olney Building Co. (1960)

If someone mistakenly improves someone else's land, the improver is entitled to restitution, but does not have the right to trespass in order to destroy the improvement. If the improver trespasses, the injured party is entitled to the fair market value of the destroyed property.

Baker v. Howard County Hunt

Injunctions in trespass are appropriate when the injury is irreparable, or where full/adequate relief can't be granted by the law, or where trespass goes to the destruction of the property, or to prevent multiplicity of suits (repeated trespasses). Hounds continually go onto Dr. Baker's land and bite his wife and mess with his animals. After 5 years he filed for an injunction. Court determined that there was no adequate remedy at law and approved the injunction. • Damages incapable of calculation or evaluation calls for equity • Threat of continued occurrences calls for equity

Campbell v. Seaman (1876)

Injunctions may be issued to end a substantial nuisance that is recurring, substantial, and irreparable. Sulphuric gas killing trees. The proper remedy is an injunction, because the injury is recurring, substantial, and irreparable

Trespass

Knowingly entering another's property-- "knowingly entering" refers to the actor's knowledge of the literal act of entering property. Doesn't matter whether the actor actually knows the property belongs to someone else. Favored over nuisance when a resource has multiple potential uses & we want to give flexibility to allow any use.

Penn Coal v. Mahon, 1922

Land use regulation can be invalidated as a "regulatory taking" and compensation can be awarded to the regulated property owner for the damages caused. Balancing test.

Penn Bowling Recreation Center v. Hot Shoppes (1949)

Misuse of easement doesn't necessarily terminate easement, unless misuse makes it impossible to sever increased burden on servient landowner. Servient ppty can obtain injunction if easement is used in connection with other premises easement doesn't pertain to.

Jacque v. Steenberg Homes (1997)

Mobile home case. Punitive damages may be awarded in trespass even if no actual damage has been caused by the trespass. An individual has a strong interest in excluding trespassers: Allowing intentional trespass can eventually lead to abdication of one's right to own the land (adverse possession). The actual damage that's being done here isn't towards the land—it's towards the owner's right to exclude others from the land. And a legal right means nothing if the state won't enforce it. Ensuring integrity of legal system, so landowners know they can rely on it.

Covenants

More governance, often prescribe behaviors by landowner. Sometimes run with land, but default is that they're not inheritable. Not usually described as ppty right, more often promises re use of land." Based on documents (grants). Violations trigger damages.

Exceptions to right to exclude

Necessity (Ploof, Vincent)--no opp to negotiate for access. Still liable for damages though. Custom--McConico--public has reasonable expectation of access that owner has consented to. This is a group based exception (if single individual, easement) Public interest (Shack, Uston)--requires landowner to have said it's open for public use. Public accomodations--duty of non-discrimination

For burden of covenant to run

Need to establish: Intent for burden to run. Horizontal privity (parties bound by strong community of interest). Must be created as part of conveyance between winner and loser. Vertical privity--successor in interest to the promisor must hold the whole durational interest held by promisor at time the covenant was made. Covenant must touch and concern the land.

Conservation easements

Negative easements in gross, more like covenants because they don't fit traditional easement categories. Restrict future development of land. Probably would not run with land at common law, but most states have legislation authorizing them. Criticized by some as hubristic--predicting needs of future generations and presupposing that land development is irreversible.

Negative easement

Permits easement holder to block owner of servient tract from doing something.

Affirmative easement

Permits holder to perform affirmative act that would otherwise be trespass/nuisance

Warsaw v. Chicago Metallic Ceiling (1984)

Prescriptive easement. Neither removal costs nor fair market value must be paid by holder of prescriptive easement. Elements of prescriptive easement: use must be actual, open, notorious, continuous for five years, adverse

Peckham v. Milroy (2001)

Prior violations of a covenant don't mean the covenant has been abandoned. Finding of abandonment requires that violations have eroded the purpose of the covenant and made enforcement inequitable.

Profit a prendre

Right to enter land of another in order to extract something valuable. Same rules as easements apurrtenant

US v. Causby (1946)

SCOTUS says fed ctrl of navigable waters extends to airspace. Causby can get takings recompense from the government but but the US govt has authority to maintain navigable airspace as pub resource. Flights are only taking if they're so low that they're direct/immediate interference of enjoyment of land.

Ploof v Putnam (1908)

Sacrificing or trespassing on someone's property is permissible to save someone's life/save someone from grievous injuries.

Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. Illinois (1892)

States may not grant private companies title to submerged lands held in pub trust. Any such grant of title to corporation is revocable, and exercise of the trust can be resume by state anytime. Govt holds title over navigable waters so ppl can freely navigate and conduct commerce on them. You can grant parcels for improvements, but can't impair access to waters. Can't abdicate sovereign powers.

Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com

The anti-discrimination section of the Fair Housing Act doesn't apply to roommates. Avoiding constitutional problems re intrusion of state into highly personal relationships--FHA is meant to protect people from discriminatory landlords, not shape personal relationships.

Laches

The equitable doctrine that bars a party's right to legal action if the party has neglected for an unreasonable length of time to act on his or her rights. Require: Knowledge of cause of action. Unreasonable delay in bringing action. Damage to defendant resulting from unreasonable delay.

Divided ownership

To keep information

Eagle Enterprises, Inc v. Gross (1976)

To run with land, covenant must fulfill the requirements of intent, privity, and touch & concern. That's fulfilled only if covenant affects ownership interests that "flow from ownership of the land." Intent that covenant runs with land doesn't make it do so.

Estates

Type of property right; measures person's interest in the land in terms of determination

Boomer v. Atlantic Cement Co, Inc. (1970)

When the value of the nuisance >> the cost of the nuisance, permanent damages are appropriate. Cement plant generates dirt and smoke. Value of plant production is greater than value of damage to homes. Court wants to avoid shutting down plant--considers shutting it down in 18 months. Instead has Atlantic pay permanent damages and continue operating.

State v Shack (1971)

Workers housed on landowner's property have right to receive guests. Property rights serve human values—title to property doesn't include "dominion over the destiny of persons the owner permits to come upon the premises". The law can't allow occupants to contract away their health, welfare, or dignity

Regulatory Takings

when a government action results in a reduction in the value of private property; such instances are usually not subject to compensation under the Constitution, unless most of the value of property is destroyed.