Property Questions

Fee simple Absolute

A conveyance that cannot be divested nor will it end upon the occurrence of any future event

Two contiguous lots, 1 & 2, are owned by X & Y respectively. (Neither X or Y are in possession of either lot.) Both lots are conveyed by an invalid deed from Z to A, who enters lot 1 and occupies it in the usual manner for the statutory period. A sues X & Y to quiet title to lots 1 & 2. What result?

A would lose against Y but win against X. Neither X nor Y was in possession during the statutory period. A never entered lot 2; thus Y had no cause of action (for trespass) against A and the statute could not be running against Y. The ENTRY element fails

O owns and has been in possession of a 100-acre farm since 1975. But for this hypo, assume O took title to the farm under an invalid deed and O has also been in possession of the farm for the statutory period. In 1994, A entered the back 40 acres under color of an invalid deed from Z for the entire 100 acres. (Z had no claim to the land, but fraudulently pretended he did.) Since her entry, A has occupied and improved the back 40 in a typical way for the period required by the statute of limitations. A brings suit to evict O from the entire farm, claiming title by constructive adverse possession. What result?

A would not get the 100 acres - only potentially the 40 acres if they can show all the elements of AP. In each hypo, O has prior constructive possession and this prevents any constructive possession in A.

What are the two categories of future interests?

(1) Interests initially retained by the grantor (aka. the transferor) (a) Reversion, (b) Possibility of Reverter, (c) Right of Entry (2) Interests created in someone else (the transferee) (a) Vested Remainder (b) Contingent Remainder (c) Executory Interest

Why allow adverse possession?

(1) avoiding state claims (2) Correct Title Errors (3) Protect personal attachments (4) Punish dormant owners (5) Reward active users

O owns a 100-acre farm and has actively used (and still uses) 60 of the acres as a farm since 1975. In 1994, A entered the back 40 acres under color of an invalid deed from Z for the entire 100 acres. (Z had no claim to the land, but fraudulently pretended he did.) Since her entry, A has occupied and improved the back 40 in a typical way for the period required by the statute of limitations. A brings suit to evict O from the entire farm, claiming title by constructive adverse possession. What result?

A's entry under color of title does not give constructive possession of the whole. O has prior possession AND IS STILL IN POSSESSION OF THE ENIRE FARM (a key point). This actual possession prevents any constructive possession in A. But A can still adversely possess the part he or she actually occupies.

Ameliorative Waste

Arises from voluntary actions by the possessor tenant that change the property, but substantially increasing its values Today a significant number of courts reject this, but the traditional policy was that the fee holder had a right to get the property back in substantially the same condition as when it was first conveyed.

Affirmative Waste

Arises from voluntary acts, and liability results from injurious acts that have more than trivial effects. Trees can be cut if clearing trees is to protect or beautify the property. Minerals can be extracted ONLY IF the minerals were being extracted when the conveyance occurred.

O gives A a life estate, and A transfers the property to B, and then B dies before A dies. Who gets the property? For how long?

B's heirs get the property after B's death and getto keep the property until A dies. Then the property reverts to the original owner - O

O conveys Blackacre "to A and his heirs but any transfer hereafter in any manner on an interest in Blackacre is null and void" What does this create?

Disabling Restraint

Suppose that B and C are neighbors whose parcels of land lie over a cave, the entrance to which is on B's land. B discovers the entrance, explores the full domain of the cave ,and then opens it up to the public for a fee. B's business,well known to C, runs for many years. After the statute of limitations has expired, C learns that part of the cave is under his land and brings suit to quiet title to that part under this land. B claims title to the entire cave by adverse possession. Was B's possession open and notorious?

Each owner owns the land above and below the earth under the ad coelom doctrine, so this means C owns his part of the cave.

When the cut wood is crafted into hardwood floor boards and installed in a house's flooring, is it personal property or real property

It becomes a fixture against, so it is real property.

O owns a pearl ring. While visiting her daughter A, O leaves the ring on the bathroom sink. After O leaves, A discovers the ring. When A telephones O to tell her of the discovery, O tells A to keep the ring as a gift. Can O then change her mind the next day and require A to return the ring?

No. Once a gift has been made by physical delivery, itis irrevocable. O cannot change her mind the next day

What if your friend says, "Here, I give you this book because I have two copies of the book." He then hands you one copy of the book. Later, your friend discovers that he doesn't have two copies of that book, so he demands you return the copy he gave you. Must you return the book?

No. Once a valid gift is complete, it is irrevocable. Intent, Delivery, and Acceptance were met here.

In September, Lee actually transfers 10K shares of ABC stock to Peter, with the qualification that Lee will receive all dividends paid by ABC on or before Christmas. Lee dies in November, devising all his "stocks and bonds" to Carol. Who gets the stock?

Peter keeps the stock. The gift in Sept was a present gift that met all the elements. Lee's retaining the income for 4 months does not make the gift incomplete - it just means he retains something from it for a few months - much like the remainder interest in Gruen.

A famous designer creates silk scarves for the wealthy. Some of the scarves are so popular that the masses want them but can't afford them. So Mrs. Knockoff creates copies of the designer's successful scarves and sells them at a cheaper price. Designer sues seeking an injunction. What result?

She may imitate and create knock offs. Learned Hand, "a man's property is limited to the chattels which embody his invention. Others may imitate these at their pleasure."

Suppose A wishes to sell Greenacre and use the proceeds to take a trip around the world. Can B prevent A from doing this?

What if...Suppose A wishes to sell Greenacre and use the proceeds to take a trip around the world. Can B prevent A from doing this?

Now suppose that A does not telephone O to tell her that the ring has been found. One week later, at a dinner with friends, A surprises O by producing the ring. O takes the ring, looks at it, then gives it back to A, saying, "I want you to have it. It's yours." A tries the ring on, but it is too large for A's finger. O then says, "Let me wear it until you can get it cut down to fit you." O leaves the dinner wearing the ring, is struck by a car, and is killed. A sues O's executor for the ring. What result? (This was aMichigan case in 1910.

When O takes the ring and gives it back to A, declaring it is a gift, both intention and delivery are satisfied. It is a gift. When A hands the ring back to O to until A can get the ring cut down, O is a bailee, for A has no intention to make a gift to O. A is entitled to possession of the ring on O's death

T, a trespasser, captures a wild animal on the landof O, a landowner, and carries it off to T's own landwhere she confines it in a cage. Then, T2, anothertrespasser, trespasses on T's land and takes awaythe 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 the better right against T2. T's title is relatively better than T2's, even though it is relatively worse than O's

B lived across the street from a 5-acre lot that he wanted to adversely possess because it had formerly been an active sand and gravel pit. For the entire statutory period, he lived across the street, but he went over to the 5-acre lot almost daily to sell sand and gravel to customers of his new business. Will B be deemed to have met the actual possession element?

Yes . A person is not required to actually live on the property if the person puts the property to use in the way those in the normal community would expect.

O owns a pearl ring. While visiting her daughter A, O leaves the ring on the bathroom sink. After O leaves, A discovers the ring. When A telephones O to tell her of the discovery, O tells A to keep the ring as a gift. Has O made a gift to A?

Yes, O has made a gift to A when she tells A to keep the ring. The requirement of delivery is satisfied by leaving the ring in A's possession. It is not necessary that A take the ring back to O, who then transfers the ring back to A

On your 21st birthday, your father tells you an old family secret about how to find the family's hidden gold vault in the Appalachian Mountains. He then says, since you are the last living heir, he gifts this to you immediately so he can enjoy watching you live a wealthy lifestyle. Is there delivery?

Yes. Another type of constructive delivery is giving instructions on how to find hidden property. - The instructions, in these cases, act as keys giving the donee access to the hidden property.

Why does the law protect finders?

(1) Protecting ownership encourages the productive use of resources— investment, mutually advantageous trades, and so on. 2. For most items of personal property, there is no document to show ownership. Note: But this is getting easier to do in the information age, with cell phones, computers,IP address, receipts, and such.

B was the owner of an acre of land he purchased in 1971. However, C started adversely possessing this land in 1981, and the state's statute of limitations is 10 years. In 1991, the SOL for adverse possession has run. When will C be deemed to have begun owning the property if he wins title by adverse possession?

1981, when he first began adversely possessing

O is the owner of a lot in 1994, and A enters adversely on May 1, 1994. The age of majority is 18. The statutory language on p.159 controls the SOL time periods. O is five years old in 1994. In 2004, O becomes mentally ill, and O dies w/o will in 2017. O's heir, H, is under no disability. When does the SOL expire for H to bring a claim to oust A?

2017. O's second disability is disregarded. Disabilities cannot be tacked; in any event, the subsequent (intervening) disability did not exist at the time the cause of action accrued in 1984. O would have reached majority (age 18, as stipulated at the outset of the Problems) in 2017 (1994 + 13); the only disability that counts is removed at that time. Under the statute, O would have had until 2015 (1994 + 21) or 2017 (2007 + 10), whichever is longer, to bring suit. The latter is longer, so it governs. No one sued within that period, so A has title. O's parent or guardian should have brought suit.

O is the owner of a lot in 1994, and A enters adversely on May 1, 1994. The age of majority is 18. O is insane in 1994. O dies insane and intestate (without a will) in 2017. O's heir, H, is 6 years old in 2017 when O dies. When would the statute expire for H to bring a claim again A?

2027. H's disability is disregarded because disabilities cannot be tacked together, whether in one person or a series of persons. H has a guardian bring the claim to oust A on his or her behalf.

Fee Simple subject to condition subsequent

A fee simple that does not automatically terminate, but MAY BE CUT SHORT (or divested) at the grantor's election when a stated condition happens. "but if... then grantor may"... "On the condition that... the grantor may"

Suppose O conveys Blackacre "to A for life."What interests do A and O have?

A has a life estate. O has a reversion in fee simple *

What do you call the future interest retained by the grantor of a fee simple subject to condition subsequent?

A right of entry (aka a power of termination), which may only be retained by the grantor or his heirs.

If Van Pelt had said to his wife before she died (10 years before he did), "Dear, I give you the piano." Would there be a gift?

A wife has joint dominion of the household with her husband, so the piano has been "delivered" to the wife. The only issue is whether the evidence of intent is sufficient (oral gift before one witness)

Injurious Acts

Acts that substantially reduce the value of the property

What are the three types of waste?

Affirmative Waste, Permissive Waste, and Ameliorative Waste

After the cow is 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

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 owns the newly born calf?

Alex does under the doctrine of increase

Alex finds a watch on the sidewalk one day.Alex later loses the watch, which is then found by Bob. Alex sues Bob for return of the watch. Who wins?

Alex wins because he was the prior finder

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)

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?

Alex would be awarded the final product (wine), but Bob would be entitled to damages equal to the value of the grapes ($50)

P imports two silver gray foxes for breeding purposes on her Mississippi Ranch. The foxes are wild and escape and have no inclination to return to P's ranch. P sets a trap tore-capture them, but to no avail. A few days after the escape, D sees the foxes about 10 miles away from P'sranch and kills them. P learns of this and sues D to return the carcasses. Who prevails?

Although the silver fox lacks animus revertendi, D's should have inferred that this valuable animal, not native to the area, belonged to someone else. Thus, the capture rule would not reward D because D should have known hey weren't truly wild-- they belonged to someone else.

Permissive Waste

Arises from a failure to act and involves essentially a question of negligence.

Are trees fixtures? How about growing corn?

Both are fixtures when attached to land, but once cut or harvested, they become personal property.

Who owns the property if the government grants a piece of land to bob on May 1 and then grants that same piece of land to Sally on June 1. Thereafter, on July 1, at exactly the same time, Bob sells that land to Carl, and Sally sells that land to Nancy.

Carl because bob was the prior owner after tracing the chain of title back to its root. You cannot give what you do not have.

Carly, a world-class painter, uses Doug's blank canvas to create a masterpiece. Carly uses her own brushes and paints (and talent, of course).Who owns the painting?

Carly because of the doctrine of accession. But she must pay Doug for the canvas

In Sept, Lee handed Peter a signed paper promising that Lee will give Peter 10,000 shares of ABC corporation as a Christmas present. Lee died in November, devising all his "stock and bonds" to Carol. Carol and Peter both claim the ABC stock. Who gets the stock?

Carol does. Lee's promise to Peter is unenforceable because Peter gave no consideration. When Lee died, he was the legal owner and the stock passed according to his will

Fee simple subject to executory limitation

Created when a grantor transfers a fee simple subject to condition subsequent AND IN THE SAME INSTRUMENT creates a future interest in a THIRD PARTY

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 states) applies, which would make the parking lot owner liable regardless of David's assent

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 the return of the deer carcass. Who prevails?

F wins under the exception to the capture doctrine called animus revertendi

T/F: Future interests are not presently existing property interest

False. It is the right of possession that is delayed until some future time.

Defeasible fees

Fee estates that will terminate before its natural end point upon the occurrence of some future event.

Which present possessory estates are future interests ALWAYS attached to?

Fee simple absolute, fee simple determinable, fee simple subject to condition subsequent, fee simple subject to executory interest, and life estates.

Types of Defeasible Fees

Fee simple determinable, Fee simple subject to condition subsequent, and fee simple subject to executory limitation.

Fee simple determinable

Fee simple so limited that it will AUTOMATICALLY end when some stated event happens. Key language: "so long as", "During", "While"

O, while wearing a wristwatch, hands A a signed writing saying: "I hereby give A the wristwatch I am wearing." Is this a valid gift?

For most courts, no, this wouldn't be valid if the watch can be easily handed over. O does not "feel the wrench of delivery." But this begs the question. If the writing were effective, O would feel the wrench of delivery.

Two contiguous lots, 1 & 2, are owned by X & Y respectively. (Neither X or Y are in possession of either lot.) Both lots are conveyed by an invalid deed from Z to A, who enters lot 1 and occupies it in the usual manner for the statutory period. A sues X & Y to quiet title to lots 1 & 2.What result if X executed a valid deed and A entered both lot 1 & lot 2?

If X executed the deed and A entered lot 2, A would win as against both X and Y: A would have a good deed as to X's land, and constructive adverse possession under color of titleregarding Y's land.

In 1600, O conveys Blackacre "to A for life, then to B forever." What estates do A and B have? If A dies and then B dies, who owns Blackacre? What would happen if this conveyance happened in 2002?

In 1600 A has a life estate, and B has a remainder for life because words of inheritance were not included. If A dies, then B dies, Blackacre reverts to O. In 2002, A has a life estate, and B has a remainder in fee simple because words of inheritance (limitation)are no longer needed and transfers without such words are deemed to be transfers in fee simple

For most courts, no, this wouldn't be valid if the watch can be easily handed over. O does not "feel the wrench of delivery." But this begs the question. If the writing were effective, O would feel the wrench of delivery.

In Hocks, Joan made a strategic error. The note she suggested Robert put in the box indicated he intended a gift at death, not during life. But, even assuming that Robert intended an intervivos gift, the court held that Robert had not physically delivered the items to Joan (except for the four bonds handed to her) and had not lost dominion and control over the other items in the box. He could remove them at any time, and he collected the interest from them (an act of dominion). The bank joint tenancy card, saying the survivor owned the contents of the box, was not controlling. It only was for the purpose of protecting the bank against unwarranted removal and was not intended to delineate the rights between the parties.

When does the SOL begin to run for adverse possession in a fee simple subject to condition subsequent

It does not begin until the Right of Entry holder exercises that right. The fee simple subject to condition subsequent owners continue owning the property until the Right of Entry is exercised.

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

Fee Simple defeasible

Most common types of defeasible estates.

Now suppose that at the dinner in the last hypo, O had not said the words quoted, but instead had said,"I promise to leave you this ring when I die." What result?

No inter vivos gift is made if O intends only a gift at death. A promise to leave property at death, without any consideration or reliance leading to promissory estoppel, is an unenforceable gratuitous promise.

Victor Gruen had typed and signed a letter to Michael: "I give you the Klimt painting when I die."Would this be a valid gift?

No, it would not. The letter is a will - called a holographic will. It shows no intent to give Michael any rights now, but only when Victor dies. As a will, it is not valid unless it is properly executed with witnesses and such.

What if a your best friend has received a check from someone, but she wants to give it with you, so she endorses the check and places it on a table in her apartment, along with a note saying she gives it to you. However, before you can actually pick up the check, your friend commits suicide. Would there be delivery here under the traditional rule?

No. Constructive delivery would not be recognized because manual delivery was possible here. But the Scherer v Hyland, 380 A.2d 698 (NJ 1977) case expanded the scope of constructive delivery, finding that it was available even though manual delivery was entirely possible

When loaning you the book, your friend says, "I'll give the book to you if I find out I have a second copy of it; otherwise, I need this back." Your friend says nothing else and never asks for the book back, and you know he has two copies of the book because you saw the second copy on his bookshelf. Is there a valid gift

No. Gifts cannot be subject to a condition precedent (an act that must occur before the gift is effective)

Victor Gruen had wanted to give Michael the complete ownership of the painting (and not reserve a life estate), could he have done so by a letter sent to Michael at Harvard?

No. Since the painting is capable of manual delivery, the traditional rule is that he has to hand it over. He cannot give it by letter

Just before heart surgery where your mother only has a 20% chance of survival, your mother gives her wedding ring to you while laying in her hospital bed. But, what luck, she survives the surgery, and recovers nicely. 2 months later, her heart fails again, requiring another surgery, which she dies from this time. Is the gift of the ring valid?

No. The ring would pass according to your mother's will. The gift causa mortis extinguished when she recovered from her surgery.

Suppose Van Pelt had said to Julia, "I want to give you my insurance policy in that bureau over there, so Enos please get it and give it to her." He also doesn't give Julia the keys because he just told Enos to give her the policy. Enos, however, doesn't do this and leaves the policy in the bureau drawer. Is there a valid gift of the insurance policy?

No. There is not a valid delivery because the policy was left where it was. It wasn't moved. No keys were given. So no actual delivery or constructive or symbolic delivery.

O conveys Blackacre "to A and her heirs." If A dies intestate without issue (i.e children), will Blackacre escheat to the state?

Not necessarily. A could have other heirs (ancestors or collaterals), and Blackacre will not escheat to the state but pass to A's other heirs. It will not revert to O.

Jane, a wealthy Michigan woman, wanted to be buried with her 10-carat, blue diamond ring. The ring was famous for being the largest blue diamond in the State, and one of the largest in the world. Could Jane's heirs stop her from beingburied with it?

Probably not. Many people are buried with their valuable possessions, and it has been routinely allowed. It would be hard to say the public has an interest that would be violated here.

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?

Probably your friend under the American rule for treasure troves because it was buried in your friend's land.

O conveys Blackacre "to A and her heirs, and Apromises for herself, her heirs, and successors ininterest that Blackacre will not be transferred byany means."

Promissory Restraints

O is the owner of a lot in 1994, and A enters adversely on May 1, 1994. The age of majority is 18. O has no disability in 1994. O dies without a will in 2012. O's heir, H, is two years old in 2012. When does the SOL expire for H to bring a claim?

The statute ran out in 2015. O was under no disability at the time the adverse possession began so H's disability is disregarded.

When does the SOL begin to run for adverse possession in a fee simple determinable?

The statute starts running on the day the possibility of reverter happens.

O is the owner of a lot in 1994, and A entersadversely on May 1, 1994. The age of majority is 18. The statutory language on p.159 controls the SOL time periods -21 years from accrual or 10 years after disability removed. O is insane in 1994. O dies insane and intestate (without a will) in 2017. O's heir, H, is under no disability in 2017. When would the statute expire for H to bring a claim again A?

The statute will not run until 2027. O had a qualifying disability that ended with his death in 2017. By then, the statute, without regard to the disability provision, had run, but H as O's successor in interest can take advantage of the disability provision; thus H has 10 years from O's death in 2017 within which to bring suit.

Suppose A gives B a $21K engagement ring. Later, due to rampant infidelity by both parties, the wedding is called off and the engagement terminates. Does it matter who ended the engagement in determining who now owns the ring?

The traditional rule is that the donor cannot recover the ring if the donor is at fault. But Lindh v Surman, 742 A.2d 643 (Pa. 1999) adopted a no-fault approach, holding that the ring must be returned regardless of who broke the engagement. And in Carroll v Curry, 912 N.E.2d 272 (Ill App 2009), a more recent case affirmed this saying "marriage is an act or event that must occur before the gift is completed." Thus, it is a condition precedent, and the ring must be returned if the marriage is called off.

O conveys Greenacre "to A and her heirs." A's only child, B, is a spend thrift and runs up large, unpaid bills. B's creditors want to attach (go after) B's property to satisfy B's unpaid bills. Does B have an interest in Greenacre that is reachable by B's creditors?

The words "and her heirs" simply mean "in fee simple." B has no interest in Greenacre that B's creditors can reach

O conveys land "to A for life, then to B and his heirs." A moves on the land and wants to cut & sell timber on the land and keep the proceeds. Can A do so?

These actions may constitute waste entitling B to damages. Answer depends on jurisdiction, but it's definitely a case worth looking into.

What is the effect of a transfer "to A's heirs" if A is alive at the time of the transfer?

This means we do not yet know who are the transferees of the conveyance because heirs are defined only AFTER death.

What if, after being diagnosed with terminal cancer that will likely kill you in a month, you put a small jewelry box in your maid's bedroom. She sees it two days later and asks you about it. You then tell her,"The jewelry box and anything in it are yours." Is delivery valid for this gift causa mortis?

Traditionally, no. You would actually have to go into her room, pick up the jewelry box, and hand it to her. The Uniform Probate Code is loosening these restrictions.

T/F Every life estate is followed by a future interest

True

T/F: Future interests give legal rights to its owners, and is protectable in court

True

Omar collects stamps. A decade or so ago he purchased a set of stamps for $150,000. Last year, Omar donated a dresser to charity. Pete bought the dresser for $30. Pete found the stamps in the dresser and advertised them for sale in a nationally circulated stamp catalog. Omar saw the ad and demanded the stamps be returned to him. Pete refused. Omar sued, and Pete defended based on the law of finders. If you were the judge, how would you rule? Why?

Under Armory, Pete had greater ownership rights against the whole world except the true owner. Once Omar proves he's the true owner, he wins and Pete loses. The sale/donation of the dresser was not a gift of the stamps inside.

O, owner of Blackacre, is unmarried, and has two children, A and B. Later, B dies leaving a will, devising all of his property to W, B's wife. B is survived by three children, B1, B2, & B3. A1 is born to A. Then, O dies without a will. Who owns Blackacre under modern American property law?

Under modern American law, the heirs are A (who takes one-half) and B's three children (who, taking by representation, split in equal shares the other one-half). W takes nothing because B did not survive O and because W is not O's heir - she married into the family. A1 takes nothing by representation, because A survived O, and the theory is the parent will provide for the child.

What if Van Pelt instead has said, "I want to give you my bureau over there. Enos, please move it into her room." Enos does so. The bureau contains the life insurance policy. Is there a valid gift?

Under the reasoning in Newman, Julia would might take the insurance policy because there has been manual delivery. But itis not clear that Van Pelt was aware of the insurance policy in the drawer, and the gift may fail for lack of intent, not for lack of delivery

Are life estates defeasible?

Yes, they end at the death of the life tenant, or they can be set up to end earlier. "O to A for life so long as the property is only used for residential purposes."

O conveys Blackacre "to A and her heirs, butif A attempts to transfer the property by anymeans whatsoever, then to B and his heirs.

Forfeiture Restraint

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. (multiple finders rule)

Suppose that Van Pelt had called Julie in and said,"I want to give you my bureau and the insurance policy locked in it. Here is the key." Julia takes the key but the bureau stays where it is. Has a valid gift been made?

Here Van Pelt's intent is clear, and constructive delivery of the bureau and its contents should give Julia possession of the bureau and its contents. But a stickler court might require the contents to be taken out and handed over.

If Van Pelt had said to Julia before she died (10 years before he did), "Dear, I give you the piano." Would there be agift?

Julia's problem is that, as a servant, she doesn't have dominion and control, so the donor's statement of intent is not sufficient to satisfy the requirement of delivery

Possibility of Reverter

Language that says what happens after the determination happens. This is usually a remainder in O or his heirs.

O writes a check to B from O's checking accountand hands the check to B. Before B can cash the check, O dies. What result

Majority rule: A check is an order to pay and is revocable before payment; it is revoked by the drawer's death. But some courts have ruled otherwise. And holding otherwise makes sense. If the withdrawer dies before thecheck is paid, in most cases the withdrawer would want the check to be paid

Now suppose that Van Pelt had called Julia in and said, "I want to give you my little strong box (a type of safe) and the insurance policy locked in it. Here is the key." Julie takes the key, but the box stays where it is. Has a valid gift been made?

Maybe not. (Depends on how strict the jurisdiction is.) This problem raises the question: Can you have constructive delivery by key of a small item? Maybe not, since the small box is capable of manual delivery. In the Bynum note case, the donor handed over the box to the donee, enumerating the contents, and the court held a valid delivery

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, so David won't win

The Kuntos and their predecessors had camped every summer on the lot, and, being good environmentalists, had left no traces when they removed their camp in the fall. In the winter, the owner wouldhave no notice of an adverse claim (as he would with a house sittingthere). Would camping satisfy the requirement of continuity?

The continuity requirement would probably be satisfied becausethere's no requirement you build a building. So if you camped on it during the summer, you are putting the property to its intended use. But if the use you are doing is utterly outside of the normal use, then it might break the continuity requirement.

Why will the law usually not enforce a provision in a will directing that valuable property be destroyed?

The law supposes that while self-interest will prevent living people from wastefully destroying their property, it imposes no such constraints on the dead.

What happens if the finder sells the goods before the owner can stop him?

The money from the Finder's sale stands in place of the goods - legally a constructive trust is created which the true owner has a right to go after.

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.

Alex steals a valuable wrist watch from its true owner and then takes it to Bob's shop for repairs. Charlie sees the watch on Bob's shop counter and sneakily takes it by slipping it into his pocket. Can Alex recover from Bob's Shop because he lost the watch?

Yes. Bob's Shop was a bailee, so it is strictly liable for any lossor damage to the watch. It doesn't matter that Alex originally stole the watch.

Jane, while doing a solo 5-mile hike, unknowingly walked across John's private property. Civil Trespass?

Yes. She intended to hike - so the fact that she didn't know she walked across John's property in irrelevant. would only be nominal damages.

I loan you a book to read for book club. But after loaning you the book, I discover that I actually have two copies of the book, so I later call you and say, "I have two copies of that book I loaned you, so you can just keep that book." Would there be a valid gift?

Yes. The intent doesn't have to come the same time as delivery - though it often does. So delivery was when the book was loaned. But the intent to gift didn't come until the statement made after you discovered you had two books

Is every simple determinable accompanied by a future interest?

Yes. that means that there must be some language that says what happens after the determination happens.

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 yourfriend?

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