Property Attack Sheet Outline Ch 2

PROTECTING RIGHT TO EXCLUDE CRIMINAL LAWS PROTECTING REAL PROPERTY Criminal law provides extensive protection to property, i.e. larceny Provides the "backstop" of ownership rights that is critical to maintaining a system of private property Property Os would be overwhelmed if had to enforce their own rights Os would often resort to self-help RULE Larceny: A trespassory/taking and asportation/ of the personal property/ of another / with the intent to deprive him of it/permanently (or for a long period of time) EXAMPLE: People v. Olivo (doesn't matter a shoplifter was apprehended before leaving the store - today's definition of "taking from possession" simply means a customer who crosses the line between the limited right she has to deal with merchandise and the store owner's property right) Just concealing with suspicious activity is enough to show intent sufficient for a prima facie case CIVIL ACTIONS PROTECTING PROPERTY Real Property • RULE Trespass: used to vindicate the interest that a person in actual possession has in exclusive possession of land (i.e. tenant v. squatter) EXAMPLE: State v. Shack (no trespass when medical/legal workers went onto farm to speak to migrant workers because the more you open your property to others (particularly for economic purposes) the more you become subject to the legally- recognized rights and interests of those others) Employer may regulate access but cannot deprive workers of access to things they need-i.e. privacy, or interfere w/ his rights of life and association Creates distinction: there is (1) private property and (2) private property that isn't so private because you allow others on for your own economic gain RULE Ejectment: used to vindicate the interest of a person who has title to land against a person wrongfully in possession(i.e. landlord v. tenant) RULE Nuisance: protects the interest in use and enjoyment of land • Personal Property Trespass d.b.a.: applies to the forcible carrying off (asportation) of plaintiff's goods Not really used anymore Detinue: based on the unlawful detention of goods Not really used anymore Trover: used to allege that def had wrongfully converted plaintiff's goods to his own use Eventually supplanted by tort of conversion RULE Replevin: used for recovery of wrongfully taking personal property RULE Trespass to Chattels: applied when there had been no asportation of personal property, but def had injured or interfered w/ property while it remain in plaintiff's possession in some manner falling short of conversion EXAMPLE: Intel Corp. v. Hamidi (No trespass to chattels because Intel cannot show any harm done to the computer system) • Invasion insufficient, harm required in trespass to chattel but not trespass to land ◊ Because we bump into people or things all the time, whereas trespass to land is less common and more avoidable No harm because sending letters does not harm a mailbox, or calling people does not harm a telephone Even if servers were on Intel's property, no trespass to land b/c intangible interferences on land are not trespasses unless they cause physical damage Electronic invasions maybe conceivable as trespass, i.e. spamming clogs servers No nuisance either because servers are not real property in the sense that a person cannot "affecting use and enjoyment" of a server SELF-HELP RULE Self-Help: A person in possession of property can generally use reasonable force "to prevent or terminate an unlawful entry or other trespass upon land or a trespass against or the unlawful carrying away of tangible property" Jurisdictions disagree on whether reasonable force deadly force absent physical danger • More controversial is the use of self-help to recover property once possession has been lost RULE Repossession: A landlord may prove a repossession is legal (and no liability) if: 1. The landlord had a legal right of possession ii. The landlord used peaceable means of reclaiming possession EXAMPLES: . Berg v. Wiley (L claimed T breached lease so L changed locks and released property-but Ls means of repossession were forcible (violence would have erupted had T been present or not restrained enough to resort to judicial process) and therefore unlawful Two-step analysis: a) Did Tabandon or surrender leasehold? b) Was L's self-help repossession of premises wrong as a matter of law? The only lawful means to dispossess a T who has not abandoned or surrendered property is to resort to judicial process which I did not do As a matter of policy to discourage people from taking law into their own hands-judicial determination avoids erroneous repossession and also disruption to social order/violence • Williams v. Ford Motor Credit Co. (repossession of car was legal because it was accomplished without any incident that might provoke violence) 1) Legal right of possession based on default in payment on the car 2) Peaceable means of reclaiming possession because car was taken at 4:30AM and plaintiff didn't provoke violence More tolerance of/latitude for self-help repossession of personal property as opposed to real property Importance of right to exclude from real property • Move ability of personal property Court didn't want to disrupt the consumer market by chilling the sale of goods on credit LAND Trespass No harm required Self-Help (Landlord-Tenant)-(1) right of possession & (2) peaceable means PERSONAL PROPERTY Harm required (Seller-Buyer)-(1) right of possession & (2) peaceable means EXCEPTIONS TO THE RIGHT TO EXCLUDE COMMON LAW EXCEPTIONS RULE Necessity : privilege to enter land of another without consent in order to avoid serious harm EXAMPLES: Ploof v. Putnam (necessity of saving life justifies docking so any interferences w/ personal property that would otherwise have been trespasses is excused) Defense of necessity shifts from a property rule liability rule O retains entitlement, but does not have rule of absolute exclusion - the intruder can use the entitlement out of necessity, without O's consent, but he must pay the O just compensation for any damage RULE Custom Right: right to hunt on unenclosed and uncultivated lands has never been disputed, and TITLE RECORDS AND TRANSFERS Nemo Dat is the principle that "no one can give that which he does not have" - so the transferee's rights are derived from those of the transferor RULE Bona Fide Purchasers UCC: is exception to nemo dat, a bona fide purchaser may have good title to stolen things, if he doesn't know it was stolen, paid value for it, and the title is "voidable" instead of "void" EXAMPLE: Kunstsammlungen Zu Weimar v. Elicofon (NY law says owner of German art in NY, who legally bought it, cannot have good title because only the true German owner has the right to title in the property - but questionable if the art was stolen per se) • EXAMPLE: Kotis v, Nowlin Jewelry, Oinc. (thief received the watch through a transaction of "purchase" because the watch was given to him voluntarily) A straight up theft is not a purchase (void), but a swindle is a purchase (voidable) • A transferor with voidable title can transfer good title to a good faith purchaser under § 2.403(a), the test for good faith is the actual belief of the buyer And the good faith purchaser must pay good value • RULE Estoppel Exception: when new owners are bona fide purchasers, if the property owner was negligent in creating an estoppel, he should have to bear the consequences EXAMPLE: Hauck v. Crawford (the land transfer was induced by fraud but the property owner still couldn't get his land back because he was negligent in signing the deed) This is a minority rule normally the bad party is missing, but it seems the court might have been influenced by the fact that the property owner could raise an action against the party that conducted the fraud RECORDING ACTS Proving ownership complicated as society moved away from nemo dat • Originally the system was that you needed to get the consent of the property owner, but then also take possession of the property before you could assert your property right against a 3rd party Between the parties, it was a private contract that governed But against the rest of the world, the possession was necessary RULE filing systems: Registration resolves potential disputes at the time of the transfer More accurate, but more expensive and depends on lazy and incompetent government workers Also leaves a racing problem in case of airplanes, boats, etc i.e. USPTO registration Recording leaves disputes to be figured out after the transfer, when they arise • Problem with inaccuracy, especially with art work because they just forge the recording too Types of Recording Acts: Race: the winner of the race prevails, the exception to the nemo dat principle Notice: a subsequent bona fide purchaser wins regardless of he records - unless he has notice (actual, constructive, or inquiry), but a previously recorded interest gives constructive or "record" notice • Race-Notice: a subsequent good faith purchaser wins only if he has no notice AND records before the prior instrument is recorded Note to get protection from recording acts, a party must prove they paid "good value" for the property, as defined in property ONLY, see Hood v. Webster (huge asshole of a brother gets land even though he broke his promise to take care of landowner widow, because widow did not show consideration in the property sense even though the nephews came to the land in order to help the widow survive, consideration in property =/= detriment in contract law) The Shelter RULE: O conveys to A, who does not record; then O conveys to B for value, who does not know about A and records; once B prevails over A, B is given all the rights of ownership, including the right to make normal nemo dat style transfers, so it doesn't matter if B gifts the property to Cor Cis not a good faith purchaser Exception is that B cannot transfer the property back to O, too many opportunities for collusion The Wild Title: The recording only gives notice when it could be found using generally accepted methods (i.e. grantee and grantor indexes) EXAMPLE: Zimmer v. Sundell O conveys to A, A never records A conveys to B, B records O conveys to C, C records C wins over 8, because Chas no way of looking up A or B (A-B deed is outside the chain of title or "wild") Adverse Possession Not Recordable: EXAMPLE: Mugaas v. Smith (adverse possession trumps recording acts, even by bona fide purchasers) • Because requiring adverse possessors to record is counter-policy-most "good" adverse possessions are accidental, so a recording requirement for adverse possession would only encourage "bad" adverse possessors THE LAW OF NEIGHBORS EASEMENTS Easements Rule: a contract in which an owner agrees to waive his right to exclude certain kinds of intrusions by another Non-possessory interest in the use of another's land protected against interference by 3rd parties, but no right to exclude Dominant Tholder of easement (extra stick in bundle) Serviant Tholder of land w/ easement (gave up or lost stick in bundle) Affirmative easement is when the DT has right to make active use of another's land that would. otherwise be a trespass or nuisance Negative easement is when the DT can stop ST from doing something they would otherwise have a right to do (ie. DT can stop ST from blocking DT's light and air) . EXAMPLE: Fontainebleau Hotel Corp. v. Forty-Five Twenty-Five (not a negative easement because we are not treating this as an invasion of property, to do so would mean creating an easement of light and no legal right to free flow of light, even in "spite" walls) Why not just have spite fences versus spite fences? Policy of best use? Free economy? Easement appurtenant is when its benefit is intimately tied to a particular piece of land (common law presumes this unless specified) Benefits DT in use and enjoyment of that particular piece of land • Runs w/ the land, not the individual so it passes with land when land is transferred, but only to the extent to which it was granted Easement in gross is when the benefit is not tied to any specific land Benefits DT personally-but not in connection with any piece of land Not transferrable RULE Creation of Easements: by express grant, implication, strict necessity, or by prescription a. Express creation occurs with a deed or will and must be in writing per SoF EXAMPLE: Baseball Publishing Co. v. Bruton ("the exclusive right and privilege to maintain an advertising sign" = easement, not a mere license) b. Implied creation does not need to satisfy Sof, but requires: The land is divided up or severed so that O is selling parts. The use for the implied easement existed before severance Easement reasonably necessary to enjoyment of DT EXAMPLE: O conveys house #1 and an implied easement is created because: (1) 0 was owner of both houses before easement, (2) the use existed before splitting up the 2