March 2006
Monthly Archive
Property Law #22: Defaulting Tenants Wednesday, Mar 29 2006
1L and Neil Wehneman and Property Law and University of Cincinnati College of Law 3:51 pm
Not every lease works out perfectly. Sometimes tenants default, or a landlord believes they have defaulted. What happens then? Can a landlord execute self-help to take back the premises? What requirements, if any, are there to relet the premises?
Berg v. Wiley
Sommer v. Kridel
Property Law #21: Possession and Assignment Wednesday, Mar 29 2006
1L and Neil Wehneman and Property Law and University of Cincinnati College of Law 3:41 pm
Tension exists between viewing leaseholds as property and viewing leaseholds as contract. This tension is shown though examining who has the responsibility to put the incoming tenant into possession, and whether an alienable assignment of the lease can be barred by the landowner.
Hanna v. Dusch
Kendall v. Ernest Pestana, Inc.
Property Law #20: Intro to Leasehold Estates Wednesday, Mar 29 2006
1L and Neil Wehneman and Property Law and University of Cincinnati College of Law 3:42 am
We now turn to leasehold estates, or when property is conveyed to another for a limited time. We will examine the basics of determined the lease time period and the notice required, as well as see those concepts applied.
Garner v. Gerrish
Crechale & Polles, Inc. v. Smith
Property Law #19: Marital ‘Property’ Wednesday, Mar 29 2006
1L and Neil Wehneman and Property Law and University of Cincinnati College of Law 3:32 am
Marriages sometimes end in divorce. When they do, it is easy enough to divide tangible property. But what do we do with degrees, careers, celebrity, and other intangible fruits of the marriage partnership?
In re Marriage of Graham
Elkus v. Elkus
Property Law #18: Tenancy by the Entirety Wednesday, Mar 29 2006
1L and Neil Wehneman and Property Law and University of Cincinnati College of Law 3:28 am
Tenancy by the entirety is a joint tenancy that can be created only by marriage. Issues arise when a creditor with a claim against one spouse seeks to assert rights against this jointly owned property.
Sawada v. Endo
United States v. 1500 Lincoln Avenue
Property Law #17: Still More on Concurrent Interests Wednesday, Mar 29 2006
1L and Neil Wehneman and Property Law and University of Cincinnati College of Law 3:13 am
What happens when one co-tenant creates value in the property that is not realized by the other tenant? Can this other tenant sue for a share of the proceeds? The answer will have an analogue to the world of copyright and Google Book Search. We will also examine what happens when a joint tenant leases his interest to a third party over another joint tenant’s objections.
Spiller v. Mackareth
Swartzbaugh v. Sampson
Google Book Search
Wikipedia entry on Fair Use
Fair Use analysis of Google Book Search (aka Google Library Project)
Property Law #16: More Concurrent Interests and Partition Wednesday, Mar 29 2006
1L and Neil Wehneman and Property Law and University of Cincinnati College of Law 2:13 am
We continue our discussion of concurrent interests by looking at how a mortgage affects the respective rights of the parties. We will also examine joint bank accounts. Finally, sometimes tenants in common or joint tenants don’t get along. In that case, if the parties fail to work out their own arrangement, any party can have a court partition the property. This partion can either be in kind or by sale.
Harms v. Sprague
Delfino v. Vealencis
Property Law #15: Intro to Concurrent Interests Wednesday, Mar 29 2006
1L and Neil Wehneman and Property Law and University of Cincinnati College of Law 1:57 am
We now begin a multi-episode look at concurrent interests. In this first episode we will outline tenancy in common, joint tenancy, and tenancy by the entirety.
Riddle v. Harmon
Property Law #14: The Rule Against Perpetuities Wednesday, Mar 29 2006
1L and Neil Wehneman and Property Law and University of Cincinnati College of Law 1:54 am
One of the rites of passage of the 1L year is struggling with the Rule Against Perpetuities. The subject of heavy reform, the Rule cuts off property interests that might fail to settle at too far a time in the future.
Jee v. Audley
Property Law #13: Three Dead Doctrines Wednesday, Mar 29 2006
1L and Neil Wehneman and Property Law and University of Cincinnati College of Law 1:50 am
We now turn to three dead doctrines within property law. Limitations on contingent remainders, the Rule in Shelley’s Case, and the doctrine of worthier title have been overruled or repealed, but are occasionally implicated in older documents.