Life of a Law Student » Property Law

Property Law #38: Regulatory Takings and Nuisance II

Neil — Mon, 23 Oct 2006 05:29:22 +0000

In our last episode for Property, we look a bit more at the question of regulation and the “denominator problem”, as well as looking at a third categorical rule. This rule is that regulations that de-value property into inutility are always a taking, unless justified by background principles of common law nuisance.

Penn Central Transportation Company v. City of New York
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council

Property Law #37: Regulatory Takings and Nuisance I

Neil — Mon, 23 Oct 2006 05:28:40 +0000

Sometimes what appears to be a normal regulation threatens to regulate property into valueless inutility. How far is too far, triggering a taking? And can nuisances be regulated out of existence without paying just compensation?

Hadacheck v. Sebastian
Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon

Property Law #36: Just Compensation and Physical Invasions

Neil — Mon, 23 Oct 2006 05:26:06 +0000

In this episode we discuss (albeit briefly) some of the questions to keep in mind when trying to determine what “just compensation” is or should be. We will also begin looking at the question of when has a taking actually taken place, examining a categorical rule involving permanent physical occupations.

Riggs v. Township of Long Beach
Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp.

Property Law #35: Takings and Public Use

Neil — Mon, 23 Oct 2006 05:24:09 +0000

We begin our final topic in this feed: Takings. We’ll define briefly what a taking is, what textual limits the 5th Amendment places on these takings, and try to define what a “public use” is.

Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff
Kelo v. City of New London

Property Law #34: Zoning IV

Neil — Mon, 23 Oct 2006 05:22:25 +0000

In our final episode on zoning, we discuss the concept of spot zoning, or where a single area (allegedly) has its zoning changed for an improper purpose.

State v. City of Rochester

Property Law #33: Zoning III

Neil — Mon, 23 Oct 2006 05:20:08 +0000

In our third episode on zoning, we move to variances and special exceptions. Variances are when the zoning code is not strictly applied to avoid undue hardship, while a special exception is when a use is generally allowable, but requires sign-off from the zoning board.

Commons v. Westwood Zoning Board of Adjustment
Cope v. Inhabitants of the Town of Brunswick

Property Law #32: Zoning II

Neil — Mon, 23 Oct 2006 05:18:57 +0000

We continue our discussion of zoning by focusing on the noncomforming use. A noncomforming use is one that was legal before a zoning ordinance took effect, but is now outside of the appropriate zone. The concept of amortization (giving a deadline for shutting down the noncomforming use, after reasonable recoupment of investment) is also discussed.

PA Northwestern Distributers, Inc. v. Zoning Hearing Board

Property Law #31: Zoning I

Neil — Mon, 23 Oct 2006 05:17:43 +0000

We turn our attention from private land controls to public land controls. Specifically, we will be looking at a concept called zoning, the constitutionality of which was upheld by this episode’s case.

Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.

Property Law #30: Servitudes II

Neil — Wed, 04 Oct 2006 06:21:27 +0000

We continue and conclude our discussion of servitudes by focusing on the touch and concern requirement.

Neponsit Property Owners’ Association, Inc. v. Emigrant Industrial Savings Bank
Caullett v. Stanley Stilwell & Sons, Inc.

Property Law #29: Servitudes I

Neil — Wed, 04 Oct 2006 06:21:14 +0000

A servitude is a generic term for negative easements, real covenants, and equitable servitudes. Servitudes impose restrictions and burdens on land owners, while also bringing a reciprocal benefit. Most homeowner association regulations are enforced via servitudes.

Tulk v. Moxhay
Sanborn v. McLean

Property Law #28: Easements III

Neil — Sat, 16 Sep 2006 04:30:00 +0000

We conclude our discussion of easements by examining, among other things, the scope of an easement.

Brown v. Voss

Property Law #27: Easements II

Neil — Sat, 16 Sep 2006 04:27:00 +0000

In this episode we continue our discussion of easements with two more cases.

Van Sandt v. Royster
Othen v. Rosier

Property Law #26: Easements I

Neil — Sat, 16 Sep 2006 04:21:00 +0000

An easement is a permanent right to use another person’s land. It does not give a right of possession, nor is it a temporary use license. The four types of easement creation mechanisms we will begin to look at in this episode are grant, implication (aka necessity), prescription, and estoppel. We will also discuss appurtenent easements and easements in gross.

Willard v. First Church of Christ, Scientist
Holbrook v. Taylor

Property Law #25: Nuisance II

Neil — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 07:07:00 +0000

We complete our discussion of nuisance by looking more closely at the remedies available for a nuisance. Do we just give monetary damages, or do we also give an injunction to shut the nuisance down? To answer this question we must often balance the equities. We will also consider what might happen if you “come to the nuisance.”

Boomer v. Atlantic Cement Co.
Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co.

Property Law #24: Nuisance I

Neil — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 07:04:00 +0000

Nuisance is where the use of one property creates a substantial and unreasonable interference with the rights of another property owner. In this episode I explain the basics of nuisance, as well as apply it to copyright law.

Morgan v. High Penn Oil Co.
Estancias Dalls Corp. v. Schultz

Property Law #23: Tenant Protections

Neil — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 06:26:00 +0000

Tenants have some protections to ensure that they are getting a fair shake from their landlord. The two that we will discuss in this episode are the covenant of quiet enjoyment (ie you will not be constructively evicted) and the warranty of habitability.

Reste Realty Corp. v. Cooper
Hilder v. St. Peter

Property Law #22: Defaulting Tenants

Neil — Wed, 29 Mar 2006 19:51:00 +0000

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

Neil — Wed, 29 Mar 2006 19:41:00 +0000

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

Neil — Wed, 29 Mar 2006 07:42:00 +0000

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’

Neil — Wed, 29 Mar 2006 07:32:00 +0000

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

Neil — Wed, 29 Mar 2006 07:28:00 +0000

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

Neil — Wed, 29 Mar 2006 07:13:00 +0000

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

Neil — Wed, 29 Mar 2006 06:13:47 +0000

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

Neil — Wed, 29 Mar 2006 05:57:00 +0000

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

Neil — Wed, 29 Mar 2006 05:54:00 +0000

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

Neil — Wed, 29 Mar 2006 05:50:00 +0000

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.

Property Law #12: Trusts

Neil — Tue, 28 Feb 2006 20:36:00 +0000

Many of the future interests discussed previously have been made obsolete by the trust. Trusts create legal and equitable owners to the same property, with the trustee (the legal owner) having a fiduciary obligation to manage the property for the benefit of the beneficiary (the equitable owner).

Swanson v. Swanson

Property Law #11: Future Interests

Neil — Tue, 28 Feb 2006 20:32:00 +0000

Oftentimes an interest in property will arise at some point in the future, perhaps upon reaching a certain age or accomplishment. Other times the grantor will retain an interest in the land (as we’ve seen in past episodes). Here we will discuss reversion, possibility of reverter, right of entry, vested and contingent remainders, and executory interests.

Property Law #10: Eminent Domain and Defeasible Estates

Neil — Tue, 28 Feb 2006 20:29:00 +0000

What happens when eminent domain is exercised over a defeasible estate? The “string” attached to the land is no longer being fulfilled, but whose fault is that?

Ink v. City of Canton

Property Law #9: Defeasible Estates

Neil — Tue, 28 Feb 2006 20:24:00 +0000

Just because you give or sell someone property doesn’t mean you can’t attach a string to that transfer. Specifically, if the land is not used for a specific purpose the title can shift back to you. We will look at fee simple determinable (with its reverter) and fee simple subject to condition subsequent (with its right of re-entry).

Mahrenholz v. County Board of School Trustees
Mountain Brow Lodge No. 82, Independent Order of Odd Fellows v. Toscano

Property Law #8: Waste

Neil — Tue, 28 Feb 2006 20:14:00 +0000

In this episode we will examine “waste”, in both its colloquial and legal sense. Our case will also touch on equitable retooling of life estates.

Baker v. Weedon

Property Law #7: Fee Simple, Fee Tail, and Life Estates

Neil — Wed, 15 Feb 2006 09:08:00 +0000

We now turn our attention to estates. We will introduce the concepts of fee simple, fee tail, and life estates.

White v. Brown

Property Law #6: Adverse Possession III

Neil — Wed, 15 Feb 2006 08:54:00 +0000

We conclude our discussion of adverse possession by revisiting tacking, examining disabilities, and considering the adverse possession of personal property (such as a painting).

O’Keefe v. Snyder

Property Law #5: Adverse Possession II

Neil — Wed, 15 Feb 2006 08:47:00 +0000

We continue our discussion of adverse possession. The first case we look at will consider whether minor incursions are open and notorious, and the second case will introduce us to the concept of tacking.

Mannillo v. Gorski
Howard v. Kunto

Property Law #4: Adverse Possession I

Neil — Tue, 31 Jan 2006 08:49:02 +0000

Adverse possession is the process by which title can transfer from an absent property owner to someone else who actually uses the land. In this episode we look at the history of adverse possession, as well as outline the relevant elements.

Property Law #3: Acquisition by Finding

Neil — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 11:15:00 +0000

“Finders keepers, losers weepers.” Well, not always. The resolution of found items will vary depending upon a number of factors, which we will explore.

Armory v. Delamirie
Hanna v. Peel
McAvoy v. Medina
Bridges v. Hawkesworth

Property Law #2: Acquisition by Capture

Neil — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 11:09:00 +0000

Who owns wild animals? While not having an overwhelming amount of direct contemporary importance, these three cases will illuminate some of the policies that property law must still balance today.

Pierson v. Post
Ghen v. Rich
Keeble v. Hickeringill

Property Law #1: Acquisition by Conquest

Neil — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 11:00:00 +0000

Perhaps the most direct way to acquire property is by the sword. In this episode we will examine how the Supreme Court viewed conflicting sales of land: one by the Union and one by a Native American tribe.

Johnson v. M’Intosh