Property I Outline

PROPERTY

COLBURN, SPRING 2014

Chapter 1: What is Property?

Trespass: From Right to Remedy

· 2 Conceptions of Property

1. A right to a thing/good against the world

2. A collection of rights, with content that varies according to context and policy choices

· Ad coelum doctrine: whomever owns the soil also owns to the sky and to the depths

o Meant that owner of the land could use the overlying space to such extent as he was able

o Purpose was not to give ownership of indefinite space, but to establish right of owner to use superjacent airspace as was necessary to the enjoyment of the land

Jacque v. Steenberg Homes, Inc.

· Nominal damages may support a punitive damage award in an action for intentional trespass to land because intentional trespass to land causes actual harm to the individual, regardless of whether that harm can be measured in mere dollars

· Ref: Δ crosses mobile home across Π’s field

Hinman v. Pacific Air Transport

· Traversing the airspace above a Π’s land is not a trespass at all, but is lawful unless it is done under circumstances which will cause injury to Π’s possession

· Ref: Δ commercial aircraft flies above Π’s property

A Right to Exclude or a “Bundle of Sticks”?

· 2 Philosophical Conceptions of Property

1. Essentialists

· Attempt to uncover the single true definition of property as a legal concept

· J.E Penner, The Idea of Property in Law

§ Who bears the duty?

· Rights in rem- rights which bind “all the world;” usually more simple, like noninterference (ex. No hitting, no trespassing)

· Rights in personam- rights which bind only specific individuals; a right in the behaviour of some person, such as the right to the performance of a contract

· Exclusion thesis: the right to property is a right to exclude others from things which is grounded by the interest we have in the use of things

2. Skeptics

· Believe it is fruitless to try to come up with a single canonical conception of what property means in a legal system

· Property is a “bundle of rights” or a “bundle of sticks” – one can add to or subtract from the bundle more or less without limit, and still talk about the bundle as property

Hendricks v. Stalnaker

· To determine if a harm is unreasonable, the court must balance the landowners’ interests and decide if the harm caused outweighs the social value. If the use of a land is not unreasonable, a Δ is not liable for the effects on another’s property

· Ref: water well vs septic system

Coase and Costs: Why Legal Rules Are Only Part of the Story

· Coase Theorem

o Maximizing utility and reciprocal causation

o Negative and positive externalities

· Internalizing negative externalities spreads the cost of the action to the other party.

· Internalizing positive externalities allows more benefit by the person incurring the cost.

Cavanaugh v. Corbin Copper Co.

· Anything which is injurious to health, or is indecent or offensive to the senses, or an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property…is a nuisance

· Ref: Π owns lot of land, where he resides with his family; Δ mining company owns neighboring lots, where they conduct mining activity within 50 feet of Π’s land for over a year

Repeated & Sustained Trespass: Injunction or Damages?

· Equity v. Law

o Law: rights are enforced by imposition of money damages and/or the granting of specified writs at common law

o Equity: rights are enforced by the granting of all forms of relief including specific performance according to the judge’s sound discretion

Baker v. Howard County Hunt

· If a Δ shows a purpose to persist in perpetrating his unlawful acts, the trouble of prosecuting the actions at law justify a Π in coming into equity for an injunction

· Ref: foxhounds of hunting club kill rabbits involved in Π’s experiments

Pile v. Pedrick

· Δs have no right to occupy land that does not belong to them, even if the trespass was unintentional; costs are not in equity, but are within the power of the chancellor with discretion

· Ref: Δ’s building encroached onto Π’s land; Δ offered to make it a party wall; Π refused → must be torn down

Colden Press, Inc. v. Rylands

· Rule on encroachments: weigh the circumstances

o Where encroachment is deliberate/ intentional, equity may require its restoration regardless of expense of removal or damage suffered therefrom

o Where encroachment was in good faith, court should weigh the circumstances so not to act oppressively (supported by Restatement § 941)

· Ref: Δ’s building foundation slightly encroached on Π’s land; Π complained while in construction, but did not move for injunction; they should have moved earlier → injunction degree reversed

The Default Standard for Injunctive Relief in Federal Courts

Ebay v. MercExchange, L.L.C.

· The decision whether to grant or deny injunctive relief rests within the equitable discretion of the district courts, and that such discretion must be exercised consistent with traditional principles of equity, in patent disputes no less than in other cases governed by such standards

· Ref: owner of patent for method of conducting on-line sales sued auction website operators for infringement

Chapter 2: First Possession

First Possession

Pierson v. Post

· Actual bodily seizure is not indispensable to acquire right to, or possession of, wild beasts; but that, on the contrary, the mortal wounding of such beasts, by one not abandoning his pursuit, may, with the utmost propriety, be deemed possession of him; However uncourteous or unkind Δ’s conduct was toward Π, it produced no injury or damage for which a legal remedy could be applied

· Ref: Π was hunting a fox; Δ, knowing the fox was being chased, shot and killed it, and then took it

Ghen v. Rich

· Because the fir