Property I Outline

CARMELLA_PROPERTY_SPRING_2014

1) Ownership by First Possession and Subsequent Possession

a) Finders: possession ≥ ownership

i) Rule: prior possessor prevails over subsequent possessor

(1) Armory v. Delamirie

(a) Plaintiff chimney sweep found a jewel and brought it to a jeweler for valuation; the jeweler took the stones out and refused to give them back; boy brought trover action

(b) Finder can maintain trover action against all but the rightful owner (not absolute ownership but enough to protect against third parties)

(c) Assume the highest possible value when compensating plaintiff (for punitive damages)

ii) Prior wrong doesn’t matter against subsequent possessor

(1) i.e. B converts A’s property, creates bailment with C. Despite conversion, B has ownership rights against C (but not A because A has better title)

(2) Anderson case: one who has obtained property by finding, bailment or tort has a right to possession against subsequent wrongdoers

(3) Policy: if there is a prior wrongdoer and an honest subsequent possessor, courts try to ignore prior possessor rule and award the honest person

(4) But: a trespassing finder does not get rights

iii) Lost v. mislaid v. abandoned

(1) Something is lost when the true owner mistakenly puts it down somewhere and can’t find it

(a) Bridges v. Hawksworth: owner lost bank notes in a shop; the finder gets them (as opposed to the shopkeeper); they were never in the custody of the shopkeeper

(b) South Staffordshire Water v. Sharman: workers found rings embedded in pool on someone’s land; court found that because they were attached to the land, they belonged to the owner of the land

(c) Elwes v. Brigg Gas Co.: prehistoric boat was found embedded in someone’s land; held that the owner of the land owned the boat, even though he was previously unaware of its existence

(2) Something is mislaid when the true owner intentionally puts it down somewhere and forgets to retrieve it

(a) McAvoy v. Medina: wallet found on table in a salon; the finder acquires a duty to keep the goods until the true owner can be found

(3) Abandoned property: finder gets to keep

(4) Treasure trove

(a) In England nowadays, there is a distinction between abandoning and hiding property with the intent to return

(b) In US, it treats hidden things like any other property (lost, mislaid, abandoned)

(c) States can assert title to ship wrecks found in territorial waters

iv) Place of Finding

(1) Look at whether it is public, quasi-public, or private

(2) Hannah v. Peel

(a) Plaintiff soldier found brooch in the wall in a house; homeowner argued it was his, plaintiff finder argued that it was his because he found it

(b) Court held that place of finding makes no legal difference; defendant never had custody, would not have the item but for plaintiff

(c) Defendant would have had to be physically present in the home to have constructive possession

(d) RULE- (or expansion of law of finders) if the true owner is not found and the record owner never exercises control or dominion over real property(the house) then the property will go to the finder

(e) Treat the house as public property. Because owner never took control over home, never lived there, so many soldiers came in and out true owners identity is unknown.

v) Bailments

(1) Voluntary bailment: Armory (finder) to goldsmith; goldsmith owes bailment duties

(a) Example: leaving clothes with a coat check or car with valet

(2) Involuntary bailment: between the true owner and finder

(a) Involuntary from the standpoint of the owner (has not voluntarily placed it in finder’s possession)

vi) Remedies sought

(1) Replevin: lawsuit to obtain return of goods

(2) Trover: lawsuit to obtain money damages

vii) Policy for finders’ rights

(1) Getting property back to the true owner

(2) By giving security to prior possessors, finders’ rights prevent endless reprisals and seizures of property

b) Adverse Possession: pay attention to what estate APer is possessing against

i) Adverse possession transfers title to the subsequent possessor once the true owner’s claims are barred by SOL

(1) Title runs from the date that the AP’er came into possession

(2) Meet the elements, let the SOL run for sufficient years; then bring quiet title action and record deed to officiate it

(3) Title clearing function: puts title into the hands of someone who could use it; get a construction loan on it; sell it; clears title in the sense that it gets rid of someone who is not using it

ii) Rule of increase: if A steals B’s cow, A is the owner of all offspring from the time of theft, once adverse possession is acquired

(1) Moral of the story: don’t let people adversely possess your cows or you lose the calves too. Which sucks.

iii) Elements of Adverse Possession: SOL starts running when elements 1-4 are met

(1) Entry: (actual possession) necessary to trigger the SOL

For Adverse Possession land is deemed to have been in possession and occupied if either are satisfied

(a) Protected by substantial enclosure (in Lutz the court found his bushes weren’t enough to satisfy the requirement of the land being gated in from others)

(b) Usually cultivated or improved (the court in Lutz found the “rubbish” Lutz kept on the land was not cultivation or improvements)

(2) Open and notorious: must put a reasonable property owner on notice that someone is on their property; objective standard; constructive notice is enough

(3) Exclusive

(4) Adverse and under a claim of right: states differ on the interpretation of this element (does the APer just have to mistakenly possess against someone’s title or does the APer have to know that he is adversely possessing); see Lutz

(a) Three general views of what claim of right means

(i) State of mind is irrelevant: once entry exists, and there is a claim inconsistent with that of the true owner, SOL begins to run; hostility implied

(ii) Good faith possessor: I thought I owned it; courts manipulate these doctrines to award land to the good faith possessor

(iii)Aggressive or bad faith possessor: I thought I didn’t own it, but I intended to make it my own: occupants must intend to take the property even if they know it doesn’t belong to them; court sometimes awards possession but make the APer pay the fair market value

(5) Continuous for the statutory period: must be continuous but the AP’er is allowed to come and go in the ordinary course, considering the property in question; must be enough usage as if APer was the ordinary owner and that neighbors/others recognize APer as having exclusive dominion

iv) Van Valkenburgh v. Lutz

(1) Lutz bought