Property I Outline

 
Property Spring 2014 Outline Prof Fred Vars
 
WHAT IS PROPERTY?  HOW IS IT ACQUIRED?
I.                   What Is Property?  “A Bundle of Sticks”
A.                 Two conceptions of property
a.      Property right is a thing good against the world
                                                                          i.      Essentialist view; this is the minority view in the U.S.
b.     “A Bundle of Sticks”
                                                                          i.      Collection of rights with content that varies according to context and policy choices (right to exclude, transfer and posses and use); this is the leading view in the U.S.
            A.         Basis of expectation guaranteed by the law
            B.         Economic function:  to create incentives to use resources efficiently
 
II.        Right to Exclude / Trespass
A.            RIGHTS OF OWNERS FOR EXCLUSIVE POSSESSION
Jacque v. Steenberg Homes, Inc. – Mobile homes dealer intentionally makes a path through private property to deliver home, despite repeated statements by the landowner refusing such permission
Rule:  Right to exclude operates on trespassers even where there is no harm to the land
Punitive damages may be awarded to deter intentional trespassers
1.                  The only thing that was required was intent, that it was intentional
2.                  Harm was in the loss of Jacque’s right to exclude others from his property, not in any actual harm to land. Sanctity of property is important
3.                  Didn’t need actual damages, just intent; Punitive damages used as a way to deter others. Punitive damages deter self-help
4.                  Egregiousness of intentional trespass motivated the court’s decision to award damages many times the maximum stipulated by the law – property rights depend on the law and are only significant if enforced- the landowner had complete control and dominion and anything short of this result would erode property rights.
5.                  Intentional trespass causes actual harm to the individual and society regardless of whether or not that harm can be measured in dollars
6.                  Punitive damages= Alabama “rudeness, wantonness, recklessness, or insulting manners” is a requirement. (Ramos v. Fell, 272 Ala. 53, 58 (1961)).
 
Class Discussion:
–          Harms of intentional trespass include loss of feeling of security and violation of personal space
–          Theories supporting the court upholding the punitive damage award:
a.       Loss of opportunity to use land
b.      Harm to society by not deterring/ setting bad precedent
c.       Prevention of violence: $30 citation will not likely deter conduct, so awarding punitive damages is another method of punishment and that serves to discourage people from taking the law into their own hands
d.      Privacy: Protection of property-owners expectation of privacy
e.       Physical feeling of lost protection
f.       Respect for the law: Courts should back up what the law says meaningfully
g.       Exclusion from property: fundamental/traditional property right (fear of adverse possession)
h.      Violations to personhood
 
Jacque rule channels people to seek advance permission, which is economically efficient because it encourages people to plan ahead and gives owners opportunity to warn/give notice    
  
Cf. Exceptions to the Trespass Rule –
Ad coelum Rule-Common Law idea that one who owns the soil owns from the center of the earth to the sky
·         Absent zoning restriction or covenant restricting the height of buildings, the ad coelum rule means that the owner can construct a building as tall as engineering prowess will allow.
 
Hinman v. Pacific Air Transport (9th Cir., 1936)
Facts: Plaintiff sues Defendant commercial airline operator on ad coelum theory for trespass because it operates planes at less than 100 feet above the Plaintiff’s land
Holding: No trespass, so holding for ∆.
Reasoning: Plaintiffs sue on ad coelum theory – when you own land, you own “from the center of the earth to the sky”
–          Court rejects this theory because it was invented at a time when the use of space above the land was confined to narrow limits – modern life makes that rule impractical
–          The phrase/rule was never meant to be taken literally – if so, it would produce an absurdity
–          Instead court invokes possessory theory – if you can possess the space, it’s part of your property
–          The air is incapable of private ownership, except insofar as one may actually use it
–          Plaintiffs allege no specific injury, and therefore, they state no claim upon which relief can be granted
Holding: Traversing the airspace above someone’s land is not in and of itself trespass unless it is done under circumstances which causes injury to the owner’s possession; unused airspace can be taken without compensation
·         There is an objective standard