Select Page

Property I
University of Connecticut School of Law
Bronin, Sara C.

PROPERTY: PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES (2ND EDITION)
Professor Sara Bronin
Spring 2017
Chapter 1: What is Property
Right to Exclude- must have a property right in the item before you have the right to exclude
Trespass
Jacque v. Steenberg Homes, Inc (1)
FACTS: Builder wants t move pre-fabricated home across Jacque’s land.  Jacques tell him n but builder does it anyways (intentional trespass- any intentional intrusion that deprives another of possession of land even temporarily)
HOLDING: Can’t enter private prperty without permission.  Ct awarded nminal damages ($1) and punitive damages ($100K) as a deterrent
Exceptions to Trespass
Necessity
Life r death, obstruction in the road, etc. 
If damage is caused in the act, persn may be liable for damages
Hinman v. Pacific Air Transport (10)
FACTS: PAT flew planes ver Hinman’s property less than 100 ft above.  H claims is trespass and vilates ad coelum doctrine.
HOLDING: ad celum doctrine is not absolute—air can’t be reduced to exclusive possession, can only claim if you occupy that space.
Implies trespass can’t ccur unless there is an injury.
Different from Causby case b/c is a takings case rather than trespass case.  Causby they damaged his livelihood and he was there before the military built airport.
Nte 5 pg 15- Googlebooks example.  Cpyright of text. 
Encroachments- an interference with or intrusion onto another’s property
Pile v. Pedrick (52)
FACTS: Company builds addition on factory and wall is 1.5 inches onto neighbor’s property.  Neighbor sues for trespass.
HOLDING: Must build wall only on their own property and cannot enter neighbor’s property to take down wall or chip away the part over the property line.  Result=whole wall must come down and be rebuilt.
Glden Press, Inc. v. Rylands (55)
FACTS: foundations and footings extend 2-3 inches onto neighbor’s property.  Neighbors sue for injunction to remove footings and foundation.
HOLDING: Injunction denied b/c is unreasonable to make ∆ take down wall even if it is a trespass—value is nominal, not worth cost to take down wall.
Golden press = reasonable reference for encroachment owner.  Pile= reasonable reference for exclusion
Ex Ante/Ex Post Problems
Ex Ante- analysis f situation before critical event takes place
Ex Pst- analysis f the situation after a critical event occurs
Curt looks at intent of the party encroaching on the land—if malicious then ct may require to take down entire encroachment, if mistaken may only have to pay damages
Bilateral mnopoly in most cases – one party could hold out for an amount greater than the damages but less than the amount to demolish the structure b/c is in other party’s interest to pay more $ not to have to demolish and lose all that value
 
Chapter 2: Original Acquisition
Possession
Piersn v. Post (82)
FACTS: Fox hunters. 
HOLDING: Mere pursuit is not enough to claim property, mortal wounding takes animals freedom and reduces to personal possession.  Winner takes all.
DISSENT: Lockean philosophy- exertion of labor brings claim to property ownership
RULE: Possession is the root of title
Ghen v. Rich (90)
FACTS: Whale hunting.
HOLDING: possession stay with party that kills whale.  Once whale comes to shore finder gets a discovery fee and must alert whale killer.
RULE: social norms dictate the customs adhered to by court and profession
Fast fish, loose fish rule- a whale belongs to 1st harpooner as long as the whale is attached to their boat
Iron holds the whale rule- whale belongs to 1st harpooner as long as he is in timely/continuous pursuit
Prperty Ownership Rights at Shoreline
3 mi from shore- owned by state
9 mi from shore- owned by fed
after that is international water
Keeble v. Hickeringill (93)
FACTS: Duck hunters with decoy ponds. Neighbor shoots off guns to scare ducks from neighbor’s pond.
HOLDING: Damages may be awarded when one party maliciously interferences with the lawful activity/gainful employment of another
RULE: a property owner has a right to make lawful use of his property for profit without malicious interference of others
Abandonment
Eads v. Brazeltn (107)
FACTS:  π discovered sunken steamboat with cargo of lead.  Planned to salvage but ∆ salvaged led while π was elsewhere repairing his boat.
HOLDING: Lead was abandoned—could be claimed by another who evidenced by some custody and control of the cargo.  Π would have had to place boat over wreck and make persistent efforts to retrieve the cargo to show necessary possession of the abandoned property.  Finder must establish actual possession of the object claimed to sustain claim of title.
As soon as you change pursuit you have abandoned the other course of action
No definitive time frame as to when you are/will return for the original item.  How much of the goal had changed?
Ppov v. Hayashi (109)
FACTS: Dispute over who is first to possess Bond’s 73rd homerun baseball.  P1 caught in webbing of glove but dropped due to mob of people, P2 picked up ball and retained possession.
HOLDING: ball must be sold and profits divided equally between the two parties b/c both had a superior claim to the ball
RULE: ball is abandoned when hit into the crowd and first to control the ball has a right to it by first possession
Ad Coelum Rule- owner of property owns everything above and below that piece of property
Oil and Gas
Rule of Capture: whoever captures and possesses first owns the oil and gas. 
When reinjecting gas into ground for storage, any that escapes is again wild and eligible for capture
Tragedy f the commons: sheep grazing n grass—if everyone overuses and mismanages the resource then no one

s is unfair and morally wrong
Hecht v. Superir Ct (255)
FACTS: Bf commits suicide, leaves sperm to Gf
HOLDING: Individuals retain possessory rights of sperm b/c can be used for human reproduction. 
Case is differentiated from Moore b/c Moore doesn’t involve gametic material that can be used for human reproduction
Newman v. Sathyavaglswaran (256)
FACTS: Statute allowed coroner to remove corneas from dead children unless they knew of an objection to such removal.  Property rights transferred to coroner under the presumed consent statute.
HOLDING: Parents retain property rights to their deceased children’s bodies. 
VARA- gives artist additional rights to their work despite who owns it or its copyright
Applies t “Fine art”-paintings, drawings, prints, sculptures, still photos.  Can nly apply to a single item with under 200 copies.  Desn’t apply to commercially made works and copyright. 
Pg 265-266
3a- mdification of art
3b- destructin of art
Applicatin: Grants artists right to claim of authorship, prevent the use of one’s name on any work the author didn’t create, prevent use of ones name on any work that is distorted, mutilated, or modified in a way that prejudices the author’s honor or rep., and prevent distortion, mutilation, or modification that would prejudice the authors honor or rep.
Artists may waive these rights
Carter v. Hemsley-Spear, Inc.
FACTS: 3 artists commissioned to create sculptures.  Owner wants to remove them from lobby and artists file for injunction to stop the destruction of art work.
HOLDING: Because work was commissioned they were not protected under VARA
Phillips v. Pembrke Real Estate (258)
FACTS: π contracted to create sculptures and landscape design of park in Boston.  City wanted to redesign and remove/relocate his sculptures a number of years later.  Π sued to prevent removal of art from park.
MAPA 855(h)- art can be removed by owner if can be done without causing substantial harm and artist is given 90 days’ notice to reclaim and remove himself at his own expense
HOLDING: Owner may remove art if artist is given 90 days’ notice in line with MAPA 855(h).  VARA does not protect location as a component of site-specific work, just the work itself from destruction, distortion, or mutilation