Always keep in mind the intent of the grantor and how to accommodate that
Remember what has to be passed each time land is conveyed or what has been passed each time
Chapter 1 – Personal Property
1. Wild Animals
a. The Basic Test: Pierson v. Post (fox chase case)
· Possession, mortally wounded+in pursuit, trapped/ensnared (natural liberty deprived)
· Trespass action –
b. Applying (expanding) Pierson: State of OH v. Shaw(stealing fish from a trap), Ghen v. Rich(whale was shot and sunk)
· Spectrum of Control – how much control is needed for possession
· Fact-based test in OH v. Shaw to determine reasonableness of control
· Trover action – value of the thing – personalty action
· Conversion action – personal property action for unauthorized using/taking of the thing
· Custom – can be used to determine possession
· Policy: People shouldn’t be deprived of something they have put substantial effort into obtaining
· Tip: Has there been an investment into reducing the item into possession
c. Release or Escape: EA Stephens v. Albers (non-native fox shot, but shooter sold pelt)
· Reasonable precautions to prevent escape
· Albers uses custom, general knowledge (fox not native to area), existing facts
· Albers: What would possessor know or should know about the animal, an animal that is not native to the region
· Wild Animal that escapes is not your property anymore
· Exception: predisposition to return (shown by custom),
2. Classifying Property as Personal or Real
a. “Whatever is affixed to the soil…”: Goddard v. Winchell(meteorite embedded in soil, part of realty so it has an owner)
· Knowing whether something is real property or personal helps you choose action to bring
· Study what the actions are for different types of property
· Replevin – action to recover a specific item as opposed to damages
· If affixed to soil, then realty.
b. The Farmland exception and its limits?: Haslem v. Lockwood(raking manure off side of road)pg 21. – if manure drpped on farmland, then usd for agriculture – so has a benefit to the land – principle is that manure made in husbandry …
· Reasonable time to remove – when add some value to property to make it your own
· Manure made on your own land is yours since you put effort into creating it
· Policy: want to reward effort and industry – in Haslom, the manure not being on the road benefitted the city
· Dickinson cheese and the killing of fish – state didn’t own it so couldn’t collect value of fish. The state can regulate it though
· Is this the idea that unowned things not attached to land can be taken, like rocks?
3. Acquiring Abandoned Property: Eads v. Brazelton(sunk steamboat full of lead. Set markers but left and wasn’t in process of removing lead)
· Look whether person just found property (here) or found and added value (Manure)
· Need to take property w/ intent to reduce to possession – need control, more than just marking it
· More than pursuit. Don’t need to take actual property in your hands for it to be an act of possession, only take such possession as the property’s nature and circumstances permit
· Abandoned property– passage of time is not enough according to some cases, but others say passage of time is evidence of previous owner’s state of mind
4. Finders Rights
a. Do we have a finder?
· Must have Legal possession – not just intention of control but legally sufficient act of control
· Tip: look for the chain of possession and who has what rights relative to other parties in the chain
b. Does the law of finders apply?
· Needs to be a previously owned property that is no longer in the owner’s possession
c. Rights against third parties: Armory v. Delamirie(Chimney sweep and jewel), Clark v. Maloney(logs found and tied up, but then found later)
· Relativity of title – Finder has rights against all except the original owner
· Possession is prima facie evidence of being a property owner, but may be rebutted by evidence of better title
· Finders of abandoned property have rights against the whole world
d. Rights against the original owner: Ganter v. Kapiloff(stamp collectors)
· Relativity of title – Original owners rights trump, unless property has been abandoned
· Owners keepers finders weepers
· Finder of lost property keeps it as bailee of the original owner
· Policy: discourage theft, reward initial investment to reduce items to property
e. Rights against private landowner: Pollock and Wright (CB 27) (), Hannah v. Peel(Soldier found brooch in house, got to keep it, but this is different than most cases)
· Private landowner trumps in most cases for things found in house or on soil
· Expectation of landowner that things on land are yours – makes no difference if landowner knows of the thing or not
· Look for special circumstances like military requisition – i.e. landowner has lesser rights to govt.
· Pollock and Wright – The possession of land carries with it general possession of everything which is attached to or under that land and, in the absence of better title elsewhere, the right to possess it also.
· It makes no difference that the possessor is not aware of the things existence.
· This applies to things found ON the land too
· Applies to places where the possessor has manifest intention to exercise control over the land
·
f. Finding in public places: McAvoy v. Medina(pocketbook found in barber shop)
· Lost (finder wins) v. Mislaid (shopkeepers rule – owner of place where it was found wins)
· Distinction between lost and mislaid is difficult to determine w/o original owner there, so things found in public places generally go to the owner of that place
· Reasoning for shopkeepers rule: the original owner would expect to find it there. It also encourages finders to act dishonestly
· Place of employment – if you find something there, generally employer gets to keep it
g. Statutory Reform: NY Statute(removes finder/mislaid distiction)
· Gets rid of lost v. mislaid distinction
· Finder has to give to police or person in possession of premises (who then gives to police
· Original owner has certain time period in which to claim property, otherwise finder wins
· Helps original owner know where to go to get item
h. Treasure trove
· Personal property that is not (1)lost or mislaid, b/c owner meant to put it where it is found for safekeeping, (2) money/golf/silver/bullion/etc… and (3) an antiquity (hidden long enough to indicate owner is dead or unable to recover it.
· US Courts – finders get treasure trove. In UK, it belongs to the crown
· Shipwrecks – pg 36(CB) – two theories
· Law of Finds – establishing possession to gain title to the abandoned property. Property must be found abandoned first though
· Law of Salvage – establishing possession to gain the right to compensation for salvaging services, not the right to title. Easier to gain possession
·
5. Bailments
a. Terminology
· Bailor – owner of the item
· Bailee – recipient
b. Is there a bailment?: Allen v. Hyatt Nashville(found bailment), Elish v. Airport Parking(no bailment)
· Delivery & Acceptance (an act of control over the property)
· Control must be relinquished to the bailee – owner (and all others) is excluded from possession
· Delivery must be actual or constructive
· Tip: look for facts that could distinguish one way or another, like in the park and ride cases
· Self-park cases – Courts are split on whether they are bailments. Galanis thinks they are. Relinquish control, measures to keep from leaving w/o paying etc…
c. Standards of Care and burdens of proof: Peet v. Rogh Hotel(giving ring over to hotel to pass to one of its guests)
· Negligence – bailee required to take reasonable care of the bailed item
· Statutory presumption – BofP on D. Some statutes assign an automatic presumption of negligence when bailee doesn’t deliver item
· Older cases: if bailee delivers to wrong person, then bailee is strictly liable for mis-delivery b/c bailee was particularly in control of item
· BofP: If have a bailment (which P has BofP to show exists), then BofP is on bailee, if no bailment is created then bailor has it. Party w/ burden of proof generally loses
·
d. Limitatio
loses ownership only when (1) transform into something fundamentally different AND/OR (2) dramatically increase value
· Some courts focus on just value aspect and some want elements of both
· If original owner loses property, can bring a conversion action and recover value of property before the conversion
· If laborer loses property to original owner, can’t recover value of labor (remember policy of alternative)
· Older rule – used to look at whether the identity of the item had changed (value mostly replaced this)
b. Labor and Materials: BofA v. JS Auto(added parts to car. Basically rebuilt it from the ground up, new engine, did not get to keep it)
· D
1. Determine whether doctrine of accession applies
· If can remove materials, then accession doesn’t apply
2. If so, determine who gets property and damages
· If can’t take apart, goes to owner of principal goods –have to decide which is the principal product
· Factors: relative value, size, etc…
· If original owner gets the thing (with improvement), no replevin/conversion. Could try a unjust enrichment theory, but not likely Pg 27 right column
· If the new owner gets the thing (i.e. principal product is what has been added), original owner can bring action for conversion to get value of original item Pg 27 right column
· Policy: don’t want to encourage carelessness, so adder can’t maintain action if don’t get o keep thing, Orig. owner shouldn’t have to pay for things they didn’t ask for
9. Fixtures: Wyoming State Farm Loan Board v. Farm Credit System Capital Corp. (irrigation pipe case. Not found to be a fixture)
· Goods that are so related to particular real estate that an interest in them arises under real property
· Fact intensive consideration of whether something is a fixture or not
a. Annexation – Need elements of all 3
· Constructive (not-annexed, but close enough – look at whether item has value independent from the realty to which it is allegedly annexed) or actual (physically attached to ground)
· Constructive – a necessary, integral or working part of some other object which is attached to land
b. Adaptation
· Item is adapted to a particular use, purpose it serves
c. Intention
· Objectively reasonable meaning of the actions/ use of the item. Did party intend to make item a fixture
Chapter 2 – The Law of Neighbors
I. Adverse Possession
a. The Statutory basis: Statutes of limitation; Fleming v. Griswold(competing deeds for land and one party had adversely possessed it. Disability of marriage not existing when AP began)
· Quiet Title – action to have the court determine who has title
· Ejectment – action to recover land and any subsequent damages – P says they have been ejected by D and want it back
· Relation back doctrine – Once SofL runs, AP’s title treated as though it had existed from the moment AP began
· SofL starts once the adverse possession begins, even if it began under an ancestor/prior owner to current title owner
· Disability only stops the clock if the disability (age, imprisonment, insanity, marriage(old)) exists at the time the adverse possession begins
· Tip: look for splits in the bundle of sticks before AP began. AP’s aren’t adverse to future interests that were split before adverse possession began until future interest become present interest
