Property I Outline

PROPERTY

FREYERMUTH

SPRING 2013

Nature & Meaning of Property Concepts

What Is Property

· Definition – Rights among people that concern things

· Property Rule – you are awarded possession of item

· Liability Rule – you are awarded the value of item

· “Bundle of Rights”

o Right to Exclude

o Right to Transfer

o Right to Use and Possess

· Property rights in the U.S. are not absolute

Right to Exclude

· Jacque v. Steenberg Homes

o Right to Exclude Case

o Owners told Steenberg Homes they could not use their field to deliver a mobile home, Steenberg Homes ignored & used field. Holding was that punitive damages could be granted when only nominal actual damages were present

o Having a property right gives the owner right to exclude (protection of that right is what justifies punitives)

· State v. Shack

o Right to exclude exception/limitation

o Owner wanted to exclude those who wanted to talk to immigrant workers

o Cons of limiting owners’ right to exclude

1. Individual Security

2. Efficiency

3. Certainty – no question of when owner can or cannot exclude

o Pros to limiting owners’ right to exclude

4. Public Health Concerns

5. Migrant workers/immigrant workers not aware of services available without workers coming to talk to them

· Land owner rights were outweighed by the externalities/needs of workers

Community Property Right

· Local 1330 v. US Steel Workers

o Workers claimed a community right in their plant when plant was trying to close

o Arguments of Workers:

§ Community Property

§ Long relationship w/town contributed to town’s well-being

§ Partial ownership should be allocated to workers

§ Estoppel

§ Reliance by workers on plant – they were told if they worked harder it wouldn’t shut down

§ Estoppel is not same as a property right – injunction would have only indicated there was a contract & closing equated to a breach of contract

§ Plant owners could have still closed plant & simply paid out damages

o Holding:

§ There is no existing rule to allow for reallocation of ownership to workers. Legislative action would be required to have such a rule.

o WARN Act now in place to warn a town of impending plant closure

· Kelo v. City of New London

o City had comprehensive redevelopment plan & wanted Kelo’s home under eminent domain, Kelo argued that eminent domain shouldn’t be allowed because home wasn’t being take for public purpose – argument was city was taking home & turning it over to another private owner

o Rule – Two Burdens for Eminent Domain:

§ Takings are “reasonably necessary” to achieve intended public use

§ Takings are for “reasonably foreseeable needs”

o Held – City’s redevelopment plan is a “public use.” Public use in this case held to equate to “public purpose.”

o Kelo Aftermath – more than 40 states have adopted statutes saying you can’t take property purely for economic development.

Acquiring Interest In Property – Significance of Possession

First-In-Time, First-In-Right

· Pierson v. Post

o Post hunting, Pierson swoops in & shoots fox Post was after & takes away fox

o Post sues for trespass on the case – conversion theory – pursuit of fox equates to possession/ownership

§ Support for Post’s theory

· Foxes are game, rule should encourage hunting

· Hunters might not hunt if they aren’t protected

§ Dissent for Post’s theory

· Rule too unclear

· Pierson would need a clear signal as to Post’s intentions

· Rule of physical capture, or mortal wounding + continued pursuit would be needed for certainty

o Custom was pursuit = ownership/possession. Why not apply it here?

§ Support for Custom

· Customs are known and allow the other party to adjust behavior based on known customs

· Custom practices shape law & promotes strong respect for the law

§ Against Custom

· Customs not always universal

· Customs may not be welfare-maximizing

· Resolving disputes via common law practices may enable future disputes over “possession”

o Holding – in favor of Pierson

· Pre-Possessory Interests – Papov v. Hayashi – Barry bonds HR ball

o Popov had pre-possessory interest based on taking significant but incomplete steps to obtain interest

o Hayashi had actual physical possession of ball

o Both therefore have equal interest – ball must sold & proceeds split

o Recognition of pre-possessory interest rights should discourage crowd conduct like this

o Does result make actual sense?

§ If Popov had possession he should get ownership rights

§ If Popov didn’t establish possession why does he have equal rights to that of Hayashi who did establish physical possession?

· Possession of Subsurfaces – cujus set solum – to whom the soil belongs

o Edwards V. Sims

§ Edwards was exploring cave & exhibiting cave, Le