PROPERTY – Prof. Sturley – Spring 2016
Finders Cases
Estates & Future Interests
Rule Against Perpetuities
The Life Estate
Intestate Succession
Adverse Possession
Concurrent Ownership
Landlord & Tenant
Implied Warranty of Habitability
Easements
Real Covenants & Equitable Servitudes
Takings
FINDERS CASES
Trover – seeking $ for item
Replevin – seeking the item itself
Armory v. Delamirie (1722)
Facts:
chimney sweep found ring in chimney, brought it to jeweler to appraise; jeweler’s apprentice kept jewel (returned setting without the jewel) and offered Armory three half-pence for it; Armory brought action in trover.
Holding:
1. Armory can bring action in trover
2. Delamirie is proper ∆, as master of the apprentice
3. Award most favorable damages to Armory
Reasoning:
Finder’s interest in property is superior to a subsequent possessor’s interest.
Take-away:
Finder has interests in property superior to all others except the true owner. TITLE IS RELATIVE; **prior possessor wins**
-“narrowest holding”: a bailee’s claim to an item of personal property is weaker than the bailor’s claim, even if the bailor is admittedly not the true owner
Policy reasons for protecting prior possessors of property:
public order concerns
evidentiary convenience
facilitates bailments (temporary control over others’ property)
facilitates commerce à economic efficiency
rewarding finders (ideally, finders give item back to true owner)
protect expectations (but which comes first, law or expectations?)
Bridges v. Hawkesworth (1857)
Facts:
π = traveller, ∆ = shopkeeper; π found bag of money in shop, asked ∆ to hold for TO; ∆ advertised but no TO; after 3 years π asked for money; ∆ refused
Holding:
shopkeeper has no rights to property found in shop
Reasoning:
if notes were kicked into street from shop, then found à no shopkeeper’s rights
notes not in custody/protection of shopkeeper before found à no rights
Take-away:
-place where object is found makes no legal difference
-“narrowest holding”: when a business invitee discovers a valuable parcel while legitimately present in a shop and takes reasonable steps to discover its true owner à finder has better claim to the parcel than owner of the shop where it was discovered
Other Info:
-don’t know if bag was found in public or private (e.g. back room) part of shop
-difference w/ Armory: shopkeeper claims to be prior possessor before finder
-what does it take to acquire possession of property? Must possessor know of item?
Constructive Possession – treat someone as though they have possession, but no literal possession
Bailment – one person takes custody of another’s property
Mislaid vs. lost property:
-mislaid = deliberately put somewhere and forgot to pick it up
-lost = unaware that one was parting with the object
-gets at state of mind of prior possessor (who, by definition, is unavailable)
-if mislaid, didn’t intend to transfer possession (at least permanently)?
-brooch in Hannah = mislaid; rings in Staff. = lost (likely); pocketbook in McAvoy = mislaid
South Staffordshire Water Co. v. Sharman (1896)
Facts:
π employed ∆ to clean out pool covering π’s land; ∆ found 2 gold rings; π wanted rings; ∆ gave rings to police to find TO; no TO à police gave rings back to ∆
Holding:
π (landowner) has superior rights to found property
Reasoning:
-distinguish from Bridges b/c Bridges involved public shop (no shopkeeper custody)
-doesn’t matter that landowner didn’t know of object’s existence
-landowner was in prior possession (shopkeeper in Bridges NOT in prior possession)
-landowner has right to forbid others from entering/interfering w/ land
-landowner could say how pool should be cleaned, and what to do w/ found objects
Take-away:
-landowner has rights to property found on his land
-“narrowest holding”: if a landowner’s employee finds a thing attached to/under the landowner’s property while in the course of employment, and the landowner exercises control over land/things attached to/under the land, à landowner treated as possessor
Other Info:
-DICTA: on private property, doesn’t matter if finder is employee or total stranger!
Two explanations for the difference between Bridges and Staffordshire:
control over private reservoir (Bridges) vs. control over public shop (Staff.)
property found ON land (Bridges) vs. property found UNDER land (Staff.)
Hannah v. Peel (1945)
Facts:
π = lance cpl. stationed at ∆’s requisitioned house for soldiers (∆ never occupied house himself); π found brooch above door frame, gave to police to find TO à cops gave to ∆; ∆ sold brooch and buyer resold it again
Holding:
π has superior rights to brooch as finder
Reasoning:
-a man possesses everything attached to or under his land
-∆ was never physically in possession of the premises
Take-away:
landowner doesn’t necessarily possess item on/unattached to his land
Other Info:
-no real discussion of whether brooch was attached to/under land
-attached to land includes attached to buildings on land, generally
-perhaps ∆ was in constructive possession of brooch via his ownership of property?
-court didn’t address this question at all
McAvoy v. Medina (1866)
Facts:
π was customer in ∆’s barber shop; found pocketbook lying on table
Holding:
affirmed judgment for ∆
Reasoning:
-distinguish from Bridges b/c that property was lost; this property = mislaid
-this rule re: mislaid property better adapted to secure the rights of TO
Take-away:
finder does not have rights to mislaid property
Treasure trove (origin of word trover) – at English common law, went to the king
ESTATES & FUTURE INTERESTS
Estates divide land on a temporal scale.
Future Interests Before 1536:
Present Possessory Estat
n seisin)
-Doctrine of Merger: if holder of LE buy’s O’s reversion à becomes FSA; CR destroyed
-Forfeiture: when holder of estate convicted of treason à CR destroyed
-Renunciation: (possibly for tax purposes) à CR destroyed
Gifts to a Class:
-only vested remainders are subject to open or partial divestment (these are the same thing)
-class (of children) closes when mother dies (still open even if mother is 87, e.g.)
Vested Remainders Subject to Total Divestment:
-what remainderman has if preceding estate is FS/CS (and grantor retains right of entry)
-this is VR/STD and not CR b/c difference between condition precedent and condition subsequent
-CP: give property only if B reaches 50 (this = CR)
-CS: give property but grantor can take it back if B doesn’t reach 50 (this = VR/STD)
-the difference above is whether the remainder is subject to destructibility
-but generally, this makes little functional difference
B CAN’T lose interest before becomes possessory
B RISKS losing interest before becomes possessory
B CAN’T lose interest after becomes possessory
VR/FSA
VR/STD/FSA
B RISKS losing interest after becomes possessory
VR/FS/CS
VR/STD/FS/CS
STD = risk losing interest before possession
FS/CS = risk losing interest after possession
PROPERTY INTERESTS AFTER 1536:
The Use
-“to T and his heirs for the use of A” (T = trustee)
-modern version of use = trust
-T has official ownership but A has benefit of it; can avoid estate taxes when passes to children
-A has equitable title of property, while T has legal title of property
-use makes it devisable (was already heritable)
-1536 – Statute of Uses executed virtually all uses (owner of equitable title now has legal title)
-use à legal estate
-new: executory interest – interest created when execute the use
Executory Interests (EI):
-only possible if CAN’T satisfy rules of remainder
-grantor has reversion if EI doesn’t take effect immediately on expiration of preceding estate
-CAN apply to LE and FT, but these are more rare than on a FS
-once have EI, anything after the EI is still considered an EI, even if looks like a remainder
