I. Subsequent Possession: Acquisition of Property by Find and Adverse Possession
A. Acquisition by Find: Protecting the True Owner’s Rights
1. What is Property? There are lots of ways to have an interest in property and there are lots of ways to divide up those rights.
2. The Origins of Property –The standard manner of acquiring property is through gaining possession. Classically, the property could be gotten via discovery, purchase, force of arms, or following abandonment of the former owner.
3. Armory v. Delamirie (King’s Bench 1722)
Chimney sweep found jewel, brought it to smith for appraisal. Smith took the jewel. Court granted sweep the value of the stone.
i. The title of the finder of lost property is good against the whole world, except the true owner.
ii. In order to secure the rights of all owners, prior possessors are protected against the claims of future possessors. Prior possession is enough, in most cases to demonstrate personal property rights.
iii. The Finders/Keepers Dilemma: When is something “lost”? Is a thief a finder?
4. Hannah v. Peel (King’s Bench 1945)
Hannah found broach in Peel’s house. Peel tried to claim it. Court found for Hannah, holding that without Hannah, Peel would never have known of the broach.
i. A person does not possess a thing which is lying unattached on the surface of her land (especial a public or unoccupied place) even though the thing possessed by someone else.
ii. Land carries with it possession of everything attached or under the land.
Public Policy: We want finders to report their finds, if there was no chance they could keep them, why report?
iii. Abandonment – When the true owner intentionally and voluntarily relinquishes personalty, leaving the whole interest to the finder (this is the easiest case).
iv. Treasure Trove – If buried in the ground, the find goes to the owner of the place of the find.
Note: Lawful possession is the best evidence for property rights.
B. Acquisition by Adverse Possession
1. Why Allow Adverse Possession? Land should be used (the labor theory); Owners should take a bare interest in their land (the sleeper theory); An owner’s right to eject trespassers is bound by the statute of limitations; People become bound to land, it would be unjust to take break that bond (Holmes’/reliance theory).
2. The Theory and its Elements
i. Van Valkenburgh v. Lutz (N.Y. 1952)
Overtime the Lutzs used a lot adjacent to their own more and more. 30 years later, the Van Valkenburghs bought the land in a tax sale. The court found the Lutzs did not prove that they held the land consistently.
a. Actual occupation of premises requires that the premises be protected by substantial enclosure or improved per statute. There must be a claim of right as well.
b. The Elements of Adverse Possession: 1. Actual entry giving exclusive possession
ties – These can interfere with tolling of the statute of limitations period, but only come into play id they affect the adverse possessor/possessee after possession is taken.
II. Possessory Estates
A. Systems of Estates in Land and Future Interest
1. This is the study of ownership, not possession. Under the common law, property rights are determined in respect to time and society. These interests can be divided spatial, temporarily, by use, based upon conditions, etc.
2. Norman Estateholds– Under this system, the Tenurial Relationship was primary. An owner held land in respect to others who put them in possession through Seisin. In return for possession, the lord was owed certain duties, like homage and fealty. The interest could be passed to the vassals heirs. It was known as a Fee.
3. Alienation – Beginning in the mid-15th century, it became clear that a system of alienation would be necessary to allow conveyance beyond primogeniturous inheritance.
4. Freehold Estates
i. Fee Simple – This is the basic inheritable estate. “To B (the words of purchase) and her heirs (the words of limitation or the kind of estate being conveyed)” All this means is that B has been granted an estate that she can freely will and convey
