Property I Outline
Pro. Dernbach
Fall 2011
HISTORY
1. Two types of property rights were recognized by the colonists:
a. State of Nature – Indians may have had a natural right to the land, but if they hadn’t built permanent structures on it or cultivated it, their right wasn’t one that was recognized by civilized society
i. The right was natural when every man used the land to sow and feed where he pleased
b. Civil – when the men and cattle increased on the land and it was sectioned off
i. Most tribal land was vacuum domicilium
ii. Settlers often found their property rights in the Bible
2. English settlers and Indians didn’t agree on a definition of property.
a. Colonists thought property was individuals owning land to the exclusion of all other individuals.
b. Indians held collective rights to their land in their tribal villages through their sachem (leader).
i. Indians “owned” what they made with their own hands from the land.
1. Goods were owned because they were useful and could easily be given away.
ii. Indian families got exclusive use of planting fields on which their wigwams stood.
1. Wigwams were moved every few months and fields were abandoned every few years.
a. Fields would re-grow brush until another family took them over.
1. Johnson & Graham’s Lessee v. M’Intosh
a. As among the European powers, discovery gave land title to the discovering government. This principle has been accepted by the states as well as the United States. Thus, only the United States can acquire property from the Indians, either by force or by purchase. The unwillingness of the Indians to be assimilated and the longstanding application of this rule support this decision.
BASIC RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF LANDOWNER
1. “Bundle of Sticks” Rights
1. Right to possess
2. Right to use
3. Right to exclude
i. Protected by three causes of action:
1. Conversion
2. Trespass (Elements)
a. Invasion of interest in exclusive possession of property (unprivileged entry)
b. Intentional or negligent doing of act that results in invasion
c. *Criminal Trespass:
i. A civil trespass
ii. After being told not to trespass or refusing to leave
d. Exceptions to trespass:
i. License exists when:
1. Property owner gives permission to another to enter the owner’s property
2. *License is ordinarily revocable
ii. Property owner has also entered legal agreement to allow another person to remove trees or other resources from owner’s land
iii. Other person has relied on permission to his/her significant detriment (easement by estoppel; property II)
iv. Privileges to trespass – public officials (police, fire fighters, etc.) are privileged to trespass on others’ property in the course of their official investigations
v. Privilege of necessity – to trespass across another’s land where necessary to put out a fire, avoid a nuisance, or get around a blocked highway
e. Jacque v. Steenberg Homes, Inc.
i. The court held that punitive damages can be awarded for intentional trespass, even when compensatory damages are not awarded
3. Ejectment
ii. Limits on the Right to Exclude
1. Brooks v. Chicago Downs Assoc.
a. The court followed the common law rule, stating there was no explicit rule stating the defendants didn’t have the right to bar any patrons they wanted from their facility, except in the case of race, color, creed, national origin, or sex.
4. Right to transfer
5. *Remedies
i. Nominal damages – not large, as small as $1, symbolic damages
ii. Compensatory damages – compensate the injured party
iii. Punitive damages – punishment
iv. Injunctive relief – asking court to force someone to do something or to not do something
2. Adverse Possession
1. Elements
i. Actual Possession
1. Possessor must physically occupy the premises in some manner
ii. Open and Notorious
1. Notice to neighbors
2. Notice to landowner
iii. Adverse and under “claim of right” (claim of title)
1. Possession must be adverse (as opposed to subordinate to true owner)
2. Possession is without owner’s consent or permission
a. States apply 3 different approaches on state of mind:
i. Possessor’s state of mind is irrelevant
ii. Possessor must have good faith
iii. Possessor must be an aggressive trespasser
iv. Exclusive
1. Possession can’t ripen into title when adverse possessor shares use of land with actual owner
2. Quarles v. Carcega
a. The plaintiffs had taken possession of the land believing it to be their own because they were acting on a mistake as to the true bound
what they please, and they won’t be liable to neighbors even if in doing so, they deplete their neighbors of their water usage
a. A water company can use a property next to a residence to pump tons of water from the ground, even though doing so depleted the residence’s well
ii. Reasonable Use
1. Would limit the rule of capture by imposing liability on landowners who “unreasonably” use groundwater to their neighbors’ detriment.
3. Intellectual Property
1. Patent (requirements)
i. Patentable subject matter
ii. Novelty
iii. Usefulness
iv. Non-obviousness
2. Copyright
i. Protects only the author’s expression of ideas
ii. Not the ideas themselves
iii. The holder of a copyright receives a variety of exclusive rights in the copyrighted work for the life of the author plus 70 years
1. Rights to reproduce the work
2. Distribute copies to the public
3. Prepare derivative works
3. Trademark
4. International News Service v. Associated Press
i. News isn’t copyrightable. The news itself isn’t a creation of a writer but is only a report of what normally belongs to the public; it’s the history of the day
5. Cheney Bros. v. Doris Silk
i. A person’s property is limited to the chattels, which embody his invention (Cheney).
ii. A designer doesn’t have a property right sufficient enough to prevent someone else from using a seasonal design because the design isn’t patentable or copyrightable (Cheney).
4. Human Cells
1. Moore v. Regents of the University of California
i. When cells are extracted from someone as part of a medical procedure, he/she has no property rights in the cells when/if they are later used for research purposes
5. Acquisition by Means Other than Sale
1. Acquisition by Find
i. Amory v. Delamarie
1. The finder of an object has a property right in the object against all people but the rightful owner and can keep the object. The finder doesn’t acquire an absolute property or ownership to the object, though.
