CASES - AUTHORITY

Johnson v. MIntosh (indian land) - The United States (the discoverer) has title to all lands
within its boundaries and has the exclusive right to grant titles and purchase land from Indians.
Certainty over fairness to Indians labor not mixed with land so labor theory doesn!t apply.
(Certaint ! "airness# $a%or Theor)
&ierson v. &ost ('o() - "ursuit alone does not constitute ownership. #ccupancy can only be
established by ta$ing actual possession or depriving the something of its %natural liberty.%
"ursuit is not certain how much is enough (re&ecting labor theory how much is enough') etc.
(fficiency in that issue already addressed by experts why redo it' ) *inimi+e overhead costs.
,egitimacy of precedent. -e&ecting .irst in Time since pursuer was there first but not given fox.
(Certaint ! "airness# E''i)ien)# Sta%ilit# $e*iti+a)# Re,e)tin* "irst in Ti+e)
--issent. /rgued that incentive should be given to pursuer in their effort in eliminating
pernicious
beasts. "roperty in animals should be recogni+ed when there is a reasonable prospect of
ta$ing
capture.
/hen v. Ri)h (0hale) - Custom to be followed in a microcosm specific to the industry.
Certainty in following industry norms when a small number of ppl effected. (fficient in
maintaining customary practice. ,abor mixed with animal by %finder% irrelevant due to customary
practice of leaving whale after harpooned. Court bases analysis on ground that property
ac0uired by first ta$er by actual possession and appropriation (deprivation of natural liberty').
(Certaint# E''i)ien)# $a%or Theor)
1ee%le v. Hi)2erin*hill (d3)2s) - *alicious interference of trade1 "arty may compete freely by
acting lawfully but may not interfere with the land of another and the en&oyment of his land
maliciously. Contrast to Pierson since interferer shooting duc$s was not a productive activity it
was not o$. 2ant to encourage commerce (hunting capturing selling of duc$s) not encourage
pointless interference. Court ruled against interferer. (En)o3ra*in* so)iall %ene'i)ial
a)tivit4en)o3ra*in* )o++er)e 5 )o+6etition)
-Constr3)tive &ossession (legal fiction) #ne has rights to the resources on one3s own
land.
4/dvantages 4 5one to serve policy goals
6) Conservation 4 plan for future based on limited amt available (efficiency)
7) &revents Tres6assin*
8) Certaint 4 rights assigned based on what is on one3s property
45isadvantages
6) 5oes not apply to every situation
7) 9oarding (selfishness) Society3s benefit is not considered
8) "erpetuate wealth ine0ualities
:) Inflexible
International 7e0s Servi)e v. Asso)iated &ress (ne0s) - (Similar to Keeble) interference
with another3s trade. 7 motivations for ruling in /" favor1
4In)entive 4 provide incentive to person doing the labor.
-Moral As6e)t 4 do not reap where you have not sewn. ;ews has 0uasi4property rights
when it has commercial value so there is need to protect against unfair competition
4;o property right in information because it would inhibit innovation. Concern over
monopolies info isn3t a scarce resource. (Contrast to Pierson) ;o exclusivity for info it is
not tangible li$e a fox. ($a%or theor# En)o3ra*in* Co++er)e)
Chene 8rothers v. -oris Sil2 Cor6. (6attern o' r3*s) - Concern for monopolies want to
encourage innovation and competition. "roperty is limited to the chattels which embody his
invention. #thers may imitate these at their pleasure. (En)o3ra*in* Co++er)e)
S+ith v. Chanel (6er'3+e) - Imitation of uncopyrighted goods is the %lifeblood of competition%
and
ultimately benefits the public in $eeping the mar$et fair. (En)o3ra*in* Co++er)e)
Moore v. Re*ents o' the Universit o' Cali'ornia ()ells) - (Similar to AP) 2ants to discourage
exclusivity and protect 5rs3 labor to encouraged innovation research and a socially valuable
activity. (5ifferent from AP) Cells tangible and AP labored to get the news *oore did not labor
to get the cells *oore has a dignity interest that /" does not have 4< the Sanctity of the body.
(Similar to Cheney and Chanel) denying property rights will encourage innovation. =undle 4<
courts can pic$ and choose which %stic$s are present. ($a%or Theor# Certaint ! "airness#
En)o3ra*e Co++er)e# 83ndle o' Sti)2s# San)tit o' the %od)
/uthority
6. ;o precedent (hinders his burden of proof)
7. /pply Speciali+ed Statutes 4 U/>/ (rather than
common
law of property which is too broad)
8. -ight to publicity cases are inapplicable (cell are
the
same in everyone which isn3t necessarily true. The
Uni0ueness of his cells are what made them valuable)
:. *oore could not patent his cells (inventive effort
re0uired)
"olicy
6. "rotect ,abor
7. (ncourage =iotech
industry
8. Certainty?Settling
property rights

$a0 o' A))ession- #ne person ma$es something with the raw materials provided by
another. 2hat is due the owner of the raw materials'
6)"ossible -emedy 4 value of the raw materials.
7) ;ot considered by court because they do not consider cells to be property
&o6ov v. Haashi (%ase%all) 4 "opov caught ball mob intervened causing him to drop the ball
9ayashi pic$ed it up and hid it in his poc$ets. 9e later come forward stating he had it. Court
ordered the ball sold @A?@A. 5iscourages honesty in finders because they wont want to come
forward with no incentive. ,abor theory 4< encourages hard wor$ (Similar to Johnson) .irst in
time (Similar to Keeble and AP) "revent interference and wrongdoers both had possessory
interest. (Similar to Ghen) Custom in baseball 4< catch it its yours. ("airness ! Certaint#
$a%or Theor# "inders)
Ar+or v. -ela+irie ()hi+ne ,e0el) - .inder of an item has better title than all but the true
owner. (ncourage honesty and incentive for finders to return items to true owner. (Certaint#
E''i)ien)# "inders)
Hannah v. &eel (,e0el in ho3se) - (ncourages honesty finders $eeps item if true owner not
found (protects expectations). (fficiency in not wasting &udicial resources in trying to find out
who is lying. Constructive possession of items on land owned by landowner. (Certaint#
San)tit o' the ho+e# En)o3ra*e &rod3)tive 3se o' land# E''i)ien))
M)Avo v. Medina (0allet in sho6) - "roperty left accidently is not lost its mislaid. *islaid
property is not %lost% in the traditional sense so shop owner retains possession against all but
the true owner and finder retains no right to possession. (5istinct from Hannah) ;o sanctity of
the home 4<business and item was not lost so there is an increased li$elihood that the owner
will return for it and goal is for property to find true owner. (ncourages lying. 5ifferent
expectations no real right to exclude. ("inders)
Mannilo v. /ors2i (7J) (stairs over 6ro6ert) 4 /ny entry and possession for the re0uired time
which is exclusive continuous uninterrupted visible and notorious even though under
mista$en claim of title is sufficient to support a claim of title by adverse possession. 2ith regard
to minor encroachments only where the true owner has actual $nowledge thereof may it be said
that the possession is open and notorious. State of mind irrelevant because true owner does not
rely on whether the possession was hostile or under mista$e to see$ recovery. Court says only
innocent trespasser can force the conveyance of land. (Eli+inatin* 8ilateral Mono6ol#
Certaint 5 "airness (e(6e)tations o' lando0ner4inno)ent tres6asser)
Adverse 6ossession functions as a method of transferring interests in land without the
consent of the prior owner. Ta$es place after the expiration of statute of limitations.
i. : Common law (lements1
9. Entr 5 E()l3sive &ossession
7. O6en 5 7otorio3s constructive unless minor encroachment
a. ;otice is )onstr3)tive when it is clear ) openly visible.
"resumption to
encourage people not to &ust abandon land.
i. "revents courts from determining who is lying
8. Hostile4Clai+ o' Ri*ht depends on state of mind
a. >ood faith (Connecticut) =ad faith (*aine) IrrelevantB
:. Contin3o3s for statutory period
ii. /dvantages1
6. Certaint 4 transferability expectations
7. E''i)ien) - *inimi+es litigation
:. En)o3ra*es 6rod3)tive 3se o' the land
:. "airness?"sychology 4 once land has been occupied for a time it %ta$es
root in
one3s being
;. En)o3ra*e tr3e o0ners to assert their ri*hts ti+el
a. "irst in Ti+e 4 not beneficial when it hinders the policy advantages.
iii. 5isadvantages
6. ;ot always Certain 4 how much labor done to establish claim'
7. ;o Conservation 42hat if true owner is trying to conserve the
land?resources rather than exploit it'
8. Could result in more litigation
:. "rivileges trespassers
O1ee'e v. Snder (6aintin*s) - If the outcome of a trial is uncertain it will encouraging due
diligence of the owner in protecting and trying to reclaim a stolen chattel. The statute of
limitations on an
action for replevin begins to run when the owner $nows or reasonably should $now of his
cause of action and the identity of the possessor. #pen and visible possession of personal
property may not always be sufficient to provide actual or constructive notice to the original
owner as they are movable and easily concealed.
i. -is)over R3le.
(6) 2hether the original owner used due diligence to recover the items ta$en at the
time
and thereafter
(7) 2hether there was an effective method to put related ind?orgs on notice at the
time the
alleged theft occurred
(8) 2hether registering the missing item with an authoritative institution would put
reasonably prudent buyer on notice that they may be ac0uiring stolen goods
ii. .airness vs. certainty in that owner has a greater opportunity to reclaim their
chattels however it is uncertain because the true owner could come to reclaim at
any time. =ad for subse0uent owner. 2hat is due diligence' 5ifficult to determine
outcome. ("airness ! Certaint# &ossi%le in)rease in liti*ation)
/r3en v. /r3en (6aintin* 'or son) - .or an inter vivos gift there must exist1 intent on the part of
the donor to ma$e a present transferC delivery of the gift either actual or constructive to the
doneeC and acceptance by the donee. Testamentary >ift must be done with witnesses as a will
so it was invalid in this case. If property is not willed upon death property transfers to the
widow. / future interest in the painting. (a right to receive the painting upon Dictor3s death.)
Dictor reserved a life estate for himself right to use it in his life. (Certaint -! E(6e)tations)
i. Inter Divos gift reserving life estate is irrevocable. (xample of ownership of
rights with regard to property rather than ownership of property itself.
ii. 2hen a future interest is given the I-S treats it as a testamentary gift
defeated Dictor3s intent of avoiding estate tax.
Riddle v. Har+on (stra0+an) - / &oint tenant may unilaterally sever the &oint tenancy without
the use of an intermediary device (strawman). (transfers to a tenancy in common which does
not leave the future interest to the other tenants in common. (overruled Clark at common law a
strawman was needed). (E''i)ien))
i. < Unities o' Joint Tenan)
6. Time 4 interest in each ET must vest at the same time
7. Title 4 all ET must ac0uire title by the same instrument (common grantor in
one
document). Can never arise by intestate succession or other act of law.
8. Interest 4 all must have e0ual undivided shares and identical interests
measured
by duration (cant have 6?8 and 7?8 li$e tenant in common)
:. "ossession 4 must have a right to possession of the whole. / ET can
voluntarily
give exclusive possession to another ET
-el'ino v. =ealen)is (6artition o' land) - The Court must consider the interests of all the
tenants in common and not merely the economic gain of a single tenant. / partition by
sale would force Dealencis to give up her home and would &eopardi+e her business. ,aw of
.inders 4< Dealencis first possessor using the land protecting her expectations44similar to policy
behind adverse possession 44(of $eeping land where she built her home and business without
worrying others will ta$e it rooted soul) and encouraging labor (if not protected where is the
motivation to improve upon the land'). Dealencis use of land loo$ed upon more favorably than
5elfino3s investment interest in land. (Similar to Hannah) 5elfino has never been there.
(San)tit o' the ho+e (di*nit46riva))# "airness# Certaint# $a0 o' "inders -! 0or2 on
land 04o ne(t *3 destroin* it4 ta2in* it a0a)# En)o3ra*in* $a%or)
i. "artition in $ind 4 5ivision of property ma$ing two independent parcels of land
ii. "artition in sale 4 forced sale of land followed by division of profits among
tenants
8orelli v. 8r3ssea3 ()arin* 'or s6o3se) - Spouses may not legally contract for support
between one another. Courts do not enter the blac$ box of marriage. (pre4nup and post4nup o$)
(San)tit o' +arria*e)
Sa0ada v. Endo (HI) (Car a))ident) - Spouse can3t unilaterally alienate their life estate or
contingent right of survivorship. HI 4 attachment by creditor is void. Individual alienation of
interest by one spouse would sub&ect the other to the will (or opinions) of a stranger court feels
it is going against *2"/. (San)tit o' the 'a+il) -issent - Tenancy by entirety should mean
both have a life estate with a contingent right of survivorship. (ither of which can be alienated
individually (;E).
i. If purpose of *2"/ is to e0uali+e does it do so by saying both husband and
wife can freely
alienate their @AF interest in the property' #r does it say neither of them can
alienate
their interest in the property unilaterally' 9I says latter.
ii. I-S can pierce the veil of tenancy by the entirety and attach an individual
spouses interest
United States v. Cra't (%3ndle o' sti)2s) - In determining property right etc State ,aw
determined what %stic$s% are in the bundle of property but .ederal ,aw will determine which
%stic$% amount to property.
i. (nough %stic$s in the bundle% (rights) to be considered property not concerned
with legal fictions. .ederal law says any %property% can be attached and
enough stic$s constitutes property.
ii. .ederal law casts out the legal fictions (tenancy by entireties) and loo$s at the
actual rights a party has to determine the realities of the interests.
6. Contradiction4 =undle of stic$s themselves are a fiction. .ictions
embraced when they support policy that is favorable deconstruct them
when not.
7. *a$ing the wife a tenant in common with I-S severely pre&udices her (the
more vulnerable spouse)
iii. 9I concerned about san)tit o' the 'a+il which overrides the interest of
creditors. Supreme court however is saying that it is more important for I-S to
collect tax revenue than to preserve the sanctity of the family.
6. Concern also1 $e*iti+a) and 3ni'or+it of I-S ) federal government.
7. /t common law every state has its own rules (inconsistency)
In re Marria*e o' /raha+ (CO) - (ducational degree isn3t divisible property at divorce because
it is personal to holder and has no exchange value in open mar$et. 2ife not entitled to
compensation. Court wants to encourage expectations of continued marriage and acts of love
Mahone v. Mahone (7J) - "rofessional degree not recogni+ed as marital property but wife
was compensated for what she contributed not for future earnings.
O8rian v. O8rian (7Y) - "rofessional license is marital property but difficult to calculate future
earnings so contributions toward educational degree treated as investments and wife is entitled
to receive returns (expectancy damages) for &oint efforts upon divorce.
/arner v. /errish (li'eti+e lease) - 2hen a landlord leases property to the other with the
terminology %...as long as% it is indicative of a determinable life tenancy and can only be
terminated at the will of the tenant or at the tenant3s death. (adding would stray from original
intent of the lease)
United States v. Starrett Cit Asso)iates (anti-dis)ri+ination) - 6 :>? (63r6oses o' "HA @
anti-dis)ri+ination# there'ore# settin* aside a )ertain n3+%er o' a6art+ents 'or 0hite
tenants is ille*al# %e)a3se it dis)ri+inates# even tho3*h the 63r6ose is inte*ration) -
.9/ says cant refuse sale or rental of or ma$e unavailable or deny dwelling to a person
because of race color religion sex familial status or national origin 4< also cant print publish
advertisement same standards.
i. Fair Housing Act does not apply to any single family house sold or rented by
the owner if you own 8 homes or less. (also can3t have investment interest in 8
or more properties)
6. Limitations4 Cannot utili+e services of a real estate agent ?bro$er cannot
run discriminating ad. (*a$es it more difficult for the owner to
discriminate). Dery narrow limitation.
7. 2hy ma$e the exception' Compromise between want for non4
discrimination and preserving the sanctity of the home and the owner3s
property rights.
Hannan v. -3s)h (A+eri)an r3le - lessee3s legal right to possession doesn!t imply duty on
lessor) - landlord is only bound to put tenant in legal possession not actual possession. ;ot the
landlord3s responsibility to oust the previous holdover tenant. ;either party contracted for
responsibility. Tenant has greater incentive to bring suit to secure use. =ut Guido argument is
that landlord is in better position to bear the ris$?burden business savvy (repeat player) and
money. (a!ada4 wife can choose husband "#Keefe 4 can &udge character of defrauder better)
Moore v. Ca+eron &arish S)hool 8d. ($A) A 'ollo0s En*lish r3le - absent stipulations
every lease implies landlord guarantees actual possession when lease term begins not &ust
legal possession)
1endall v. Ernest &estana (0ithholdin* )onsent) - Consent may only be withheld where the
lessor has a commercially reasonable ob&ection to the assigned of proposed use. (Alienation o'
land)
i. Commercially -easonable1 cannot use personal taste preference
convenience etc. as reasons. Test of good faith (financial irresponsibility
suitability of use etc.)
6. Eust to get a higher rent' ;o. Clause to withhold consent is supposed to
be to protect landlord3s interest (the original lease) not to serve his
economic benefit.
ii. Unreasonable withholding of consent could be o$ if it was bargained for and
agreed to prior to signing the lease.
6. *ay still argue to follow Kendall rule where landlord has expressly
reserved the right to be unreasonable because law disfavors
unreasonable restraints on alienation.
iii. Diewing lease as a transfer of property and a contract
6. principles of fair dealing and e0ual bargaining power.
7. ,ess concern for une0ual bargaining in business due to repeat players
Slavin v. Rent Control 8d. o' 8roo2line (Kendall does not a66l to residential leases) -
(xcessive litigation re0uired to determine what is reasonable. ,eft open4ended. "ossible
arguments for Kendall (une0ual bargaining power scarcity of rental property inability to afford
rents elsewhere?rent control etc.) (E''i)ien)# E()essive liti*ation)
Reste Realt Cor6. v. Coo6er ('loodin* o''i)e) - 2here there is implied covenant for 0uiet
en&oyment and there is a substantial breach by the landlord the courts have applied
)onstr3)tive evi)tion as a remedy (substantial disturbance44<C( as though there were an
actual eviction). Tenant cant cease paying rent and leave. Tenant used to have to pay rent while
dealing with damages and trying to sue landlord. Guido $ule 4 ,andlord is in a better position to
get flood insurance repave the driveway $now and anticipate the flood etc. ("airness !
Certaint# E(6e)tations# B3iet En,o+ent)
i. If a party vacates under constructive eviction and they are wrong party can be
sued for bac$ rent and for damages.
ii. If landlord has ability to control something he is under a duty to control it.
"idelit M3t3al $i'e Ins. =. 1a+ins2 (tres6assers) - 2ho is responsible for ousting
trespassers' Tenant can do a lot more if it is a guest who wont leave etc. If general trespasser
or holdover tenant it should be landlords duty as they have better control over the situation.
Hilder v. St. &eter (0arrant o' ha%ita%ilit) - court adopted implied warrant of habitability that
the landlord must deliver and maintain housing that!s safe clean and fit human habitation
during tenancy. Can3t contract away your right to live in a habitable place. -emedies include
damages recovering previous rent and withholding rent so the burden of bringing a suit is
shifted to the landlord who is better e0uipped to do so.
i. Habitability %est1
6. ,andlord given notice of defect and failed to fix within a reasonable time
7. The defect occurred during the time rent was withheld
ii. 5ifference between implied !arranty and &uiet en'oyment'
a. (mplied !arranty covers all latent and patent conditions
i. Cannot be bargained away. Tenant is not ma$ing a choice to waive
warranty freely ad fairly because they have no choice.
ii. /pplies to basic conditions of livability.
iii. ;ot concerned with expectations concerned with a C+ini+3+
standard o' ha%ita%ilitC that )annot %e 0aived 3nder an
)ir)3+stan)es.
iv. 2hen it comes to basic necessities who would bargain it away
unless they had no choice (destitution etc.) =asic livability.
v) *ecessity rather than comfort and convenience
b. +uiet en'oyment only covered latent defects ($nown to landlord but not
yet $nown to tenant.)
i. /pplies to anything that deals with suitability of the premises.
ii. -id the 6arties *et 0hat the %ar*ained 'orD ,-.pectations%
iii) Comfort and convenience rather then necessity)
c. 5ifference in -emedy1
i. (mplied /arranty Habitability0 Stay stop paying rent recover bac$
rent.
6. "uts burden and expense of repairs and litigation on the
landlord.
a. #bligation to pay rent contingent on landlords duty to
provide and maintain a habitable dwelling.
7. ,imited in application not used in all &urisdictions does not
apply to commercial leases.
ii. +uiet -n'oyment0 Constructive eviction (abandon and stop paying
rent)
6. Covers commercial leases as well not &ust habitability.
d. -is$s for Tenant in implied !arranty action
i. Court may rule against the tenant and ma$e them pay bac$ rent in
one lump sum and also may evict the tenant.
Cardona v. Eden Realt Co. (0aiver o' lia%ilit) - 2avier of tort liability by landlord. Can it be
done' These provisions (standard of care) cannot be waived due to une0ual bargaining power
between landlord and tenant.
i. Cardona lease with disclaimer (add G7 to rent for insurance) is invalid because
standard of care cannot be negotiated.
ii. "ossible conse0uence landlord may add %insurance% fee into rent anyway to
ma$e up for liability costs.
iii. Cant allow people to waive away their right to health and safety for a couple of
buc$s.
a. (ffect on poor (li$e 1oore v. 2C regents)
Ja)E3e v. Steen%er* Ho+es (deliver a)ross 6ro6ert) - (very person has an exclusive right
to the en&oyment of his own property for any purpose which does not infringe on the rights of
another. Clear rule 4< 5 circumvented bargaining. (Similar to 1anillo) 5iscouraging others from
engaging in the same activity. (Certaint# 83ndle o' Sti)2)
a. Treating unintentional trespasses much different from accidental ones (1anillo and
adverse possession etc. where 5 had to pay for the used portion of land only. If
>ors$i had trespassed intentionally he would have had to tear down his whole
house Hsimilar to the G6AA$ punitive award in Jac&uesI)

State v. Sha)2 (+i*rant 0or2ers) - Court found that a %man3s right in his property is not
absoluteJone should use his property so as not to in&ure the rights of others.% The -ight to
(xclude does not include the right to bar needed legal and medical aid for migrant wor$ers
given the vulnerability of their community. ,andowner had no legitimate need to exclude them
no interference with use of property or farm. The more a person3s land is opened up to the
public the less rights they have to control it (minimi+ed right to exclude.) / man3s right to his
property is not absolute. (83ndle o' Sti)2s# 7e)essit)
ii. ;ecessity (public or private) may allow one to commit what would otherwise be
a trespass.
6. Imbalance in bargaining power
iii. Une0ual bargaining power
6. 9ere one must have a legitimate reason to exclude people from your
property.
7. *igrant wor$ers must be allowed to have visitors on premises as well so
long as no in&ury is being done to the property.
8. "ublic interest in right of migrant wor$ers (moreso than in how to move a
trailer home). They have no means of protecting them themselves.
iv. hack gave up his right to exclude by allowing the migrant wor$ers their in the
first place.
Marsh v. Ala%a+a ()o+6an o0ned to0n) - #wnership of property does not mean dominion
over those who live their
a. "roperty is a form of sovereignty
b. "ublic interest in how a private citi+en uses property and affects others (since it is
scarce)
- indivduals rights to free speech
4first amendments rights out way towns property rights
c. Similar to hack1
i. Underprivileged class of persons
ii. ,andowner owns a large portion of land residents don!t so he can exercise
dominion over their lives.
iii. ,andowner both employer and landlord. "roperty in some sense is sovereignty.
d. "olicies in hack applied to 1arsh1
i. "rotection1 Similar need to protect those with little bargaining power who have
basin needs to bargain for. F%asi) needs )annot %e %ar*ained a0a
ii. Sanctity of the home1 Interest with the landlord or the tenant' ;ot always clear.
-ight to receive visitors (or decide for themselves if they want a particular
visitor)
iii. "ublic Interest1 2orried about a national economic problem.
e. "olicy1
i. ;ot a private home the right to exclude is waived once it is opened to the public.
(Compare to 1cAvoy shop owner).
ii. "roperty is a form of sovereignty
iii. "ublic interest in how a private citi+en uses property and affects others (since it is
scarce)
6. "erhaps they should be held to the same standards
iv. Certainty 4 apprehension from applying to broadly the restriction of right to
exclude so landowners can plan behavior.
&r3neYard Sho66in* Center v. Ro%%ins (63%li) 'or3+ in 6rivate s6a)e) - C/ and ;E court
said that private shopping centers in some cases cannot exclude people who want to handout
politically charged and other such informational papers. *ust be allowed to 0uietly enter your
property and perform this function since public spaces are on the decline.
a. "rivate areas must be treated as public for a for expression.
b. #nly gov3t can violate first amendment rights treated as a state issueK
common law


COMMO7 $AG -OCTRI7ES4I-EAS4&O$ICIES
83ndle o' Sti)2s L each stic$ represents a different property right. 5on!t need all stic$s to
constitute property.
Cases 4 *oore Eac0ue shac$ craft (I-S)
The Ri*ht to E()l3de L property right that gives you exclusive right to use destroy alienate
etc. your property. Mou give up exclusivity once you open up your property to others (shac$).
Cases L no right1 shac$ *ooreC yes right1 &ac0ue
"ree Alienation o' &ro6ert A (3nreasona%le restraints on alienation) L
Cases L Nendall (subleasing o$) )heneD
Certaint v. "airness L
Cases L certainty1 Eohnson (indians) ghen (whaling)C fairness1 popov (baseball)
$a%or Theor L mix yourself with the property
Cases 4 Eohnson (Indians didn!t mar$ land) delfino (lil old lady wor$ed her portion of the
land)C against labor theory1 pierson (laborer didn!t get fox)
$o)al C3sto+s L microcosm
Cases L for custom1 ghenC against custom1 popov
Constr3)tive &ossession L promotes conservation and planning so no need to use up in fear
that someone else will
Cases L no C"1 hannah (he never lived there)C yes C"1
8ilateral Mono6ol L standstill need each other to compromise court to encourage
negotiation to benefit society
Cases L *anillo
$a0 o' A))ession L someone innocently ta$es another!s property and improves it is allowed to
$eep the property as long as they pay the owner the fair mar$et value of it.
Cases 4 *oore
$a0 o' "inders L the law protects first possessors so that they can invest and use and settles
expectationsC it rewards honestyC more li$ely to get bac$ to true owner
Cases L mcavoyC hannah
Adverse &ossession L can invalidate past owner!s title if enough time passesC can transfer
interest without consent of the prior owner.
Cases 4 &ac0ue
Adverse &ossession o' Chattels 4
Cases L o!$eefe
$i'e Estate L for the life of the person
Cases L >ruen (in painting)
Tenan) in Co++on L 9ave separate but undivided interest in the property Interest of each is
descendible and can be given in word or by deed ;o survivorship rights b?n tenants in common
Cases L gruen sawada
Joint Tenan) 4 9ave the right of survivorship together are regarded as single owner
"ossession of whole Unities 4 time title interest possession.
: unities1
4 ac0uired at the same time
4 title by same instrument or &oint adverse possession
4 e0ual undivided shares of interests measured by duration
4 right to possession of the whole
Cases 4
Tenan) % the Entiret 4 Created only in husband and wife Same as ET with added unity L
marriage ;eed both to have right of &udicial partition Cannot destroy others right of survivorship
Cases 4 sawada
Co++3nit &ro6ert L marriage is partnership possessions ac0uired during divided e0ually
except for gifts etcJ individual needs of spouse is not considered
Cases 4
&artition in 1ind v. &artition % Sale L Nind (favors user who treats it as more than commodity
b?c they use it for bus?home. Sale (favors investor can &ust sell off no attachment to it)
Cases L mannilo delfino
San)tit o' the Ho+e L protects against outside world Mour rules exclusive dominion
Cases L delfino Eac0ue starrett (can discriminate when renting out rooms in your
home)C not mcavoy (shop not home) or 9annah (because he never lived there)
Marital &ro6ert L compensated for what you contribute currently movement towards
e0uitable distribution except for gifts wills and inheritance
Cases L graham *ahoney #!brien
-ivor)e L under common law property goes to hubby unless given to wife nowadays what
spouse contributes you receive you a share of
Cases 4 graham *ahoney #!brien
&re-736tial A*ree+ents L N made governing behavior during marriage are not enforceable
Cases 4 borelli
$ease L contract to rent property
Cases L garner hannan moore v. Cameron fidelity
"ederal "air Ho3sin* A)t 5 e(e+6tions (reli*ions or*aniHations# rentin* : or 'e0er
a6art+ents 0ithin o3r o0n ho+e# sellin* a S"H i' o3 do not advertise or 3se a %ro2er)
L unless for your own home you cannot discriminate in selling?renting property
Cases 4 starrett
I+6lied Covenant o' B3iet En,o+ent L (latent) waivable reasonable expectations of use by
tenant for business and residence
Cases 4 reste
Constr3)tive Evi)tion L remedy for breach of covenant of 0uiet en&oyment stop paying and
leave
Cases 4 -este
I+6lied Garrant o' Ha%ita%ilit L remedy for unlivable conditions nonwaivable don!t have
to move out can recover bac$ rent presume une0ual bargaining power between parties (latent
and patent)
Cases 4 hilder
$a0 o' 7e)essit L safety health legal rights can never be bargained between ,?T
Cases L hilder Shac$