Prop1 Final Exam Comments

Hello everyone. I apologize for interrupting your exam period with this note. I have submitted grades for Property I.  I am very proud of all of you. On the whole, you nailed it. I put together really difficult fact patterns that were quite open-ended, with the intent that there would be many, many, many correct answers. I thought I had considered all the possible answers, but several of you came up with things I didn’t even think of. Well done.
Additionally, many of you incorporated various concepts we talked about in class that were not in the textbook (such as the Coase Theorem, various constitutional concepts, etc.).
Finally, despite all of your concerns, almost every single one of you managed to completely answer the question within the word limit. In other words, the differences between the A, B, and C was not due to an inability to write within the word limits.
You can download the exam here.
You can download the A+ paper here. If this is your paper, please drop me a line.
The Grades
First year classes are subject to the school’s mandatory grading curve (see p. 84 of the handbook):
grades assigned in classes of 40 or more students shall conform to a mandatory grading distribution. That distribution provides for a required 9-16 percent for A+/A, a required 16-30 percent for A+/A/A-; a required 16-30 percent for C+/C/C-/D+/D/F; and a required 9-16 percent for C/C-/D+/D/F. The class average shall be 2.85-3.15.
I think you will find that I maximized the grades here. I approached the upper limits of the grades allowed above an A-, and approached the lower limits of grades below C+. In addition, the class average was very close to the upper limit (3.119). In other words, there were more As than Cs, and the class averages were quite high.
Here is the full breakdown.

Average: 3.119
A and above – 15.7%
A- and above – 28.6%
C+ and below: 18.6%
C and below: 10%

Thank you all for a great semester.
Share this:TwitterFacebookEmailPrintGoogleTumblr

Read More

Prop1 Class 28 – Landlord-Tenant Relationships III

The lecture notes are here and the live chat is here.
Here is the apartment at issue in Hilder v. St. Peter at 10 Church Street, Rutland, VT.

View Larger Map
This is Judge Richard Posner. He adjudicates in beast mode.

This is the other beast of the 7th Circuit, Judge Frank Easterbrook.

Share this:TwitterFacebookEmailPrintGoogleTumblr

Read More

Prop1 Sample Exam Question & Answer

The Question
Property I Sample Examination
(These are the instructions that will be on the final exam).
You will have three hours to complete this exam. There are two essay questions. Each question is worth 50% of the final score. Each question has a 500-word limit. Anything you write past 500 words will not be read. Please use the word-count feature to check the length of each answer, or count the words if you are hand-writing the exam.
The exam is completely open-book. You can use anything you wish, so long as that it was printed before the distribution of this exam. Obtaining any new information from anyone or anything after the exam is prohibited.
The year is 1839. The Republic of Texas has recently declared its independence. You are clerking for the Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court, and have been asked to prepare a memorandum explaining this very-Texas property problem. Because time is short, the Chief Justice wants a memorandum of no more than 500 words. (Y’all and other Texisms count as one word). If there are multiple possible outcomes, please discuss the options. Texas applies all of the common law property rules, as stated in the Restatement (First) of Property (which will be published in about 100 years). Any similarities or dissimilarities between this fact pattern and actual Texas history are unintentional–please indulge your Yankee professor.

In 1836, Austin led the Texians in their triumphant victory in the Texas Revolution. During his conquests, Austin claimed ownership of two plots of land in what was now the Republic of Texas: Gonzales and Alamo. Nearing the end of his life, Austin set out to ensure that his friends and family were taken care of after his death. At the time, Austin was not married, and had three children: Bowie, Crocket, and Dusk. Austin also had several close friends: Eustache, Fannin, and Gamar.
On January 1, 1837, Austin recorded the first of two conveyances: “I convey Gonzales to Bowie for life, then to Eustache and his heirs so long as the cannon used during the Battle of Gonzales remains in Gonzales.”
On January 2, 1837, Bowie took his own life and fell on his (bowie) knife.
On February 1, 1837, Austin recorded the second conveyance: “I convey Alamo to Crockett and Dusk jointly, but if the Alamo fort is not maintained, then to Fannin and his heirs.
On February 2, 1837, Crockett locks the Alamo fort, and prevents Dusk from entering.
On February 14, 1837, Crockett became too busy hunting raccoons for his new coonskin cap, and forgot about the Alamo. It quickly fell into disrepair.
On May 1, 1837, tragically, Crockett was attacked by a rabid racoon, and dies.
On May 14, 1837, afraid of his own mortality after Crockett’s sudden demise, Dusk recorded the following conveyance: “Alamo to myself for my life, then to Gamar and his heirs.”
On May 15, 1837 at Crockett’s funeral, Fannin learns that the Alamo is in disrepair, and tells Dusk that he is moving in.
On May 16, 1837, Dusk dies during a tragic mutton-bustin’ accident, that would later become known as the silence of the lambs.
On May 30, 1837 Fannin enters Alamo and demands access. Gamar, who had moved in after Dusk kicked the bucket, won’t let him in.
On December 31, 1837, Austin died, leaving no heirs.
On January 2, 1838, General Hanta Anna, still peeved over losing the war, entered Gonzales and claimed that Austin never properly acquired Gonzales, and that the land belongs to him. Hanta Anna claimed that in 1824 the Native Americans in Gonzales conveyed the land to him. Eustache, with a classic Texian bravado and swagger, kicks out Hanta Anna.
On February 1, 1838, Hanta Anna, taking Gonzales’ “Come and Take It” flag a little too seriously, came and took it. He seized the canon and brought it South of the Border. By messing with Texas, he nearly ignited another Revolution.

With these facts, address the following questions in your memorandum to the Chief Justice.
(1) With respect to Gonzales, describe the interests held by Austin, Bowie, Eustache, and Hanta Anna at the following dates (If a person has not yet acquired any interest at a certain date, no need to discuss it):
(a) 1/1/37
(b) 1/2/37
(c) 1/2/38
(d) 2/1/38
(2) With respect to Alamo, describe the interests held by Austin, Crocket, Dusk, Fanin, and Gamar at the following dates (If a person has not yet acquired any interest at a certain date, no need to discuss it):
(a) 2/1/37
(b) 2/2/37
(c) 2/14/37
(d) 5/1/37
(e) 5/16/37
(f) 5/30/37
The Answer
(exactly 493 words)
At the time of conveyance, Austin retains a possibility of reverter in fee simple. Bowie has a life estate. Eustache has a vested remainder in fee simple determinable.
After Bowie’s death, Eustache has fee simple determinable in Gonzales, so long as the cannon remains in Gonzales. Austin retains his possibility of reverter, which will divest Eustache as soon as the cannon is removed. No right of entry is necessary.
Austin retains no interest. Crockett and Dusk hold Alamo as joint tenants in common, but that interest is defeasible. Fannin has a shifting executory interest, that will divest the joint tenants if the fort is not maintained.
By locking Dusk out, there may be two possible options. First, the court may find that the fourth unity (possession) was severed, and the joint tenancy in common should be converted to a tenancy in common. Second, the court may find that Crockett is liable to Dusk for rent for denying Dusk access.
Failing to maintain the Alamo is not enough to trigger the condition subsequent. Alamo still belongs to Dusk and Crocket, either as joint tenants in common, or as tenants in common. Fanin would need to enter for his interest to become possessory.
The status of Alamo after Crockett’s death depends.
First, if it remained a joint tenancy in common, Dusk, through his right of survivorship, becomes the owner of Alamo in fee simple.
Second, if became a tenancy in common, Crockett’s share would go to Crockett’s heirs. The heir would become Dusk’s new co-tenant.
Again, the status of Alamo after Dusk’s death depends on the nature of the cotenancy before Crockett’s death.
First, if Alamo remained a joint tenancy, then Dusk, as survivor, received the land in fee simple. Then Dusk could give himself a life estate, and give Gamar a vested remainder. At Dusk’s death, Gamar would take the land in fee simple, subject to Fannin’s shifting executory interest.
Second, if it became a tenancy in common, and Crockett’s share went to Crockett’s heirs, then the conveyance to Gamar would be void, as Dusk could not alienate the land in fee simple. Gamar would take nothing. At Dusk’s death, Dusk’s share in Alamo would go to Dusk’s heirs. At this point, Dusk’s heir and Crocket’s heir would own Alamo as tenants in common. Both interests are subject to divestment by Fannin.
Once Fannin enters, as the Alamo is in disrepair, his shifting executory interest divests either Gamar, or the heirs of Dusk and Crocket, of Alamo. Fannin now holds Alamo in fee simple.
Following Johnson v. M’Intosh, courts do not recognize the capacity of the Native Americans to contract. Thus the transaction is void, and Austin acquired Gonzales through “conquest.”
Once the cannon is removed, Eustache’s fee simple determinable is divested. The land would go to Austin, but he’s dead. Since Austin has no heirs, the land escheats to the Republic of Texas.
Share this:TwitterFacebookEmailPrintGoogleTumblr

Read More

Prop1 Class 27 – Landlord-Tenant Relationship II

The lecture notes are here and the live chat is here.
The review session will be on Friday 11/22 at 9:00 a.m. in room 518. For the first 90 minutes I will administer the exam. At 10:30 a.m. I will go over the exam. You can see the question I will and out here.
This is 207 Union Street in Hackensack, NJ.

View Larger Map
Share this:TwitterFacebookEmailPrintGoogleTumblr

Read More

Prop1 Class 25 – Landlord-Tenant Relationships I

The lecture notes are here and the live chat is here.
This site explains detail the eviction process in Texas. Here is the section of the Texas code governing evictions and forcible entry.
In Texas, forcible entry without resort to judicial process is illegal. In other words, no self-help.
Sec. 24.001. FORCIBLE ENTRY AND DETAINER. (a) A person commits a forcible entry and detainer if the person enters the real property of another without legal authority or by force and refuses to surrender possession on demand.
(b) For the purposes of this chapter, a forcible entry is:
(1) an entry without the consent of the person in actual possession of the property;
(2) an entry without the consent of a tenant at will or by sufferance; or
(3) an entry without the consent of a person who acquired possession by forcible entry.
Here is the process governing evictions:
Sec. 24.005.  NOTICE TO VACATE PRIOR TO FILING EVICTION SUIT. (a) If the occupant is a tenant under a written lease or oral rental agreement, the landlord must give a tenant who defaults or holds over beyond the end of the rental term or renewal period at least three days’ written notice to vacate the premises before the landlord files a forcible detainer suit, unless the parties have contracted for a shorter or longer notice period in a written lease or agreement. A landlord who files a forcible detainer suit on grounds that the tenant is holding over beyond the end of the rental term or renewal period must also comply with the tenancy termination requirements of Section 91.001.

(d)  In all situations in which the entry by the occupant was a forcible entry under Section 24.001, the person entitled to possession must give the occupant oral or written notice to vacate before the landlord files a forcible entry and detainer suit. The notice to vacate under this subsection may be to vacate immediately or by a specified deadline.
(e)  If the lease or applicable law requires the landlord to give a tenant an opportunity to respond to a notice of proposed eviction, a notice to vacate may not be given until the period provided for the tenant to respond to the eviction notice has expired.
(f)  The notice to vacate shall be given in person or by mail at the premises in question. Notice in person may be by personal delivery to the tenant or any person residing at the premises who is 16 years of age or older or personal delivery to the premises and affixing the notice to the inside of the main entry door. Notice by mail may be by regular mail, by registered mail, or by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the premises in question. If the dwelling has no mailbox and has a keyless bolting device, alarm system, or dangerous animal that prevents the landlord from entering the premises to leave the notice to vacate on the inside of the main entry door, the landlord may securely affix the notice on the outside of the main entry door.
(g)  The notice period is calculated from the day on which the notice is delivered.
(h)  A notice to vacate shall be considered a demand for possession for purposes of Subsection (b) of Section 24.002.
(i)  If before the notice to vacate is given as required by this section the landlord has given a written notice or reminder to the tenant that rent is due and unpaid, the landlord may include in the notice to vacate required by this section a demand that the tenant pay the delinquent rent or vacate the premises by the date and time stated in the notice.
And here is a photo and video of the Pierre “Luxury” Apartments in Hackensack, NJ. A 1-bedroom apartment starts at $1845!

View Larger Map
Share this:TwitterFacebookEmailPrintGoogleTumblr

Read More