Property II (Fall 2012)

Welcome to Property II. We will be using the Dukeminier, Krier, Alexander, Schill, PROPERTY (7th ed.) casebook. In this class, we will cover Adverse Possession, Land Transactions, Title Assurance, the Law of Nuisance, the Law of Servitudes, Zoning, and Takings and Eminent Domain.

It is really, really easy to follow this class. All new items will be posted to this page (no need to scan through my entire blog). You can subscribe to new posts through RSS, Twitter, Facebook, through Google calendar, and by email. I recommend that each of you subscribe to new items by email, as this is probably the easiest way to be alerted of new items.
Enter your email address:Delivered by FeedBurner

Recent Posts. You can view all posts here.

Print Friendly

Prop2: Final Exam Comments

Posted by on Dec 20, 2012 in Property II-Fall 2012 | 0 comments

Hi everyone! I have submitted grades for both sections. I am very proud of all of you. This was my first semester teaching Property, and I did not know what to expect with the exams. 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.). This made me beam with pride.

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 also got very creative with abbreviations (APed was my favorite–adversely possessed) and really-long-hyphenates-to-avoid-adding-another-word.

The Exams

Section B

You can download the exam for Section B here: Property II Fall 2012 Section B Exam

I provide for your consideration the A+ exam here: SectionB-BestPaper

Section D

For this exam, I must confess error. In paragraph 5, I wrote:

Back in 1990, Carl and Domer, who were at the time the owners of Dryacre and Wetacre, respectively, reached a set of covenants.

It was clear that Carl owned Dryacre and Domer owned Wetacre.

Later in paragraph 7, I wrote

 Second, Aggie discovered that when Domer acquired Dryacre from Edna in 1985, Edna inserted a covenant into the deed so that the land could only be used for “agricultural purposes.”

This was an error. It should have been “when Carl acquired Dryacre.”

To make up for that mistake, I gave everyone equal credit for that issue. It was one of many issues, and barely made a dent in the scoring.

Here is the corrected exam:  PropertyIIExam-Blackman-SectionD-Correct

I also provide for your consideration the A+ paper: SectionD-BestPaper

The Grades

First year classes, including Property II, 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 in each section, the scores 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 (3.15). In other words, there were more As than Cs, and the class averages were quite high.

Here are the full breakdowns for each section.

Section B

  • Average: 3.121
  • A and above -13.0%
  • A- and above – 26.1%
  • C+ and below: 17.4%
  • C and below: 10.1%

Section-B-Distribution

 

Section D

  • Average: 3.143
  • A and above – 14.3%
  • A- and above – 28.6%
  • C+ and below: 19.0%
  • C and below: 11.9%

section-d-distribution

Thank you all for a great semester! BTW, if you wrote either of the A+ papers, please email me, if you’d like. Thanks!

 

 

Prop2 Class 27 – Last Class! Review Session

Posted by on Nov 14, 2012 in Property II-Fall 2012 | 0 comments

Thank you all for a great semester. Today we will go over the sample exam question, the sample answer question, and questions people emailed me in advance. After that, I will take questions, but they must be somewhat focused, and show me that you have already worked through an answer. I will not take “Can you explain this topic…” type questions today.

Section B (Afternoon)


Section D (Evening)

Prop2 Class 26: Regulatory Takings III

Posted by on Nov 12, 2012 in Property II-Fall 2012 | 0 comments

Last (real) class! School’s (almost) out for winter.

Today we cover three cases that wrap up the regulatory takings unit. First, Tahoe-Sierra v. Tahoe Regional Planning Authority, which largely cabins Lucas v. South Carolina. Second and third, two related and rhyming cases on exactions–Nollan v. California Coastal Commission and Dolan v. City of Tigard.

Section B (afternoon)


Section D (evening)

Lake Tahoe is a large freshwater lake on the border of Nevada and California.


View Larger Map

This is the original bungalow from Nolan.

Here is an aerial view of the new Nollan house.

This is the strip of beach behind Nolan’s house where the California Coastal Commission wanted to have an easement.

Here is a photo of the store from Dolan v. City of Tigard, and the creek behind the store.

Here is an aerial view of the property from Dolan.

Prop2: Class 25- Regulatory Takings II

Posted by on Nov 7, 2012 in Property II-Fall 2012 | 0 comments

Today we will cover Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council and Palazzolo v. Rhode Island.

Section B (Afternoon)

Section D (Evening)

Here is a diagram to explain the property at issue in Lucas.

 

Prop2: Sample Final Exam Question and Answer

Posted by on Nov 6, 2012 in Property II-Fall 2012 | 0 comments

The Question

Instructions: You are an associate at a law firm. Your lazy partner, who is quite short on time, asks you to prepare a memorandum of no more than 500 words addressing a situation affecting a client. You are in a jurisdiction that, for the most part, adopts the rules of the Restatement (First) of Property, but is gradually moving towards the Restatement (Third) of Property. The jurisdiction has a “Notice” recording statute. The period required for adverse possession is ten years with color of title, and twenty years without color of title .

Here are all the facts. If you draw any inferences beyond these facts, please explain why you drew those inferences.

On January 1, 2011, your client Aladdin purchased Blackacre from Oliver with a general warranty deed for $100,000. Oliver told Aladdin that he owned the land in fee simple, and that there were no encumbrances on the title.

Aladdin, who was otherwise involved in a bitter dispute with his girlfriend Jasmine (she acted like such a Princess!), delayed recording until January 1, 2012.

Unbeknownst to Aladdin, Oliver also sold Blackacre to Bambi for $50,000 on June 1, 2011. Oliver gave Bambi a quit-claim deed, though Oliver never signed it. Bambi recorded the same day, on June 1, 2011. However, the clerk who recorded the deed accidentally wrote “Greyacre” instead of “Blackacre.” Bambi knew nothing about the sale of Blackacre to Aladdin.

Bambi did not enter the property right away, as she was grieving the tragic death of her mother.

On January 2, 2012, Aladdin finally enters Blackacre, and decides to open the forest, which is extremely over-populated with deer, to hunters for a fee. WIthin 24 hours, Aladdin sells out hunting passes for the year for $20,000.

Gaston, a renowned hunter, enters the land, fires his gun, and kills a deer.

Captain Hook, who owns Whiteacre, which is adjacent to Blackacre, is startled by the gunshot, and comes running over and yells at Aladdin, telling him hunting is not allowed on the land. The Captain is very sensitive to sound.

The Captain says, “Look around at every other plot of land in the area. There is no hunting allowed anywhere in the county!” Aladdin said he didn’t even notice.

Aladdin told the Captain that his land was so over-populated by deer, who were eating all of his crops, that he needed to do something to reduce the number of deer. Aladdin said “this was the only way I could save my land!”

The Captain tells Aladdin that when he sold Blackacre to Donald Duck thirty years ago, the Captain added an easement on the deed, stating that hunting would not be allowed on Blackacre.

Aladdin tells the Captain that he “purchased Blackacre in fee simple from Oliver, not Donald Duck.” Aladdin had no clue who Donald Duck was. The Captain looks confused, and said that he had seen Oliver on the land occasionally over the last 5 years, and before that Eeyore had lived on the land continuously for six years. Oliver claimed he acquired a deed from Eeyore, but it was never recorded. Eeyore obtained a deed to the land from a sheriff’s sale. Eeyore never recorded his deed. However, years later–after Oliver acquired title from Eeyore and entered the land–a court determined that the the sheriff’s sale was based on an invalid foreclosure. Oliver had no notice that the foreclosure sale was invalid. The Captain said he did not mind that Eeyore and Oliver were on the land, as they were quiet. However, the Captain said that Donald Duck was the lawful owner. Aladdin said he had never even heard of Donald Duck.

Shortly thereafter, Bambi, still traumatized from the death of her mother, enters Blackacre, and discovers to her absolute shock and horror, that Aladdin is allowing deer-hunters onto the land.

The Captain filed suit to enjoin hunting on Blackacre, and claimed that the noise from the gunshots constitute a nuisance, seeking $5,000 in damages. Bambi filed an action to quiet title, and to oust Aladdin from Blackacre.

What are Aladdin’s best defenses against the suits brought by Captain Hook and Bambi? What actions may exist against Oliver? What should Aladdin do (and no, Genie can’t help)?

The Answer (Exactly 499 Words)

First, the court must determine if Oliver–the common grantor to grantees Aladdin and Bambi–had title to Blackacre. Even though the deed Eeyore obtained from the sheriff’s sale was invalid, he lived on the land continuously for six years under color of title (defective deed). Oliver obtained a deed from Eeyore, so the two are in privity. Oliver’s five years of use may be tacked to Eeyore’s six years. However Oliver only frequented the land “occasionally.” If a court finds that Oliver’s use is sufficient to satisfy the jurisdictions 10-year adverse possession statute under color of title, Oliver had title to Blackacre. If not, Oliver lacked title. But, ultimately, this doesn’t matter as both Aladdin and Bambi were subsequent purchasers for value without notice.

Whether or not Oliver had a valid title to Blackacre, as between Aladdin and Bambi, Bambi has superior title in a notice jurisdiction. Bambi was a subsequent purchaser for value without notice. Though Oliver never signed the deed, the receipt of $50,000 and actual transfer of the deed is sufficient to imply delivery. The fact that the clerk mistakenly recorded the deed as “Greyacre” rather than “Blackacre” would not change the fact that Bambi has superior title with respect to Aladdin as she took without notice. However Bambi’s misrecorded deed wouldn’t be effective against subsequent purchasers as it outside the ascertainable chain of title. The fact that Bambi did not enter till much later is immaterial.

Though the deed from Captain to Donald 30 years ago contained a negative easement limiting hunting, Eeyore and Oliver jointly obtaining Blackacre through adverse possession following the sheriff’s sale breaks the chain of title. Thus, the negative easement does not apply to Aladdin’s deed. A court may find that there is an implied negative easement against hunting in light of the fact that hunting is not allowed anywhere else in the county. However, it is much less likely that a court would imply a positive easement to permit hunting in light of the fact that hunting was the only way to “save” the land from deer overpopulation. Courts in First Restatement jurisdictions tend to construe the absolute necessity of implied easements strictly, though the modern trend is to recognize implied easements by necessity more easily.

A court may find that Aladdin is liable to Captain for a nuisance, irrespective of any easements, though the Captain’s idiosyncratic sensitivity to sound may weaken this claim. Because Aladdin earned $20,000 from hunting licenses, and the Captain is only suing for $5,000, Aladdin should consider settling with the Captain for some amount greater than $5,000. This will leave both parties better off.

Aladdin could sue Oliver under the general warranty deed for a breach of the covenant of seizin, and seek the return of the $100,000 purchase price to restore the status quo, but could not recover the $20,000 for hunting passes. Bambi could not sue Oliver because she only obtained a quitclaim deed, which provides no guarantees.

Prop 2: Class 24- Regulatory Takings I

Posted by on Nov 5, 2012 in Property II-Fall 2012 | 0 comments

Today, we will cover the two main regulatory takings case, both of which involve the word Penn–Penn Coal v. Mahon and Penn Central v. NYC.

Section B (Afternoon)


Section D (Evening)

Subsidence describes the proces whereby land shifts down due to under-ground mining.

This image courtesy of Wikimedia illustrates subsidence:

Here are photographs of Grand Central station, the site of the famous Penn Central Transportation Company v. City of New York.

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When teaching Penn Central Co. v. NYC, it is very important to stress that the proposed construction atop Grand Central Station must be viewed in the context of the then-recently built Pan-Am Building (now the Met Life building). 

Here is a map of where Grand Central Station is located:


View Larger Map

The Pan-Am Building stands immediately behind Grand Central Station, and blocked any conceivable view of downtown Manhattan. The Commission noted that building above Grand Central would cut off “the dramatic view of the Terminal from Park Avenue South.”

 

 

 

To give you a sense of where Grand Central is, and how it would fit into the city, this diagram is helpful:

Here are blueprints of the two proposed designs to build above Grand Central. The first design, Breur I, would have preserved the exterior and built a tower. “The first, Breuer I, provided for the construction of a 55-story office building, to be cantilevered above the existing facade and to rest on the roof of the Terminal.”

The second design, Breur II, would have stripped the facade and built the tower. “The second, Breuer II Revised, called for tearing down a portion of the Terminal that included the 42d Street facade, stripping off some of the remaining features of the Terminal’s facade, and constructing a 53-story office building.”

Prop2: Class 23 – Categorical Regulatory Takings

Posted by on Oct 31, 2012 in Property II-Fall 2012 | 0 comments

Today we will cover categorical regulatory takings–that is takings considered under bright line rules without any type of balancing tests.

Section B (Afternoon)

Section D (Evening)


Here is a photograph of the building at issue in Loretto v. Teleprompter.

Here’s what it looks like today at 303 West 105th Street (it’s probably dark now):


View Larger Map

And here is a satellite photo of the roof where all those innvading wires were strung.


View Larger Map

Prop2: Class 22 Eminent Domain and Kelo

Posted by on Oct 29, 2012 in Property II-Fall 2012 | 0 comments

Today we will cover Kelo v. City of New London and eminent domain.

Section B (afternoon)


Section D (evening)


First, start with the text of the 5th Amendment:

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process, of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

Here are a number of photographs of Susette Kelo and her home, courtesy of the Institute for Justice (the public interest law firm that litigated Kelo to the Supreme Court).

Susette Kelo in front of her little pink house.

After the case, Kelo disassembled the house, and moved it across town. It was moved from 8 East Street (by the water) to 36 Franklin Street.


View Larger Map

It now stands as a monument to eminent domain for private development.

Susette Kelo’s house being disassembled and moved across town.

Deconstruction of Kelo’s Home

Deconstruction of Kelo’s Home

In 2009, Pfizer pulled out of the New London project. The site of Kelo’s home remains vacant. There have been reports that feral cats now reside on the land.

The present site of Susette Kelo’s Home

Via Business Insider, The Hartford Courant reports:

Pfizer Inc. will shut down its massive New London research and development headquarters and transfer most of the 1,400 people working there to Groton, the pharmaceutical giant said Monday….

Pfizer is now deciding what to do with its giant New London offices, and will consider selling it, leasing it and other options, a company spokeswoman said.

Scott Bullock, Kelo’s co-counsel in the case, told the Examiner’s Tim Carney: “This shows the folly of these redevelopment projects that use massive taxpayer subsidies and other forms of corporate welfare and abuse eminent domain.”

Here’s how the Associated Press describes the vacant lot:

Weeds, glass, bricks, pieces of pipe and shingle splinters have replaced the knot of aging homes at the site of the nation’s most notorious eminent domain project.

There are a few signs of life: Feral cats glare at visitors from a miniature jungle of Queen Anne’s lace, thistle and goldenrod. Gulls swoop between the lot’s towering trees and the adjacent sewage treatment plant.

 

Prop2 Class 21: (Lack of) Zoning in Houston & Public Choice

Posted by on Oct 24, 2012 in Property II-Fall 2012 | 0 comments

Today we will conclude our study of zoning with a discussion about Houston’s lack of a zoning code, and what it means. Here are the readings for today:

Section B (Afternoon)

Section D (Evening)

Here are some articles about the Ashby High Rise, which should be completed in 2014. Also here is a recent article from the Houston Chronicle about “income segregation.”

Also, here is a graph that illustrates how eminent domain takings focus on areas of minorities and those with low education. It will be relevant to our discussion on zoning.

Prop2 Class 20 Zoning V

Posted by on Oct 22, 2012 in Property II-Fall 2012 | 0 comments

Today we will talk about City of Edmonds v. Oxford House and Southern Burlington County NAACp v. Township of Mt. Laurel (a case from Jersey!).

Section B (Afternoon)

Section D (Evening)

To get a sense of how large the Laurel region is in this case, it considers a 20 mile semicircle (Pi * 20^2 = roughly 1,200 sq miles!) of Camden, Burlington, and Gloucester County.


View Larger Map

The issue of affordable housing for families is still pressing–see this article from this weekend’s Times.

When Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg announced that the city was planning to develop new super-small apartments — called “microunits” — it represented another step toward his ambitious goal of building or preserving 165,000 homes for poor and moderate-income families across New York by 2014.

But some housing advocates, community leaders and elected officials say this latest proposal only highlights that one demographic group has been left out: large, poor families.

This group includes members as disparate as West Africans in the South Bronx, Hasidic Jews in Brooklyn and Bangladeshi in Queens, who are united by their inability to afford the high prices for large market-rate rentals and their inability to find publicly subsidized alternatives even as the overall housing stock has swelled.

Prop2 Class 19: Zoning IV

Posted by on Oct 17, 2012 in Property II-Fall 2012 | 0 comments

Today we consider zoning with respect to regulations touching on religion, the environment, and familial relationships.

Section B (Afternoon)


Section D (Evening)

Here are some photographs of the St. Peter the Apostle Church in Boerne, Texas, the subject of City of Boerne v. Flores. I suppose this church makes an exception to the “Though Shalt Not Kill” Commandment for the Religious Freedoms Restoration Act, which met its constitutional demise within the hallowed walls of this house of worship.

These photographs are courtesy of Hanah Volokh.

 

Here is a map of the Village of Belle Terre in Long (not Staten) Island. Today, roughly 800 people live in Belle Terre. It is close by to the State University of New York (SUNY) Stony Brook (named because there is a brook with stones on campus). I’ve been there.


View Larger Map

And here is a photograph of a sign welcoming you (as long as you don’t have a roommate  to the Village of Belle Terre (courtesy of Ron Talmo):

Prop2 Class 18: Zoning III

Posted by on Oct 15, 2012 in John Galt, Property II-Fall 2012 | 0 comments

Today we will continue our coverage of zoning, with a focus on aesthetics (a word I am incapable of spelling without spell check).

Section B

Section D

For the first case, State ex rel Stoyanoff v. Berkely, Ladue, MO is the wealthiest suburb of Missouri (anyone know what ex rel means?). The media income was $141,000. Check out the property values on Zillow–most houses are over $1 million. Ladue, also the site of the third case, City of Ladue v. Gileo, has particularly high property values in the Willow Hill subdivision.

For you Rand fans, the Stoyanoff case may remind you a bit of The Fountainhead.

fountainhead1.jpg

fountainhead2.jpg

fountainhead3.jpg

fountainhead4.jpg

fountianhead5.jpg

fountainhead6.jpg

fountainhead7.jpg\

fountainhead8.jpg

Roark, the architect in the Fountainhead was inspired by Frank Lloyd Wright who designed the Empire State Building and Falling Water.

[Fallingwater: fall photo]

 

For the second case, Anderson v. Issaquah, you can learn more about Issaquah, Washington here. Here is a map of 145 N.W. Gilman Blvd, Issaquah, WA. It seems to be an Auto Tech store now.


View Larger Map

And  for an adverse possession flashback, check out this video. A homeowner in Detroit left her house vacant for a year and a squatter moved in. The squatter put a lien on the house, and now refuses to leave. The homeowner is in the process of filing the action to oust the squatter. But until that happens, under Michigan law, the homeowner can’t physically eject the squatter. So, they are both living under the same roof. Unbelievable.

Prop2 Class 17: Zoning II

Posted by on Oct 10, 2012 in Property II-Fall 2012 | 0 comments

Today we continue talking about zoning, and focus on non-conforming uses, variances, special exceptions, and other ways of making zoning codes more flexible.

Section B (Afternon)


Section D (Evening)

And on the topic of zoning of adult book stores, see this case where the New Jersey Supreme Court case held that it was unconstitutional for a town in New Jersey to ban strip clubs because patrons could go to a strip-club in nearby Staten Island. I swear, I didn’t make this up.

Prop2 Class 16: Zoning I

Posted by on Oct 8, 2012 in Property II-Fall 2012 | 0 comments

Today we will begin covering covenants, and spend most of the class of Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty.

Section B (Afternoon)

Section D (Evening)

This diagram will be helpful to explain Euclid.

As best I can tell, the lot is currently bounded by E 196th St and E 204th St, between Euclid Avenue and the train tracks.

Here is the map.


View Larger Map

It seems to be some kind of business park today. Here are some photographs of what the lot looks like today, courtesy of Michael Alan Wolf.

And in case you were wondering (I know you were!) what the Supreme Court looked like in 1926, here it is:

Chief Justice William Howard Taft Associate Justices Oliver W. Holmes, Jr. Willis Van Devanter James C. McReynolds Louis D. Brandeis George Sutherland Pierce Butler Edward T. Sanford Harlan Fiske Stone

Property 2 Sample Exam Question

Posted by on Oct 8, 2012 in Property II-Fall 2012 | 0 comments

I wil post a sample answer to this question in a few weeks. Take your time, and try to answer it. I would suggest first writing out your answers without concern for word limits, then try to make it more concise. This will be very good practice for the final exam. Good luck!

You are an associate at a law firm. Your lazy partner, who is quite short on time, asks you to prepare a memorandum of no more than 500 words addressing a situation affecting a client. You are in a jurisdiction that, for the most part, adopts the rules of the Restatement (First) of Property, but is gradually moving towards the Restatement (Third) of Property. The jurisdiction has a “Notice” recording statute. The period required for adverse possession is ten years with color of title, and twenty years without color of title .

Here are all the facts. If you draw any inferences beyond these facts, please explain why you drew those inferences.

On January 1, 2011, your client Aladdin purchased Blackacre from Oliver with a general warranty deed for $100,000. Oliver told Aladdin that he owned the land in fee simple, and that there were no encumbrances on the title.

Aladdin, who was otherwise involved in a bitter dispute with his girlfriend Jasmine (she acted like such a Princess!), delayed recording until January 1, 2012.

Unbeknownst to Aladdin, Oliver also sold Blackacre to Bambi for $50,000 on June 1, 2011. Oliver gave Bambi a quit-claim deed, though Oliver never signed it. Bambi recorded the same day, on June 1, 2011. However, the clerk who recorded the deed accidentally wrote “Greyacre” instead of “Blackacre.” Bambi knew nothing about the sale of Blackacre to Aladdin.

Bambi did not enter the property right away, as she was grieving the tragic death of her mother.

On January 2, 2012, Aladdin finally enters Blackacre, and decides to open the forest, which is extremely over-populated with deer, to hunters for a fee. WIthin 24 hours, Aladdin sells out hunting passes for the year for $20,000.

Gaston, a renowned hunter, enters the land, fires his gun, and kills a deer.

Captain Hook, who owns Whiteacre, which is adjacent to Blackacre, is startled by the gunshot, and comes running over and yells at Aladdin, telling him hunting is not allowed on the land. The Captain is very sensitive to sound.

The Captain says, “Look around at every other plot of land in the area. There is no hunting allowed anywhere in the county!” Aladdin said he didn’t even notice.

Aladdin told the Captain that his land was so over-populated by deer, who were eating all of his crops, that he needed to do something to reduce the number of deer. Aladdin said “this was the only way I could save my land!”

The Captain tells Aladdin that when he sold Blackacre to Donald Duck thirty years ago, the Captain added an easement on the deed, stating that hunting would not be allowed on Blackacre.

Aladdin tells the Captain that he “purchased Blackacre in fee simple from Oliver, not Donald Duck.” Aladdin had no clue who Donald Duck was. The Captain looks confused, and said that he had seen Oliver on the land occasionally over the last 5 years, and before that Eeyore had lived on the land continuously for six years. Oliver claimed he acquired a deed from Eeyore, but it was never recorded. Eeyore obtained a deed to the land from a sheriff’s sale. Eeyore never recorded his deed. However, years later–after Oliver acquired title from Eeyore and entered the land–a court determined that the the sheriff’s sale was based on an invalid foreclosure. Oliver had no notice that the foreclosure sale was invalid. The Captain said he did not mind that Eeyore and Oliver were on the land, as they were quiet. However, the Captain said that Donald Duck was the lawful owner. Aladdin said he had never even heard of Donald Duck.

Shortly thereafter, Bambi, still traumatized from the death of her mother, enters Blackacre, and discovers to her absolute shock and horror, that Aladdin is allowing deer-hunters onto the land.

The Captain filed suit to enjoin hunting on Blackacre, and claimed that the noise from the gunshots constitute a nuisance, seeking $5,000 in damages. Bambi filed an action to quiet title, and to oust Aladdin from Blackacre.

What are Aladdin’s best defenses against the suits brought by Captain Hook and Bambi? What actions may exist against Oliver? What should Aladdin do (and no, Genie can’t help)?

 

Prop2: Class 15 – Covenants II

Posted by on Oct 3, 2012 in Property II-Fall 2012 | 0 comments

Today we will continue our discussion of covenants, and focus on Racially Restrictive Covenants (RRCs) with respect to Shelley v. Kraemer.

Section B (Afternoon)


Section D (Evening)


I have an album of photos of the house from Shelley v. Kraemer here:

Prop2 Class 14: Covenants I

Posted by on Oct 1, 2012 in Property II-Fall 2012 | 0 comments

Today we will start covering Covenants.

Section B (Afternoon)


Section D (Evening)

This diagram may help explain the relationship between horizontal and vertical privity.

And here is a picture of the lovely Leicester Square from Tulk v. Moxhay.

And here is a map of Neponsit, Queens. Neponsit means place between water–here Jamaica Bay and the Atlantic Ocean.


View Larger Map

Prop2 Class 13: Easements III

Posted by on Sep 26, 2012 in Property II-Fall 2012 | 0 comments

Today we will wrap up our coverage of easements, and focus on whether easements in gross are assignable, what the scopes of easements are, and whether easements can be terminated.

Section B (Afternoon)

Section D (Evening)

Lots of pictures and maps and stuff.

Here is a map of the property in Miller v. Lutheran Conference & Camp Association.


View Larger Map

You can find out more about the property, which still operates as a club here, here, and here. Here are some old pictures of people wearing boating–but not bathing–at Lake Naomi. 


Here are some maps from Brown v. Voss, a case that took place on the Hood Canal (same place as Howard v. Kunto)–courtesy of the Dukeminier & Krier site..

Should an easement for a railroad cover an easement for a public trial?

A related question: What does this sign mean? What exactly is not allowed in the park?


Prop2: Class 12 – Easements II

Posted by on Sep 24, 2012 in Property II-Fall 2012 | 0 comments

Today we will continue to cover easements, and take a trip to the Jersey Shore.

Here is a map of the Atlantis Beach Club from the New Jersey Supreme Court case, and a contemporary article from the New York Times. Also, here is a listing of the current fees to use the beach (assuming you can find it).


View Larger Map

You can also learn about a recent Texas Supreme Court opinion, Severance v. Patterson, concerning easements on the beach of the Gulf Coast here and here.

Section B


Section D

Prop2 Class 11: Easements I

Posted by on Sep 19, 2012 in Property II-Fall 2012 | 0 comments

Today we will start equitable servitudes, and focus on easements and licenses.

Section B (afternoon)


Section D (evening)


This graphic, courtesy of the Dukeminier & Krier web site, will help explain Willard v. First Church of Christ.

Also check out this animation of  Van Sandt v. Royster.

Prop2 Class 10 – Title Insurance, Nuisance and Remedies

Posted by on Sep 17, 2012 in Property II-Fall 2012 | 0 comments

Happy Constitution Day (our Constitution was signed on September 17, 1787)! If you get a moment, listen to the first minute or so of David Currie’s reading of the Constitution. It is a treasure. Also this primer on The Coase Theorem may be helpful for class.

Here are a number of links about Title Insurance in Texas, which we will go over in class:

Section B (Afternoon)

Section D (Evening)

Prop2 Class 9: Chain of Title, Persons Protected, Notice, and Marketable Title

Posted by on Sep 12, 2012 in Property II-Fall 2012 | 0 comments

Today we will discuss the chain of title, and what it takes to constitute notice (either actual or constructive). See our class on Deeds and Titles for some samples of actual documents.

Section B (Afternoon)

Section D (Evening)

Prop2 Class 8: Recording Systems

Posted by on Sep 10, 2012 in Property II-Fall 2012 | 0 comments

Today we will cover recording systems. Texas is a notice jurisdiction (see 12.003).

Section B (Afternoon)


Section D (Evening)

Prop2 Class 7: Mortgages

Posted by on Sep 5, 2012 in Property II-Fall 2012 | 0 comments

Today we will be covering mortgages. You can view samples of Texas mortgages here:

And this clip from South Park may help explain the subprime mortgage crisis. Or not.

Section B (Afternoon)


Section D (Evening)

Prop2 Class 6: Deeds & Warranties of Title II & Delivery of Deeds

Posted by on Aug 29, 2012 in Property II-Fall 2012 | 0 comments

Today we will finish up Deeds & Warranties of Title and move onto Delivery of Deeds

Section B

Section D

Prop 2: Class 5 The Contract of Sale III and Deeds & Warranties of Title I

Posted by on Aug 27, 2012 in Property II-Fall 2012 | 0 comments

Today we will finish up the Contract of Sale, including the implied warranty of quality and remedies for breach of the sales contract, and move onto the general warranty deed.

This story about whether a seller has a duty to disclose that a previous owner of a home died from a drug overdose ties into our lecture from last week. Also this story, sent in by a student, explores whether a buyer in New York City can recover a $5 million downpayment for a luxury home. Finally, we will reference this Texas General Warranty Deed in class. Try to stay dry.

Section B (Afternoon)


Section D (Evening)

Prop2 Class 4 – The Contract of Sale II & Duty to Disclose Defects (8/22/12)

Posted by on Aug 22, 2012 in Property II-Fall 2012 | 0 comments

Today we will finish talking about the Contract of Sales, the Statute of Frauds, Marketable Title, and go over whether sellers have a duty to disclose physical or supernatural defects.

Here are some good links to stories about the Haunted House:

Section B (Afternoon)


Section D (Evening).

(in which a student asks me, “Who is John Galt?” at 0:20).

Class 03: Introduction to the Sales Contract, Brokers, The Contract of Sale I

Posted by on Aug 20, 2012 in Property II-Fall 2012 | 0 comments

Today we will provide an introduction to buying and selling homes, and go over the contract of sale.

You may wish to take a look at the Texas Real Estate Commission Residential Sales Contract, which we will go over in class.

Section B (Afternoon)

Section D (Evening)

Prop 2 Class 2 – Mechanics of Adverse Possession: Tacking and Adverse Possession of Chattels (8/15/12)

Posted by on Aug 15, 2012 in Property II-Fall 2012 | 1 comment

Today we will focus on the mechanics of how adverse possession works, and topics related to privity, tacking, and disability. We will close with a discussion of adverse possession of chattels (things, as opposed to real property).

Section B (Afternoon)

Section D (Evening)

Howard v. Kunto

Here are some maps that help explain this case.

O’Keeffee v. Snyder

Cliffs

 

Seaweed

Prop2 Lecture: Class 1 – Adverse Possession Theory (8/13/12)

Posted by on Aug 13, 2012 in Property II-Fall 2012 | 0 comments

I look forward to seeing each of you in class today. Here are the links for today’s lecture notes, and live chats.

Section B (Afternoon)

Section D (Evening)


Here is a map of the property in Van Valkenburg v. Lutz.

In case you are interested, we will watch this video about a squatter in Dallas to open up class.

Prop 2: Syllabus Now Online

Posted by on Aug 9, 2012 in Property II-Fall 2012 | 0 comments

You can download it here.

The course calendar is available at http://joshblackman.com/blog/classes/property-ii-fall-2012/property-ii-fall-2012-calendar/

You can receive updates about new posts by following the class on Twitter (twitter.com/joshsclasses), liking it on Facebook (facebook.com/Property2Fall2012), subscribing to it via RSS (feeds.feedburner.com/JoshBlackmansBlogPropertyIi-fall2012),  or signing up for a daily email digest of all new posts (feedburner.google.com/fb/a/mailverify?uri=JoshBlackmansBlogPropertyIi-fall2012&loc=en_US). I would recommend that you sign up for the daily emails.

See you all in class on Monday in Room 516 (note the room change).

Assignments for the first two sessions of Property II

Posted by on Aug 2, 2012 in Property II-Fall 2012 | 0 comments

The full syllabus will be posted shortly. Here are the assignments for the first two class sessions. All readings are from the Dukeminier, Krier, Alexander, Schill, PROPERTY (7th ed.) casebook.

Class 1 – 8/13/12

Adverse Possession: The Theory and Elements
  • Introductory Notes, 116-122
  • Van Valkenburgh v. Lutz, 122-134
  • Color of Title, 134-136
  • Manillo v. Gorski, 136-141

Class 2 – 8/15/12

Mechanics of Adverse Possession: Tacking and Adverse Possession of Chattels
  • Howard v. Kunto, 142-149
  • Adverse Possession against the Government, 150
  • O’Keeffe v. Snyder, 151-163

Welcome to Property II

Posted by on Jul 28, 2012 in Property II-Fall 2012 | 0 comments

I look forward to meeting each of you soon. I will be posting more information, including a syllabus and readings for the first class, to this page shortly. Check back by the end of this week.