PROPERTY A SLIDES - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – PROPERTY A SLIDES PowerPoint presentation | free to download - id: 79fd7a-ZjcyZ



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

PROPERTY A SLIDES

Description:

property a s 4-14-15 – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:29
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 45
Provided by: Marc173
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: PROPERTY A SLIDES


1
PROPERTY A SLIDES
  • 4-14-15

2
Tuesday April 14 Music (to Accompany Williams
Island) Pat Benatar Best Shots (1989) featuring
Hit Me with Your Best Shot
  • Complete Office Hours Posted
  • Yellowstone Critiques E-Mailed Biscayne by
    Mid-Day Tomorrow
  • Friday Double Class (755-945)
  • Second Sample Exam Q Due Saturday _at_ Noon
  • Review Session 2pm Fri 4/24
  • Old Model Answers Last Minute Qs

3
Review Problem 6C (S148)
  • Those living on Carr-acre can use the driveway
    across the western edge of Rhodes-acre in
    vehicles or on foot for access to and from
    Hungerford Highway and for exercise.

4
Chapter 6 Easements
  • Overview Terminology
  • Interpreting Language
  • Easement v. Fee
  • Scope of Express Easements
  • Implied Easements
  • By Estoppel
  • By Implication and/or Necessity
  • By Prescription

5
Implied Easements Overview
  • Easements are both contracts conveyances (land
    transfers)
  • How do you achieve contracts and conveyances
    without express agreement? Four Theories

6
Implied Easements Overview
  • Contract/Conveyance w/o Express Agreement
  • Four Theories
  • Promissory Estoppel (Detrimental Reliance)
  • Implied-in-Fact Contract (Parties Intent)
  • Implied-in-Law Contract (Public Policy)
  • Adverse Possession

7
Implied Easements Overview
  • 4 Theories ? 4 Types of Implied Easement
  • (1) Promissory Estoppel (Detrimental Reliance)
  • Easement-by Estoppel
  • (2) Implied-in-Fact Contract (Parties Intent)
  • Easement-by-Implication
  • (3) Implied-in-Law Contract (Public Policy)
  • Easement-by-Necessity
  • (4) Adverse Possession
  • Easement-by-Prescription

8
Implied Easements Overview
  • 4 Theories ? 4 Types of Implied Easement
  • (1) Easement-by Estoppel
  • (2) Easement-by-Implication
  • (3) Easement-by-Necessity
  • (4) Easement-by-Prescription
  • Helpful Ways to Think About
  • Parties generally not trying to create implied
    easements.
  • Can view each type as an after-the-fact legal
    result/remedy reached by a court after review of
    relevant facts.
  • Similar fact patterns may yield different type
    if facts change a bit.
  • In rare cases, same facts will give rise to more
    than one type.

9
Implied Easements Sewage Pipe Hypothetical
  1. Developer builds line of houses
  2. Same set of pipes connect all houses in line to
    city sewer system. Sewage from houses further
    from the city sewer passes under all houses in
    line that are closer to the sewer.

10
SEWAGE PIPE HYPOTHETICAL 6 5
4 3 2 1
To City Sewer ?
11
Implied Easements Sewage Pipe Hypothetical
  • Developer builds line of houses
  • Same pipes connect houses in line to city sewers
    sewage from houses further from sewer passes
    under the rest.
  • Developer sells all houses in line, but creates
    no easements to allow flow of sewage along the
    line. Connected nature of sewage pipes not
    referenced in deeds and no notice provided
    orally.

12
SEWAGE PIPE HYPOTHETICAL 6 5
4 3 2 1
To City Sewer ?
Possible Issue Lot 3 Being Used by Lots 4-6
to Dispose of Their Sewage
13
Implied Easements Sewage Pipe Hypothetical
  • Developer builds line of houses
  • Same pipes connect houses in line to city sewers
    sewage from houses further from sewer passes
    under the rest.
  • Developer sells all houses in line creates no
    easements and provides no written or oral notice
    of connected nature of sewage pipes.
  • When can owners of houses further from sewer
    claim one or more types of implied easement?
  • Particular variations on the facts will give rise
    to each type.
  • For each type, well revisit hypo to see
    similarities/differences in operation

14
Chapter 6 Easements
  • Overview Terminology
  • Interpreting Language
  • Easement v. Fee
  • Scope of Express Easements
  • Implied Easements
  • By Estoppel
  • By Implication and/or Necessity
  • By Prescription

15
Easement-by-Estoppel Background Licenses (Note
1 P791)
  • LICENSE Permission by owner for third party to
    use owners property. E.g.,
  • Right to enter theater or ballpark with ticket.
  • Come over swim in my pool.
  • Store your things in my house while your house is
    tented.

16
Easement-by-Estoppel Background Licenses (Note
1 P791)
  • LICENSE Permission by owner for third party to
    use owners property.
  • License generally revokable by owner unless
  • Combined with Another Interest (E.g., Right to
    Pick Fruit)
  • -OR-
  • Easement-by-Estoppel (Some States but Not All)

17
Easement-by-Estoppel General Rule
  • An owner may be estopped from barring a 2d party
    access to the owners property where
  • The owner apparently allows 2d party to use the
    property (Apparent License)
  • 2d party reasonably and detrimentally relies on
    this acquiescence

18
Easement-by-Estoppel General Rule
  • An owner may be estopped from barring a 2d party
    access to the owners property where
  • The owner apparently allows 2d party to use the
    property (Apparent License)
  • 2d party reasonably and detrimentally relies on
    this acquiescence
  • Effect in States that Allow Easements-by-Estoppel
    is that License Becomes Unrevokable
  • Usually little debate about Apparent License, so
    existence of E-by-E usually turns on reliance.

19
Easement-by-Estoppel General Rule
  • An owner may be estopped from barring a 2d party
    access to the owners property where
  • The owner apparently allows 2d party to use the
    property (Apparent License)
  • 2d party reasonably and detrimentally relies on
    this acquiescence
  • Default Rule b/c clear statement that E-by-E not
    intended precludes reasonable reliance.

20
YELLOWSTONE Stoner, Easements-by-Estoppel,
DQ6.06-6.07
GIANT GEYSER
21
Easement-by-Estoppel (Yellowstone) DQ6.06
Reasonable Detrimental Reliance
  • Stoner Reliance on Oral Permission to Build
    Ditch
  • Reasonable?

22
Easement-by-Estoppel (Arches) DQ6.06 Reasonable
Detrimental Reliance
  • Stoner Reliance on Oral Permission to Build
    Ditch Reasonable?
  • P Presumably Aware of Ds Expenditures
  • BUT Should You Get it in Writing Before Spending?
  • Might explore more facts (nature of promise
    extent of awareness of reliance parties
    relationship, etc.)
  • Detrimental?

23
Easement-by-Estoppel (Yellowstone) DQ6.06
Reasonable Detrimental Reliance
  • Stoner Reliance on Oral Permission to Build
    Ditch
  • Detrimental? (Easier)
  • 7000 in 19th Century to construct ditch
  • Maybe other missed opportunities (e.g., alternate
    forms of irrigation now more expensive to
    install)

24
Easement-by-Estoppel General Rule
  • An owner may be estopped from barring a 2d party
    access to the owners property where
  • The owner apparently allows 2d party to use the
    property (Apparent License)
  • 2d party reasonably and detrimentally relies on
    this acquiescence
  • Effect in States that Allow Easements-by-Estoppel
    is that License Becomes Unrevokable
  • Usually little debate about Apparent License, so
    existence of E-by-E usually turns on reliance.

25
Easement-by-Estoppel Reasonable Detrimental
Reliance
  • Nelson v. ATT (Note 3 P792-93)
  • Easement contained in deed invalid b/c lack of
    legal formalities. D placed 32 poles
    maintained for 30 years. Compare to Stoner re
    Reliance.
  • ATT Clearer that easement rather than license
    intended b/c explicit, in writing, problems w
    deed arose after O signed
  • BUT ATT sophisticated party shouldve known
    that deed was invalid fixed

26
Easement-by-Estoppel Reasonable Detrimental
Reliance
  • Nelson v. ATT (Note 3 P851)
  • Easement contained in deed invalid b/c lack of
    legal formalities. D placed 32 poles
    maintained for 30 years.
  • Mass SCt No easement ATT should have known
    easement not properly created meaning they had a
    mere license. Essentially holds reliance was
    not reasonable by a sophisticated player.

27
Easement-by-Estoppel Duration/Termination
  • N.4 (P793) How Long Does an E-by-E Last?
  • Stoner For so long a time as the nature of it
    calls for. Means?

28
Easement-by-Estoppel Duration/Termination
  • N.4 (P793) How Long Does an E-by-E Last?
  • Stoner For so long a time as the nature of it
    calls for.
  • Easy Case
  • House Built in Reliance on Access Through
    Neighbors Driveway ? E-by-E
  • New Public Road Built Adjoining Dominant Tenement
    Creates Alternate Access
  • Use of House No Longer Relies on Driveway E-by-E
    Ends

29
Easement-by-Estoppel Duration/Termination
  • N.4 (P793) How Long Does an E-by-E Last?
  • Stoner For so long a time as the nature of it
    calls for.
  • What does this mean for an irrigation ditch?

30
Easement-by-Estoppel Duration/Termination
  • N.4 (P793) How Long Does an E-by-E Last?
  • Stoner For so long a time as the nature of it
    calls for.
  • What does this mean for an irrigation ditch?
  • So long as irrigation remains useful to Dominant
    Tenement?
  • So long as no cheap alternatives?

31
Easement-by-Estoppel Duration/Termination
  • N.4 (P793) How Long Does an E-by-E Last?
  • Stoner For so long a time as the nature of it
    calls for.
  • What does this mean for hypo in Note 4
  • House built in reliance on E-by-E burns down.
  • Can owner rebuild?

32
Easement-by-Estoppel Duration/Termination
  • N.4 (P793) How Long Does an E-by-E Last?
  • House built in reliance on E-by-E burns down.
    Can owner rebuild?
  • See quote from Rerick in Stoner (bottom P790)
  • The right to rebuild a mill in the case of
    destruction or dilapidation and to continue the
    business on its original footing may have been in
    fact as necessary to his safety, and may have
    been an inducement of the particular investment
    in the first instance.

33
Easement-by-Estoppel Duration/Termination
  • N.4 (P793) How Long Does an E-by-E Last?
  • House built in reliance on E-by-E burns down.
    Can owner rebuild?
  • See quote from Rerick in Stoner (middle P849)
  • Could read to allow absolute right to rebuild
  • BUT may turn on evidence of nature of reliance
  • Connection between safety and dilapidation
  • Return on investment w/o rebuilding? (insurance
    )

34
SEWAGE PIPE HYPOTHETICAL 6 5
4 3 2 1
To City Sewer ?
Danielle buys Lot 2 from Owner of Lot 1 (No
House on 2 but Sewage Pipe in Place)
35
Easement-by-Estoppel Sewage Pipe Hypothetical
  • Danielle buys Lot 2 from Owner of Lot 1
  • No House on 2 but Sewage Pipe in Place
  • D makes clear she intends to build house on Lot
    2
  • Owner of Lot 1 doesnt object to use of sewer
    line until after house on 2 is complete
    connected. Assume no other easy way to connect
    to sewer.
  • Is Ds Reliance on Os Silence While House is
    Constructed Reasonable?
  • If so, will yield E-by-E in states that allow

36
Easement-by-Estoppel Policy Considerations
(DQ6.07)
  • Well do as Op/Diss Problem Friday
  • for both Types of Easements Described in DQ
  • Yellowstones ALL
  • (Ill Do Set-Up Slide on Thursday)

37
Easement-by-Estoppel Policy Considerations
(DQ6.07)
  • Should We Allow E-by-E? Possible Results
  • (1) Whenever theres reasonable and detrimental
    reliance. (Many States) OR
  • (2) Only after compensation paid (A Few Cases)
    OR
  • (3) Never (Many States)
  • Qs on Easements by Estoppel?

38
Chapter 6 Easements
  • Overview Terminology
  • Interpreting Language
  • Easement v. Fee
  • Scope of Express Easements
  • Implied Easements
  • By Estoppel
  • By Implication and/or Necessity
  • By Prescription

39
Easement-by-Implication Easement-by-Necessity
Overview
  • Both Arise from Split of Larger Parcel
  • Different Requirements
  • Sometimes Same Facts Can Give Rise to Both.

40
Easement-by-Implication Easement-by-Necessity
Overview
  • Both Arise from Split of Larger Parcel Different
    Requirements but Sometimes Same Facts Can Give
    Rise to Both
  • E-by-I Parties Intend that Prior Existing Use
    Should Continue
  • Look for Objective Evidence of Intent Not Secret
    Subjective Belief
  • Default Rule Clear statement that not intended
    precludes E-by-I .

41
Easement-by-Implication Easement-by-Necessity
Overview
  • Both Arise from Split of Larger Parcel Different
    Requirements But Sometimes Same Facts Can Give
    Rise to Both
  • E-by-I Parties Intend that Prior Existing Use
    Should Continue
  • Look for Objective Evidence of Intent Not Secret
    Subjective Belief
  • Default Rule Clear statement that not intended
    precludes E-by-I .
  • E-by-N Split Creates Landlocked Parcel Needing
    Access
  • Dispute as to Whether Based in Public Policy or
    (Very Generous Notion of) Intent
  • Resolution of this dispute determines whether
    E-by-N is default rule or universal policy (See
    Rev Prob 6J).

42
Review Problem 6B Mike/Dom. P
Debbie/Serv. D
  • Owner of Ms land may place and maintain an
    antenna onto Debbies barn and run wires from
    the antenna to Ms land to allow TV reception
    for that property.
  • Time of Grant (1962)
  • Mike gets poor TV reception b/c of valley
    location
  • Debbie owns neighboring ranch above Ms land
  • Antenna installed reception still not good no
    cable TV
  • 2014 Can M replace antenna w satellite dish?

43
Review Problem 6B (Yellowstone Critique) Redwood
Mike/Dom. P Biscayne Debbie/Serv. D
  • For P Powell, Rodriguez, Fellig, Daniels (Alt
    Whitley)
  • For D Pecorella, Aleman, Pierre, Kaleel-J (Alt
    Foote)
  • 1962 Owner of Ms land may place and maintain
    an antenna onto Debbies barn and run wires
    from the antenna to Ms land to allow TV
    reception for that property.
  • 2014 Can M replace antenna w satellite dish?
  • Arguments from Marcus Cable?

44
Review Problem 6B (Yellowstone Critique) Redwood
Mike/Dom. P Biscayne Debbie/Serv. D
  • For P Powell, Rodriguez, Fellig, Daniels (Alt
    Whitley)
  • For D Pecorella, Aleman, Pierre, Kaleel-J (Alt
    Foote)
  • 1962 Owner of Ms land may place and maintain
    an antenna onto Debbies barn and run wires
    from the antenna to Ms land to allow TV
    reception for that property.
  • 2014 Can M replace antenna w satellite dish?
  • Arguments from Chevy Chase?
  • (incl. Missing/Ambiguous Facts)
About PowerShow.com