PROPERTY

Property - the relationship between things and people; the relationship is the bundle of
rights associated with the owner and the object.
It is divided up into real property (land and any structures built on it) and
personal property (everything else that are tangible and intangible).
Courts and legislatures make decisions considering and balancing the
factors:
1)
fairness p. (i)-(iii) Gilberts
2)
economic efficiency-generate more wealth
3)
Life
4)
Distribution of goods
Chapter 1. First Possession: Acquisition of Property by Discovery, Capture, and
Creation
A. Acquisition by Capture
-A person who first captures resources is entitled to the resources; Whoever is prior in
time wins.
1. Capture of Wild Animals: If wild animals (ferae naturae) are captured, they
belong to the captor. But capture is required; merely chasing the animal is not
enough.
Competition societys object is to capture foxes (to destroy them) to
foster competition, resulting in more wild animals being captured, society
does not want to reward the pursuer, only the captor.
Rewarding capture, an objective act, is an easier rule to administer than
protecting pursuit, which is hard to define and can take many forms.
Today the rule promotes over capture which depletes limited resources.

Pierson v. Post Post and his hounds are pursuing a fox. Pierson spots the
fox and shoots it, killing it. Pierson is entitled to the fox because capture
not just pursuit is required. (Dissent: A pursuer acquires title to a wild
animal if he is in reach of the animal or if he has a reasonable prospect of
capturing the animal). A hunter must either trap or mortally wound
an animal in order to acquire title to it.

2. Wounded or trapped animals: If an animal has been mortally wounded or

trapped so that capture is virtually certain, the animal is treated as captured. But
if the animal is only in the process of being entrapped, and the door has not
snapped shut, it has not been captured.

3. Custom: The captor must acquire physical control over the animal, in some
hunting trades, a custom, which is thought more effective in getting animals
killed, may dictate a different result.

Ghen v. Rich Ghen shot and killed a whale, which sank to the bottom of
the sea. Three days later, Ellis found the wale on the shore and sold it to
Rich. The custom was to award the whale to the shit that first killed the
whale. The custom advanced the killing of whales (societys objective)
because the killer ship could be off looking for other whales w/o waiting
for the whale to rise. This custom was recognized by the courts as giving
possession. Title to a wild animal is acquired when a hunter
apprehends the beast in accordance with custom.
Pierson v. Post VS. Ghen v. Rich In P v. P it was custom to award the
wild fox to the man first in hot pursuit, but in that case the custom did not
promote the efficient capture of wild animals, or the least the majority did
not think that custom promoted this goal.

4. Interference by non-competitor: If a person is in the process of entrapping

animals, a competitor who also wants to capture the animals can interfere with the
other persons activity and try to capture the animals. But a person who does not
want to capture the animal cannot interfere. (Remember: Society wants the
animals caught.)

Keeble v. Hickeringill - Keeble puts out decoys on his pond to attract

ducks and sets nets to catch them. Hickeringell, a neighbor, shoots off
guns at the pond to scare the ducks away. Hickergill is liable for damages.
(Hickeringill would be able to shoot to kill the ducks flying over his land
to the pond. A person may not maliciously prevent another from
capturing wild animals in the pursuit of his trade.
This case may be understood by appealing to the goal that the law promote
the efficient capture of wild animals. A man cannot scare off wild animals
about to be captured by another out of spite.
In Keeble they are attempting to protect trade and they are attempting to
find a legal property rule that gets you there.
Every man should be able to enjoy his land as he sees fit and profit from
it.
Constructive Possession Dominion and control over an object through
no physical possession

More on the Rule of Capture and Wild Animals

The govt owns wild animals, may regulate their taking, and may
confiscate animals taken in violation of regulations.


The Rule of Capture and Other Fugitive Resources
Whoever first captured the water, then, was really its owner all others
followed the American rule of reasonable use, itself a rule of capture but
with the slight addition that wasteful uses of water, if they actually harmed
neighbors, were considered unreasonable and hence unlawful.
Under the rule of capture, the gas was no longer hers. Because fugitive
resources are to be treated like wild animals when they escape or are
restored to their natural wild and free state, the dominion and individual
proprietorship of any person over them is at an end and they resume their
status as common property.
Applying the rule of law and capture to oil and gas gives an incentive to
produce oil and gas.
The basic principle in prior appropriation is that the person who first
appropriates (captures) water and puts it to reasonable and beneficial sue
has a right superior to later appropriations.
B. Acquisition by Creation
-A person can acquire property by creating it, but here are a number of difficulties in
defining creation, as this section shows. The primary purpose in recognizing property
by creation is to reward labor.
1. Intellectual Property Intellectual property is the catchall label for property
created by exercising the mind. The term includes copyrights, patents, and
trademarks, but it may also cover property in ideas or in a persona.
The dilemma in recognizing property is how to nurture individual
creativity and reward labor w/o going too far by creating monopolies
and stifling creativity in others.
Unfair competition Courts have sometimes protected labor and
investment under the law of unfair competition. (i.e. INS v. AP)

International News Service v. Associated Press INS copied news that

AP gathered. The court held that a news agency has a quasi-property
interest in news it has gathered and an prohibit competitors from
disseminating the news until its commercial value as news has passed
away. Where a company has expended resources in creating news
and information, the creator can exclude others from copying it until
its commercial value as news has passed away.
Encouraging competition: To avoid monopoly and encourage
competition, the common law commonly allows copying and
imitation. (i.e. Cheney)

Cheney Brothers v. Doris Silk Corp. Doris copied a fashion design

from Cheney Brothers. All such designers have a short life. There can
be no common law patent protection because it would be too difficult
to define the boundaries of such protection. Unless the common law
or the patent or copyright statutes give protection from appropriation, a
persons property interest is limited to the chattels which embody his
creations.
Another way to see it in INS v. AP is that the court is protecting the
chattels (the words themselves not merely the IP. After all (D) was
copying the words not the business idea. The view is consistent with
Cheney . In that case, Doris was not appropriating the actual clothes
but merely the intellectual idea. Since Cheney Brothers had not
patented the idea, they were not protected. Had Doris physically taken
the chattels, as INS had done, it would have been liable.
As a way of public policy: In INS, the court is trying to protect the
news service business, while in Cheney it is trying to protect
competition.

2. Cyberspace

Virtual Works, Inc. v. Volkswagen of America Inc. Virtual Works

registered the domain name vw.net with the intent of selling it to
Volkswagen of America, Inc. Registering a domain name that is
identical or confusingly similar to a trademark with the bad faith intent
to profit by selling that name to the trademark owner constitutes
cybersquatting under the law and will result in liability for monetary
damages and transfer or cancellation of the domain name.
review de novo a standard of review wherein the appellate court
looks at the evidence in the record as if it were the trial court
Unlike many of the cases we have considered, this is a legislative
answer to property rights rather than a judicial answer.

3. Property in Ones Persona

A celebritys right of publicity is widely recognized as a kind of
property interest, assignable during life, descendible at death. The
property interest includes name, likeness, and other aspects of ones
identity. The celebritys labor in creating a persona of value is
protected against anothers using it for profit.
4. Property in Ones Person
Rights in Body Products Some body parts have long been sold on the
market (blood, hair, sperm). But recent advances in medical services

have created an unprecedented demand for body products or body

parts of other types.

Moore v. Regents of the University of California The court held that

a man did not have a property right to his spleen following its removal
from his body by doctors who made it into a patented cell line of great
commercial value. The doctors who made it into a patented cell line
thus acquired original ownership.
The court held that the patient had only the right to sue the doctors for
failure to disclose their research and economic interest in the patients
cells. A doctor has a duty to disclose the extent of his research and
economic interests in a patients body parts. Human body parts are not
property such that they may be converted.
The court was concerned about making body parts property that could
be sold. However, transferability in the market is not an essential
characteristic of property. Although most property is freely
transferable, some property is not alienable, and some property can be
given away but not sold.
The concern in question is that recognition of property rights in ones
cells would necessarily entail a right to sell ones own body tissue for
profit.
Dissent by Mosk - bundle of rights the rights to possess the property,
to use the property, to exclude others from the property, and to dispose
of the property by sale or by gift <<what does the bundle of rights
allow you to do with any particular piece of property?>> Answer: you
can sell it, destroy it, exclude others from it (refuse to sell it), to use it,
and a right to include in others into the right to property
You must prove that you would not have consented to.
Fiduciary duty the duty to act in the interest of another
Conversion the act of changing from one form to another, the
process of being exchanged; the wrongful possession or disposition of
anothers property as if it were ones own; an act or series of acts of
willful interference, without lawful justification, with an item of
property in a manner inconsistent with anothers right, whereby that
other person is deprived of the use and possession of the property
A doctor has a duty to disclose the extent of his research and
economic interests in a patients body parts. Human body parts
are not property such that they may be converted.

5. The Right to Include, the Right to Exclude It is generally accepted that the
essence of private property is the right of the owner to exclude others. The reason
for this type of protection is that if A wants to enter Bs land, B should bargain
with A for this right and not seize it. (i.e. Jacque v. Steenberg *not on syllabus)

Workers rights to organize - Under federal law, workers have a right

to organize a union, and unions have a right to communicate with
workers on the employers premises seeking their votes.

State v. Shack - Shack entered Tedescos property to give legal aid to

a migrant farm worker. Shack refused to depart upon Tedescos
demand and is prosecuted for trespass. The court holds that to secure a
workers rights an employer housing migrant farm workers can no
exclude union organizers from coming on the property. Property
rights may not be exercised so as to endanger the well-being of
others.

Chapter 2. Subsequent Possession: Acquisition of Property by Find, Adverse

Possession, and Gift
SUMMARY OF PRIORITY RIGHTS IN PROPERTY

True Owner
Prevails over

Possessor
e.g. finder or even a thief
Prevails over

Subsequent Possessor

A. Acquisition by Find
-An owner of property does not lose title by losing the property. A finder has rights
superior to everyone but the true owner; however there are important exceptions to this
rule.
Prior Possessor wins: p. 17 Gilberts list reasons
1) Prior possession protects an owner who has no indicia of ownership.
Possession is not the same as ownership.
2) Entrusting goods to another is an efficient practice, facilitating all
kinds of purposes that ought to be encouraged.
3) Prior possessors expect to prevail over subsequent possessor. By
giving them their expectation, the law reinforces the popular belief that the
law is just.

4) The protection of peaceable possession is an ancient policy in law,

aimed at deterring disruptions in the public order.
5) Protecting a finding who reports the find rewards honesty.
6) Protecting a finder rewards labor in returning a useful item to society.
Armory v. Delamirie Armory found a jewel and took it to
Delamiries jewelry shop to be appraised. Delamirie refused to return
the jewel. Armory is entitled to recover from the jeweler either the
jewel or the full money value of the jewel. Armory, the prior
possessor, has the superior right. The finder of lost property has a title
of superior to all but the true owner. the prior possessor, has the
superior right
Bailment a delivery of personal property by one person (the bailor)
to another (the bailee) who holds the property for a certain purpose
under an express or implied contract; unlike sale, bailment involves a
change in possession but not in title
Winkfield Doctrine the courts usually bar an action by the true
owner against the present possessor if the bailee has recovered from
the present possessor; (bailee) is not expected to double pay if
something goes wrong
Object found in private home objects found inside a private home are
usually awarded to the owner of the home. If the owner of the house
has been moved into the house (has not made it his personal space),
it has been held that the owner of the house is not in constructive
possession of articles therein of which he is unaware.
Hypothetical: Which is more fair: double pay or the true owner loose
the item?
TO>F1>F2>BFPV can true owner go after F2 if F1 is out of picture,
F1=finder/bailor(Armory),F2=2nd finder or possessor(goldsmith),
BFPV=bonafide purchaser (bailee)who cant be held liable because he
did not know.
If F2 had to pay F1 and the True owner sues F2, then F2 can go after
F1.

Results: the true owner can go after F2; if F2 has paid F1 for the item,
F2 can go after F1. But if no one can find F1, F2 does have to double
pay.
In Ghen v.Rich, title was no good because of thieves.
THE TRUE OWNER CAN GO AFTER F2; IF F2 HAS PAID F1
FOR THE ITEM, F2 CAN GO AFTER F1. BUT IF NO ONE CAN
FIND F1, F2 DOES HAVE TO DOUBLE PAY.
Hannah v. Peel Peel owns a large house requisition by the govt to
quarter soldiers. Peel bough the house two years earlier and never
moved in. A soldier finds a brooch in the house hidden on a window
ledge. The soldier prevails over Peel because Peel never moved into
the house and took physical possession of it. (underlying policy
incentive may have been rewarding honesty) If the owner of

property has never occupied his land, the finder of property on this
land has a superior title against the land owner.
o Hypo: Neighbor finds a brooch in the house before someone
moves in and having the place prepared(e.g. painting it) before
he moves in. Who owns it? The individual who owns the house
because there is distinction from preparing the house for
private use and renting or using the house for a public use.
B. Acquisition by Adverse Possession
-If, within the number of years specified in the state statute of limitations, the owner of
land does not take legal action to eject a possessor who claims adversely to the owner, the
owner is thereafter barred from bringing an action in ejectment. Once the owner is
thereafter barred from suing in ejectment, the adverse possessor has title to the land.
-Adverse possession is a means of acquiring a tile to property by long, uninterrupted
possession.
-Although an adverse possessor acquires title to the property, it is due to the running of
the statute of limitationsthe former owner is barred from suing to recover the property.
The adverse possessor may have difficulty selling the property because she has not record
title.
Purpose of the doctrine:
(1) To protect title protection of possession in fact protects ownership because title may
be difficult to prove.
(2) To bar stale claims Another purpose of the statute of limitations is to require a
lawsuit to be brought to oust a possessor while the witnesses memories are still fresh
(3) To reward those who use land productively
(4) To honor expectations
Length of time required The statutory period of adverse possession varies from state to
statefrom five to 21 years. The modern trend is to shorten the period of adverse
possession.
Purpose of adverse possession:
Promotes economic use of land
Make people keep track of their land (sleeping theory because you are not
allowed to sleep on your rights)
AP can improve the land and is rewarded for doing so reward theory,
earning theory
Requirements of Adverse Possession:
(1) Actual entry giving exclusive possession
-If there is an actual entry on part of the land described in a deed, the possessor
may be deemed in constructive possession of the rest.
-The requirement that the adverse possessor be in exclusive possession means that
she not be sharing possession with the owner nor with the public generally.

(2) Open and notorious possession The adverse possessor must occupy the property in
an open, notorious, and visible manner.
(3) Adverse and under a claim of right To be an adverse possessor, a person must hold
adversely to the owner and under a claim of right; without the owners consent
(4) Continuous, uninterrupted possession Continuous possession only the degree of
occupancy and that the average owner would make of the particular type of property.
Effects of Adverse Possession
Adverse possession is a means of acquiring title to property by long,
uninterrupted possession. The running of the statute of limitations on the owner's
action in ejectment not only bars the owner's claim to possession, it also
extinguishes the old title of the owner and creates a new title by operation of law
in the adverse possessor.
The adverse possessor's right to possession, heretofore good against all the world
except the rightful owner, is now good against the rightful owner as well.
Once the adverse possessor has title, it can be transferred in the same manner as
any other title to land(by deed, will, or through intestacy to heirs).
However, and this is very important, title acquired by adverse possession cannot
recorded in the courthouse (as can a deed or will) because it does not arise from a
recordable document but rather from operation of law.
If the adverse possessor wishes to have his title and name as owner recorded in
the courthouse, he must file a quiet title action against the former owner barred by
the statute of limitations.
The decree in this lawsuit will be recorded and will declare that the adverse
possessor has legal title.
1. The Theory and Elements of Adverse Possession
The Law of Real Property
-Adverse possession functions as a method of transferring interests
in land without the consent of the prior owner, and even in spite of
the dissent of such owners. It rests upon social judgments that
there should be a restricted duration for the assertion of aging
claims, and that the passage of a reasonable time period should
assure security to a person claiming to be an owner.
Title by Adverse Possession
-prescription the effect of lapse of time in creating and destroying
rights
Color of Title and Constructive Adverse Possession
Van Valkenburgh v. Lutz The Lutzes occupied the Van
Valkenburgs land by building a one bedroom shack on it, but
cultivating a garden on it, and by storing rubbish on it. In another
action to establish a right of way across the land, the Lutzes
admitted that the land belonged to the Van Valkenburghs. In
order to acquire title by adverse possession, possession must be

actual, it must be under claim of title, and the land must be

either enclosed or sufficiently improved.
The land was not sufficiently improved for because the shack was
too small and the garden was insubstantial.
Since Lutz testified that he knew that the land belonged to the Van
Valkenburghs in this action and in the prior action by Lutz to
establish a right of way, he fails to prove the claim of title
element of the adverse possession statute.
Color of title a written instrument or other evidence that appears
to give title, but does not do so.

Claim of title Standard:

1) Act like the owner; involves no intent issues, supports sleeping and earning theory
(majority)
2) Hostile; must have bad faith, want to steal something from someone, supports the
earning theory
3) An honest mistake where you have good faith, supports earning theory

Manillo v. Gorski A property owner sought to enjoin the alleged

trespass of an adjoining landowner whose pathway encroached 15
inches and who claimed title to the strip by adverse possession.
Possession need not be knowingly and intentionally hostile, but
it must be notorious enough to give the true owner actual or
constructive notice of the encroachment.
o Why did they argue that tacking was not ok in this case?
S: There was no privity between Kunto and McCall
o Privity gain privity by selling land; a legal conclusion
about the relationship between two parties
o Privity cannot be based on adverse possession in general
o They expand the definition of privity to include the
definition of privity to mistaken deeds and not just more
land than the deed describes.
o Hypothetical: Tacking 10 year statute for adverse
possession
A adversely possesses for 8 yrs
B ousts A out and lives for 3 yrs.
Who owns the land? Neither A nor B. There is no privity
because there is no deed or relationship between
possessors.
Note: American law unlike English law is where privity
matters.
o Hypo 2: Prior owner was O. A adversely possesses for 8
yrs. B kicks A out and lives 6 mos. A comes back and takes
land.

How long does A need to stay to possess the land?

American Law and Answer: 2 years because A gets to tack
on years from his prior possession.
Note: English law would require 1.5 years because can tack
on from other prior possessors.
Abandonment: If A abandons the property, the continuous
time is reset.
When the encroachment of an adjoining owner is of a small area
and the fact of an intrusion is not clearly and self-evidently
apparent to the naked eye but requires an on-site survey for certain
disclosure, the encroachment is not open and notorious. T/f the
statute of limitations will run against the owner only if the owner
has actual knowledge of the encroachment.
claim of title one way of expressing the requirement of hostility
or claim of right on the part of adverse possessor; possession of
land while claiming it as ones own
color of title on the other hand, refers to a claim founded on a
written instrument (a deed, a will) or a judgment or decree that is
for some reason defective and invalid as when the grantor does not
own the land conveyed by deed or is incompetent to convey, or the
deed is improperly executed); the appearance of title

Hypo Info: A-adverse possessor, O -owner, W-wife, H-heir

Hypo 3: 1985: A starts adverse possessing
1986: O dies, leaves a will that says: "to W for life (life estate), then to H
(remainder-remaining time)"
In 1996, who owns Orange acre?
Answer: A gets the land because no need for new owner to sleep on not knowing there is
an adverse possessor.
Hypo 4: In 1987, A starts adversely possession
In 1998, W dies who owns the land?
Answer: H owns it by the will and A an adversely posses it 2008. A could only get
what the life estate until W died. In other words, A can only get what the owner had until
transferred to another.
Note: 1985: A starts AP against O-> 10 years later A get everything owned by O.
In 1997: W dies and A looses property
To protect H's stake in land, H must have W sue to get A off the land, so H will
have it or sue together with W against A.
Color of Title vs. Claim of tile
Do not confuse claim of title with color of title. Claim of right (or claim of title)
expresses the necessary adversity. Color of title refers to a claim founded on a written
instrument ( a deed, a will) or judgment or decree which, unknown to the claimant, is
defective and invalid. Examples: The grantor's name is forged to deed; the grantor does
not own the land deed; the grantor was mentally incompetent; the deed is improperly

executed; the deed is a tax deed void because the owner was not given notice of the tax
sale. In all these cases, the grantee without knowledge of the defect takes possession
under color of title. Where a person enters with color of title, no further claim of title or
proof of adversity is required. In most states, color of title is not required to be an
adverse possessor.
Class note: with color of title you get more land than you possess (land described in the
void deed by constructive possession), but must still satisfy adverse requirements for
what you are using.
Hypothetical: If A takes 40 acres of Os 100 acre lawn, what is A entitled to?
Under claim of right he gets what he actually possesses
Under color of title: he gets constructive possession of 100 acres
Rule is that constructive possession isnt as strong as actual possession. \
If owner lives there: gets actual possession
The purpose of color of title is to relax the requirement of exclusive use in a particular
area, you get more than what you just possess, but you still have to do all the elements to
what you do possess (satisfy adverse possession)
Elements of adverse possession:
Continuous
Open and notorious
Adverse to true owners claim (hostile)
Exclusive use
2. The Mechanics of Adverse Possession
Howard v. Kunto Kunto had a house on and occupied land to which
Howard had title. Use of a summer home only during the summer for the
statutory period is continuous use. Land that is used in a customary
manner is deemed to be used continuously. Tacking between
successive adverse possessor is established if there is a reasonable
connection between them.
American belief that the squatter should not be able to profit by his
trespass.
Problems: Tacking
Tacking the joining of consecutive periods of possession by
different persons to treat the periods as one continuous period;
esp., the adding of ones own period of land possession to that of a
prior possessor to establish continuous adverse possession for the
statutory period
For tacking to be permitted, remember that there must be privity of
estate between the possessors. All this means is one possessor
voluntarily transferred possession or an estate in land to a
subsequent possessor.

Tacking by successive adverse possessors: To establish continuous

possession for the statutory period, an adverse possessor can tack
onto her own period of adverse possession any period of adverse
possession by predecessors in interest. Thus, separate periods of
actual possession by those holding adversely to the owner can be
tacked together, provided there is privity of estate between the
adverse possessors.
Reasons for privity: 1) don't want to award trespassers
Note: expand the idea of privity to include mistaken deeds
Tacking Hypo: 10 year statute for adverse possession
A adversely possesses for 8 yrs
B ousts A out and lives for 3 yrs.
Who owns the land? Neither A nor B. There is no privity because
there is no deed or relationship between possessors.
Note: American law unlike English law is where privity
matters.
Hypo 2: Prior owner was O. A adversely possesses for 8 yrs. B
kicks A out and lives 6 mos. A comes back and takes land.
How long does A need to stay to possess the land?
Rule:American Law and Answer: 2 years because A gets to tack on
years from his prior possession.
Note: Rule 2: English law would require 1.5 years because can
tack on from other prior possessors.
Abandonment: If A abandons the property, the continuous time is
reset
Suppose, for example, that X buys certain property described in a
deed from the seller, who as it happens had also (but knowingly)
adversely possessed a strip adjacent to the described land. If the
evidence shows that the deed to X was intended by the parties to
convey not only the described land but also the adversely
possessed strip, is X allowed to tack that strip onto the land
described in the deed? In Buchanan v. Cassel, cited in H v. K, at
page 157, the court held that X could do exactly that. p. 160

Problems: Disabilities
A disability is immaterial unless it existed at the time when the
cause of action accrued. And after the words such person you
should insert, as a result of judicial construction, the words or
anyone claiming from, by, or under such person.
Most legislatures think it unfair for a statute of limitations to run
upon a person who is unable to bring a lawsuit (under a legal
disability).
Most states give an additional period of time to bring an action if
the owner is under a disability.

Disability provisions are strictly limited in two ways: (1) only the
disabilities specified in the statute (e.g. insanity, infancy) can be
considered; and (2) usually only disabilities of the owner at the
time adverse possession begins count

Types of Disabilities:
Insane, mentally incapacitated
youth
Incarcerated
[These are reasons to give O a break and give him extra time]
Rules to satisfy in terms of disabilities (p. 161):
Have to be disabled when A enters
Owner has to be disabled
No tacking of disabilities
Background: 1985: A starts adverse possessing
1986: O dies, leaves a will for land that says: "to W for life, then to H "
Hypo: O is insane in 1985
W is insane in 1985
In 2000, W is cured
Answer: Don't worry about W because you look at when A enters the land in 1985. A gets
the land in 1996, which is 10 years after O dies.

Adverse Possession against the Government

Adverse possession does not run against the government. Courts
often say, in justification, that the state owns its land in trust for all
the people, who should not lose the land because of the negligence
of a few state officers or employees.
Rules for Adverse Possession against the government (p. 162):
General rule is that if it is a public land used for public purposes you cannot
adversely possess it.
EXCEPTION Can do it if it is an old building (like an old post office)

3. Adverse Possession of Chattels

A person can acquire title to chattels by adverse possession just as he
can acquire title to land.
Generally the requirements for adverse possession of chattels are the
same as for land, except the period of limitations is shorter.

Adverse possession of land is open and notorious whereas adverse

possession of chattels seldom is.
OKeeffe v. Snyder Three of OKeeffes paintings were stolen from
an art gallery. The thefts were not reported to anyone. The statute
of limitations is tolled if the owner of stolen chattel makes diligent
efforts to locate and recover the lost chattel.
A majority of courts appear to hold that the statute of limitations does
not begin to run on the owner of stolen goods as long as the owner
continues to use due diligence in looking for them. The conduct of the
owner, not the possessor, is controlling. The cause of action thus
accrues when the owner first knows, or reasonably should know
through the exercise of due diligence, where the stolen goods are.

C. Acquisition by Gift
A gift is voluntary transfer of property without any consideration. There
are there requirements for a gift of chattels:
o The donor must intend to make a gift.
o The donor must deliver the chattel to the donee (there are some
acceptable substitutes for manual delivery); and
o The donee must accept the chattel.
o NOTE: Almost all the litigation concerning the gifts occurs
over the second requirement, delivery-i.e. what it means and
what substitutes are acceptable in place of manual delivery.
Gift inter vivos: An inter vivos gift is a gift made during the donor's life
when the donor is not under any threat of impending death. Once made,
donor cannot get the object back.(Of course the donee could, if she
wished, give it back.)
Gift causa mortis: A gift causa mortis is a gift made in contemplation of
immediately approaching death. The court may be more strict in the case
of a gift causa mortis vs. inter vivos, because there may be greater danger
of fraudulent claims since the donor is dead and cannot speak. A gift
causa mortis is revoked if the donor recovers from the illness that
prompted the gift. In practical effect, a gift causa mortis is a substitute for
a will
If manual delivery is not practicable because of the size or weight of the
object or its inaccessibility, constructive or symbolic delivery may be
permitted.
o Constructive delivery handing over a key or some object that will
open up access to subject matter of the gift
o Symbolic delivery - handing over something symbolic of the
property; the usual case of symbolic delivery involves handing
over a written instrument declaring a gift of the subject matter
The law has long required that, to make a gift of personal property, the
donor must transfer possession (hand over the property) to the donee

with the manifested intention to make a gift to the donee. Both intention
and delivery must be present.
Intention to make a gift may be shown by oral evidence; delivery requires
objective acts.
Delivery can be accomplished through a third person.
Professor Mechems suggestions for the survival of the delivery
requirement (livery of seisin) in gifts of personal property:
1) Handing over the object makes vivid and concrete to the donor
the significance of the act performed. By feeling the wrench of
delivery the donor realizes an irrevocable gift has been made.
2) The act is unequivocal evidence of a gift to the actual witnesses
of the transaction.
3) Delivery of the object to the donee gives the donee, after the
act, prima facie evidence in favor of the alleged gift.

Gift requires:
1) Intention
2) Delivery
3) Acceptance
The actual rule is that you dont have to come back to re-give. Delivery and intent can be
separated.
There is no gift until the check is actually paid because you could revoke the gift at any
time by stopping payment on the check.
Hypo: O gives the ring to A says want A to have the ring its yours, but I'll hold it for you
for a while. Result: A owns it, O is a bailee.
Hypo: O says , I promise to leave you this ring when I die to A. Result. There is no
transfer and wills have to be writing otherwise void by statute of wills. Concept by this
rationale: If promise an object at death, must back up with will, or state law decides it.
Hypo: O writes a check to B on her checking account and hands the check to B. Before B
can cash the check, O dies. Result: No gift until check paid because donor retains
dominion and control of funds, donor could stop payment or die , revoking command to
bank and pay the money.

Newman v. Bost O, lying on his deathbed, calls in his housekeeper Julia,

hands her the keys to all the furniture in the house, and says she is to have
everything in the house. In his bedroom bureau which one of the keys
unlocks, is an insurance policy. O has not made a gift of the insurance
policy because it is in the room where O lies dying and is capable of
manual delivery. Julia does, however, receive as a gift all the furniture
unlocked by the keys (either constructive or symbolic delivery) because it
is impractical to hand the furniture over manually. Symbolic delivery

of a gift is not effective. Constructive delivery is allowed only when it

is impractical to deliver actual possession.

Gruen v. Gruen The elder Gruen gave Gruen a painting but reserved a
life estate for himself. Gruen has never had possession of the painting.
A party may give a future interest in chattels as a gift while reserving a
life estate in himself.
A chose in action (e.g., a debt) not evidenced by written instrument
can be transferred by a written assignment. A remainder interest,
which has no physical existence, can also be transferred by a
written assignment.
An inter vivos gift requires that the donor intend to make an
irrevocable present transfer of ownership; if the intention is to
make a testamentary disposition effective only after death, the gift
is invalid unless made by will.
Under these circumstances, it would be illogical for the law to
require the donor to part with possession of the painting when that
is exactly what he intends to retain.
Donative Intent
-An inter vivos gift requires that the donor intend to make an irrevocable
present transfer of ownership; if the intention is to make a testamentary
disposition effective only after death, the gift is invalid unless made by
will.
-The correct test is whether the maker intended the [gift] to have no effect
until after the makers death or weather he intended it to transfer some
present interest.
-As long as the evidence establishes an intent to make a present and
irrevocable transfer of title or the right of ownership, there is a present
transfer of some interest and the gift is effective immediately.
Delivery
-What is sufficient to constitute delivery must be tailored to suit the
circumstances of the case.
Acceptance
-Acceptance by the donee is essential to the validity of an inter vivos gift,
but when a gift is of value to the donee, as it is here, the law will presume
an acceptance on his part.
Part II. The System of Estates (Leaseholds Aside)
Chapter 3. Possessory Estates p. 71 Gilberts. P 197 text book
A. Up from Feudalism

-William of Normandy parceled out land to his supporters and imposed on England a
highly organized feudal system. Out of the feudal system developed a system of estates
in land, which is fundamental to modern property law.
1. Tenure
-every landowner, except the king, had a lord above him
-every tenant owed services to his lord, which might be fighting for the
lord, laboring on the lords land, furnishing foodstuffs for the lords household, or
payment of money rent
2. Feudal Tenures and Services
a. Free Tenures - three major tenurial structures to organize three social
orders: men who fight, men who work, and men who pray
i.

Military Tenures

-almost all the land granted by William was in knight service, including large tracts of
land given the church
-Knight service was effective in defending the borders
ii. Economic Tenure (or Socage) To provide subsistence and
maintenance for the overlords, the tenure of socage developed. It was the most common
form of tenure; and kind of service could be reversed , such as money rent or 10 days of
ploughing.
iii. Religious Tenures bestowing land on the church
b. Unfree Tenure: Villeinage choice portion of lands kept by the king
for a castle or manor house, with surrounding farm and pasturage
3. Feudal Incidents Besides the services, a tenant owed other duties and was
subject to several liabilities benefiting his lord; came due on the tenants death
and were a form of inheritance tax
a. Homage and Fealty
b. Aids
c. Forfeiture
d. Liabilities of Death of Tenant
4. Avoidance of Taxes (i.e., Feudal Incidents)
5. Statute Quia Emptores (1290)
6. The Decline of Feudalism
B. The Fee Simple estate that has the potential of enduring forever (i.e. It is created by
O, the owner of Blackacre, granting the land to A and his heirs. This estate resembles
absolute ownership, and the holder of a fee simple is commonly called the owner of the
land)

1. How the Fee Simple Developed

a. Rise of Heritability In feudalism, the land was not owned by the
possessor but was held by the possess as tenant of someone else; in time the lord
recognized an obligation to admit the dead tenants son, and so, in advance would consent
to descent to A and his heirs
b. Rise of Alienability With this increasing demand for land, the idea
that a tenant should be able to covey the fee to another during his life openly and without
the lords consent began to gain currency fee was freely alienable
c. Rise of the Fee Simple Estate Instead of thinking of the land itself,
the lawyer thinks of an estate in land, which is imagined as almost having a real existence
apart from the land;
2. Creation of Fee Simple A common law it was necessary to use words of
inheritance (and his heirs) to create a fee simple by deed. Tenants quite naturally
wanted the land to pass to their at their death, and so the tenants bargained with the lords
for inheritability. If the lord agreed to accept the tenants heir in his place at his death, the
lord granted the land to the tenant and his heirs. Thus the lord assented to descent.
an inheritable estate known as a fee simple developed and the words and their heirs
were necessary to create
3. Inheritance of a Fee Simple (ex: O, owner in fee simple, conveys to A in
fee simple. At common law, A takes only a life estate. To create a fee simple, O should
have conveyed to A and his heirs.
Four types of possessory estates:
(iv)
fee simple
(v)
fee tail
(vi)
life estate
(vii) leasehold
Estates are classified by duration
To identify an estate:
1)
Look for the technical language that creates the estate(e.g. "and his heirs" "an the
heirs of his body," etc.) Although this language may no longer be necessary to make a
valid conveyance, lawyers use it, and it is often found on exams.
2)
Consider how long the estate can endure (e.g. forever, for someone's life, until the
happening of some event,etc.)
Two Types of Estates
1) Fee simple (absolute) unless said otherwise it is absolute meaning there are no
restrictions on it, an interest in land that being the broadest property interest
allowed by law, endures until the current owner ides with their heirs, especially a
fee simple absolute
a. You must say and his heirs to create a fee simple
b. Any heir

2) Fee tail an estate that is inheritable only by specified descendant of the original
grantee and that endures until its current holder dies without issue
a. You must say to A and the heirs of his body
b. Direct descendants only
Hypo: O gives to A in fee tail, O dies, then A dies w/ no issues
Result: There is reversion that goes to whoever owns O's estate
Note: to die without issue means to end the bloodline in fee tail (no children)
Problems with fee tail:
1)
hard to administer because it is so hard to keep track of all the bloodline.
Extra Gilberts Notes:
Heirs have no present interest A grant to A and his heirs gives As heirs no
interest in the property. The words and his heirs are only words of limitation
indicating that A take a fee simple. A can sell or give away the fee simple, or
devise it by will thus depriving As hairs of the land.
o Ex: O conveys land to A and his heirs. A then gives the land to B. As
heir, H, has no interest in the land (only a hope of inheriting it) and cannot
prevent the gift.
Under modern law, a deed or will is presumed to pass the largest estate the grantor
testator owned. A conveyance of Blackacre to A conveys a fee simple if the
grantor had a fee simple.
If the fee simple owner does not devise his land but dies without a will, the fee
simple is inherited by the owners heirs.
Heirs those persons who succeed to the real property of an intestate decedent
(i.e. someone without a valid will) under a states statute of intestate succession
(sometimes called the statute of descent)
At common law a spouse could not be an heir. This disqualification of the spouse
as an heir has been abolished in all states. In most states, dower and curtsey have
been abolished, and the spouse is given a fractional share as heir of the decedent.
Next of kin refers to those persons who succeed to the personal property of an
intestate decedent under the applicable statute of intestate succession.
Uniform Probate Code - If decedent leaves a spouse, the spouse takes one-half.
The other one-half goes to the decedents issue, or, if not issue, to the decedents
parents, to the spouse.
Issue children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, and all further descendents
Issue descendants
If the descendent leaves a spouse and children, the spouse takes half, and the
children divide half. If the decedent leaves no spouse, the children take all in
equal shares.
o If a child predeceases the decedent, leaving issue, the issue represent the
child and take the childs portion (called per stripes)
o Grandchildren do not take if their parent is alive.

o An adopted child is treated as a child of the adoptive parents and, in some

states, as a child or the natural parents as well.
o A child born out of wedlock inherits as a child of her mother and, if
paternity is established, as a child of her father
o Stepchildren do not take
If the decedent leaves issue, parents do not take. If the decedent leaves a spouse
and no issue, parents take one-half and the spouse one-half. If the decedent leaves
no spouse and no issue, parents take all.
Collateral relatives all blood kin except ancestors and descendants
If a fee simple owner dies without a will and without heirs, the fee simple
escheats (reverts) to the state.
If a decedent leaves a will, the persons who are devised land are called devisees.
The persons who are bequeathed personal property are called legatees.
Heirs take when the decedent leaves no will; devisees and legatees take under a will.
C. The Fee Tail (Blacks) An estate is inheritable only by specified descendants of the
original grantee, and that endures until its current holder dies without issue (e.g. to
Albert and his heirs of his body
-Lasts as long as the grantee or any of his descendants survives
-it is inheritable only by the grantees descendants
Unless otherwise specified in the grant, a fee tail was inheritable by any issue of
the fee tail tenant. There can be a fee tail male, fee tail female, and fee tail special
(inheritable only by the issue of a grantee and a specific spouse)
Abolition of the Fee Tail The fee tail has been abolished in England in all
American jurisdiction except in four states. In these states, the fee tail tenant can at any
time disentail and convey a fee simple absolute by deed. A fee tail merely excludes
collateral kindred of the grantee from inheriting the land. (A, the fee tenant, can even get
around this limitation by conveying a fee simple to a straw person, who then conveys
the fee simple back to A.
Fee tail:
1)
only direct descendants
2)
Reversion is built in
3)
Under common law in 1600, if sold the fee tail, still reverts back to your
descendents.
Hypo: Under old rule, O conveys Blackacre to "A and his heirs of his body", A conveys
to B, A dies Result: A's blood descendents own Blackacre.
In modern times, the fee tail is destroyed if sold and becomes a fee simple. Thus, in
modern times B would own it in Hypo.
Note: To convert a fee tail to fee simple: sale it to someone and have them give it back it
to you to make fee simple.
Life estate: O conveys to "A for life"
In 1600: reversion to O and his heirs
In 2003:

D. The Life Estate (Blacks) An estate held only for the duration of a specified
persons life, usu. the possessors.
-Like a fee simple, a life estate can be created so as to be determinable, subject to a
condition subsequent, or subject to an executory limitation
-Courts must then construe the instrument to determine whether the estate conveyed is a
fee simple, life estate, or leasehold estate.
-A life tenant ordinarily free to transfer, lease, encumber, or otherwise alienate her estate
inter vivos transferee gets no more than the life tenant had (an estate that ends at the
expiration of the measuring life)
White v. Brown
Jessie Lide died leaving a will stating I wish Evelyn White (P) to
have my home to live in and not to be soldMy house is not to be
sold.
In this case, it appears that Lide attempted to pass a fee simple to
White (P) and further attempted to restrain her from alienating the
property.
A restraint on alienation is void as against public policy, leaving P
with a fee simple.
Unless contrary intention appears by the terms of the will and its
context, a will conveys a testators entire interest.
Gilberts example: To my wife, W, to be used as she shall see fit, for her maintenance
and support. Does this give W a fee simple or a life estate with power to consume the
principal? MV: A fee simple is created; the words for her maintenance and support
merely state the reason for the gift.
Rules for reading the will and deciding what it means:
Primary: testators intent
1. Presume that the testator wanted to devise all of her property
2. TN Rule: fee simple is default rule unless language which makes other estate
clear.
3. Words in context
Restraints on alienation (rights to sell) p. 227:
1) Disabling restraints withholds from the grantee the power of transferring his
interest (e.g., O conveys Blackacre to A and his heirs but any transfer hereafter in any
manner of an interest in Blackacre shall be null be void)
2) Forfeiture constraint provides that if the grantee attempts to transfer his
interest, it is forfeited to another person (e.g. O conveys Blackacre to A and his heeir,
but if A attempt to transfer the property by any means whatsoever, then B her heirs)
3) Promissory constrain the grantee promises not to transfer his interest
(e.g. O conveys Blackacre to A and his heirs, and A promises for himself, his heirs and
successors in interest that Blackacre will not be transferred by any means)
(contract issue rather than a property issue therefore the remedies are contract remedies
i.e. an injunction against the sale or damages.)

-totally removed the restraint on alienation, any absolute restraint of a fee simple is
void; partial restraint must be reasonable to be enforced; with life estate usually
forfeiture is ok
One of the reasons alienation is important and one of the reasons people might want to
restrain alienation is because if you are not allowed full alienation rights to the property
then the people you owe money to cannot get at the property.
Alienation is important: If not allow full alienation rights of the people who owe money,
can get rights to the property and sell it to get proceeds (for debt purposes to pay off).
Restraints on alienation take property out of the market, making it unusable for the beats
use dictated by the market. They tend to make property unmortgageable and therefore
unimprovable, to concentrate wealth in class already rich, and to prevent creditors from
reaching the property to pay the owner's debts.
Valuation of Life Estate and Remainder For lack of a better method, courts,
taxing authorities, and insurance companies value life estates and remainders by resort to
life expectancy table.
Baker v. Weedon
John Weedon left a life estate to Weedon (P) and a remainder to the
Bakers (D). D wishes to sell the land now and reap its value; P
wishes to retain ownership of the land to allow its value to
increase.
Equity may intervene and order sale of the property if the sale is
necessary for the best interest of all the parties. This is a flexible
remedy, which equity exercises sparingly because of the
underlying notion that the grantor wants the land itself and not the
economic value represented by the land passed on the holders of
the remainder.
A trial court shall order sale only if it is in the best interest of both
the freehold tenant and the holder of the future interest.
-Affirmative (voluntary) waste Affirmative or voluntary waste occurs when the life
tenant actively causes permanent injury by, for example, destroying buildings or
removing natural resources
-Permissive (involuntary) waste occurs when the land is allowed to fall into disrepair,
or the tenant fails to take reasonable measure sot protect the land from the elements (ex:
failing to pay taxes)
*The life tenant has no obligation to keep the property insured, an if a bldg burns down
w/o the fault of the life tenant, this is not waste. If the life tenant does insure, she is not
required to rebuild the property for the remaindermens benefit or hold the insurance
proceeds in trust for the remaindermen.
Seisin ownership

E. Leasehold Estates nonfreehold possessory estates; leasehold tenants do not have

seisin
-Modern leasehold estates include the term of years, the periodic tenancy, and the
tenancy at will.
F. Defeasible Estates
Defeasible Fees
-Fee simple determinable fee simple so limited that it will automatically end when
some specified event happens
so long, while, until, shall, during i.e. words of duration
-For a determinable fee, it must be necessary to use words limiting the duration of the
estate; expressions of the grantors motive for or purpose behind the grant do not create a
determinable fee.)
-A fee simple determinable may be transferred or inherited in the same manner as any
other fee simple, as long as the stated event has not happened. But the fee simple
remains subject to the limitation no matter who holds it.
-Possibility of reverter the grantors future interest resulting because there is a
possibility that the grantees determinable fee may come to an end on the happening of
the stated event
-Fee Subject to a Condition Subsequent fee simple that does not automatically
terminate but may be cut short (divested) at the grantors election when a stated condition
happens the condition upon which the grantor can exercise her right of entry
but ifpremises, upon condition, provided, however i.e. words of condition
-may be transferred or inherited in the same manner as any other fee simple until
the transferor is entitled to and does exercise the right of entry
The determinable fee automatically ends, regardless of whether the grantor does
anything. With a fee simple subject to condition subsequent, the grantor must act to
retake the property or the grantees estate continues
-Fee simple subject to an executory limitation fee simple that, on the happening of a
stated event, is automatically divested in favor of a third person (not the grantor)
-ex: O conveys Blackacre to School Board, but if within the next 20 years
Blackacre is not sued for school purposes, then to A. As future interest is called an
executory interest.
Mahrenholz v. County Board of School Trustees
The Huttons conveyed land to the School Board (D) to be used
for school purposes only. Subsequently, the school sued the land
for storage.
Language such as to be used for school purposes only creates a
fee simple determinable.
Restraint on use: A restraint on the use of property makes the property less alienable by
eliminating prospective purchasers who desire to make use of property in a manner
forbidden by the restraint. But restraints on the use of property have almost always

upheld. Even a restraint that the property can be used only by the grantee has been up
held.
Pros and Cons for alienation restriction :
1)
effects of demand by the number of potential buyers
2)
encourages charity
3)
waste because cant change use and make improvements or provide a benefit to the
community
4)
Provides benefits of surrounding land
5)
Remedy- who gets stuck with bill or void transfer or forfeiture
Mountain Brow Lodge No. 82, Independent Order of Odd Fellows v. Toscano
A deed provided that a lot shall revert back to the grantor if the
grantee, a lodge (P), either failed to use the lot or attempted to sell
it.
The use of land may be restricted in a conveyance.
A restraint on the use of property makes the property less alienable
by eliminating prospective purchases who desire to make use of
the property in a manner forbidden by the restraint. But restraints
on the use of property have almost always have been upheld. Even
a restraint that the property can be used only by grantee has been
upheld.
Ink v. City of Canton
The descendants of Harry Ink conveyed to The City of Canton (P)
land to be used for park purposes only. Subsequently, the state of
Ohio instituted eminent domain proceedings against the land.
EMINENT DOMAIN: When the govt exercise eminent domain,
taking tile to land where a fee simple determinable is owned by A
and a possibility of reverter is owned by B, it is necessary to value
the separate interest. The majority rule is that the entire
condemnation award belongs to A unless the fee simple
determinable would expire within a reasonably short period.
The proceeds from an eminent domain proceeding are to be
divided between the holder of the fee simple on condition
subsequent and the holder of the reverter.
Replace a charity with another when the original one is no longer
available because it changes things in future times.
Marriage p. 265
-Previously could leave stuff to wife until she remarries, probably because assumed
needed to be taken care of. Must determine if the purpose is to provide to someone until
marriage or to deter from getting married.
Hypothetical: H dies, devises Blackacre to W for life for her use and benefit so long as
she remains unmarried, remainder to D.
-so long as gives you a determinable estate creates life estate determinable
-[until would create a life estate subject to a condition subsequent]

-D has a vested remainder that can accelerate into possession

Hypothetical: H dies, devises Blackacre to W for life for her use and benefit so long as
she remains unmarried, remainder to D so long as he remains unmarried.
-D gets a fee simple determinable
-H gets a life estate determinable
-a remainder cant be anything other than a fee simple
Chapter 4. Future Interests
Gilbert Tips:
Classifying the present estate may help you figure out the future interest, since
some future interest can only follow a particular type of present interest. (e.g. a
possibility of reverter can only follow a determinable estate, and a right of
reentry can only follow an estate subject to a condition subsequent).
Look who has the future interest. If it is retained by the grantor, youve
narrowed it down to a reversion, a possibility of reverter, or a right of entry.
If it is given to someone other than the grantor, it must be a remainder or an
executory interest.
Think about how the Future Interest Will Become Possessory. For interests in the
grantee, remember that a remainder waits patiently for the natural termination of
the preceding estate, whereas an executory interest either divest the prior estate or
springs out of the grantors interest, in both cases cutting short the prior estate.
For future interest remaining in the grantor, the reversion usually follows the
natural termination of the prior estate (e.g., after the life tenant dies). Similarly,
the possibility of reverter does not cut short the preceding determinable estate, but
succeeds it. On the other hand, the right of entry, like the executory interest,
divests the preceding estate.
Determine whether the interest is given to an unascertained person or is subject to
a condition precedent.
Distinguish between a condition precedent, which comes between the commas
and a condition subsequent which divests a vested interest.
Apply the Following Rules to Contingents Interests
(i)
Destructibility of contingent remainders (applicable to contingent
remainders only);
(ii)
The Rule in Shelley's case;
(iii)
The Doctrine of Worthier Title; and
(iv)
The Rule Against Perpetuities
A. Introduction
Future interest a property interest in which the privilege of possession or of other
enjoyment is future and not present
(1) Interests retained by the transferor (one who conveys interest in property) know as:

(a) Reversion
(b) Possibility of reverter
(c) Right of entry (aka the power of termination)
(2) Interests created in a transferee, known as:
(a) Vested remainder
(b) Contingent remainder
(c) Executory interest
-A future interest gives legal rights to its owner.
-Although a future interest does not entitle its owner to present possession, it is a
presently existing interest that may become possessory in the future
Hypo: "to A for life (1), then to B (2), but if B does not give A proper funeral (3), then to
O.
Result: (1)-life estate, (2)-vested remainder in fee simple condition subsequent to, (3)condition subsequent to.
B. Future Interests in the Transferor
1. Reversion future interest left in the grantor after the grantor conveys a
vested estate of a lesser quantum than he has
All reversions are retained interests, which remain vested in the transferor.
Ex: O conveys to A for life. O has a reversion in fee simple that is
certain to become possessory. At As death, either O or Os successor in
interest will be entitled to possession.
Ex: O conveys to A for life, then to B and her heirs if B survives A. O
has a reversion in fee simple that is not certain to become possessory. If B
dies before A, O will be entitled to possession at As death. On the other
hand, if A dies before B, Os reversion is divested on As death and will
never become possessory.
No such phrase as possibility of reversion
Rights you have with a reversion:
Will it
have it go to heirs when you die
fully alienable
transfer or sell it
<<Hypo: O conveys to "A and B for joint Life"
, then to survivor in fee simple"
Result: A and B share a joint life estate, contingent remainder in fee simple
Hypos:
1) O conveys " to A for life, then to B if B survives A, and if B does not survive A, to
C" shorthand : to X means to X and his heirs
2) O conveys " to A for life , then to B, but if B does not survive A, then to C."

Results: 1) A has life estate, B and C both have alternative contingent remainders in fee
simple, O has nothing.
2) A has life estate, B have a vested remainder subject to divestment, C has a
shifting executory investment, O has nothing.
Rule: If 1st is contingent, 2nd must be contingent. If 1st is vested, 2nd must be executory
interest.>>
2. Possibility of Reverter arises when an owner carves out of his estate a
determinable estate of the same quantum
Almost always follows a determinable fee
Ex: O conveys to Board so long as is used for school purposes. The
Board has a determinable fee; O has a possibility of reverter. Os interest
is not a reversion because O, owning a fee simple, has conveyed a fee
simple determinable to the Board. All fees simple are of the same
quantum.
3. Right of Entry ROE is retained when the grantor creates an estate subject to
condition subsequent and retains the power to cut short the estate
Ex: O conveys B to the Board, but if the Board ceases to use B for
school purposes, O retains a right to reenter. The Board has a fee simple
subject to a condition subsequent; O has a right of entry.
Possesory Estate
Life estate
Fee Simple Determinable
Fee Simple on Condition Subsequent

Correlative Future Interest in Grantor

Reversion
Possibility of Reverter
Right of Entry

Types of Future Interests

In GRANTOR
Reversion
Possibility of Reverter
Right of Entry

In GRANTEE
Remainder
Executory Interest

For future interests, in the grantee, determine whether the interest cuts short a
previous estate (executory interest) or naturally follows (remainder).
C. Future Interests in Tranferees (Grantees) Three types of future interests in
tranferees: vested remainders, contingent reminders, and executory interests.
A remainder or executory interest cannot be retained by the transferor;
these interests are created only in transferees.
Once created, a remainder or executory interest can be transferred back to
the grantor, but the name originally given the interest does not change.
1. Introduction

2. Remainders future interest in a grantee that: (i) has the capacity of

becoming possessory at the expiration of the prior estates, and (ii) cannot divest
the prior estates
O conveys to A for life, and on As death, to B and her heirs. A has a
possessory life estate; B has a remainder in fee simple. Bs interest is a
remainder because it can become possessory on As death, and it will not
divest As life estate prior to As death.
A remainder is vested if:
1) it is given to an ascertained person and
2) it is not subject to a condition precedent (other than the natural
termination of the preceding estates)
A remainder is contingent if:
1) it is given to an unascertained person or
2) it is made contingent upon some event occurring other than the
natural termination of the preceding estates.
A remainder created in a class of persons (such as in As children) is vested
if one member of the class is ascertained, and there is no condition
precedent. The remainder is vested subject to open or subject to partial
divestment if later-born children are entitled to share in the gift.
3. Executory Interests An executory interest is a future interest in a transferee
that must, in order to become possessory,
(1) divest or cut short some interest in another transferee (this is known as
a shifting executory interest), or
Ex: O conveys to A and his heirs, but if B graduates from law
school, to B and her heirs. A has a fee simple subject to
executory limitation; B has a shifting executory interest. Bs
interest can become possessory only by divesting A of the fee
simple. A shifting interest is a useful device to shift title upon
the happening of some uncertain event.
(2) divest the transferor in the future (this is known as a springing
executory interest)
Ex: O conveys to my daughter A when she marries B. O
retains the fee simple and creates an executory interest in A to
spring out of O in the future when A marries B. A springing
interest was, in early days, a useful device to give the groom
assurance that the bride would come to the alter endowed with
property.
a. Two Prohibitory Rules: No Shifting Interests; No Springing
Interests Prior to 1536 Common law courts laid down two rules based
upon their ideas of estates and of conveying.
1) No future interest could be created in favor of a transferee if the
interest could operate to cut short a freehold estate.

-Ex: O has a son, B, who is studying for the priesthood in

Rome, but he may return home. O conveys Blackacre to
A and his heirs, but if B returns from Rome, to B and his
heirs. (There must have been a lot of going and coming
from Rome in those days, because this is the standard
example used in all the old texts.) By this conveyance, A
takes a fee simple, and B has no interest recognized at law.
2) No freehold estates could be created to spring up in the future.
-Ex: O conveys to A and her hairs when she marries B.
This attempt to make seisin spring out in the future was
ineffective at law. Seisin remained in O.
b. The Rise of the Use In feudal times, it was frequent found expedient
to vest ownership of property in one person would hold it for the use and
benefit of another. One early example was where O, going off to fight a
crusade, enfeoffed (i.e. conveyed a freehold of land into the possession of)
his brother, A, with the understanding that Os wife and children would
have the use of the land. The common law courts refused to enforce uses,
but the chancellor compelled the feoffee to uses, A, to hold the land in
accordance with the understanding, on the ground that it was
unconscionable to permit A to violate the confidence reposed in him
feoffee to uses trustee
c. Abolition of the Use: The Statute of Uses The statute provided in
substance that, if any person be seised of land to the use of another, the
person having the use shall henceforth be deemed in lawful seisin and
possession of the same lands in such like estate as he had in such like
estate as he had in use.
The Statute is said, therefore, to have executed or
converted the use into a legal estate.
Ex: After 1536, O enfeoffs X and his heirs to use of A and his
heirs. The Statute executes the use and turns As use into a
legal fee simple in A. X gets nothing.
d. Modern Executory Interests
A possibility of reverter or a right of entry can be created only
in the transferor; an executory interest can be created only in a
transferee.
If the transferor wants to create a future interest in a transferee
after a defeasible fee, it will not necessarily be an executory
interest.
See page 129 in Gilberts
D. Rules Furthering Marketability by Destroying Contingent Future Interests

To destroy contingent interests and make land marketable, the judges invented a number
of rules (that follow):
1. Destructibility of Contingent Remainders (only in effect in a few states)
English judges laid down a rule that a legal contingent remainder in land is
destroyed if it does not vest at or before the termination of the preceding freehold
estate.
o If the preceding freehold terminates before the remainder vests, the
remainder is struck down and can never take effect.
o Ex: O conveys Blackacre to A for life, remainder to As children who
reach age 21. At As death, his children are all under age 21. The
remainder is destroyed. Blackacre reverts to the reversioner, O, who
owns it in fee simple absolute.
o Destructibility doctrine does not apply to the following interests in
property:
1) Vested remainders and executory interests
2) Personal property (There is no seisin in personal property, only
in land)
3) Interests in trust
o Avoidance of rule
1) Term of years If the drafter creates a term of years rather than
a life estate, the destructibility rule can be avoided.
2) Trustees The destructibility rule can also be avoided by
creating trustees to preserve contingent remainders
Abolition of the Destructibility Doctrine
The destructibility rule has been abolished in the large majority
of the states by judicial decision or statute.
Where destructibility is abolished, a contingent remainder takes
effect if the contingency occurs either before or after the
termination of the life estate.
Ex: If O conveys to A for life, remainder to As children take
if and when they reach 21. Their interest takes effect in
possession after As death, and is called either an indestructible
contingent remainder or an executory interest.
2. Rule in Shelleys Case (abolished in most states, present in some) (Blacks)
rule that if -- in single grant a freehold estate is given to a person and a
remainder is given to the persons heirs, so the person is held to have a fee simple
absolute
o Simplified statement of the rule is:
1) one instrument
2) creates a life estate in land in A, nad
3) purports to create a remainder in persons described as As heirs
(or the heirs of As body), and
4) the life estate and remainder are both legal or both equitable

o Ex: O conveys to A for life, then to As heirs. The Rule in Shelleys

Case converts the remainder limited to As heirs into a remainder in fee
simple in A. Then the doctrine of merger steps in, and As life estate
and vested remainder merge, giving A a fee simple in possession.
Abolition of the Rule in Shelleys Case the rule in Shelleys case has
been abolished in an overwhelming majority of states.
If the Rule in Shelleys Case is abolished, a conveyance to A
for life, then to As heirs creates a life estate in A, and a
contingent remainder in As heirs.
**The rule in Shelleys Case cannot be avoided by expressions of intent such
as, I intend that the Rule in Shelleys Case not apply. Os intent is
irrelevant. **
3. The Doctrine of Worthier Title restricts remainders; contains a inter vivos
branch and (perhaps) a testamentary branch
Common Law Doctrine
o Inter vivos branch of Doctrine When an inter vivos conveyance
purports to create future interest in the heirs of the grantor, the future
interest is void and the grantor has a reversion.
Ex: O conveys to A for life, then to Os heirs. The
remainder to Os heirs is void, and O has a reversion.
Original reason for the Doctrine of Worthier Title is probably
the same as for the Rule in Shelleys Case. Feudal incidents
were due on descent of land. In the above feudal incidents
would be due on Os death if he had a reversion passing to his
heirs, but not if his heirs took by way of remainder created
during Os life. Hence the Doctrine prevented O from
depriving his lord of feudal incidents by an inter vivos
conveyance of this kind. furthers alienability
o Testamentary branch of Doctrine If a person devises to his heirs, the
devise is void and the heirs take by descent.
The simplest example of this is device by T to A for life, then
to Ts heirs. The devise to Ts heirs is void; Ts heirs take the
reversion after As death by descent.
The Restatement of Property section 314(2) says the
testamentary branch of the Doctrine of Worthier Title does not
exist in this country.
Modern rule
-In view of the fact that the testamentary branch of the Doctrine is
moribund or non existent, further references in this Summary to the
Doctrine refer only to the inter vivos branch.
-The common law DWT was a rule of law applicable to land only.
-The modern DoWT applies to personal property as well as to land.

-Note that the DWT is different from the Rule in Shelleys Case. The DWT
is a rule construction, which may be rebutted by evidence of the grantors
intent; the RSC is a rule of law and the grantors intent cannot change it.
The DWT can be justified as a rule designed to carry out the
grantors intent.
The DWT gives the grantor the right to change his mind by
voiding the remainder and creating a reversion in the grantor.
Another justification for the modern rule is that it makes
property alienable earlier.
Destructibility rule
This rule applies only to legal contingent remainders in land. It does not apply to
equitable interests, to interests in trust, nor to personal property. It is a rule of law, not a
rule designed to carry out the grantors intent.
Rule in Shelleys Case
This Rule applies to legal and equitable remainders in land. It does not apply to person
property. It is a rule of law, not a rule designed to carry out the grantors intent.
Doctrine of Worthier Title
This doctrine applies to legal and equitable remainders and executory interest in real or
personal property. It is a rule of construction designed to carry out the grantors intent,
and can be overcome by contrary evidence of intent.
4. The Rule against Perpetuities - The common law rule prohibiting a grant of
an estate unless the interest must vest, if at all, no later than 21 years after the death of
some person alive when the interest was created
The purpose of the rule was to limit the time that tile to property could be
suspended out of commerce because there was no owner who had title to
the property and who could sell it or exercise other aspects of ownership.

a. The Common Law Rule The culmination of the long struggle

between landowners who wanted to keep land within the family and the
royal judges who for centuries had tried to stand firm against these efforts
is the RAP.
o The RAP originated in the Duke of Norfolks Case and as fleshed
out in the next 200 years it took the form of a compromise between
the landed class and the judges families the fathers were much
concerned about securing family land, perhaps acquired only a
couple of generation earlier, from incompetent sons.
Reason for period A parent could realistically and perhaps wisely assess
the capabilities of living members of the family, and so, with respect to
them, the parents judgment was given effect.
The RAP applies to contingent remainders and executory interests. It
does not apply to vested remainders or to future interests in the
grantor (reversion, possibility of reverter, and right of entry), which
are treated as vested upon creation. Grantors interests (reversion,

possibility or reverter, rights of entry) are considered to be vested and thus

safe from the RAP.
o Ex: O conveys to A for life, then to As children for their lives,
then to B and her heirs. A has no children. The conveyance is
entirely valid. The remainder for life given to As children will
vest, if at all, at As death. The remainder in fee simple in B is a
vested remainder when created.
o What-Might-Happen Is Test: The Rule is directed at the creation of
contingent interests that might vest in the distant future( being
defined as more than 21 years after the expiration of lives being at
the creation of the interest). If there is any possibility that a
contingent interest will vest too remotely, the contingent interest is
void from the outset. This rule is a logical proof.(Don't care that it
might vest)
Validating or measuring life a person who will enable you to prove that the
contingent interest will vest or fail within the life of, or at the death of, the
person, or within 21 years after the death of the person
Jee v. Audley T devises property to Mary, and if Marys line of
descendants ever run out, to the daughters then living of Elizabeth Jee (aged
80). The event upon which the Jee daughters gift is conditioned the death
of Mary and all her descendants is an event that may happen centuries
hence. The gift to Jees daughter is not valid. There is no relevant life by
which they can prove the gift valid. The gift will not necessarily vest or fail at
Marys death, because the condition precedent (expiration of Marys issue)
will not necessarily happen at Marys death.

<< Jee v. Audley Hypo:

" To W for life, to MH and her issue, but if MH dies without issue(bloodline runs out),
then to Jee daughters then (should be now) living.
W: has a life estate
MH: vested remainder subject to complete divestment
Jee daughters: shifting executory interest
Problems w/ then:
1)
Don't know when MH will die without issue
2)
Or who Jee daughters will be
Problems w/ now:
1) Solves only who Jee daughters are.
Use now and then : b/c When Jee daughters die the shifting executory interest disappears.
Note the Jee daughters are measuring lives.>>
o The law conclusively presumes that a person can have children so long
as the person is alive (a person can adopt a child).
o The law assumes that a persons surviving spouse might turn out to be
a person not now alive.

o Child in womb: A child in the womb when the interest is created is

treated in being if the child is later born alive. Any actual periods of
gestation are included within the permissible perpetuities period.
Gifts to Classes
o Under the RAP a class gift is not vested in any member
of the class until the interests of all members have
vested.
o A gift that is vested subject to open is not vested under
the RAP. For a class to be vested under RAP the
class must be closed (that is, each and every member of
the class must be identified), and all conditions
precedent for each and every member of the class must
be satisfied within the perpetuities period.
<<<(a)To B, if A dies childless
contingent remainder-Ok under RAP(rule against perpetuities)
if A has kids-reverts to T
To B, if A has no grandchildren then living, when A children dies
Fails under RAP-T dies, A has after born kid, A 's kids have kids(too remote because A
children were not alive during conveyance.)
(b)
To B's children
Analysis: if B has children: vested remainder in fee simple subject to open or partial
divestment -vests, B is a measuring life, OK under RAP
if B has no children: contingent remainder in fee simple
Note: Look at if living was ascertained into be considered measuring life
(c ) To B's children, then living
Analysis: then implies that this is a contingent remainder. B was made at time of
conveyance, thus making B a measuring life. Fails under RAP-will be more than 21 years
if A and B both die and A's children cant can be considered measuring lives since not
alive during conveyance
RAP example for a class gift
O conveys to "To A for life, then to A's children that reach 21."
At conveyance, A has 1 child who is 6
A: has a life estate
A's children: contingent remainder b/c not yet ascertained until children 21.
Analysis:
1)
K1 dies at 26 so, does W-> G1,G2 K1 interest(vested remainder subject to open)
2)
When A dies-> G1 and G2 vested remainder interest becomes possessory(fee
simple subject to partial divestment) Under RAP-everyone must be vested to acquire title:
K2 has an executory interest
3)
8 years later, K2 turns 21-> partial divests G1 and G2 of the fee simple(note: If no
one was vested, doctrine of destructibility would apply. :. Ok under RAP>>>
b. The Wait-and-See Doctrine

i. Wait-and-See for the Common Law Perpetuities Period

ii. Wait-and-See for 90 Years
c. Abolition of the Rule
Public Policy and the Dead Hand
Table of Perpetuities Laws in 2001
Dynasty Trusts
See p. 157 Gilberts Interests Under the RAP
Chapter 5. Co-ownership and Marital Interests
Co-ownership situations when tow or more persons have concurrent rights of present or
future possession, and those situations are the central subject of this chapter
A. Common Law Concurrent Interests
1. Types, Characteristics, Creation
A. Tenancy in Common form of concurrent ownership wherein each cotenant is the owner of a separate and distinct share of the property, which
has not been divided among the co-tenants
Each tenant in common has the right to possess and enjoy the
entire property subject to the same right in each co-tenant.
One co-tenant can go into possession of the whole unless another
co-tenant objects.
There is no right of survivorship among tenants in common.
Equal shares are not necessary for tenancy in common. A and B
can be tenants in common, with A holding 3/4s interest and B
holding a interest. It is presumed that the shares of tenants in
common are equal but this presumption can be overcome by
evidence that unequal shares were intended.
Tenants in common can have different types of estates.
A tenant in common can sell, give, devise, or otherwise dipose
of her undivided share in the same manner as if she were the
sole owner of the property.
EXAM TIP: to A and B, and A and B are not a married couple, A and B have a tenancy
in common. For A and B to get a joint tenancy the grant must expressly indicate that a
joint tenancy is intended, usually done by an express mention of the right of survivorship
The chief difference between a tenancy in common and a joint tenancy is this: a tenant
in common has NO RIGHT OF SURVIVORSHIP, whereas a joint tenant has a right of
survivorship.
B. Joint Tenancy - form of concurrent ownership wherein each co-tenant
owns an undivided share of property (as in tenancy in common), and the
surviving co-tenant has the right to the whole estate
Joint tenants HAVE THE RIGHT OF SURVIVORSHIP

On the death of each joint tenant, the property belongs to the

surviving joint tenants, until only one is left.
A joint tenancy can be created by deed or will, or by a joint
adverse possession. Joint tenancy does not arise where persons
inherit property by intestate succession. Heirs always take
tenants in common.
Four Unities Requirement:
o Time The interest in each joint tenant must be acquired or
vest at the same time.
o Title - All joint tenants must acquire title by the same
instrument or by a joint adverse possession. A joint
tenancy can never arise by intestate succession or other act
of law.
o Interest All must have equal undivided shares and
identical interests measured by duration.
o Possession Each must have a right to possession of the
whole. After a joint tenancy is created however, one joint
tenant can voluntarily give exclusive passion to the other
joint tenant. (Also essential for tenancy in common)
The joint tenancy turns into tenancy in common when the unities
cease to exist. Hence, joint tenants can change their interest into
tenancy in common by a mutual agreement destroying one of the
four unities.
o Any one joint tenant can convert a joint tenancy
into a tenancy in common unilaterally by conveying
his interest to a third party; this severs the joint
tenancy as between the third party and his cotenants
because it destroys one or more of the unities.
C. Tenancy by the entirety form of concurrent ownership that can be
created only between a husband and wife, holding as one person.
Tenancy by the entirety is like the joint tenancy in that the
four unities (plus a fifththe unity of marriage) are
required for its creation, and the surviving spouse has the
right of survivorship.
Husband and wife are considered to hold as one person at
common law. Neither husband nor wife can defeat the
right of survivorship of the other by a conveyance of a
moiety to a third party; only a conveyance by husband and
wife together can do so.
The tenancy by the entirety exists today in somewhat less
than half the states. Because the tenancy by the entirety
gives rise to martial interests of importance in many states.

English common law, disliking division of land into smaller parcels (a policy also
underlying primogeniture), favored joint tenancies over tenancies in common. If an
instrument conveying property to two or more persons were ambiguous, a joint tenancy
resulted.
Today the situation is reversed; the presumption favoring joint tenancies has been
abolished in all states (with an exception in a few states where the conveyance is to
husband and wife). Usually the abolition has been accomplished by statutes providing
that a grant or devise to two or more persons creates a tenancy in common unless an
intent to create a joint tenancy is expressly declared.
Courts have sometimes thought a conveyance to A and B jointly merely indicates an
intent to create some type of concurrent estate but not necessarily a joint tenancy.
The granting clause of deed is given priority over the habendum clause unless the
language of the former is ambiguous. See p. 343 for example.
Avoidance of probate p. 343
-Probate is the judicial supervision of the administration of the decedents
property that passes to others at the decedents death: The probate court appoints
and administrator or executor who collects the decedents assets, pays debts and
taxes, and distributes or changes the title to the property to the beneficiaries.
-Joint tenancies are popular, particularly between husband and wife, because a
joint tenancy is the practical equivalent of a will but at the joint tenants death
probate of the property is avoided.
-Probates are costly.
-A joint tenancy avoids probate because no interest passes on the joint tenants
death. Under the theory of joint tenancy, the decedents interest vanishes at death,
and the survivors ownership of the whole continues w/o the decedents
participation.
-A joint tenant cannot pass her interest in a joint tenancy by will.
If the creditor waits until after the joint tenants death, the decedent joint
tenants interest has disappeared, and there is nothing the creditor can seize.
If the joint tenants are husband and wife, one half is subject to taxation
when one spouse dies (though no taxes are paid on it because any amount of
property passing to the surviving spouse qualifies for the material deduction and
passes tax-free)
*If not husband and wife, will be subject to federal estate taxation.
Unequal shares The rule of unequal shares in joint tenancy is increasingly
ignored by courts today.
-In most states joint and survivor bank accounts are owned by the parties during
life in proportion to the net contributions by each.
-IRS Code 2040 provides that a decedent joint tenant (other than a spouse) is
deemed to own, and is taxed on, a fractional share of the property proportionate to
the decedents contributions.

2. Severance of Joint Tenancies

Riddle v. Harmon Mrs. Riddle did not want her husband to get their
land automatically when she died, so she tried to sever the joint tenancy
without him A joint tenant can unilaterally sever a joint tenancy without
the use of an intermediating third party by conveying his or her property
interest to himself or herself.
Livery of seisin element of the common law ceremony of
feoffment by which a feoffor (person who conveys a fee to another
person) would hand over a symbol of the land being conveyed,
such as a lump of the soil or a branch, to the feeoffee (person to
whom a fee, or interest in land, is conveyed) as a means of
transferring possession of the land
Strawman a third party who receives property from a joint tenant
with the intent to convey the property right back to the joint tenant
with the purpose of helping to sever the joint tenancy
Killer loses his right of survivorship in the decedents share.
Harms v. Sprague As a favor to Sprague, John mortgaged his and
Williams land, without telling William, and later devised everything to
Sprague when he died. A mortgage does not sever a joint tenancy, and
the surviving joint tenant takes the interest of a deceased joint tenant
without being encumbered by the mortgage.
In the lien theory states, a mortgage does not sever the joint
tenancy but the states differ on whether the surviving joint takes
one-half subject to the mortgage if the debt is not paid off
before the debtor joint tenant dies.
Ex: Suppose that A and B and joint tenants of Blackacre, located
in a lien theory state. A gives a mortgage on her interest in
Blackacre. This does not sever the joint tenancy. B still has a right
of survivorship. Now suppose that A does. Does B take As
interest subject to the mortgage or does B own the entire interest in
Blackacre free of the mortgage? Jurisdiction split on this question.
Some hold that B takes As interest subject to the mortgage. This
view seems fair to the mortgagee, who would otherwise lose his
security. It also protects Bs survivorship rights. Other courts hold
that B has the right to As half unencumbered by the mortgage.
3. Joint Tenancy Bank Accounts In a joint and survivor bank account, either
party on the account can withdraw the amount deposited and survivors takes
whatever sum is remaining in the account when the other joint tenant dies.
-Suppose that O deposits $5,000 in a joint and survivor bank account with
O and A as joint tenants. O may intend to make a present gift to A of onehalf the sum deposited in addition to survivorship rights to the whole sum
on deposit. Courts sometimes refer to this as a true joint tenancy bank
account. Or O may intend to make a gift to A only of survivorship rights.
This may be called a payable-on-death account. Or O may intend that A

only have power to draw on the account to pay Os bills and not have
survivorship rights. This is often called a convenience account.
-With a joint tenancy account, the bank is safe in paying all the money on
deposit to any joint tenant or to the survivor.
4. Relations among Concurrent Owners Each tenant owns an equal interest
in all of the fee and each has an equal right to possession of the wholeNeither a
joint tenant nor a tenant in common can do any act to the prejudice of his
cotenants in their estates.
-The rules governing co-ownership should also distribute in a fair manner
the benefits and burdens of co-ownership. Keep efficiency and fairness in
mind as we consider first the action of partition the privilege of each coowner to transform a concurrent estate into estates held in severalty and
next some of the rules that govern the sharing of benefits and burdens of
ownership during the life of concurrent interests.
a. Partition Concurrent owners can agree on a division of the property
or the proceeds from its sale, no problem arises; the termination can be accomplished
through a voluntary agreement. But in the not unlikely event that such an arrangement is
impossible, recourse to the equitable action that partition is necessary.
-This action is available to any joint tenant or tenant in common;
it is unavailable to tenants by the entirety.
Delfino v. Vealencis The Delfinos owned 99/144 of the property
and wanted a residential development, while Vealencis owned
45/144 and wanted to keep her garbage business on it. A
partition by sale should only be ordered if the physical attributes of
the land in question are such that a partition is impracticable or
inequitable, and the interests of the owners would be promoted by
a partition by sale.
The court may order physical partition of the property into
separate tracts if that is feasible. Once the land is
physically partitioned, each party owns her tract alone in
fee simple. If the separate tracts are not equal in value, the
court will require one tenant to make a cash payment,
called owelty to the other tenant to equalize values.
b. Sharing the Benefits and Burdens of Co-ownership
Spiller v. Mackereth After another tenant vacated their building,
Spiller used it as a warehouse, and Mackereth demanded he pay
rent or vacate half of the building. In the absence of an
agreement to pay rent, a cotenant in possession is not liable to his
or her cotenants for the value of his or her use and occupation of
the property unless there is ouster of a covenant.
If B is not excluded (ousted) by A, A is entitled to use and
occupy every part of the property without paying any
amount to B. B cannot recover a share of the rental value

of the land unless B has been ousted A, or A agreed to pay

B, or A stands in a fiduciary relationship to B.
Swatzbaugh v. Sampson Mr. Swartzbaugh leased part of some
land for a boxing pavilion, but Mrs. Swartzbaugh, the joint tenant,
never signed the lease and wants to cancel it. A joint tenant,
during the existence of a joint estate has the right to convey or
mortgage his or her interest in the property, even if the other joint
tenant objects.
One joint tenant has the right to lease her interest in the
property, even over the objection of the other joint tenant.
Accounting for Benefits, Recovering Costs
Notes: Accounting For Benefits, Recovering Costs p. 379
-In all states, a cotenant who collects from third parties rents and
other payments arising from the co-owned land must account to
cotenants for the amounts received.
-A cotenant paying more than his share of taxes, mortgage
payments, and other necessary carrying charges generally has a
right to contribution from the other cotenants, at lease up to the
amount of the value of their share in the property.
-As to necessary repairs, in most jurisdictions a cotenant making or
paying for them has no affirmative right to contribution from the
other cotenants in the absence of the agreement.
-As with repairs, a cotenant has no right to contributions from
other cotenants for expenditures for improvements; beyond this
(and unlike the case of repairs), no credit for the cost of the
improvements is given such in an accounting or partition action.
B. Marital Interests
1. The Common Law Marital Property System One was the English system.
Its fundamental principle is that husband and wife have separate property; ownership is
given to the spouse who acquires the property.
-Community property rests on the notion that husband and wife are a
marital partnership (a community) and should share their acquests
equally.
a. During Marriage (The Fiction that Husband and Wife are One)
The English martial property system, feudal in origin, mirrored the need of
the patriarchal landed class to keep their estates inact and under the control
of a single male.
-A married woman was to be supported for her entire life, but she
was not entitled to exercise powers of ownership.
-At the instant of marriage, a woman moved under her husbands
protection or cover; she ceased to be a legal person for the duration
of the duration of the marriage.

-Husband and wife were regarded as one, and that one was the
husband.
-The husband had the right of possession to all the wifes lands
during marriage, including land acquired after marriage. That
right, known as jure uxoris, was alienable by the husband and
reachable by his creditors.
-Beginning with Mississippi in 1839, all common law property
states had, by the end of the 19th C, enacted Married Womens
Property Acts. These statutes removed the disabilities of coverture
and gave a married woman, like a single woman, control over all
her property.
-The MWPA prompted by a desire to protect a wifes property
from her husbands creditors, as well as to give her legal
autonomy, did not give the wife full equality.
Sawada v. Endo The Endos conveyed their property to their
sons the same day that Kokichi got into an auto accident that
injured the Sawadas. An estate by the entirety is not subject to
the claims of creditors of only one of the spouses because neither
spouse acting alone can transfer his or her interest.
Under this view, creditors of one spouse cannot reach the
property because neither the husband nor the wife acting
alone can transfer his or her interest.
The courts in the majority of states recognizing tenancy by
the entirety hold that the equality intended by MWPA can
be achieved in this way:
1) give both husband and wife equal rights to
possession during the marriage (putting the wife in
the same position the husband had at common law)
2) forbid both husband and wife, acting lone, to
convey his or her interest (putting the husband in
the same position the wife had at common law)
b. Termination of Marriage by Divorce At common law, upon divorce
property of the spouses remained the property of the spouse holding titles.
Property held by the spouses as tenants in common or as joint tenants
remained in such co-ownership.
-Because the unity of marriage was severed by divorce, property
held in tenancy by the entirety was converted into a tenancy in common.
-Marital property is defined in some states to include all property
acquired during marriage by whatever means (earnings, gifts, or
inheritances); in others it includes only property acquired from earnings of
either spouse during marriage.
The last approach is based on the principle underlying
community property that marriage in a partnership and property acquired

from earnings of the spouses during marriage should be equally divided

upon dissolution of the partnership.
-Alimony is largely viewed today as support for a limited period of
time until the spouse can enter the job market and become self sufficient
(called rehabilitative alimony)
In re Marriage of Graham Flight attendant supports husband
through business school, covering 70% of their expenses, and after
he graduates they get a divorce. An education degree is not
property, and therefore is not subject to division upon divorce.
c. Termination of Marriage by Death of One Spouse
i. Common Law With respect to personal property, the common
law gave a surviving widow one-third if there were surviving
issues and one-half otherwise. A surviving widower took all his
wifes personal property absolutely.
-Dower At common law, a wife has dower in all freehold land (i)
of which her husband is seised during marriage and (ii) which is
inheritable by issue born of the marriage. Dower is a life estate in
one-third of each parcel of qualifying land.
-Curtesy At common law, on the wifes death, a surviving
husband had curtesy, which was roughly comparable to dower but
somewhat different. First, the husband had curtesy only if issue
were born of the marriage (giving the husband received a life
estate in all of his wifes lands, and not merely a third of them, as
in dower.
-The important consequence of dower in modern times is that both
husband and wife must sign deeds to land to release dower, even
though title is in only one of them.
ii. The Modern Elective Share
-Legislatures began to enact forced share legislation, giving
spouse an elective forced share in all property real and personal
that the decedent spouse woned at death.
-The surviving spouse is not entitled only to support, as dower and
curtesy provided, but to an ownership share in the decedent
spouses property.
-The surviving spouse can renounce the will, if any, and elect to
take a statutory share, which is usually one-half or one-third or
some other fractional share.
-A spouse has a claim to a forced share whether married to the
decedent for one hour or 50 years.
2. The Community Property System
a. Introduction earnings of each spouse during marriage should be
owned equally in undivided shares by both spouses

-Community property included earnings during marriage and the

rents, profits, and fruits of earnings.
-Separate property is property acquired before marriage and
property acquired during marriage by gift, devise, or descent.
-Property acquired or possessed during marriage by either husband
or wife is presumed to be community property.
b. Community Property Compared with Common Law Concurrent
Interests
-None of the community property states recognizes dower or
curtesy; none recognizes the tenancy by the entirety.
-Community property, compared with tenancies in common and
joint tenancies, has these significant differences:
Community property can exist only between husband and
wife, whereas a tenancy in common or a joint tenancy can
exist between any two or more persons.
Unlinke tenants in common or joint tenants, neither spouse
acting alone can convey his or her undivided one-half share
of community property, except to the other spouse.
With respect to traditional community property, each
spouse has the power to dispose by will of one-half the
community property at death. There is no survivorship
feature, as with joint tenancy.
c. Management of Community Property
-In a tenancy in common or a joint tenancy each tenant separately can
convey his or her undivided interest, but this cannot be done with
community property.
-The manager of community property is kind of fiduciary. The
community property must be managed for the benefit of the community.
Each spouse must act in good faith in exercising authority, but good
judgment is not necessary.
-In most community property states liability to creditors follow
management and control. The creditors of managing spouse can reach
whatever community property the creditor spouse is legally entitled to
manage.
d. Mixing Community Property with Separate Property
-Mixed property sometimes arises when property is acquired before
marriage but part of the purchase price is paid after marriage with
community funds.
-Under the inception of right rule, the character of the property is
determined at the time the wife signed the contract of purchase; the house
is her separate property.

e. Migrating Couples - Whether property characterized in accord with

the community property system or in accord with the common law
property system depends upon the domicile of the spouses when the
property is acquired.
-Common law property states generally recognize community
property when it is brought into the state from a community property state.
-The common laws in most states do not give the surviving spouse
a forced share in the decedent spouses share property owned at death.
3. Rights of Domestic Partners
-Now recognized in only 11 states.
-To have a common law marriage, the cohabiting parties must manifest their
intent to be husband and wife and hold themselves out to the public as H and W.
-Even common law marriage, where recognized would not give property rights to
persons not claiming to be married.
-If the partnership terminates while both partners are living, the couples property
is divided according to the principles set forth for the division of marital property.
Baker v. State Three same-sex couples denied marriage licenses sued
the State claiming that the State Constitution guarantees them the same privileges and
benefits provided to opposite-sex couples. The Common Benefits Clause of VT Const
guarantees same-sex couples the same privileges and benefits provided to opposite-sex
couples.
Part III. Leaseholds: The Law of Landlord and Tenant
1. Term of years an estate that lasts for some fixed period of time or for a period
computable by a formula that results in fixing calendar dates for beginning and ending,
once the term of years is created or becomes possessory.
2. Periodic tenancy lease for a period of some fixed duration that continues for
succeeding periods until either the landlord or tenant gives notice of termination.
-Ex: to A from month to month (If notice is not given the period is
automatically extended for another period.
-Unlike common law rules, half a years notice is required to terminate a year-toyear tenancy.
-For any periodic tenancy of less than a year, notice must be given equal to the
length of the period, but not to exceed six months.
3. Tenancy at Will a tenancy of no fixed period that endures so long as both landlord
and tenant desire.
Garner v. Gerrish Donovan leased house to Gerrish (D) for as long as D wished. If
the lessee has the option of terminating a lease when he pleases, a determinable life
tenancy is created
L leases land to T so long as T should wish. This creates a life estate in T,
determinable on his death or prior relinquishment of possession.

4. Tenancy at sufferance arises when a tenant remains in possession (hold over) after
termination of the tenancy. Common law rules give the landlord confronted with a
holdover essentially two options:
1) eviction (plus damages)
2) consent (express or implied) to the creation of a new tenancy
Crechale & Polles, Inc. v. Smith - When Smith (D) held over past the expiration of his
lease, Creshale (P) decided to treat D as a trespasser. Later, he decided to hold him over
to a new term. Once a landlord elects either to treat a holdover as a trespasser or to
hold him to a new term, he may not change his mind.
The Lease
-Considerations determining a lease: intention of the parties, the number of restrictions
on use, the exclusivity of possession, the degree of ctrl retained by the granting party, the
presence or absence of incidental services
-It matters primarily whether or not an arrangement amounts to a lease because leases
give rise to the landlord tenant relationship, which gives carries with it certain incidents
certain rights and duties and liabilities and remedies that do not attach to other
relationships.
Conveyance versus contract A lease is both a conveyance and a contract. A
lease transfers a possessory interest in land, so it is a conveyance that creates
property rights. But it is also the case that leases usually contain a number of
promises (or covenants, which originally referred to promises under seal) such
as a promise by then tenant to pay rent or a promise by the landlord to provide
utilities so the lease is contract, too, thus creating contact rights.
Last few decades courts have emphasized the contractual nature less.
Statute of Frauds Every state has a SoF; American statutes provide that leases
for more than one year must be in writing. All but a few jurisdictions permit oral
leases for a term less than a year; those that do not usually hold that entry under
an oral lease plus payment of rent creates a periodic tenancy that is not subject to
the Statute.
Form leases and the question of bargaining power
-Deeds are commonly brief, whereas leases can be wordy, full of clauses to
handle various contingencies.
-Landlords use form leases standardized documents offere to all tenants on a
take-it-or-leave-it basis, with no negotiation over terms.
Rationale
1) Costly to negotiate too many
2) Competition exists, so not truly take it or leave it
Selection of Tenants
-Federal and sate statutes not prohibit discrimination in the sale or rental of
property on various groundsincluding race, religion, or natural origin.

Soules v. U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development A single

mother sued for discrimination after being denied the opportunity to apply for an
apartment based on her family status. Housing providers can defeat
discrimination claims by showing legitimate reasons for refusing to rent and
factfinders are allowed to inquire into the providers subjective intent in
questioning prospective applicants.
Delivery of Possession
Hannan v. Dusch When Hannans (P) lease was to begin, Dusch (D) failed to
evict a hold-over tenant. A landlord only has a duty to deliver the right to
possession of the premises to a tenant, not actual possession.

In some jurisdiction, the landlord has no duty to deliver actual

possession at the commencement of the term, and hence is not in default
under the lease when the previous tenant continues wrongfully to occupy
the premises. This is known as the American rule although it is the
minority view.
Lessor landlord
Lessee tenant
The American Rule puts the lessee in legal possession.
The English Rule puts the lessee in actual possession.
-The American rule, which recognizes the lessees legal right to possession, but implies
no such duty upon the lessor as against wrongdoers, are irreconcilable.
-The English rule is that in the absence of stipulations to the contrary, there is in every
lease an implied covenant on the part of the landlord that the premises shall be open to
entry by the tenant at the time fixed by the lease for the beginning of his term.
American Rule:
Go after the wrongdoer not the landlord.
The tenant could have contracted around the provision.
English Rule:
When the lease starts you get actual possession
Landlord is in a better position to know whats going on
Subleases and Assignments
The common law rule is that if a tenant transfers less than the entire remaining
term of his leasehold, he has made a sublease, and he becomes the landlord of the
sublessee.
The sublessee is not in privity of estate with the landlord and cannot sue or be
sued by the landlord.
Since the sublessee has made no contract with the landlord, he cannot sue or be
sued on a contract either.
Common law view (right of entry): The common law view is that such a transfer
is an assignment, not a sublease, because T retained no reversion. The right of
entry reserved by T is viewed as merely a means of enforcing T2s contractual
obligations. Since it is an assignment there is privity of estate between L and T2,

so that L can hold T2 personally liable for the rent reserved in the L to T lease
($200 per month).
Modern view-right of entry make it a sublease. The reservation of the right to
reenter for nonpayment of rent is deemed a contingent reversionary interest, so
that the transfer is a sublease even though no actual reversion is retained by T.
Since it is a sublease, there is no privity of estate between L and T2. Thus if T2
fails to pay the rent, L cannot sue him directly. L can sue T for rent based on
privity of contract. L can evict T2 for breach of the promise to pay rent made in
the L to T lease as readily as he could evict T. The distinction is that since this is
only a sublease, there is no privity of estate, and hence L cannot hold T2
personally liable for rent.
Ernest v. Conditt Rogers, the original lessee, transferred his interest to Conditt
(D). In determining whether an assignment or a sub-leasing has occurred, the
court looks to the intentions of the parties.
A few recent cases have rejected both the common law rule that
retention of a reversion is necessary for a sublease and the rule that
retention of a right of entry is sufficient to create a sublease. These
cases hold that the intent of the parties determines whether a
transfer is an assignment or a sublease, and that reservation of an
additional rent by itself is an indication that the parties intended a
sublease. On the other hand the transfer of the lease for a lump
sum, even if pmt is tot be made in deferred installments, indicates
an assignment.
Kendall v. Ernest Pestana - Ernest Pestana (D) demanded increased rent in
exchange for consent to assign a lease. A lessor may not unreasonably and
arbitrarily withhold his or her consent to an assignment. (Minority view, but in
growing number of jurisidiction)

The landlord may look at factors such as the financial

responsibility of the proposed new tenant and his suitability for he
building, but the landlord cannot consider her general economic advantage
(i.e. She cannot refuse consent as a stratagem to get T to terminate the
lease)
The Tenant Who Defaults
Berg v. Wiley Wiley (D) changed the locks on property that he lease to Berg (P). A
landlord may not use self-help to regain possession of his land.

A growing number of states prohibit self-help in recovering

possession and require the landlord to resort to a statutory remedy. If she does
not, she is liable in damages.

The landlord may bring an action in ejectment to recover

possession, but may not come to trial for some time, and is rarely brought.


Summary proceedings provide a quick and efficient means
by which to recover possession (and, in some jurisdictions, rent) after
termination of a tenancy.
Tenant Who Has Abandoned Possession
Sommer v. Kridel Sommer (P) failed to make efforts to re-let an apt when Kridel (D)
abandoned it. A landlord is under a duty to mitigate damages by making reasonable
efforts to re-let an apt wrongfully vacated by the tenant.
In a growing number of states, probably a majority, the landlord has a duty to
mitigate damages. A lease is treated as any other kind of contract and is not
viewed, on this issue, through property glasses. If the landlord must mitigate
damages, the landlord cannot leave the premises vacant and sue for rent as it
comes due
Quiet Enjoyment and Constructive Eviction
Reste Realty Corp. v. Cooper Whenever it rained the basement that Cooper (D) was
leasing flooded. A tenant may vacate premises and terminate the lease if his quiet
enjoyment is interfered with by the landlord.
Any act of the landlord or failure to act that substantially interferes with the
tenants use and enjoyment is sufficient for constructive eviction. Look for
failure of the landlord to furnish heat or services or that repair in violation of
an express or implied covenant to do so.
<<Options for tenant for breach of quiet enjoyment cant withhold rent
Option1-quiet enjoyment- can stay in possession and sue for damages to your property,
Option2-declaratory judgment- a person who thinks is going be sued, goes to court and
say will be sued and ask for allowed for not being liable( often courts wont here these
judgments) has been overtaken by implied warranty of habitability
Option3-to leave by constructive eviction and possibly get sued
Under Common Law, landlord has no obligation to repair, but if do repair must do it
carefully
Constructive eviction- must leave and stop paying rent the court must decide if exist-can
be sued by landlord.>>
Illegal Lease
Minor technical violations do not render a lease illegal nor do violations of which the
landlord had neither actual or constructive notice. A tenant under an illegal lease is a
tenant at sufferance and the landlord is entitled to the reasonable rental value of the
premises given their condition.
The Implied Warranty of Habitability
Hilder v. St. Peter St. Peter (D) leased an apartment unit for habitability to Hilder (P).
Though P informed D of these defects, he failed to remedy them. There is an implied
warranty of habitability in every residential lease.
Implied covenant of habitability a landlord has a duty of delivering habitable
premises and of maintaining them in a habitable shape

Ch. 9 Judicial Land Use Controls: The Law of Nuisance p. 747

The law of nuisance is part torts and part property torts because nuisance liability arises
from negligent or otherwise wrongful activity, and property because the liability is for
interference with the use and enjoyment and land.
Sic utere tuo alienum non laedas one should use ones own property in such a way as
not to injure the property of another
Morgan v. High Penn Oil Co. Trailer park owner sued for injunction against operator
of a nearby oil refinery which produced nauseating fumes. A private nuisance occurs
when there is a substantial interference is either intention and unreasonable, or
unintentional and the result of negligence, reckless, or abnormally dangerous activity.
Serious discomfort and inconvenience in the use of land is another important
factor in determining a nuisance. Objectionable noise, odors, or smoke are
frequently the interference complained of. The standard of unreasonable
interference is measure by the sensibilities of the average person.
Remedies (and More and Substantive Law)
Estancias Dallas Corp. v. Schultz The Schultzes sued Estancias Dallas Corp. to
permanently enjoin it from operating excessively loud equipment on a neighboring
building. An injunction will be denied as a remedy for nuisance only if the necessity
of others compels an injured party to seek damages in an action at law, and not because
the party causing the nuisance has the right to work a hurt or injury to his or her neighbor.
Boomer v. Atlantic Cement Co. A court found that a cement plan constituted a
nuisance to neighbors, but denied an injunction. Courts can grant an injunction
conditioned on the payment of permanent damages to a complaining party in order to
compensates him or her for the impairment of property rights caused by nuisance.
If one partys conduct has great social value (e.g., a factory employing many
people), a court will be reluctant to enjoin it as a nuisance. On the other hand, if
the harm is serious and the pmt of damages will not shut down the plan, the court
will order the pmt of damages for nuisance and refuse to enjoin activity.
Ch. 10 Private Land Use Controls: The Law of Servitudes
Servitudes an encumbrance constituting in a right to the limited use of a piece of land
w/o the possession of it; a change or burden on an estate for anothers benefit
Land use arrangements arising out of private agreements involve two or more parcels of
land, and the purpose of the agreements is to increase the effect of the agreements is to
burden one parcel of land for the benefit of another parcel.
Easements - The most important questions about easement relate to their creation and
termination. An easement can be created by an express agreement, by estoppel, by
implication from an existing use when land is divided, by necessity when land is divided,
and by prescription.

Real Covenants The most important issue about real covenants is whether they will run
to assignees. Privity of estate is required for the covenant to run. Privity is a difficult
concept. Concentrate on it and get it straight. Remember also that the remedy for breach
of covenant is damages.
Equitable Servitudes - Landowners often want to make agreements with their neighbors
respecting the use of one of both of the parcels of land. These agreements can be divided
into two broad categories (i) rights arising from a grant of right by one landowner to
another (known as easements or profits) and (ii) rights arising from a promise respecting
the use of land by one landowner to another (known as a real covenant or equitable
servitude.
Easements
profit (Blacks) servitude that gives the right to pasture cattle, dig for minerals, or
otherwise take away part of the soil interest in land
affirmative easement (Blacks) an easement that forces the servient estate owner to
permit certain actions by the easement holder, such as discharging water onto the servient
estate
- (p. 785) an easement being in interest in land, is within the Statute of Frauds; creation of
easement generally requires a written instrument signed by the party to be bound thereby
-However, in addition to the usual exceptions of fraud, past performance, and
estoppel, an easement may, under certain circumstances, be created by implication
-Statute of Frauds (Blacks) A statute (based on the English Statute of Frauds)
designed to prevent fraud and perjury by requiring certain contracts to be in writing and
signed by the party to be charged
Willard v. First Church of Christ, Scientist - McGuigan sold Petersen a lot with an
easement allowing nearby churchgoers to park on it, but Petersen sold it to Willard
without mentioning the easement. A grantor can reserve an easement in property for a
person other than the grantee.
Some modern cases hold that an easement may be reserved in favor of a third
person. There is no reason to prohibit this in modern law. Moreover, if the
easement is invalidated, the grantee is unjustly enriched by getting more than she
bargained for (i.e., she pays the value of land with an easement and gets land
without an easement).
An easement may be created in favor of a third party.
easement in gross (p. 790) does not benefit the owner of the easement in the use of land
belonging to the owner, but benefits the owner w/o regard to ownership of land; attaches
to a person, rather than the land; (Blacks) An easement benefiting a particular person and
not a particular piece of land, the beneficiary need not, and usually does not, own any
land adjoining the servient estate
If it is unclear which type of easement is intended by the parties, the law
construes in favor of an easement appurtenant
Hypothetical: If it is an easement appurtenant and the church moves and sells it another
church does the new church have right to the easement? Yes.

Hypothetical: If the church sells to a church? Willard gets fee simple without the
determinable
Licenses
license what you get when you are allowed to enter someone elses land;
(Dukenheimer) is oral or written permission given by the occupant of land allowing the
licensee to do some act that otherwise would be a trespass; (Blacks) A revocable
permission to commit some act that would otherwise be unlawful; esp. an agreement (not
amounting to a lease or profit a pendre) that it will be lawful for the licensee to enter the
licensors land to do some act that would otherwise be illegal, such as hunting game
not an interest in land; a contract
Licenses are revocable, easement is not revocable, and profits are not revocable.
Exceptions:
1) A license coupled with an interest cannot be revoked.
2) A license that becomes irrevocable under the rules of estoppel.
Holbrook v. Taylor Holbrook tried to block off a road on his property after Taylor used
it extensively while building a tenant house for himself. A license cannot be revoked
after the licensee has erected improvements on the land at considerable expense while
relying on the license.
If the licensee has constructed substantial improvements on either the licensors
land or the licensees land, relying on the license, in many states the licensor is
estopped from revoking the license. The theory is that it would be unfair to the
licensee to permit revocation after he spends money in reliance.
easement by estoppel - A court-ordered easement created from a voluntary
servitude after a person mistakenly believing the servitude to be permanent, acted
in reasonably reliance on the mistaken belief
Van Sandt v. Royster Van Sandt claimed he never granted an easement for a sewer
drain which connected his house to two others and flooded his basement. The
implication of an easement will depend on the circumstances under which the
conveyance of land was made, including the extent to which the manner of prior use was
or might have been known by the parties; each party will be assumed to know about
reasonably necessary uses which are apparent upon reasonably prudent investigation; an
easement may be implied for a grantor or grantee on the basis of necessity alone.
implied easement (Blacks) An easement created by law after an owner of two
parcels of land uses one parcel to benefit the other to such a degree that upon the
sale of the benefited parcel, the purchaser could reasonably expect the use to be
included in the sale
easement appurtenant (p. 789) benefits the owner of the easement in the use of
land belonging to the owner; (Blacks) An easement created to benefit another
tract of land, the use of the easement being incident to the ownership of that other
tract
To have a quasi-easement, the previous use must be apparent. IT is apparent if a
grantee could, by a reasonable inspection of the premises, discover the existence

of the use. Apparent does not mean the same thing as visible; a non-visible
use may be apparent. Thus, for example, underground drains may be apparent
even though not visible, if the surface connections would put a reasonable person
on notice of their presence.
warranty deed - you warrant that it is yours to give; (Blacks) A deed containing
one or more covenants of title
Ways to create easements:
1. By deed / express grant (Willard)
2. by implication (Van Sandt)
3. by estoppel (Holbrook)
4. by prescription / adverse possession (Othen)
5. by necessity (Othen)
Othen v. Rosier Othen used a roadway on Rosiers property to access the public
highway, but Rosier later built a levee which made the road impassable for Othen. An
easement can be created by implied reservation only when it is shown that there was
unity of ownership between the alleged dominant and servient estates, that the easement
is necessity and not a convenience, and that the necessity existed at the time the two
estates were severed; an easement by prescription can only be acquired if the use of the
easement was adverse.
Easement by necessity is implied only when land is divided. The necessity must
exist when the tact is severed. The easement is implied only over that portion of
the divided tract that blacks access to a public road from the landlocked parcel.
An easement of necessity cannot be implied over land that was never owned by
the common grantor of the dominant and servient estates.
Prescriptive easement an easement that prohibits the servient estate owner from
doing something such as building an obstruction
Brown v. Voss Voss (D) blocked off a private road easement for parcel B after Brown
(P) started building a house that would sit on both parcels B and C.
An easement granted for the benefit of lot 1 cannot be used for the benefit of lot 2,
even though the same person owns lots 1 and 2. The dominant owner cannot
increase the scope of the easement by using it to benefit a non-dominant
tenement.
Preseault v. United States Property owners sued the Government for an unauthorized
taking after the govt authorized the conversion of an abandoned RR easement into a
nature trail across the owners property. An easement is terminated by abandonment
when nonuse is coupled with an act manifesting either a present intent to relinquish the
easement or a purpose inconsistent with its future existence.
A grant of a limited use, or for a limited purpose, or of an identified space without
clearly marked boundaries creates an easement.
A sale of interest for less than the fair market value of fee simple indicates an
easement.

 If the owner of the servient land pays taxes, and the used space is not separately
assessed, this also indicates an easement.
6. Negative Easements
negative easements right of the dominant owner to stop the servient owner from doing
something on the servient land.
English courts recognized four types of negative easements: the right to stop your
neighbor from
(1) blocking your neighbors windows
(2) interfering with air flowing to your land in a defined channel
(3) removing the support of your building
(4) interfering with the flow of water in an artificial stream
-To keep land titles unencumbered, judges did not favor negative easements.
-Today there is little pressure on the courts to expand the traditional list of negative
restrictions on land can be, and usually are, treated as equitable servitudes.
Requirements for burden of covenant to run at law:
1) the contracting parties must intend that successors to the promisor be bound by the
covenant
2) There must be (at lease in some states) privity of estate between the original promisor
and promisee as well as privity of estate between the promisor and his assignee
3) the covenant must touch and concern the land
4) a subsequent purchaser of the promisors land must have notice of the covenant
Requirements for benefit of covenant to run at law:
1) the contracting parties must intend
2) some from of the contracting parties must intend may be required
3) the covenant must touch and concern the land

B. Covenants running with the land

1. Historical Background
a. Covenants Enforceable at law: Real Covenants
-Bargains between neighboring property owners can operate to allocate resources
efficiently by arranging land uses so as to minimize conflicts.
-Where there is privity of estate, the judges held, the contract is enforceable by and
against assignees.
-Unlike the English courts, American courts did not define privity of estate to include
only a landlord tenant relationship.
Horizontal privity privity of estate between the original covenanting parties
-For the burden of covenant to run to assignees, the traditional rule is that the
original parties to the covenant must be in privity of estate.

Vertical privity privity of estate between one of the covenanting parties and a successor
in interest
-For the burden to run to a successor owner of the land, the successor must be in
vertical privity of estate with the original promisor.
The first Restatement of Property declared that horizontal privity of estate is
required for the burden of covenant to run at law. The restatement went on to say,
in accordance with most authority, that horizontal privity is not required for the
benefit to run.
The Restatement (Third) repudiates the first Restatement and takes the position
that horizontal privity of estate is not required for a covenant to run at law to
successors.
-At common law a real covenant does not run with the land, as the common expression
has it; it runs with an estate in land. Thus, the burden of a covenant does not run to an
adverse possessor, who does not succeed to the coveantors estate but takes a new title by
operation of law.
-The burden and benefits of affirmative covenants run to persons who succeed to estates
of the same duration as were held by the original parties to the covenant, that is, those
persons who satisfy the traditional privity requirement. The burdens also run to adverse
possessor.
B. Covenants Enforceable in Equity: Equitable Servitudes
Tulk v. Moxhay Tulk had a covenant which required maintenance of a garden on some
land, but Moxhay later tried to put buildings on it after buying it. A covenant will be
enforceable in equity against a person who purchases land with notice of the covenant.
To hold the covenant unenforceable would give Moxhay an advantage he didn not
bargain for and would unjustly enrich him. From this acorn gew a new servitude
known as an equitable servitude.
2. Creation of Covenants
-A real covenant must be created by a written instrument signed by the covenantor. A
real covenant cannot arise by estoppel, implication, or prescription, as can an easement.
-A equitable servitude is an interest in land that may be implied in equity under certain
limited circumstances. An equitable servitude which arise out of a promise, cannot be
obtained by prescription.
Sanborn v. McLean The McLeans tried to build a gas station on their lot in a
residential district, but were enjoined from doing so by their neighbors. An equitable
servitude can be implied on a lot even when the servitude is not created by a written
instrument, if there is a scheme for a development of a residential subdivision and the
purchaser of the lot has notice of it.
At least one court has held that a purchaser buying into a built-up residential area
where the houses appear to have been built in accordance with a plan should look

at the other deeds out from the developer to see if any basis for an implied
covenant exists.
The lay of the land puts him on inquiry notice to look at the deeds of the
neighboring lots from the developer.
p.
Intent
Notice
Touch and
Concern
Horizontal
Privity
Vertical Privity

Covenants
Benefit
Burden
X
X
X
X

Equitable Servitudes
Benefit
Burden
X
X
X
X
X

X
X

Neponsit Property Owners Association, Inc. v. Emigrant Industrial Savings Bank

Emigrant Bank took title to land previously deeded by Neponsit Realty, and the Neponsit
Association tried to foreclose a lien contained in the earlier deed. An affirmative
covenant to pay money for improvements or maintenance done in connection with, but
upon the land which is to be subject to the burden of the covenant does touch and concern
the land, and a homeowners association, as the agent of the actual owners of the
property, can rightfully enforce the covenant.
A homeowners association may use to enforce the benefit of covenant even
though the association succeeds to no land owned by the original promisee. The
homeowners association is regarded as the agent of the real parties in interest
who own the land.
-At common law only parties to a contract could sue to enforce it. Today in contract law
generally any intended third-party beneficiary can sue on a contract.
-An affirmative easement cannot be created in favor of a third party but a negative
easement in the form of an equitable servitude can be (at least if the 3rd party is in privity
with the promisee).
Caullett v. Stanley Stilwell & Sons, Inc. A developer deed a lot to Cuallet for $4,000,
and the deed included a covenant giving the developer the right to build the first
structure. A restrictive covenant does not run with the land at law or in equity when
the benefit it creates would not touch and concern the land.
If a covenant will not run in equity because the benefit is in gross, neither will a
covenant run at law.
-In England, a dominant tenement is required for an easement.
-In the US an easement in gross can be created, and the burden will run with the servient
land.
-A defeasible fee differs from a servitude in that the remedy for its breach is forfeiture,
whereas the remedy for breach of a servitude is damages, injunction, or enforcement of a
lien.

Is
horizontal
privity
required?
Is vertical
privity
required?

Real Covenants
Benefitted Burdened
No
Yes

Easements
Burdened Benefitted
Yes
No

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

(same
estate)
Yes

(notice)

(notice)

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Current:
Yes
Old: no

(3rd R: N)
Yes

Touch and
Yes
Concern
3rd Party
Yes
enforcement
Does the
burden run
if the
benefit is in
gross?

Equitable Servitudes
Benefitted Benefitted
No
No

No

Common Common
scheme
scheme
No

Yes

(3rd R: Y)

Shelley v. Kraemer A black couple was buying a house while unaware of a racially
based restrictive covenant on that street; the white homeowner tried to stop them.
Judicial enforcement of a restrictive covenant based on race constitutes discriminatory
state action, and is thus forbidden by the equal protection clause of the 14th amdt.
Judicial enforcement of racial covenants is state action which deprives a person of
equal protection of the laws.
The covenant is not void, but it cannot be enforced.
Read p. 330 Distinguishing characteristics of real covenants and equitable servitudes
4. Termination of Covenants
Western Land Co. v. Truskolaski - Homeowners want to prevent a shopping ctr from
being built in their subdivision, even though the surrounding area ha become more
crowded and more commercialized. A restrictive covenant established a residential
subdivision cannot be terminated as long as the residential character of the subdivision
has not been adversely affected by the surrounding area, and it is of real and substantial
value to the landowners within the subdivision.
Rick v. West West bought land from Rick under a restriction covenant, and refused to
lease the covenant when Rick attempted to sell similar land to a hospital. A landowner
in a subdivision under a restrictive covenant has the right to insist upon adherence to the
covenant even when the other owners consent to its release.

 A court of equity my deny an injuction when the hardship to the D is great and the
benefit to the P is small. But where the right to the benefit is clear, the defense of
disproportionate harm and benefit is usually not persuasive.
Chapter 11. Legislative Land Use Controls: The Law of Zoning
-By dividing up a city into use zones form which harmful uses are excluded, zoning
purports to prevent one landowner from harming his neighbor by bringing in an
incompatible use.
-Zoning is a nuisance law made predictable by declaring in advance what uses are
harmful and prohibited in the various zones.
-Modern zoning often regulates uses to achieve public benefits or to maximize property
values (the tax base) in the city.
Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co. A realty company challenged a municipal
ordinance which established a zoning plan restricting the use and size of bldgs in various
districts. Zoning ordinances are a valid exercise of the police power and thus do no
violate the constitutional protection of property rights.
PA Northwestern Distributors, Inc. v. Zoning Hearing Board After an adult
bookstore was opened, a local zoning board enacted an adult business ordinance which
gave the bookstore operator only 90 days to comply. If a zoning law or regulation has
the effect of depriving a property owner of the lawful pre-existing nonconforming use of
his or her property, it amounts to a taking for which the owner must be justly
compensated.
A minority of courts have held amortization ordinances unconstitutional as a
taking of property without compensation.
Commons v. Westwood Zoning Board of Adjustment A builder trying to construct a
home on lot that was below the local zoning ordinances minimum size requirements was
denied a variance. A zoning board shall have the power to grant a variance because of
some exceptional situation of the property, the strict application of a zoning ordinance
would result in undue hardship upon the developer of the property, and the variance
would not substantially impair the public good and the intent and purpose of the zone
plan and ordinance.
This is a proper case of a variance. If the shallow lot were created after the
enactment of the zoning ordinance, the difficulty would be self-created, and a
variance would be improper.
City of Ladue v. Gilleo A resident alleges a city ordinance that prohibits the displaying
of signs, such as an antiwar protest sign, on front yards. A city may not constitutionally
adopt ordinances that prohibit nearly all signs on residential property.
Political speech occupies a preferred position and is given greater protection than
most other kinds of speech. Political speech includes comment on any matter of
public interest. For example, ordinances prohibiting political signs entirety in
front yards of residential areas have usually been held void, because adequate
alternative means of communication are not available to the owners.