1 / 54

PROPERTY A SLIDES

PROPERTY A SLIDES. 4-18-17 NATIONAL ANIMAL CRACKERS DAY. Music to Accompany Dupont : Jewel: Spirit (1998) featuring “Deep Water”. 2d Window for Optional Sample Answers Open By End of Class Today, We’ll Have Covered Material Needed for All Eight Options

williamlane
Download Presentation

PROPERTY A SLIDES

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. PROPERTY A SLIDES 4-18-17 NATIONAL ANIMAL CRACKERS DAY

  2. Music to Accompany Dupont:Jewel: Spirit (1998)featuring “Deep Water” 2d Window for Optional Sample Answers Open • By End of Class Today, We’ll Have Covered Material Needed for All Eight Options • All Submissions Due by Sunday @ 2 p.m. • Preliminary Deadline for Feedback Before Classes End = Tomorrow @ 11p.m. (I will review later submissions with you in the three days after the CrimPro exam.)

  3. Thank You, Daniel!!

  4. Chapter 5: Easements • Introduction • Interpreting Language • Easement v. Fee • Scope of Express Easements • Implied Easements • By Estoppel • By Implication and/or Necessity (cont’d) • By Prescription

  5. Easement-by-Implication (Acadia) Williams Island: Path from 13th 14th Holes • One parcel is split in two (Undisputed) • Prior Use (Undisputed) • Intent to continue prior use: (Unusually Good Evidence) • Apparent, visible or reas. discoverable: (Good Evidence) • Reasonable necessity: (Court finds test met; you could dispute) • Notice to Subseq. Purchasers: (Unusually Good Evidence) • Pretty Easy Case if You Accept Court’s Necessity Analysis • Dependent on Use as Golf Course in Present Configuration • Might be Different if Strict Necessity Required Questions on Williams Island?

  6. BADLANDS: DuPont v. Whiteside NORBECK PASS

  7. Dupont& Easement-by-Necessity (Badlands) • Duponts sell Three-Part Lot to Whitesides • “Riverfront” where W’s want to build house • “Lower Portion”: accessible from public road • “Wetlands” in between • Undisputed that, prior to sale, Duponts built road across their own land providing access to so Whiteheads could build. • Dispute as to whether Duponts said this access was permanent or temporary.

  8. Easement-by-Necessity (Badlands) Necessity in DupontOpinions • Duponts sell Three-Part Lot to Whitesides • “Riverfront” where W’s want to build house • “Lower Portion”: accessible from public road • “Wetlands” in between • Court Resolves Easement-by-Necessity on Necessity Element • Majority: Not Strict Necessity: WHY? • Dissent: Meets Strict Necessity

  9. Easement-by-Necessity (Badlands) Necessity in DupontOpinions • Duponts sell Three-Part Lot to Whitesides • “Riverfront” where W’s want to build house • “Lower Portion”: accessible from public road • “Wetlands” in between • Majority: Not Strict Necessity: • Access available to Lower Portion • Possibility of road across Wetlands(though expert said $40,000-50,000 in 1981) • Dissent: Meets Strict Necessity: Why?

  10. Easement-by-Necessity (Badlands) Necessity in DupontOpinions • Duponts sell Three-Part Lot to Whitesides • “Riverfront” where W’s want to build house • “Lower Portion”: accessible from public road • “Wetlands” in between • Majority: Not Strict Necessity: • Access available to Lower Portion • Possibility of road across Wetlands(though expert said $40,000-50,000 in 1981 (CHECK)) • Dissent: Meets Strict Necessity: • Getting road built across Wetlandscosts time, $$, and conservation easement (giving up use of some of land). • “Might be easier to traverse a river by walking across the surface”

  11. Easement-by-Necessity (Badlands) Necessity in DupontOpinions • Duponts sell Three-Part Lot to Whitesides • “Riverfront” where W’s want to build house • “Lower Portion”: accessible from public road • “Wetlands” in between • Majority: Not Strict Necessity (Has to Be Met Both at Split & Currently): • Access available to Lower Portion • Possibility of road across Wetlands(though expert said $40,000-50,000 at time of trial) • Dissent: Meets Strict Necessity: Why?

  12. Easement-by-Necessity (Badlands) Necessity in DupontOpinions • Duponts sell Three-Part Lot to Whitesides • “Riverfront” where W’s want to build house • “Lower Portion”: accessible from public road • “Wetlands” in between • Majority: Not Strict Necessity: • Access available to Lower Portion • Possibility of road across Wetlands(though expert said $40,000-50,000 at time of trial) • Dissent: Meets Strict Necessity: • Getting road built across Wetlandscosts time, $$, and conservation easement (giving up use of some of land). • “Might be easier to traverse a river by walking across the surface”

  13. Easement-by-Necessity(Badlands)Necessity in Dupont = Tricky in 1980 • Lot as a whole was not landlocked at split b/c road to Lower Portion of lot existed.

  14. Easement-by-Necessity(Badlands)Necessity in Dupont = Tricky in 1980 • Lot as a whole not landlocked at split; road to Lower Portion existed. • Access to house on Riverfrontnot necessary for enjoyment of lot at time of split b/c house built later.

  15. Easement-by-Necessity(Badlands)Necessity in Dupont = Tricky in 1980 • Lot as a whole not landlocked at split; road to Lower Portion existed. • Access to house on Riverfrontnot necessary for enjoyment of lot at split; house built later. • Wetlands Regulations greatly raise cost of road, but no evidence if Regs existed at split (probably not in 1980).

  16. Easement-by-Necessity(Badlands)Necessity in Dupont = Tricky in 1980 • Lot as a whole not landlocked at split; road to Lower Portion existed. • Access to house on Riverfrontnot necessary for enjoyment of lot at split; house built later. • Wetlands Regs greatly raise cost of road, but no evidence if Regs existed at split (probably not). • To get E-by-N for Riverfront, need to treat large parcel as two separate lots divided by water with no access between them (cf. Dissent re “no bridge”)

  17. Easement-by-Necessity (Badlands) Dupont: Necessity Confusing in FL • Fl. Stats. on Easement-by-Necessity • §704.01(1): “reasonably necessary”; “reasonable & practicable” • §704.03: “practicable” means w/o use of “bridge, ferry, turnpike road, embankment or substantial fill.” • Tortoise Island (Fla SCt reading statute): “absolute necessity” • Hunter (1st DCA interpreting Tortoise Island): “no other reasonable mode of accessing the property” [THANKS A BUNCH!]

  18. Dupont& Easement-by-Necessity (Badlands) Possible Implied Easements? • Easement-by-Necessity: Turns on Necessity • Easement-by-Implication: Why Not? (Look to Elements) • Easement-by-Prescription: • Easement-by Estoppel:

  19. Easement-by-Implication Elements: States Vary on Formulation • One parcel is split in two • Prior Use (“Quasi-Easement”) • Intent to continue prior use • *Apparent, visible or reasonably discoverable • *Some degree of necessity * Some states treat 4 & 5 as separate elements; some treat as evidence of intent

  20. DuPont & Easement-by-Necessity (Badlands) Possible Implied Easements? • Easement-by-Necessity: Turns on Necessity • Easement-by-Implication: No Prior Use • Easement-by-Prescription: Why Not? (Look at Elements) • Easement-by Estoppel:

  21. Easement-by-PrescriptionElements • [Actual] Use of Pathway • Open & Notorious • Continuous (14 years; Florida SoL = 7) • Adverse/Hostile • (Most states Don’t Require Exclusive)

  22. Dupont& Easement-by-Necessity (Badlands) Possible Implied Easements? • Easement-by-Necessity: Turns on Necessity • Easement-by-Implication: No Prior Use • Easement-by-Prescription: Clear Permission • Easement-by Estoppel: Was there Reliance that was Reasonable & Detrimental (Under Claimants’ View of Facts) ?

  23. Dupont& Easement-by-Necessity (Badlands) • Easement-by Estoppel: (“Irrevokable License”) • Good Case for Reliance under Ws’ Version of Facts • Detrimental: Bought lot & spent $240K in 1981 to build house • Reasonable: Probably, since road built before purchase as inducement • Under Ds’ version of facts? • Reasonable: If D’s Say “Temporary” & Ws Spend $$? • Note that Ds Not Very Sympathetic: License Revoked After 14 Years for No Apparent Reason • Court Remands for Determination of this claim. Questions on Dupont?

  24. SEWAGE PIPE HYPOTHETICAL: 6 5 4 3 2 1 To City Sewer  E-by-I Raised: Pipes in Use Before O Sells Separate Units. E-by-N Raised: Split Creates “Landlocked” Lot b/c Sewage Disposal Must Cross Anther Lot

  25. E-by-I&E-by-N:Sewage Pipe Hypothetical Notice Issues • What constitutes notice of underground pipes? • Actual Knowledge (always sufficient but may be hard to prove) • Courts tend to be generous re Inquiry Notice • Sometimes: From any visible element (pipe ends; manhole covers) (See Kirmacited in Williams Island @ P795) • Sometimes: From need for utility service + no visible access

  26. E-by-I&E-by-N:Sewage Pipe Hypothetical Necessity Issues • Is utilities access “Necessary”?: Cases split: • Lot not worthless or landlocked (re physical access); usually possible to get utility service at some expense. • BUT can’t use for many purposes without new expensive utility connection. • One Approach: Restatement on Necessity & Utilities in Note 3 (P802)

  27. E-by-I&E-by-N:Sewage Pipe Hypothetical Necessity Issues • Is utilities access “Necessary”?: Cases split • Assuming some access to utilities is necessary, how expensive must alternatives be to meet tests? • Drill through mountain ridge? • Policy: Very inefficient to reroute utility service if existing pipes or wires (cf. Marcus Cable). Rev. Probs. 5K & 5M: We’ll Return to Sewage Pipe Hypo & Implied Easements

  28. ACADIA Thursday: Review Problem 5K (S135)Servient OStephanie Sued to Enjoin Further Use of Her PipesShe Concedes Split of Original Parcel and Prior Use of the PipesBe Prepared to Discuss re Easement-by-ImplicationStrongest Arguments for Your Client (at Time of Split) reEvidence of intent to continue prior use Apparent, visible or reasonably discoverableSome degree of necessityLast Names A-N: Representing S (Servient O)Last Names O-Z: Representing Ws (Dominant O)

  29. BADLANDS:Thursday  FridayReview Problem 5L (Opinion/Dissent Q @ S135-36)Last Names A-N: Range of [Policy] Arguments for Allowing Knowing Waiver of Easement by NecessityLast Names O-Z: Range of [Policy] Arguments for Prohibiting Waivers of Easement by NecessityAssume Facts Sufficient to Show Both E-by-N & Knowing WaiverHelpful To Look At Some Old Q3s & Answers Online Helpful to Think about Similar Waiver Issues from Chapter 2

  30. E-by-I&E-by-N:Additional Work/Exam Prep • From Last Two Slides: • Rev Prob 5K (ACADIA) in class Thursday • Rev Prob 5L (BADLANDS) in class Thursday  Friday • Qs testing two or more types of Implied E-mts together: • In class Friday  Monday: Rev Prob. 5M (OLYMPIC/SEQUOIA) • For 2d Window: Rev. Prob. 5N & Sample Issue-Spotter 4Z • On Your Own: 2016 QI(b); Sample Lawyering Qs 1J & 1M

  31. Chapter 5: Easements • Introduction • Interpreting Language • Easement v. Fee • Scope of Express Easements • Implied Easements • By Estoppel • By Implication and/or Necessity • By Prescription

  32. EVERGLADES: Easements-by-Prescription & DQs 5.08-5.11 EGRET IN MANGROVE SWAMP

  33. Easement-by-PrescriptionGenerally • Easement Created by Particular Use of Another’s Land for Adverse Possession Period • Need to Show Adverse Possession Elements (with Some Variations in Some States) • We’ll Look at Elements Individually

  34. Easement-by-PrescriptionElements • [Actual] Use of Pathway • Open & Notorious • Continuous • Exclusive (Some States) • Adverse/Hostile

  35. Easement-by-PrescriptionEverglades: [Actual] Use • Not listed as separate element in MacDonald but claimant clearly must show some kind of use. • Usually Straightforward: Use of, e.g., Path or Driveway • Sometimes Q of Whether Use is Sufficient to Constitute “Possession” and Trigger AP Claim Instead of E-by-P (See Note 3 P817) • MacDonald (DQ5.09): What Meets?

  36. Easement-by-PrescriptionEverglades: : [Actual] Use • Not listed as separate element in MacDonald but there must be some kind of use • Usually Straightforward; Use of, e.g., Path or Driveway • Sometimes Q of Whether Use is Sufficient to Constitute “Possession” and Trigger AP Claim Instead of E-by-P (See Note 3 P817) • MacDonald (DQ5.09): Golf Shots & Retrieval (Very Atypical!!!)

  37. Easement-by-PrescriptionEverglades: : Open & Notorious & DQ5.10 (See P817) • Some States: Traditional Definition of O&N • Use of Path or Driveway Almost Certainly Meets • Underground Utilities (Sewage Pipe Hypo) • Hard to Meet O&N (Like Marengo Caves) • Could Analyze Like Notice for E-by-I or E-by-N

  38. Easement-by-PrescriptionEverglades: : Open & Notorious & DQ5.10 (See P817) • Some States: Traditional Definition of O&N • Some States: Require that Servient Owner Have Actual Knowledge (e.g., MacDonald) • Policy Concerns Similar to Border Disputes; Don’t Necessarily Need O in Possession to Monitor Closely • Evidence of Actual Knowledge in MacDonald (DQ5.10): Building Restrictions in Agreement Designed to Allow Continued Use of Area in Q

  39. Easement-by-PrescriptionEverglades: : Continuous (See P817) • Obviously Doesn’t Need to be 24/7 for Whole SoL Period • Could Just Be Use “Throughout” Period • Might Ask re Normal Utilization of That Type of Easement • Can be Seasonal Use like Adv. Possession in Ray or Howard • Evidence in MacDonald (DQ5.09)?

  40. Easement-by-PrescriptionEverglades: : Continuous (See P817) • Obviously Doesn’t Need to be 24/7 for Whole Statutory Period • Could just be use “throughout” period • Might Ask re Normal Utilization of That Type of Easement • Can be Seasonal Use like Adverse Possession in Ray • Evidence in MacDonald (DQ5.09): • Golf Course in Use Through Whole Period & • Steady # of Users End Up on Land in Q

  41. Easement-by-PrescriptionEverglades: : Exclusive (See P818) • Many States Don’t Require • Sensible: Nature of Easement is Non-Exclusive Use • MacDonald doesn’t list as element • Some States: Means Exclusive of Everyone but Owner • Some States (e.g., TX): Shared w Owner  Presumption of Permissive • Hard to overcome: • Need evidence that O didn’t give permission but didn’t interfere.

  42. Easement-by-PrescriptionAdverse/Hostile & Presumptions • Gen’l Difficulty: Seems Reasonable to Assume Permission If: • O in Possession of Servient Estate AND • Use is Open & Notorious.

  43. Easement-by-PrescriptionAdverse/Hostile & Presumptions • General Difficulty: Seems Reasonable to Assume Permission If: • O in Possession of Servient Estate AND • Use is Open & Notorious • Presumptions frequently decide cases b/c hard to disprove. • Shared use with the owner (e.g., of a driveway) presumed permissive (Texas). How do you disprove? • Continuous use for AP Period presumed adverse (MacDonald). How do you disprove?

  44. Easement-by-PrescriptionAdverse/Hostile & Presumptions 3. Policy Q: What do you do with case like MacDonald or Dupont where visible use continues for a long time and then servient owner suddenly says no? • Plausible to say permissive. • Could create hybrid of prescription & estoppel: if use goes on long enough, servient owner can’t change mind (if no change in burden/ circumstances).

  45. Easement-by-PrescriptionEverglades: Policy Questions (DQ5.08) To what extent do the rationales for AP also support E-by-P? • Clearly protect people and the legal system from being burdened with “stale” claims. • Ideas re Rest: (a) Punish sleeping owners? (b) Reward beneficial use of land? (c) Recognize/protect psychic connection/investment? • For you to consider & use to help decide close Qs. Questions re E-by-P?

  46. SEWAGE PIPE HYPOTHETICAL: 6 5 4 3 2 1 To City Sewer  E-by-P Raised: Use of Pipes by More Distant Users for Adv. Poss. Period; Likely Qs re Open & Notorious, Exclusive

  47. Easement-by-Prescription:Additional Work/Exam Prep • Rev Prob 5O (Lawyering/EVERGLADES) in class Friday • Qs testing two or more types of Implied E-mts together: • In class Friday  Monday: Rev Prob. 5M (OLYMPIC/SEQUOIA) • For 2d Window: Rev. Prob. 5N & Sample Issue-Spotter 4Z • On Your Own: 2016 QI(b); Sample Lawyering Qs 1J & 1M

  48. Chapter 5: EasementsEnd-of-Chapter Review Problems(Opportunity to Test Yourselves & Get Feedback) • 5D: Short Problem: Scope of Easement (OLYMPIC/SEQUOIA) • 5K: Short Problem: Easement-by-Implication (ACADIA) • 5L: Opinion/Dissent: Easement-by-Necessity/Waivability (BADLANDS) • 5O: Lawyering: Easement-by-Prescription (EVERGLADES) • 5M: Lawyering: Implied Easements Generally (OLYMPIC/SEQUOIA)

  49. Review Problem 5D (S128)SEQUOIA OLYMPIC

  50. Review Problem 5D (S128): Sequoia = P Andy/Serv. Olympic = D Gudridge Academy/Dom. • S-acre= Large wooded lot between public road & private beach. • Dawson Inst. = Former art school for college-aged students • Got as gift from GF an easement to use the private beach and the driveway during daylight hours. • DI students used driveway & beach to sketch or paint. • Gudridge Academy buys Dawson Inst. • Runs post-high school “transition schools” for troubled teens. • Uses easement for student athletic activities like running /swimming

More Related