1 / 97

Section C1 SIT Section E1 

Section C1 SIT Section E1 . MUSIC : CHANT The Benedictine Monks of Santo Domingo de Silos (1994). FHA Bans Discrimination Because of “Handicap”. Traditional anti-discrimination claims of unequal treatment Refusal to rent or sell §3604(f)(1) Discriminatory terms §3604(f)(2).

sydnee-morse
Download Presentation

Section C1 SIT Section E1 

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. Section C1 SITSection E1 MUSIC: CHANTThe Benedictine Monks of Santo Domingo de Silos (1994)

  2. FHA Bans Discrimination Because of “Handicap” • Traditional anti-discrimination claims of unequal treatment • Refusal to rent or sell §3604(f)(1) • Discriminatory terms §3604(f)(2)

  3. FHA Bans Discrimination Because of “Handicap” • Traditional anti-discrimination claims of unequal treatment • Specialized types of claims to insure access

  4. Physical Access as Civil Rights Issue • Stairs & Curbs • Doorknobs • Height of Counters & Light Switches & Water Fountains • Depth of carpet • Width of Doorways

  5. FHA Bans Discrimination Because of “Handicap” • Traditional claims of unequal treatment • Specialized types of claims to insure access • Physical accessibility requirements for new multi-unit buildings • Reasonable accommodations §3604(f)(3)(B) • Reasonable modifications: §3604(f)(3)(A)

  6. Reasonable Accommodations §3604(f)(3)(B) • Exceptions to generally applicable policies & programs to insure access • Same idea as job or exam accommodations for disabilities or for religion • E.g., Parking spaces accompanying rental or condo unit (wider, closer, sooner)

  7. Reasonable Accommodations §3604(f)(3)(B) Legal Requirements • Necessaryfor enjoyment of unit • Reasonable. Usually means: • No undue hardship (comparative/proportional) • No substantial burden (quantitative) • No fundamental alteration of program (qualitative) Can Use This Test for Reasonable Modifications as Well

  8. Reasonable Modifications§3604(f)(3)(A) In Effect, a Form of Reasonable Accommodation • Usual Rule (Waste): T can’t modify premises w/o L’s permission • Statute forces exception to rule to allow access to housing • L must allow modification if “necessary” to use housing & “reasonable”

  9. Reasonable Modifications§3604(f)(3)(A) • §3604(f)(3)(A) interpreted by 24 CFR §100.203 • Promulgated by U.S. dept. of Housing & Urban Development pursuant to authority granted by Congress • Treat regulation as binding interpretation of statute

  10. Reasonable Modifications:U.S. v. Freer (WDNY 1994) (S201-03) • Trailer park • Typically resident owns trailer • Resident rents space from owner of trailer park • Resident wants to install ramp at own expense; park owners refuse. • Gov’t action against park owners on behalf of resident

  11. Reasonable Modifications:U.S. v. Freer (WDNY 1994) (S201-03) Necessity for ramp is pretty straightforward • 5 steps (needs to be carried or assisted) • Can’t participate in normal activities • Afraid to leave home; injured in past while being assisted • Alternative proposed by D much steeper • Ct: “no question” that refusal to allow ramp effectively denies equal opportunity to use home

  12. Reasonable Modifications:U.S. v. Freer (WDNY 1994) (S201-03) DQ108: Meaning of “Reasonable” • Statutory Language gives little guidance • Regulation doesn’t define “reasonable”; just gives two pretty easy examples.

  13. Reasonable Modifications:U.S. v. Freer (WDNY 1994) (S201-03) DQ108: Meaning of “Reasonable” • Statutory Language gives little guidance • Regulation doesn’t define “reasonable”; just pretty easy examples. • Freer: “no undue financial or administrative burden”; suggests 3-part test from Reas. Accom.: • No undue hardship • No substantial burden • No fundamental alteration of program

  14. Reasonable Modifications:U.S. v. Freer (WDNY 1994) (S201-03) DQ108: Meaning of “Reasonable” 3-part test from Reas. Accom.: • No undue hardship • No substantial burden • No fundamental alteration of program. Means? • Maybe big change to building or interference w fancy architecture (Trailer park??!!) • Maybe if rental is personal home, L gets more leeway?

  15. Reasonable Modifications:U.S. v. Freer (WDNY 1994) (S201-03) Reasonableness of Proposed Ramp • D’s Claims: • Would impede trailer removal • Would cause parked cars to stick out into access road • Court: Ramp is Reasonable on Preliminary Record • No evidence of financial harm • Can be disassembled in 3 hours , so no difficulty removing trailer • Photograph sheds substantial doubt on claim re impeding traffic

  16. Discussion Questions 109-10featuring BARLEY

  17. Reasonable Modifications:U.S. v. Freer (WDNY 1994) (S201-03) DQ109: How Far Can You Go? • Court: Ramp is Reasonable on Preliminary Record • No evidence of financial harm  Increases local taxes by $40 a year? • Can be disassembled in 3 hours , so no difficulty removing trailer • Photograph sheds substantial doubt on claim re impeding traffic

  18. Reasonable Modifications:U.S. v. Freer (WDNY 1994) (S201-03) DQ109: How Far Can You Go? • Court: Ramp is Reasonable on Preliminary Record • No evidence of financial harm • Can be disassembled in 3 hours , so no difficulty removing trailer  9 hours (What is too long?) • Photograph sheds substantial doubt on claim re impeding traffic

  19. Reasonable Modifications:U.S. v. Freer (WDNY 1994) (S201-03) DQ109: How Far Can You Go? • Court: Ramp is Reasonable on Preliminary Record • No evidence of financial harm  Increases local taxes by $40 a year? • Can be disassembled in 3 hours , so no difficulty removing trailer • Photograph sheds substantial doubt on claim re impeding traffic  Most cars passing by must slow down to get around

  20. Reasonable Modifications:Restoration of Premises: §100.203(a) • Landlord’s interest protected: • Can condition modification on agreement to restore • Can require $ put in escrow to cover cost of restoring • Reg: Only need to restore if “reasonable to do so” • Examples clarify: No need to restore if wouldn’t bother future tenants • E.g., wider doorways, reinforced walls

  21. Reasonable Modifications:Restoration of Premises: §100.203(a) DQ110: Must ramp installed on exterior of multi-unit building be removed? 203(a): In the case of a rental, the landlord may, where it is reasonable to do so, condition permission for a modification on the renter agreeing to restore the interior of the premises to the condition that existed before the modification, reasonable wear and tear excepted. Reasonable to do so here?

  22. Reasonable Modifications:Restoration of Premises: §100.203(a) DQ110: Must ramp installed on exterior of multi-unit building be removed? 203(a): In the case of a rental, the landlord may, where it is reasonable to do so, condition permission for a modification on the renter agreeing to restore the interior of the premises to the condition that existed before the modification, reasonable wear and tear excepted. Other Arguments?

  23. CHAPTER 7:The Shadow of the Past

  24. LEARN THEIR NAMES SPOT BUTCH

  25. Laypeople Don’t Know Categories Leads to Tension Between: • Channeling Function (Telling State What to Do w Property Conveyed) & • Grantor’s Intent See White v. Brown

  26. RECURRING ISSUES • Grantor’s Intent v. Dead Hand Control

  27. RECURRING ISSUES • Grantor’s Intent v. Dead Hand Control • Grantor’s Intent v. Alienability

  28. PRESENT POSSESSORY ESTATES

  29. PRESENT POSSESSORY ESTATES • Present v. Future (Tenant v. Landlord)

  30. PRESENT POSSESSORY ESTATES • Present v. Future • Possessory v. Non-Possessory: (Tenant v. Trust Beneficiary)

  31. FEE SIMPLE ABSOLUTE

  32. FEE SIMPLE ABSOLUTE • “Simple”= can go on forever (to distinguish from “Fee Tail”)

  33. FEE SIMPLE ABSOLUTE • “Simple” = can go on forever (to distinguish from “Fee Tail”) • “Absolute” = no conditions (to distinguish from conditional or “defeasible” fees, which we’ll introduce next week.)

  34. FEE SIMPLE ABSOLUTE • Right to possess and use forever • Right to transfer all present and future rights (inheritable/devisable) • Right to liquidate assets • Default estate today

  35. FEE SIMPLE ABSOLUTE Lloyd grants Redacre “to Mimi and her heirs.”

  36. FEE SIMPLE ABSOLUTE Lloyd grants Redacre “to Mimi and her heirs.” WORDS OF PURCHASE: WHO GETS THE ESTATE?

  37. FEE SIMPLE ABSOLUTE Lloyd grants Redacre “to Mimiand her heirs.” WORDS OF PURCHASE: WHO GETS THE ESTATE? WORDS OF LIMITATION: WHAT ESTATE DO THEY GET?

  38. RELEVANT TIME FRAMES • “At Common Law”: Dates prior to modern streamlining of the rules. (e.g., 1600-1800)

  39. RELEVANT TIME FRAMES • “At Common Law”: Dates prior to modern streamlining of the rules. (e.g., 1600-1800) • “Today”: Dates after modern stream-lining of the rules. (e.g., 1950-present)

  40. RELEVANT TIME FRAMES • “At Common Law”: Dates prior to modern streamlining of the rules. (e.g., 1600-1800) • “Today”: Dates after modern streamlining of the rules. (e.g., 1950-present) • Precise line between them varies from state to state and from issue to issue,so you don’t need to know where it is.

  41. FINITE ESTATES TERM OF YEARS FEE TAIL LIFE ESTATE

  42. FINITE ESTATES TERM OF YEARS: TO ANN FOR 10 YEARS FEE TAIL LIFE ESTATE

  43. TERM OF YEARS • Finite period specified • Can alienate, devise, inherit (until term ends) • Need explicit time language to create: (“for 99 years”)

  44. FINITE ESTATES TERM OF YEARS: TO ANN FOR 10 YEARS FEE TAIL: TO CAL & THE HEIRS OF HIS BODY LIFE ESTATE:

  45. ISSUE v. HEIRS • Issue = Direct (= “Lineal”) Descendants (Children, Grandchildren, etc.)

  46. ISSUE v. HEIRS • Issue = Direct Descendants • Heirs = People who inherit your property at the time ofyour death under the relevant Intestacy Statute

  47. ISSUE v. HEIRS • Issue = Direct Descendants • Heirs = People who inherit your property at the time of your death under the relevant Intestacy Statute • You cannot have heirs until the moment of death

  48. FINITE ESTATES TERM OF YEARS: TO ANN FOR 10 YEARS FEE TAIL: TO CAL & THE HEIRS OF HIS BODY LIFE ESTATE:

More Related