FINAL EXAM QS: CHOOSE 3 of 4 Q1: LAWYERING (What Legal & Factual Research….?) Q2: SHORT PROBLEMS (Choose 3 of 4) Q3: OPINION/DISSENT Q4: TRADITIONAL ISSUE-SPOTTER.

FINAL EXAM QS: CHOOSE 3 of 4

• Q1: LAWYERING (What Legal & Factual Research….?)

• Q2: SHORT PROBLEMS (Choose 3 of 4)

• Q3: OPINION/DISSENT

• Q4: TRADITIONAL ISSUE-SPOTTER

ASSIGNMENT IV

• Designed as Practice for Exam Q1

• Todo List, Not Solution

• Not Whole Problem; Stick to Issues Given

• QS?

SCOPE OF EASEMENT PROBLEMS• Review Problem A (Santa & Elves)

– Live Oak Arguments/Tuesday– Focus on 3 Blackletter Tests

• Review Problem B (Satellite Dish)– Mango Arguments/Wednesday– Focus on Chevy Chase, Marcus Cable & Note

Cases as Persuasive Authority

WED: RECORDING ACTS

with special guest appearances by

Elizabeth Taylor & Melissa Ortiz

DQ119 (ALL): S125 should be S150

Section F Barbecue

• Noon-7:00 pm Sunday

• Key Info on Course Page

• Check w Micki & Sasha for What to Bring

• Limits on Space & Parking

SECTION F SPRING COURSES• CONTRACTS (WIDEN) WF 8:00-10:00am• CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (JONES) TR 11:00am-

12:20pm• US CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I (IGLESIAS)

M2:00-3:20pm & TR3:30-4:50pm• ELECTIVE WF 11:00-12:20pm

1L SPRING ELECTIVES

• Administrative Law• Analysis of Evidence• Environmental Law• Family Law

• Housing Discrimination

• Labor & Employment• Social Justice

ELECTIVES: 1L Only v. Mixed

1L Only• Administrative Law• Analysis of Evidence• Family Law• Social Justice

MIXED• Environmental Law • Housing

Discrimination• Labor & Employment

ELECTIVES: Method of Evaluation

Final Exam Only• Administrative Law• Environmental Law

(Probably) • Labor & Employment

MIXED• Analysis of Ev. (Projects)• Family Law (Quizzes)• Housing Disc. (Assnmts)• Social Justice

(Projects/Short Papers)

ELECTIVES: Later Availability

CERTAIN• Administrative Law• Environmental Law• Family Law

NOT CERTAIN• Analysis of Ev. (Rare)• Housing Disc. (Maybe)• Labor & Empl. (Probable)• Social Justice (Rare)

1L SPRING ELECTIVES




ELECTIVES: Career Focus

Criminal• Administrative Law• Analysis of Evidence• Social Justice

Business/Corporate• Administrative Law• Environmental Law• Labor & Employment

1L SPRING ELECTIVES




IMPLIED EASEMENTS

• Easement by Estoppel

• Easement by Implication

• Easement by Necessity

• Easement by Prescription

Easements by Estoppel

featuring

POINCIANAS


An owner may be estopped from barring a 2d party access to the owner’s property where

1. The owner apparently allows 2d party to use the property

2. 2d party reasonably and detrimentally relies on this acquiescence


An owner may be estopped from barring a 2d party access to

the owner’s property where 1. The owner apparently allows 2d party to use the property

2. 2d party reasonably and detrimentally relies on this acquiescence

DQ113: Was the D’s reliance on the oral promise in Stoner reasonable? Was it detrimental?

DQ114: Policy Arguments re Easements by Estoppel: Common Concerns include

• Doctrine undermines Statute of Frauds • Claimants should make sure of legal rights

before relying on mere license. • Neighbors don’t typically commit all

arrangements to signed writings.

DQ114 & Note 2: Should states allowEasements by Estoppel …?

• Whenever there’s reasonable and detrimental reliance;

• Only after compensation paid; –OR–

• Never

Policy Arguments re Easements by Estoppel

Note 3: Nelson v. AT&T: Stronger or weaker case than Stoner for granting Easement by Estoppel?

Note 4: How Long Does an Easement by Estoppel Last?

Stoner: “For so long a time as the nature of it calls for.” What does this mean …

For an irrigation ditch?

N.4: How Long Does E by Estoppel Last?

Stoner: “For so long a time as the nature of it calls for.” What does this mean …

In the hypo in Note 4: House built in reliance on use of right of way, which created EbyE. House burns down. Can it be rebuilt using that right of way?

EASEMENTS BY IMPLICATION& NECESSITY

featuring

ROYAL PALM

Emts by Implication & Necessity

• Both Arise from Split of Larger Parcel– E-by-I: Parties Intend that Prior Existing Use

Should Continue– E-by-N: Split Creates Landlocked Parcel Needing

Access

• Same Facts Can Give Rise to Both

EASEMENTS BY NECESSITY:

1. One parcel is split in two2. Landlock: One resulting parcel is cut off

from key access (e.g. to roads) by other parcel (alone or in combination with parcels owned by 3d parties).

3. At time parcels split, access necessary to enjoyment of landlocked parcel

EASEMENTS BY IMPLICATION:

1. One parcel is split in two2. Prior Use of one part of parcel to benefit

another part (“Quasi-Easement”)3. Circumstances suggest parties intended

to continue prior use after split NOTE: STATES VARY ON PRECISE

FORMULATION

EASEMENTS BY IMPLICATION:

1. One parcel is split in two. At severance:

2. Prior use (Quasi-Easement)

3. Intent to continue prior use

4. *Apparent, visible or reasonably discoverable

5. *Some degree of necessity

* Some jurisdictions treat 4 & 5 as separate elements; some treat as evidence of intent

NOTICE: E-MTS BY IMPLICATION:

Need notice to bind subsequent purchasers• Actual Notice (Fact Q): Did buyer know about

easement?• Inquiry Notice (Legal Q): Sufficient info to

create duty in reasonable buyer to ask?• Usually can’t be notice from records b/c

implied.

NOTICE: E-MTS BY NECESSITY:

• In theory, also need notice to bind

• Court finding the easement necessary unlikely to find lack of notice.

Williams Island & Elements

• One parcel is split/ Prior use (Undisputed)• Intent to continue prior use: Evidence?


• One parcel is split/ Prior use (Undisputed)• Intent to continue prior use: Evidence?

– Testimony– References to “Easements” in Deed – Overall Circumstances

• Apparent, visible or reasonably discoverable?


• One parcel is split/ Prior use (Undisputed)• Intent to continue prior use• Apparent, visible or reasonably discoverable• Necessity: Court says yes; we’ll do later• Notice to Subsequent Purchasers?


• Notice to Subsequent Purchasers?– Court says both Actual & Inquiry

• Unusually good evidence of both intent & notice

Necessity Requirement

EASEMENTS BY IMPLICATION: • Usually reasonable necessity• Some states: strict necessity if implied by

reservation (Florida not)

EASEMENTS BY NECESSITY: • Most states: strict necessity

Implied by grant v. Implied by reservation

Parcel split into Eastacre and Westacre: Prior Use = Driveway from House on Eastacre across Westacre to main road.

• Original owner sells East, retains West = Grant• Original owner sells West, retains East = Reservation• Original Owner Simultaneously Sells Both to Different

People = Grant

FINAL EXAM QS: CHOOSE 3 of 4 Q1: LAWYERING (What Legal & Factual Research….?) Q2: SHORT PROBLEMS (Choose 3 of 4) Q3: OPINION/DISSENT Q4: TRADITIONAL ISSUE-SPOTTER.

Documents