Law Outline 1

8/12/2019 Law Outline 1

1/22

Property OutlineMonday, November 24, 200811:41 PM

Johnston v. M'Intosh

Facts:Jonston claimed valid title to land !ranted to im by certain cie"s o" certain #ndian tribes#ssue:May te court o" te $% reco!ni&e a title to real property obtained by a !rant made by a #ndian 'ribe()ule:Only te $*%* +overnment can etin!uis title to #ndians ri!ts to property by capture or by -ar)ationale:#ndian inabitants are incapable o" trans"errin! absolute title to oters

.ertainty )educe liti!ation

#" Marsall allo-ed Plainti"" to !et land bac/, it -ould open doors to allo- oters to do

te sameProtect Property )i!ts

Protected #ndian ri!ts by preventin! individuals to try and conuer tem, as only te

$% +ov* ad tat po-er.ertainty simpli"ies enables transaction

.apture First intime epediency

$*%* +ov3t captured te land "rom te #ndians and industriali&ed it,.reatin! 5ctual Pysical Possession'e one -o !ets tere "irst !ets te tin!

6abor 'eoryproductive use o"land

Jon 6oc/e

7very man as property in is o-n person

en you add your labor to sometin! you mi in your o-nersip

7pectations %ettlin! epectations to title, people can plan around teir property

.ertainty vs*Fairness

Fairness

9i! 5dministrative .osts

y allo-in! te P to !et te land bac/ it opens te "lood!ates to allo- oters to do

te sameo 'us, creatin! circumstances -ere title may be ta/en a-ay "rom -ite

lando-ners and !iven bac/ to #ndians

First in 'ime #ndians -ere on te land "irst o-ever tey did not utili&e te land or

industriali&e it

6abor 'eory 6abor 'eory is an uncertain rule

en you invo/e te labor teory it is i! administrative costs because te court no-

as to decide o- muc labor is enou!


2/22

Pierson v. Post

Ne- ;or/, Pa!e 1o property ri!ts in ne-s eist a"ter publication()ule:

'e deliberate ta/in! o" material tat as been acuired by anoter, trou! teir ependiture o" laborE s/illand money, and misappropriatin! te material as its o-n in order to reap bene"it, amounts to an unautori&edinter"erence -it te normal operation o" le!itimate business practice, but not as property in"rin!ement)ationale:;ou sall not reap -at you ave not so-n>issent:'e public as an interest in /noc/ o""3s* randeis3 says tat -e sould de"er to .on!ress since tis relates to abusiness o" incentivi&in!*>icta:Ne-s loses te ri!t to eclude -en it is publised* 'at is -at ma/es it uasi=property

#ncentives to labor 5P is not !oin! to !o trou! all tis labor -en tey /no- tat #N% is !oin!

to come in and s-oop tem)eapin! te "ruits o" teir e""orts and ependiture

%ervin! te publicinterest

#n"ormation is "reely provided to te public

6abor 5P did all te -or/ but #N% !ot to reap all te bene"its

>isincentives to compete, to innovate, to beproductive

Cheney Bros. v. oris Silk Cor!.

%econd .ircuit, Pa!e DDFacts:.eney made sil/ "abric and >oris copied it#ssue:en tere is no -ay to !et a copyri!t can a court set up common la- copyri!t or patent "or reasons o"@ustice()ule:5bsent a patent or protection under statute, a company only as property interest in te products it creates*Oters may imitate at teir pleasure*)ationale:

Man3s property is limited to te tan!ible ob@ects tat embody is invention* 'ere is no remedy "or imitatedproducts, ecept trou! statute*

Protect .onsumers Provide te customer -it lo-er cost items /noc/=o""s

Promote .ompetition e -ant to prevent monopolies

#nnovation #mprovement on eistin! productsE repetition "osters improvement


6/22

Moore v. Regents o" #C$A

.ali"ornia, Pa!e GHFacts:)esearcers at $.65, unbe/no-nst to Moore, used specimens o" is tissue to produce a potentially lucrativecell line* 'ey told Moore e -as comin! in "or more testin!, but instead tey -ere ta/in! is cells and turnin!tem into a >N5 strand*#ssue:

>o -e ave property ri!ts in our or!ans, cells, tissues(>oes te use o" patient3s ecised cells -itout consent amount to conversion()ule:'e patient?s consent to treatment, to be e""ective, must be an in"ormed consent, 5N> in solicitin! tepatient?s consent, a pysician as a "iduciary duty to disclose all in"ormation material to te patient?s decision*'o establis conversion, plainti"" must establis an actual inter"erence -it is o-nersip or ri!t o"possession*

Notes:5nalo!y to %tatute 6a- o" 5ccession I te addition o" sometin! to personal property trou! te additiono" labor* #" a party ta/es te property o" anoter in !ood "ait, and improves it, courts are inclined to re-ard!ood beavior tat appens to be socially bene"icial* 'is -as NO' applied in MooreE rater labor teory -as

applied*

$ni"orm 5natomical +i"t 5ct $5+5 I uman or!ans and tissues must be disposed o" by internment orincineration in order to protect public ealt and uman sa"ety* 'e Moore court too/ tis statute out o" contetin order to prove teir point tat uman body parts are not considered property, but are more li/e abandonedproperty*

5noter option available: Moore can sue "or breac o" ri!t to in"ormed consent based on te "iduciaryrelationsip -it te doctor*

.ase .omparison:

#mplied arranty o" 9abitability9ilder5P: ri!t to possession

Mos/3s >issent:#neuality o" ar!ainin! Po-er: -e souldn3t deny a property ri!t to one, and !ive it to anoter "or te sa/e o"researc*)e@ects te oter option: Moore -ould ave ad to prove dama!es in order to recover "or breac o" "iduciaryduty, and e -ould not ave been able to*'o allo- a person to economically bene"it "rom te non=consensual use o" anoter3s tissue can be considered amodern version o" slavery and indentured servitude*

6abor en anoter party, trou! uniue labor, improves sometin!, -e -ant to promote tisbeavior*#nnovation: pro"itable researc and development are important "or te public and -e -ant tore-ard it*

%ocial +ood e souldn3t treaten people -o are en!a!in! in socially use"ul activities*

7conomic5r!ument

;ou sould be able to sell everytin! "or pro"it to better te economy* 'e "luctuation in temar/et -ill re!ulate te price o" or!ans* %upply and demand eual out accordin! to te mar/et*


7/22

Moral5r!ument

e don3t -ant to commodi"y te bodyE tere are certain tin!s -e don3t -ant to put a dollaramount on e* Marria!e and a minimum standard "or livin!, embodied in te implied -arrantyo" abitability

#ncentives e -ant to !ive incentives "or people to do researc*

>e"enses:

Posner C 6a- and7conomics

e -ant people to ne!otiate "reely in order to brin! up supply and /eep costs do-n "or te!eneral public

7ncoura!es adeavior

'e doctors are bene"ittin! "rom not as/in! Moore3s consentE compare -it intentionaltrespass in Jacue* e -ant ne!otiation and !ood "ait beavior*

Ar%ory v. el&%irie

7n!land, Pa!e HGFacts:

Bid "inds @e-el and too/ it to de"endant3s !oldsmit sop* >e"endant stole te stones and re"used to !ive tembac/*#ssue:at ri!ts does a "inder o" property ave()ule:5 "inder as superior title to all ecept "or te ri!t"ul o-ner*)ationale:

.ertainty Beeps do-n te costs o" liti!ation because te courts -ould ave to do researc to see -o o-nste propertye protect "inders in order to ave le!al certainty too* Oter-ise, courts -ould ave to determine

-o deserves te propertycattel more, and tat -ill be too epensive*

)e-ard9onesty

e -ant te tin! to !et bac/ to te o-ner, and -en -e re-ard onesty, tere is a better cancetat tis -ill appen*


8/22

H&nn&h v. Peel

7n!land, Pa!e HHFacts:9anna "ound a broac at Peel3s ome -ile on military assi!nment on te property* 9e !ave it to police andte police returned it to Peel* Peel ad never been on te property and 9anna -as not trespassin!*#ssue:o as superior title to te broac, te o-ner or te "inder(

)ule:'e "inder o" a lost article is entitled to it a!ainst all persons ecept te real o-ner* en te cattel is "oundon a /no-n person3s property, te lando-ner must be in actual control to assert constructive possession*)ationale:9anna -as not trespassin!E e -as on military duty and allo-ed to be in te ouse*9anna -as meritoriousE e turned over te broac to te police instead o" ta/in! it "or imsel"*Peel ad never been in actual possession o" te ouse*

.ase 6a- 5utority

rid!es v*9a-/es-ort

Possession -as !iven to te "inder, rater tan te o-ner because te cattel ad been lostrater tan stolen* #t -as not le"t some-ere intentionally*

.armin Possession -as !iven to te property o-ner because te cattel -as imbedded in te mud,and tere"ore it -as a part o" te land* 'e "inder ad been an employee -en e "ound it*

Policy 5utority

%anctity o" te9ome

Peel cannot ar!ue tat 9anna violated te sanctity o" is ome because 9anna -as NO' atrespasser, and Peel -as not in actual possession and te property -as not is ome*

)e-ard +oodeavior

9anna turned te broac over to te policeE -e -ant to re-ard people3s onesty

.onstructivePossession

+enerally, a lando-ner o-ns all tin!s "ound on is property as -ell as te land* 9o-ever, tepolicies beind constructive possession, suc as prevention o" trespassin! and promotin!

plannin!conservation, are not relevant ere* en te policy beind a le!al "iction suc asconstructive possession are absent, e cannot assert te claim*

>e"enses:

%ocietalene"it

5 lando-ner -ill ave to cate!ori&e everytin! in is ome, and be reluctant to open is ome"or !uests or social bene"it* e -ant people to open teir property to oters*


9/22

McAvoy v. Mein&

Massacusetts, Pa!e 10DFacts:5 -allet -as inadvertently le"t in a barbersop* 5 customer "ound it, and so-ed it to te barber* 'e barberasserted o-nersip and -ouldn3t !ive it bac/ to te "inder*#ssue:>oes te "inder o" misplaced !oods on anoter3s property obtain title to te !oods(

)ule:#" property is voluntarily placed in a sop, te sop=o-ner as a duty to !uard property until te o-ner returnsto retrieve it*)ationale:Mislaid I te o-ner le"t sometin! lyin! around, but "or!ot6ost I unintentionally dispossessedNo "inders privile!e ere because te o-ner intentionally put it tere, intendin! to pic/ it up later* For purposeso" la- -e assume te o-ner intends to be in possession o" is tin!, tere"ore -e must assume e intentionallyle"t it at te barbersop*

.ompare it: rid!es v* 9a-/es-ort

M&nnillo v. Gorski (Averse Possession)

Ne- Jersey, Pa!e 1A0 .ontrollin! 6a-Facts:Nei!bor accidentally encroaced 1D inces onto te oter nei!bor3s property, unbe/no-nst to oternei!bor*#ssue:'o claim adverse possession, must te possessor ave been a-are tat te land in uestion -as, in "act, o-nedby anoter()ule:'o adversely possess a property, you must ave: entry and eclusive possession, open and notorious, ostileand under claim o" ri!t and continuous possession*

Notes:#ntentional vs* +ood Fait 'respasser

'e la- still punises an intentional trespasser, Mannilo -ould ave to tear do-n te ouse

ecause it -as a minor encroacment and done in !ood "ait, te court allo-ed tem to pay "air mar/et

value "or te encroacment eminent domain7lements o" 5dverse Possession1 7ntry and 7clusive Possession

'e adverse possessor must pysically use te land as property o-ner -ould in accordance -it te

type o" property, location, and usa!e2 Open and Notorious

$se o" te property is so visible and apparent tat it !ives notice to te le!al o-ner tat someone may

assert claimA 9ostile and $nder .laim o" )i!t

5n adverse possessor must occupy te land -itout te consent o" te o-ner and -it an intention to

remain* 'is element is o"ten called ostility but does not mean ill -ill or malice* #t simply means tatte adverse possessor as no permission to be tere and also claims te ri!t to stay tere* .onsent orpermission means tat te possessor as occupied in some capacity subordinate to te o-ner3s title*

o >ependin! on @urisdiction, courts loo/ at di""erent metods to determine ostility 'ree states

o" mind

Ob@ective: %tate o" mind is irrelevantE acts are -at establis epectations and put te


10/22

o-ner on notice %tal3s pre"erence

ad Fait or #ntentional 'respass: %tate o" mind is !uilty, /no-in! -ron!doer, #

tou!t # didn3t o-n it but # intended to ma/e it mine* 'is encoura!es bad beavior,-ere te -ron!doer /no-s -at e as to do to ma/e te property is #n .5 youave to ave been payin! taes on te land to assert adverse possession

+ood Fait: %tate o" mind is innocent, # tou!t # o-ned it, 7ncoura!es !ood

beavior and discoura!es bad beavior

4 .ontinuous Possession 5n adverse possessor must occupy continuously -itout interruption durin! te limitations period*

;ou cannot tac/ on time bet-een multiple people unless relatedsame use o" te land*Positives:

Protectin!7pectations

uote: Oliver endell 9olmes: 'e possessor as come to epect continued access to teproperty and te true o-ner as "ed tose epectations by er actions or "ailure to act*;ou cannot cut o"" someone3s epectations once tey ave depended on tem to teirdetriment*

First Possession .ompare -it Jonston v* M3#ntos -ere te "irst possessor -as te people -o "irst usedand improved upon te land improved in te industrial sense

6abor Protects te person -o labors productive use o" te land and punises te person -o asnot used te property productively

uiets 'itle %ettles property ri!ts

Fairness y allo-in! te adverse possessor to claim title -o as been usin! it

Prevents sleepin!on ri!ts

O-ners -o i!nore people usin! teir land in bra&en violation o" le!al ri!t deserve to bepenali&edy "ailin! to brin! a timely action to recover possession tey create a problem$se it or lose it: -e -ant property to trans"er, to be used

Ne!atives:

>i""icult to plan "or te"uture

Ma/es it di""icult "or bot parties to be certain about teir ri!ts to te property

>iscoura!es conservation 7ncoura!es eploitation o" te property, encoura!es people to build so as toma/e productive use o" te land

7ncoura!es badbeavior bad man

7ncoura!es people to attempt to ta/e oter people?s property

7ncoura!es disputes o o-ns it( ot parties ave a ri!t to te land9i! administrative costs


11/22

*'Kee"e v. Snyer

Ne- Jersey, Pa!e 144Facts:%nyder un/no-in!ly !ets tree paintin!s "rom a tie"* O3Bee"e -ants tem bac/* %nyder claims 5P*#ssue:>oes te discovery rule apply to stolen art-or/s to toll te statute o" limitations()ule:

#n an appropriate case, a cause o" action -ill not accrue until te in@ured party discovers, or by eercise o"reasonable dili!ence and intelli!ence sould ave discovered, "acts -ic "orm te basis o" a cause o" action*'o establis adverse possession to cattels, te rule o" la- as been tat te possession must be ostile, actual,visible, eclusive, and continuous* Open and visible in tis contet -ill no- be upon te discovery o" temissin! cattel:

1 >id te o-ner use due dili!ence to recover te cattel at te time o" te alle!ed dispossessionte"t(2 eter at te time o" te alle!ed dispossessionte"t tere -as an e""ective metod to put oters onnotice(A eter re!isterin! te cattel or reportin! te cattel -it an autoritative institution -ould putprospective buyers on notice o" te possibility tat tey could be purcasin! in stolen !oods(

)ationale:'e problem in tis case is te open and notorious element o" 5P since it is very ard "or someone to

notoriously claim a cattel tat tey -ant to en@oy in te privacy o" teir o-n ome*'e true o-ner does not /no- te location o" er cattel

Fairness >iscovery rule is a muc "airer -ay o" andlin! te problem o" stolen art-or/s tan is tedoctrine o" 5P'e due dili!ence reuired under te discovery rule -ill vary -it te nature, value and useo" te cattel involved

7ncoura!es duedili!ence

O-ner: o-ners -ill eercise due dili!ence in loo/in! "or it, tey -ill re!ister te paintin!s,insure temona Fide Purcaser: cautious about -o e purcases tin!s "rom

o bears te ris/(+uido 5r!ument 'e FP transacted -it te tie" and tus is in a better position to @ud!e te caracter o"te tie" FP is in better position to bear te ris/

Problems:

>iminises use o"te cattel

5bility to use te tin! is diminised'e o-ner cannot use it'e FP cannot use it because it is not even isK

$nsettledepectations

'e FP may ave ad te paintin!s "or a lon! time but -ill still not be able to developepectations since te o-ner could come and ta/e bac/ te cattel at any time

$ncertainty 'e "air rule is usually te more uncertain rule


12/22

Gr+en v. Gr+enNe- ;or/, Pa!e 1GGFacts: Micael +ruen as a vested remainder -it a li"e estate reserved in te !rantor Lictor +ruen*#ssue: >id te person ma/e a valid !i"t()ule: 'o be valid, an inter vivos !i"t must ave tree elements: i an intent by te donor to ma/e anirrevocable present trans"erE ii actual or constructive delivery o" te !i"t to te donee in tis case pysicaldelivery -ould be pointless and ine""ective proo"E and iii acceptance by te donee*

)easonin!: 'us, an inter vivos !i"t di""ers "rom a testamentary disposition, -ic is intent to ma/e a trans"eronly upon te donor3s deat* 5cceptance is evidenced by value o" te !i"t to te donee*

%ettlin! 7pectations

undle o" %tic/s #" te ri!t to use is diminised, is tere still possession o" a cattel'e ri!t to use is di""icult to determine in re!ards to cattels, especially a paintin!

6e!al Fictions 'e #)% cuts trou! le!al "ictions

5lienability One o" te stic/s is te ri!t to sell!ive a-ay propertyE e""ect te -ill o" te !rantor-enever possible

5voidin! 'aesProbate

'is case isn?t about probate, and +ruen tried to avoid payin! taes* ut tat -on3tappen

7nablin! 'ransactions 'rans"er o" property to oters

Rile v. H&r%on

.ali"ornia, Pa!e 280Facts: 9usband and -i"e ad @oint tenancy* e"ore se died, se terminated is ri!t o" survivorsip byseverin! te @oint tenancy*#ssue: .an a person unilaterally sever a @oint tenancy()ule: 5 universal ri!t o" eac @oint tenant is te po-er to e""ect a severance and destroy te ri!t o"

survivorsip by conveyance o" teir interest stra-* #n .5, stra- is no lon!er necessary* ;ou must !iveconstructive notice by "ilin! or recordin! your severance o" te @oint tenancy*)easonin!: .ourt -anted to preserve te ri!t o" alienability, even in a @oint tenancy, by abandonin! traditionalrestrictions*

5r!ument by 5N56O+;, notautority similar to Mooreand Pierson

'e court analo!i&ed te situation to te livery o" seisin ceremony,-ic is out o" date no-* 'e la- sould portray te modern realitieso" te @oint tenancy

9olmes #t is revoltin! i" te !rounds "or -ic a rule -as laid do-n ave lon!since vanised, and te rule simply persists "rom blind imitation o" tepast*


13/22

el"ino v. ,e&lencis

Ne- ;or/, Pa!e 2H2Facts: Property -as eld as a tenancy in common* >el"inos o-ned more o" te land and -anted Lealencis o""so tey could sell teir portion to a developer* 'ey -anted partition by sale, se -anted partition in /ind* %e-as in actual possession o" er portion, -ile tey -eren3t really around*#ssue: at are considerations -en determinin! -eter to allo- partition by sale or partition in /ind()ule: Partition sales sould only be !ranted -en te party see/in! te sale can prove: 1 partition in /ind is

impractical or ineuitable or 2 interests o" te o-ners -ould be better promoted by partition by sale, as te"orced sale o" a party3s interest sould be avoided*

Modern courts pre"er partition by sale, altou! in /ind seems more "air

5nalysis: Partition in /ind -as more lo!ical because tere -as a limited number o" competin! interests and terelative ease o" division made it practical*

5dverse Possession >e"endant -as in actual possession o" land, open and notorious, "or acontinuous period o" time

6abor Lealencis started and ran er business "or years on tat land C te one -olabors sould bene"it

7pectations %e built er business, and epected tat se -ould be able to /eep runnin!it

Fairness 'e >el"inos didn?t ave anytin! invested in te property

Protect 6iveliood vs* Pure7conomic +ain

'e >el"inos -anted to sell te land as an investment opportunity, -ereMrs* Lealencis -anted to continue er liveliood*

%anctity o" te ome %e built er ome tereE -e -ant to protect people?s omes

Ne!atives:

#n"rin!es upon ri!ts toalienability 'e >el"inos o-ned te land tooE tey sould be able to alienate it -enevertey -ant*

>is"avors .onservation #" you "avor laboruse, you dis"avor conservation o" resources

7pectations


14/22

S&-&o v. no

9a-aii, Pa!e A1AFacts: 5"ter a car accident, 7ndo and is -i"e ad conveyed teir tenancy by te entirety to teir son, ten teaccident victim sued im*#ssue: .an one spouse3s creditor ave access to a property eld in tenancy by te entirety()ule: 'enancy by te entirety property may not be reaced by separate creditors o" eiter spouse*5nalysis: ecause o" te nature o" a tenancy by te entirety, one cannot alienate to a creditor*

Married omen?s Property 5cts euali&ed men and -omen, meanin! tat neiter can alienate teir propertybecause it -ould be un"air to te oter person*

Protect %anctity o" te 9ome 5 spouse souldn?t be le"t to be co=tenants -it te !overnment* 'e omesould be protected "rom creditors ban/ruptcy you can /eep your ome*

7ncoura!e Family %olidarity at about te creditor( No, "amily out-ei!s creditors C even 'O)'creditors

Ne!ative: 5ssumption o" )is/ 'e -i"e is innocent ell, so are te %a-adas* o is better to assume teris/ o" a usband not avin! car insurance( 'e -i"e( Or innocentpedestrians -o ad no idea tey !ot it by someone -itout insurance(

>issent: $nder Married omen3s Property 5ct tere is euality bet-een te spouses* .itedKing v. GreenNJ: #" te -i"e ta/es eual ri!ts -it te usband in te estate, se must ta/e eual disabilities* 'e MP5means tat O'9 spouses can alienate no-*

#S v. Cr&"t: 'e #)% can attac any property -it a lien, re!ardless o" -eter it is a tenancy by te entiretyand -eter only one spouse as de"aulted* 'is is anoter eample o" o- te #)% can cut trou! le!al"ictions -enever it -ants to*

%calia dissents in tis case: it is a "act o" li"e tat most spouses -itout assets are -ives* 'is !reatlyin@ures a -i"estay at ome mom -o loses er ome to te #)%*


15/22

In re M&rri&ge o" Gr&h&%

.olorado, Pa!e A22Facts: %e supported ubby trou! scool, e !ets a masters and -ants out* %e claims se olds an interestin is de!ree and its earnin! potential*#ssue: .an a de!ree be marital property sub@ect to division upon divorce()ule: 5 de!ree cannot be marital property sub@ect to division upon divorce*5nalysis: 5 de!ree as no caracteristics o" property: #t cannot be split, sold, -illed, ecan!e or sared*

>issent: 'is -as essentially a capital investment* 'e most valuable asset obtained durin! te marria!e -aste usband3s earnin! capacity* #n oter contets, restitution is te proper remedy, tere"ore, it sould beapplicable no-*

Maoney v* Maoney NJ: 5 pro"essional de!ree cannot be married property because it demeans te concepto" marria!e* )emedy: )eimbursement 5limony*

O3rien v* O3rien N;: Marria!e can be considered an investment in uman capital or a commodity*5nalo!i&es marria!e to real estate* #nduces eac party to contribute -itout "ear o" loss o" investment*

.O and NJ )ule

%anctity o" te Marria!e

)ule o" 6ove, romantic vie- o" marria!e -ere bot parties don?t need a

prenup, and don?t loo/ at teir marria!e as a commodity because tat -ouldbe unromantic*

Reality: Promotes selfishinterests

Spouses fear that his or her interests are not protected, and will becautious before caring for the other without self interest. Onlyreliance/loss of wage damages

NY Rulearriage is an in!estment

'is actually promotes te rule o" love better, because people -on3t be-orried about teir spouse ta/in! all te -ealt* )estitutionepectationdama!es

G&rner v. Gerrish

Ne- ;or/, Pa!e AGDFacts: 5 dispute arose as to -eter +erris3s tenancy -as terminable at te -ill o" te lessor*#ssue: #s tis a tenancy at -ill or a determinable li"e tenancy()ule: 'e lease !rants personal ri!t to +erris to terminate at a date o" is coice, -ic is a li"e tenancy*5nalysis: $nder common la-, tis -ould ave been a tenancy at -ill, but modern contract la- says -e ave todo -at parties intended*

Beepin! 6a- .urrent and Modern Movin! a-ay "rom strict la-s o" leaseold to contract la-, similarto )iddle v* 9armon

Property is "ontracts 'e nature o" property transactions are contractual, e""ect te -illo" te parties -enever possible*

Posner6a- and 7conomics: .reate incentives "or people to contract and compete, and discoura!e monopolies*#" te tenants don?t li/e te terms, tey can -al/ a-ay* ut poor people can?t ta/e a -al/* %ould tere beminimum standard livin! reuirements( 6andlords are repeat players, tey /no- o- to -or/ te system*


16/22

F95 )ules: 'e F95 is an eception and limitation on te ri!t to eclude*

$nla-"ul >iscrimination1 Fair 9ousin! 5ct: limits ri!ts o" rentin! to -omever you -ant because tere is a social interest in

land* No one as absolute po-er over one?s land, estate, marria!e, or!ans, etc* 'ere is a social interestpresent*

2 .ivil )i!ts 5cts: tis only covers disposition o" property, race and intentional racial discrimination*

.on!ress is -orried about -idespread se!re!ation, not mom pop establisments*

H&nn&n v. +sch

Lir!inia, Pa!e A84Facts: 6andlord rents to tenant* 'enant !oes to is place, previous tenant still tere* o as to /ic/ im out(#ssue: o as te implied duty to deliver pysical possession to te tenant -en te lease be!ins()ule: 5 landlord as te duty to place a tenant in le!al possession o" te rental propertyE i" a previous tenantstill occupies te rental until, te tenant3s only recourse is a!ainst te previous tenant*5nalysis: 'e landlord sould not be liable "or te -ron!s o" anoter party* 'e ar!ument is made tat tere asnever been a case -ere one party is liable "or te "ault o" anoter* 'is case is a product o" its time, -en

@ud!es ated respondeat superior* 'e court conveniently i!nored tat concept to @usti"y tis rulin!* .ourts usedto "avor bi! corporationsmyopic*

Fairness %ouldn3t put burden on landlord -en e -as not at "ault* 6andlord !ave te tenant a le!al ri!tto possession= !ave im te ri!t to eclude*

Protect 7pectations 'enant epected to move into is property

5ssumption o" )is/+uido

)ater tan loo/in! at "ault, loo/ at -o is in a better position to assume te ris/ and-at are te reasonable epectations o" te parties are* 6andlords are repeat players,can lobby "or -at tey -ant

.oase 'eorem #n a vacuum, it doesn?t matter -at te de"ault rule is, or -o it "avors* 5s lon! as itis a certain rule, te parties -ill be able to bar!ain around it o-ever tey -ant* 'is-or/s only as lon! as you can adere to Posner, but -at i" te tenant can?t -al/a-ay(

Fairness 6andlord -as in a better position to assume ris/s, not "air to put burden on 'enant


17/22

Ken&ll v. rnest Pest&n& Inc.

.ali"ornia, Pa!e AHDFacts: Pestana arbitrarily -iteld permission "rom Bendall, its tenant, to an assi!nment*#ssue: .an a commercial lessor -itold consent to an assi!nment by te lessee unreasonably or arbitrarily()ule: ere a lease provides "or assi!nment only -it te prior consent o" te lessor, consent can only be-iteld i" te lessor as a commercially reasonable ob@ection to te assi!nment*Factors to consider under +ood Fait and .ommercial )easonableness

Financial responsibility o" te proposed assi!nee%uitably o" te use "or te particular property6e!ality o" te proposed useNeed "or alteration o" te premisesNature o" te occupancy i*e* o""ice, "actory, clinic, etc*

)ationale:

)i!t to Free 5lienability ecause property is scarce, -e ave policies a!ainst restraint on alienation*

.alabresi .ommercial lessorslessees are in better positions to ne!otiate, unli/e in residentialleases -ic are relatively one=sided

Promote +ood Fait andFair >ealin!

%ettle 7pectations #" te clause ad said, unreasonably ob@ect to a sublessor, ten te tenant -ouldnot ave "ormed te obvious epectation tat te landlord -ould not -itoldconsent -itout !ood reason*

Productivity

6e!al .ertainty

Ne!atives:

#neuality o" ar!ainin!Po-er %lavin v* )ent .ontrol oard

#n 1H8H, .5 codi"ied te oldin! in Bendall -it te decision in Cohen v. Ratinoff: .OMM7).#56 landlordcannot reasonably deny consent* 'is -as retroactive, meanin! te @ud!e made te la-yer understand tetrend in commercial leasin! la-, rater tan @ust te rule* 'e .oen decision put attorneys on notice tat tela- -as !oin! to can!e*


18/22

Reste v. Coo!er

Ne- Jersey, Pa!e 422Facts: 6ady rented commercial space - a constant lea/* 6ive=in careta/er "ied on re!ular basis* en e died,landlord "ailed to "i te lea/ and se ta/es o""* 6andlord sues to recover lost rent*#ssue: .an a tenant claim constructive eviction -en te landlord causes a substantial inter"erence -it teen@oyment and use o" te leased premise()ule: en a landlord causes a substantial inter"erence -it te en@oyment and use o" te leased premises, te

tenant may claim constructive eviction*)ationale: 'e covenant o" uiet en@oyment is epress or implied* 'e remedy to te breac o" uiet en@oymentis constructive eviction* 5 tenant3s ri!t to claim constructive eviction is lost i" e doesn3t vacate te premises-itin a reasonable time*

'e .ovenant o" uiet 7n@oyment I landlord must /eep tis by assurin! tat a tenant -on3t be disturbed byoters claimin! title, and tat te property is in a situation unsuitable "or use*'e )emedy o" .onstructive 7viction: #" a landlord breaces te covenant o" uiet en@oyment, te tenant as teri!t to treat tat as an eviction and cease payin! rent*

'ere are incentives not to constructively evict

5voidance o" .osts Placin! burden on te party -o is better able to bear te ris/

7pectations 6andlord: epects to !et paid rent'enant: epects to use te property, epects property to be liveable* 'epremises must be suitable "or te property?s use*

5nalo!i&e to 9annan v*>usc

.ourt movin! to-ard te contractual teory o" leaseolds* ut 9annan-as a product o" its time, and didn?t consider te "acts tat bot parties-ere innocent and tat te tenant epects to actually possess land*

)emedy at.ommon 6a-

5t common la-, a tenant -ould ave to stay at te premises and continue payin! rent, tenire a la-yer to brin! suit "or dama!es a!ainst te landlord


19/22

Hiler v. St. Peter

Lermont, Pa!e 4A1Facts: 9ilder leased residential property -it serious de"iciencies "rom %t* Peter*#ssue: en a landlord breaces te implied -arranty o" abitability, does te tenant ave to abandon tepremises to obtain reimbursement o" te rent paid()ule: #n te rental o" any residential d-ellin! unit an implied -arranty eists in te lease, -eter oral or-ritten, tat te landlord -ill deliver over and maintain, trou!out te period o" te tenancy, premises tat are

sa"e, clean, and "it "or uman abitation*Only applies in residential cases)emedy: .onstructive eviction -ould be inadeuate because se as no-ere to !o* 9ere, se can stay5N> not pay rent* 6andlord -ill sue, and tenant -ill invo/e te -arranty* 'is is ris/y, but !ood i" you-in*

)ationale: .ommon la- courts assumed tere -as eual bar!ainin! positions bet-een landlord and tenant*'oday, urban d-ellers -o are usually not able to deal -it maintenance on te property -ill end up in anun"air bar!ainin! position*

#neuality o"ar!ainin!Po-er

'enants ave an ineuality o" bar!ainin! po-er since tere is a sorta!e o" sa"e, decentousin! in today3s mar/et'enants cannot @ust -al/ a-ay due to te sorta!e o" ousin!

)i!t to ne!otiate does not serve te !eneral public in tis case since only te destitute -illbar!ain a-ay teir minimum standards o" livin!

#nalienable)i!ts

'ere are certain inalienable ri!ts tat cannot be bar!ained around#nerent "actors: eat, li!t, ventilation, plumbin!, secure -indo-s and doors, propersanitation and improper maintenance'enants must be protected "rom temselvesMoore: e don3t -ant people sellin! teir or!ans "or money, and -e don3t -ant people-aivin! ealt insurance "or money because eventually someone -ill !et urt and society -ill!et stuc/ -it te bill* 'us, societal interests protect mar/et inalienable bar!ainin!*

5ssumption o"

)is/+uido

6andlord is more "amiliar -it te d-ellin! unit and more "inancially able to discover and

cure any "aults and brea/do-ns*

6a- in7conomics

Posner ar!ument: e -ant people to ne!otiate "reely in order to brin! up supply and /eepcosts do-n "or te !eneral public

.ase

.omparison)este, 9annan, and 9ilda -ere very indicative o" te time* >ecided a!ainst bac/drop o" racialse!re!ation and social con"lict o" te day* 'us, courts -ere overly sensitive to te realities"aced by residential tenants*

i""erences o" I/H &n 0+iet n1oy%entFor abitability, tere is a minimum standard o" livin! tat cannot be bar!ained around* ;ou can bar!ain arounduiet en@oyment9abitability is only "or residential, uiet en@oyment is "or bot

asic )i!ts: abitability, purcase insurance, can?t sell or!ans


20/22

J&c2+es v. Steenberg Ho%es

isconsin, Pa!e 8

Law Outline 1

Documents