Music: Meat Loaf Bat Out of Hell (1977) NCAA CONTEST § IJ TOP TEN SCORES • ROSADO BARRERAS 54 • GOTTFRIED 50 • FLOOD 39 • AINSWORTH 37 • EBLE 37 • GONZALEZ 35 • THOMPSON 33 • FICAROLA 32 • SIMEONIDIS 32 • HOROWITZ, E 31 BOTTOM FIVE • HOROWITZ, M 9 • LIEPOLD 8 • HOFFMAN 7 • CARLO 6 • HYMAN 5 OTHER NOTABLES • HILL 36 • FAJER 20 • LOWENTHAL 10
65
Embed
Music: Meat Loaf Bat Out of Hell (1977) NCAA CONTEST §IJ TOP TEN SCORES ROSADO BARRERAS54 GOTTFRIED50 FLOOD39 AINSWORTH37 EBLE37 GONZALEZ35 THOMPSON33.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Music: Meat Loaf Bat Out of Hell (1977)
NCAA CONTEST §IJ TOP TEN SCORES
• ROSADO BARRERAS 54• GOTTFRIED 50• FLOOD 39• AINSWORTH 37• EBLE 37• GONZALEZ 35• THOMPSON 33• FICAROLA 32• SIMEONIDIS32• HOROWITZ, E 31
BOTTOM FIVE• HOROWITZ, M 9• LIEPOLD 8• HOFFMAN 7• CARLO 6• HYMAN 5
OTHER NOTABLES• HILL 36• FAJER 20• LOWENTHAL 10
Easements by Implication & Necessity: CONTINUED
Featuring FALCONS
(and a guinea pig)
EASEMENTS BY NECESSITY: NOTICE
• 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?
Williams Island & Elements
• 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?
Williams Island & Elements
• 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?
Williams Island & Elements
• 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 = by Grant• Original owner sells West, retains East = by
Reservation• Original Owner Simultaneously Sells Both to Different
People = by Grant
Questions on Necessity
Note 3: Was there “reasonable necessity” in Williams Island?
• Alternatives (from note 1 on P853):– Cross highway, travel 200 feet on sidewalk,
cross highway again– Backtrack along a substantial portion of the
golf course to get around defendant’s tract
Questions on Necessity• “Reasonable necessity” in Williams Island • Lawyering Task: Other Possible Alternatives?
Questions on Necessity
• Note 3: Should lack of access to utilities meet the strict necessity test?
Questions on Necessity
• Is the majority’s analysis of necessity in Dupont more convincing than that of the dissent? – Access available to Southern part +
possibility of road across wetlands (v.)– Getting road built across wetlands costs
time, $$, and conservation easement (giving up use of some of land)
Thoughts on Dupont: Confusing on Necessity Standards in Florida
• Fl. Stat. §704.01(1): “reasonably necessary”; “reasonable & practicable”– §704.03: “practicable” means w/o use of “bridge, ferry,
What would you have to show to meet tests in “Sewage Pipe Hypo”?
Thoughts on Dupont
• No easement by implicaton (no prior use)
• No easement by prescription (permission)
• BUT bad facts for servient owners: their own story is revoking license after 14 years
Thoughts on Dupont
• If Whiteside’s version of facts is true, good case for easement by estoppel: – Purchasing land & building expensive house
($240,000 in 1981) = detrimental reliance– Duponts building road prior to closing
probably makes reliance reasonable
Easements by Estoppel
Terminology in DuPont• Court says can’t have easement w/o
writing
• Allows possibility of “irrevocable license”
• Really means same thing as Easement by Estoppel
Thoughts on Dupont: Easement by Necessity Tricky
• Road to Southern part of lot existed when purchased, so lot as a whole is not landlocked
• House on Northern part not built when purchased, so no necessity for enjoyment
• Would have to view essentially as two separate parcels divided by water with no access between them to get E-by-N to Northern part
• What if road crossing wetlands easy in 1981?
A Little More Doctrine• Easements by Necessity end when the
necessity ends; Easements by Implication do not (because based entirely in intent)
• Courts almost always hold that negative easements can’t be implied by implication or by necessity. Penn. case cited in Note 4 is very rare in even considering.
• Some states have private condemnation statutes like those described in Note 8.
Note 8 • Suppose a state uses its eminent domain
power to condemn easements to provide access to landlocked parcels and has the owner of the landlocked parcel pay for the easement. Does this use of Eminent Domain meet the public use requirement?
This Q became Review Problem 2C (Opinion/Dissent Fall 2007)
DQ115. To what extent do the following rationales for adv. possession also support the doctrine of Prescriptive Easements?
(a) reward beneficial use of land
(b) punish sleeping owners
(c) recognize psychic connection to land
(d) protect people and legal system from being burdened with “stale” claims
EASEMENTS BY PRESCRIPTIONContinuous UseOpen & Notorious
[Exclusive]
Adverse/Hostile
EASEMENTS BY PRESCRIPTIONELEMENTS: CONTINUOUS
1. Evidence in Macdonald?
2. Evidence in Lyons?
EASEMENTS BY PRESCRIPTIONELEMENTS: CONTINUOUS
Note that can be seasonal use like Adverse Possession (Ray)
EASEMENTS BY PRESCRIPTIONContinuous Use
Open & Notorious[Exclusive]
Adverse/Hostile
EASEMENTS BY PRESCRIPTIONELEMENTS: OPEN & NOTORIOUS
DQ117. Evidence of “open and notorious”:
• MacDonald requires actual notice
• Other states do not.
Is it a good idea to do so?
EASEMENTS BY PRESCRIPTIONELEMENTS: OPEN & NOTORIOUS
DQ117. Evidence of “open and notorious”:
• Can a claim of prescriptive easement with regard to underground utilities like “Sewer Pipe Hypo” ever be open and notorious?
EASEMENTS BY PRESCRIPTIONContinuous Use
Open & Notorious
[Exclusive]Adverse/Hostile
EASEMENTS BY PRESCRIPTIONELEMENTS: EXCLUSIVE
• Many Jurisdictions Don’t Require (Nature of Easement is Non-Exclusive Use)
• Some: Means Exclusive of Everyone but Owner• Some (TX): Shared w Owner Presumption of
Permissive
EASEMENTS BY PRESCRIPTIONContinuous Use
Open & Notorious
[Exclusive]
Adverse/Hostile
EASEMENTS BY PRESCRIPTIONELEMENTS: ADVERSITY
Note 2: What is the significance of the following presumptions?
1. Continuous use for AP Period presumed adverse (MacDonald)
EASEMENTS BY PRESCRIPTIONELEMENTS: ADVERSITY
Note 2: What is the significance of the following presumptions?
1. Continuous use for AP Period presumed adverse (MacDonald). How do you disprove?
EASEMENTS BY PRESCRIPTIONELEMENTS: ADVERSITY
Note 2: What is the significance of the following presumptions?
2. Public recreational use presumed permissive (Lyons)
EASEMENTS BY PRESCRIPTIONELEMENTS: ADVERSITY
Note 2: What is the significance of the following presumptions?
2. Public recreational use presumed permissive (Lyons) v. Undeveloped land presumed permissive (Lyons Dissent)
EASEMENTS BY PRESCRIPTIONELEMENTS: ADVERSITY
Note 2: What is the significance of the following presumptions?
3. Shared use with the owner (e.g., of a driveway) presumed permissive (Texas)
EASEMENTS BY PRESCRIPTIONELEMENTS: ADVERSITY
Presumptions frequently decide cases because hard to disprove.
EASEMENTS BY PRESCRIPTIONELEMENTS: ADVERSITY
Policy Q: What do you do with case like MacDonald or Dupont where use continues for a long time and then servient owner says no? (plausible to say permissive)?
Could create hybrid of prescription & estoppel: if use goes on long enough, can’t change your mind.
EASEMENTS BY PRESCRIPTION:POLICY QUESTIONS
DQ118. “The best justifications for granting an implied easement are reliance and need. Thus, if claimants cannot meet the elements of an Easement by Estoppel or of an Easement by Necessity, they should not be able to get a Prescriptive Easement unless they pay market value for it.”
Do you agree?
NOTICE & THE NOTICE & THE RECORDING RECORDING
SYSTEMSYSTEM
NOTICE (of Conflicting Property Rights)
• Actual Notice: Fact Question
• Constructive Notice: Generally Legal Q– Record Notice (from public records)