Recording Acts Problems
Ella grants Blackare to Harrison who records. Ella then grants Blackare to Nesh who does not records. Assuming this is a race jurisdiction who wins?
Harrison
Qi's heirs, because he had a remainder in fee simple.
Wood v. Leadbitter
Licenses are revokable unless they are attached to a grant.
Policy: Good against the world, Opportunism, Numerus Clausus
What is the appropriate remedy to seek if you want to prevent someone who has repeatedly trespassed on your lawn from doing so in the future? List the best remedy along with all other available remedies.
Bonus Points: Policy Considerations/Cases
An injunction. You can also seek nominal damages or encourage the other party to use seek help and use an offense.
Policy Considerations/Case: Baker v. Howard County, Equity, Administrability
Harrison catches a wild unicorn and pens it in his yard but not tames it. It escapes, and goes onto Lucas's yard, and Lucas claims ownership. Harrison sues to quiet title. Who should win and why?
Bonus Points: What is a policy consideration the courts will take into account when deciding?
Lucas, because Harrison has not mixed the unicorn with his labor sufficiently to claim title, and the unicorn remains wild, so Lucas now maintains occupancy?
Possible Policy Considerations: Labor Theory, In Rem Property Rights, Good against the world
Holland owns Greenacre and conveys to Juliette who records. Holland then conveys to Evan who has no notice but records as well. Assuming this is a race notice jurisdiction who wins and why?
Juliette, because although Evan had no notice Juliette records first.
Qi owns Blackacre in fee simple. He grants Blackare to Ella but if Ella ever has a chimpanzee in the estate it reverts to Juliette. What kind of interest does Julliette have and what kind of estate does Ella have? Does Qi have any remaining interest?
Julliete has an unvested executory interest in Blackacre.
Ella has a fee simple subject to executory limitation.
Qi has nothing, as he devised away all of his interest in the property.
Anderson v. Goldberg
When one thief steals something they have title over all other except those with better title - even other thieves.
Two men are out fishing with their bare hands. Both of them spot the rare titanium goldish and reach into the pond at the exact same time to grab it. One catches one-half of the fish, and the other catches the other half. They both insist the fish is theirs. What remedies are available to solve this dilemma?
Bonus Points: Policy Considerations/Cases
The Popov remedy would be the most appropriate remedy here. They could also try to work this dispute out amongst themselves and pay the other a fair price for the fish.
Policy Considerations/Cases: Popov v. Hiyashi, Intent, Administrability
Bonus points: What are policy considerations/cases the court will take into consideration?
Evan should will lose on her claim for replevin but should prevail if she seeks a remedy for disgorgement of the wrongfully obtained profits.
Policy Considerations: Opportunism, Good against the world
Cases: Olwell v. Nye & Nissan
Nesh grants Yellowacre to Harrison who has notice that Lucas has title to Yellowacre. Ella who also has notice also purchases Yellowacre. Assuming this is a notice jurisdiction who has Yellowacre and why?
Trick question Nesh has title over all except Lucas, and since they both had notice nemo dat kicks in and Nesh retains void title.
Ultimately, Lucas retains title to Yellowacre. Neither Harrison nor Ella, as purchasers with notice, can take title free of Lucas’s claim.
Nesh owns Yellowacre. Nesh grants Yellowacre to Jeff for life, then to Holland for life, and then to Jeff's two kids who might survive him. Name all of the interests each party has if any.
Nesh or his heirs have a possibility of reverter.
Jeff has a life estate with Holland possessing an executory interest in life estate.
Jeff's kids have a contingent remainder in fee simple. If you want to get technical they also have an unvested remainder subject to partial divestment (presuming Jeff can have other kids).
Midler v. Ford
You are entitled to quasi-property rights in your person when you commodify your image or personhood.
Policy: Good against the world, Highest and Best Use, Labor Theory, Opportunism
Two brothers share a joint tenancy in Yellowacre. Brother A lives on the property and operates a large steel mine which consumes most if not all of the property. Brother B travels the world but on his travels meets the famous singer Fergie. He wants to impress her and erect a giant statue in her honor. He returns to Yellowacre only to find the large steel mine prevents him from erecting this staute. What remedies are available to him if any? Please articulate all remedies available.
Bonus Points: Cases/Policy Considerations
The first thing he should do is communicate to the brother that he has ousted him from the property, preferably by a letter. Then he can sue for ouster, or seek a partition in kind. If neither party can afford owelty they can seek a partition in kind, or a partition in sale.
Cases/Policy Considerations: Gillmor v. Gillmor, Delfino v. Velanicis, Highest and Best Use, Investment-backed expectations
T.J. has a life estate in Brownacre, granted to him by Kronk. There are hidden picklegold deposits underneath the property and he wants to mine the deposits, but it cannot be done without destroying Kronk's outhouse to access the deposits. Kronk has died but his two children seek to enjoin T.J. to stop him doing this. Who should win and why?
Bonus Points: What policy considerations and cases will the court take into account?
Kronk's estate should win, because T.J. only has a life estate - which is equivalent to a life tenancy. Although he does have a right to use the natural resources the property produces, he cannot do so if it will destroy or fundamentally change part of the property. Kronk's kids may sue because they have a remainder in fee simple.
Policy Considerations: Waste, Dead-hand control.
Case: Brokaw v. Fairchild
Evan grants Jelloacre to Lucas who records. Lucas then grants to both Harrison and Ella. Harrison had notice that Jelloacre was granted to Ella but records anyways. Harrison then grants to Jeff who records and has no notice. Assuming this is a race-notice jurisdiction who wins in court and why?
Jeff, because of the Shelter rule. He has all of the bundle of sticks.
Evan grants Redacre to Greta for life on the condition that she never has a chimpanzee or a unicorn in the house, then it goes to Harrison for life, and after that to T.J. Harrison, unfortunately, unaware of this restriction, brings his newly found pet unicorn into Greta's newfound house. What kind of interest does he have?
Technically none, because she did not bring a unicorn into the house Harrison did. If she had done so Harrison would have a life estate. T.J. has a vested remainder in fee simple.
Delfino v. Vealencis
Partition in kind, is preferable when sale is not in the best interests and when it is feasible to do so. Owelty is mandated if partition in kind results in inequitable division in value of property.
Policy: Administrability, Opportunism
Holland one day tired of Ella trespassing on her property to snoop her husband Ravi, goes and has a stern talking with her, which ends up getting physical. After this she erects a fence, and sues for an injunction to keep Ella off her lawn and sues for damages. What is the result if she goes to court?
Holland used impermissible self help and has unclean hands, so she is not entitled to an equitable remedy. She may be entitled to nominal damages at the very best.
Ella has become president of the United States. Qi who went to law school with her has stolen her property book and sold it to Nest for $500,000. Ella finds out and sues for replevin. Who should win and what kind of title if any does Nesh have? Please state all remedies each party may seek.
Bonus Points: Policy Considerations and Cases the court will consider
Ella has title because when Qi stole the textbook he had void title. When he sold to Harrison he had void title as well under nemo dat. Ella is entitled to replevin and Harrison is entitled to seek a remedy for breach of contract. Qi gets jail time.
Policy Considerations/Cases: Kunts v. Elificon, Nemo dat, Good against the world, opportunism, windfall
Nesh grants Yellowacre to Juliette who does not record. He then grants Yellowacre to Kronk who records. Kronk then grants Yellowacre to Jeff who records. After Jeff records Juliette finally remembers D'nfro's advice and records her deed. Assuming this is a race-notice jurisdiction and who wins and why?
Jeff, because Juliette has a wild deed outside of the chain of title.
Harrison grants Greenacre to Lucas for life, but if Lucas builds a factory on Greenacre, then to Juliette but if Juliette predeceases Lucas, then to Ella.
Lucas, needing extra income, builds a small factory on Greenacre during her lifetime. Hearing this news she stole Harrison's unicorn and sped off to claim Greenacre with her best friend Ella but both died on the way there in a terrible unicorn collision accident.
Who has Greenacre, and why?
Ella's heirs owns the estate in fee simple.
Nahrstedt v. Lakeside Village Condominium Association
Unless a restriction violates if the restirction is (1) arbitrary (2) susbtaintially more burdensome to all residents OR (3) violates a fundamental public policy the court will defer to the business-judgement rule to enforce decisions.
What are the four remedies available for a mistaken improver? Please list the remedies in the preferential order a court would consider.
1. If the fixture can be removed without damage to the property, removal of the fixture is preferable.
2. If the fixture cannot be removed, the court may allow the other party to pay the improver for the enhanced value.
3. If the owner cannot pay the improver, the court may allow the improver to pay for the value of the property minus the enhancements they made.
4. If neither has the money, Popov remedy.
Holland has been a tenant of Lucas for 5 years. Around the five year mark Lucas opened large disco nightclub about a half a mile from Holland's apartment complex. A year after its opening the area around Holland has developed into a popular hub for nightlife especially college students since the nightclub opened up. Holland can never get any sleep as a result of the noise generated from the area and vacates the premises alleging she is entitled to a constructive eviction. Lucas sues for damages. How is a court likely to rule?
Bonus points: Policy Considerations/Cases
For Lucas because he is only responsible for noise that is within his control. A nightclub a full half a mile away is not likely to generate any noise that is under his immediate control. Holland might have a nuisance claim but would probably lose under the social-utility test.
Cases/Policy Considerations: Blackett v. Onlaff, Adams v. Cleveland-Cliff Irons, Risk Allocation