Co-Ownership
Emily and Anna buy a house together. The deed says “to Emily and Anna, jointly and severally,” because Emily copied language from her torts outline. What do they actually own?
What is: “a tenancy in common — because torts language is not magic property dust”?
Quynh forgets to pay her mortgage because she thought “autopay” meant “manifestation.” The lender starts foreclosure but isn’t even the legal mortgage holder. Under U.S. Bank v. Ibanez, the foreclosure is this.
What is: “void — because vibes are not chain of title”?
Anna thinks she has the right to cross Emily’s driveway to get to her favorite gossip bench. Her right to enter and use Emily’s land is this type of servitude.
→ What is: “an easement — the legal right to be nosy on someone else’s land”?
“O to Anna while the land is used for studying.”
→ What is: “a fee simple determinable — ‘while’ is one of the automatic-forfeiture words”?
The city orders Emily to permanently host a colony of endangered owls on her roof because “it’s quiet and they like the view.”
Meanwhile, Quynh, the next-door neighbor, sues for nuisance because the owls screech all night and “stare like they’re judging her life choices.”
Name the outcomes:
Emily’s best takings argument (case name + why).
Whether Quynh wins nuisance.
Whether the city’s action is regulatory or physical.
What is:
Cedar Point / Loretto physical taking — government-mandated occupation = per se taking.
Quynh likely wins nuisance — loud, ongoing animal activity interfering with use/enjoyment.
Physical taking — permanent physical occupation by living creatures imposed by the government.
Amanda and Quynh are joint tenants. Quynh leases her share to her ex for six months without telling Amanda. Then Quynh dies. Does this sever the joint tenancy?
What is: “No — under Tenhet v. Boswell, the lease dies with Quynh, like her taste in partners”?
At foreclosure, the trustee sells Amanda’s two parcels together, even though she only needed one sold to cover the debt. The sale price is 12% of value. Under Baskurt v. Beal, the court will probably…
What is: “invalidate the sale — because 12% is the price of a yard sale, not real estate”?
Amanda promises not to build anything taller than 10 feet so she doesn’t block Quynh’s ocean view. This restriction is a…
What is: “negative covenant — also known as a legally binding ‘don’t ruin my sunset’ clause”?
“O to Emily, but if she stops maintaining the orchard, O may re-enter.”
Because forfeiture is NOT automatic, Emily holds this estate
→ What is: “a fee simple subject to condition subsequent”?
The city requires Emily to allow the public to hike across a small path on her land “for recreational enlightenment.”
Under Loretto and Cedar Point, this is automatically this type of taking.
→ What is: “a per se physical taking”?
When Anna changes the locks on the co-owned cabin because “Emily’s energy is off,” she may owe Emily rent — but only if this has occurred.
What is: “actual ouster — the legal concept of ‘you literally locked me out, you gremlin’”?
Anna attends her own foreclosure auction and tries to outbid the bank with a $50 Starbucks gift card. She is allowed to bid because she has this right.
What is: “the borrower’s right to bid — even if the bid is caffeinated nonsense”?
When Emily buys property, her deed includes a covenant banning “any activity involving 1,000+ chickens.” It runs with the land because these requirements are met.
What are: “intent, touch and concern, and notice — the holy trinity of anti-chicken law”?
“O to Amanda, provided that she never uses the land for commercial fishing; if she does, the land shall revert to O.”
Correctly classify both interests.
Amanda: Fee simple determinable
O: possibility of reverter
(‘provided that’ + automatic return language = FSD)**
A new zoning rule prohibits Amanda from building anything on her beachfront lot, leaving her with land worth $2.13 and emotional damage.
Under Lucas, this is a per se taking only if Amanda is left with…
→ What is: “no economically beneficial or productive use of the land”?
In a partition case, Amanda wants a sale because the property is “economically superior.” Quynh wants to keep it because it’s been in her family for 150 years and has “cultural significance and good porch vibes.” Under Ark Land Co. v. Harper, the court must consider these interests too.
What are: “noneconomic factors — including tradition, memory, and porch-based spiritual value”?
Emily’s state requires that foreclosure sales be conducted reasonably and publicly, not in “whatever manner the trustee feels like.” This rule ensures this type of fairness.
What is: “commercial reasonableness — the opposite of ‘sold at 3 a.m. behind a Wendy’s’”
Quynh buys land but soon finds 300 strangers trekking across it because the previous owner “invited literally everyone.” She can revoke the license except where there’s been this kind of reliance.
What is: “an easement by estoppel — the ‘you invited how many people?’ doctrine”?
“O to Quynh so long as she operates the land as a community garden; however, O reserves the right to re-enter if the land ever ceases to be used for gardening.”
What estate does Quynh hold despite the mixed wording?
→ What is: “a fee simple subject to condition subsequent — because the reserved right of re-entry overrides the automatic language”?
Amanda installs a rooftop cannon that fires confetti every hour “for morale.”
Quynh, who works nights, sues.
To win a nuisance claim, the court must find the activity violates this objective standard.
→ What is: “the ordinary person standard — whether a normal person would find the interference substantial and unreasonable”?
Emily and Anna, married, own Blackacre as tenants by the entirety. Emily’s creditor tries to seize her share. The court blocks it, citing this case.
What is: “Sawada v. Endo — the case that protects the marital home and ruins creditor day”?
Amanda tries to mortgage her property, but uses a “deed of trust,” meaning this quirky third party holds title until she pays the debt.
→ What is: “a trustee — the human middle-child of mortgage law”?
Amanda owned two parcels of land: one tj Maxx and one Sephora that are right next to each other and the only way to reach the storage closet for Sephora's deliveries is through use of the TJ Maxx's back driveway. Anna was a frequent sephora shopper who used to meet up behind the sephora to smoke a cigarette and had seen Amanda use the driveway to load both TJ Maxx and sephora items. 5 years later, Anna came into wealth miraculously and bought the Sephora from Amanda, including the property. Amanda grew tired of Anna using the driveway to load the sephora. How can Anna defend herself?
Easement implied by prior use!
“O to Anna, but if she ever closes the community library on the property, then to Quynh.”
What fee simple is this?
Fee simple subject to executory limitation
The city declares Anna’s property a “no-noise ecological buffer zone,” banning barking dogs, lawn mowing, and conversations above a whisper.
Anna claims a regulatory taking.
At the same time, Amanda sues Anna for nuisance because the required buffer has caused rabbits to overrun her property.
Under nuisance/takings overlap doctrine, a regulation preventing harmful uses of land is not a taking if it mirrors this type of limitation.
What is: “a background principle of nuisance/common law that already restricted the activity”?