4-20-17 NATIONAL PINEAPPLE UPSIDE-DOWN CAKE DAY PROPERTY A SLIDES 4-20-17 NATIONAL PINEAPPLE UPSIDE-DOWN CAKE DAY

I Will Post on Course Page After DF Today: Music to Accompany Troubled Teens Green Day, Warning (2000) featuring “Blood, Sex & Booze” I Will Post on Course Page After DF Today: Instructions Page & Detachable Syllabus for Your Exam Updated Chapter 5 Info Memo Including Write-Ups of Student Qs on Implied Easements & of Rev. Probs. 5D & 5K Complete Comments/Best Answers for Spring 2016 Exam Updated Comments/Best Answers for Sample Lawyering Qs including 1J, 1M & 1S (Part c)

Review Problem 5D (S128) (cont’d) SEQUOIA OLYMPIC

Review Problem 5D (S128) (Recap): Sequoia = P Andy/Serv Review Problem 5D (S128) (Recap): Sequoia = P Andy/Serv. Olympic = D Gudridge Academy/Dom. S-acre = Large wooded lot between public road & private beach. Dawson Inst. = Former art school for college-aged students Got as gift from GF an easement to use the private beach and the driveway during daylight hours. DI students used driveway & beach to sketch or paint. Gudridge Academy buys Dawson Inst. Runs post-high school “transition schools” for troubled teens. Uses easement for student athletic activities like running /swimming GA uses easily w/in broad language of grant

Review Problem 5D: BURDENS on SERVIENT O SEQUOIA= P Andy/Serv Review Problem 5D: BURDENS on SERVIENT O SEQUOIA= P Andy/Serv. OLYMPIC = D Gudr. Acad./Dom. “Burden must not be significantly greater than that contemplated by parties” Arguments (incl. Missing/Ambiguous Facts)? Possible Increased Burdens? Noise; Mainenance of Driveway & Beach MORE? Increases Likely to Be Significant?

Review Problem 5D: PURPOSE/QUALITY SEQUOIA= P Andy/Serv Review Problem 5D: PURPOSE/QUALITY SEQUOIA= P Andy/Serv. OLYMPIC = D Gudr. Acad./Dom. “Evolutionary not revolutionary” changes allowed. (Chevy Chase = “Quality”; Marcus Cable = “Purpose”) Possible Characterization Arguments? Defense of Characterization/Significance? E.g., I’m Skeptical of “College-Aged  Teens”

Review Problem 5D: PURPOSE/QUALITY SEQUOIA= P Andy/Serv Review Problem 5D: PURPOSE/QUALITY SEQUOIA= P Andy/Serv. OLYMPIC = D Gudr. Acad./Dom. “Evolutionary not revolutionary” changes allowed. (Chevy Chase = “Quality”; Marcus Cable = “Purpose”) Possible Characterization Arguments? Both are "typical spare time activities for students" "Solitary still silent concentration" v. "Group dynamic commotion" "Quiet work" v. "Vigorous workout“ Comments/Best Answers Available Later Today in Info Memo #5

ACADIA: REVIEW PROBLEM 5K (S138) Acadia Sunrise

ACADIA: Review Problem 5K (E-by-I) Quick Summary of Facts/Posture Webers own lot with 4 guest cottages connected to one set of pipes running one mile west, then across edge of lot to connect to municipal water & sewer lines. S purchases western part of lot including westernmost guest cottage. After the purchase, pipes from other 3 cottages (and connecting to S’s cottage and municipal water/sewer) continue to run under S’s part of lot. S sues to enjoin further use of her pipes; concedes split & prior use.

SEWAGE PIPE HYPOTHETICAL  REV. PROB. 5K GC GC GC Ws S GC To City Sewer/Water  E-by-I Raised: Pipes in Use Before Ws Sell Western Part to S

Easement-by-Implication ACADIA: Review Problem 5K Asked to Prepare Arguments re One parcel is split in two: YES Prior Use (“Quasi-Easement”): YES Intent to continue prior use? *Apparent, visible or reasonably discoverable? *Some degree of necessity? We’ll Do in Reverse Order

ACADIA: Review Problem 5K (E-by-I) Last Names A-N: Representing S (Servient O) Last Names O-Z: Representing Ws (Dominant O) Sufficient Necessity Extent of Necessity at Time of Split? Relevant Considerations? Sufficient to Meet Relevant Test? Arguments If “Reasonable Necessity”? Arguments If “Strict Necessity”? Why Might This Be Test?

Apparent, Visible or Reasonably Discoverable (Notice) ACADIA: Review Problem 5K (E-by-I) Last Names A-N: Representing S (Servient O) Last Names O-Z: Representing Ws (Dominant O) Apparent, Visible or Reasonably Discoverable (Notice) Actual Knowledge by S: Evidence/Arguments? Inquiry Notice to S: Evidence/Arguments?

Intent (at Time of Split) to Continue Prior Use ACADIA: Review Problem 5K (E-by-I) Last Names A-N: Representing S (Servient O) Last Names O-Z: Representing Ws (Dominant O) Intent (at Time of Split) to Continue Prior Use Facts that Might be Helpful to Your Side (other than necessity & notice)? Arguments for Your Side Looking at Case as a Whole?

ACADIA: Review Problem 5K (E-by-I) Intent: Hard Q b/c Uncertainty re Knowledge of Either Party at Split If both aware of pipes, probably intended (or atty S likely would have addressed before sale) If Webers aware but no notice to S, Maybe punish Ws by saying no Ws might claim they reasonably believed S knew If neither party aware? Hard to say intent as a factual matter BUT Court might be reluctant to punish Ws for mutual mistake.

ACADIA: Review Problem 5K (E-by-I) One parcel is split in two: YES Prior Use (“Quasi-Easement”): YES Intent to continue prior use? *Apparent, visible or reasonably discoverable? *Some degree of necessity? Qs re Rev. Prob. 5K or E-by-I ? (Good-Bye to Acadia)

BADLANDS: Rev. Prob. 5L (S135-36) NORBECK PASS

BADLANDS: Rev. Prob. 5L (S135-36): Opinion/Dissent Q (E-by-N) Assume Facts Sufficient for E-by-N & Knowing Waiver Last Names A-N: Range of [Policy] Arguments for Allowing Knowing Waiver of Easement by Necessity Last Names O-Z: Range of [Policy] Arguments for Prohibiting Waivers of Easement by Necessity

BADLANDS: Rev. Prob. 5L (S135-36): Opinion/Dissent Q (E-by-N) Last Names A-N: Range of [Policy] Arguments for Allowing Knowing Waiver of Easement by Necessity Last Names O-Z: Range of [Policy] Arguments for Prohibiting Waivers of Easement by Necessity Arguments Comparing This Issue with Non-Waivable Rights We’ve Studied, E.g., Shack, Javins, N.Y. Roommate Law