SCOPE OF EASEMENT REVIEW PROBLEMS Use of Blackletter Tests Use of Cases Imagine Possible Missing Facts Identify Possible Policy Concerns

Review Problem A Mike gets poor TV reception b/c of valley location Debbie owns neighboring ranch above M’s land 1962 Agreement: “[Owner of M’s land] may place and maintain an antenna onto [Debbie’s] barn and run wires from the antenna to [M’s land] to allow television reception for that property.”

Review Problem A 1962 Agreement: “[Owner of M’s land] may place and maintain an antenna onto [Debbie’s] barn and run wires from the antenna to [M’s land] to allow television reception for that property.” Antenna installed; reception still not good; cable unavailable 2007: M wants to put a satellite dish where antenna is now, but D objects.

Arguments from Marcus Cable? 1962 Agreement: “[Owner of M’s land] may place and maintain an antenna onto [Debbie’s] barn and run wires from the antenna to [M’s land] to allow television reception for that property.” 2007: M wants to put a satellite dish where antenna is now, but D objects.

Evolutionary Not Revolutionary Change Allowed? 1962 Agreement: “[Owner of M’s land] may place and maintain an antenna onto [Debbie’s] barn and run wires from the antenna to [M’s land] to allow television reception for that property.” 2007: M wants to put a satellite dish where antenna is now, but D objects.

Greater Burden Than Contemplated by the Parties? 1962 Agreement: “[Owner of M’s land] may place and maintain an antenna onto [Debbie’s] barn and run wires from the antenna to [M’s land] to allow television reception for that property.” 2007: M wants to put a satellite dish where antenna is now, but D objects.

Other Arguments from Chevy Chase? 1962 Agreement: “[Owner of M’s land] may place and maintain an antenna onto [Debbie’s] barn and run wires from the antenna to [M’s land] to allow television reception for that property.” 2007: M wants to put a satellite dish where antenna is now, but D objects.

REVIEW PROBLEM A: POLICY QUESTION? What to do if increase in burden is negligible but not within literal language of grant?

REVIEW PROBLEM C Santa-acre next to garbage dump. Elfacre = big lot w small cottage. Grant = “E’s owners shall have the right to cross S to dump garbage in the adjacent garbage dump” Es replace cottage w toy factory (7x garbage).

Greater burden than contemplated by the parties? S next to garbage dump. E = big lot w small cottage. Grant = “E’s owners shall have the right to cross S to dump garbage in the adjacent garbage dump” Es replace cottage w toy factory (7x garbage).

Reasonable considering terms of grant ? S next to garbage dump. E = big lot w small cottage. Grant = “E’s owners shall have the right to cross S to dump garbage in the adjacent garbage dump” Es replace cottage w toy factory (7x garbage).

Evolutionary not revolutionary change allowed? S next to garbage dump. E = big lot w small cottage. Grant = “E’s owners shall have the right to cross S to dump garbage in the adjacent garbage dump” Es replace cottage w toy factory (7x garbage).

Additional Arguments from Cases? S next to garbage dump. E = big lot w small cottage. Grant = “E’s owners shall have the right to cross S to dump garbage in the adjacent garbage dump” Es replace cottage w toy factory (7x garbage).

Problem C: Possible Concerns 1.Want precision in language: punish Santa for not specifying limits 2.Want people to bargain fairly 3.Check unequal bargaining power 4.Check who drafted

Problem C: Possible Concerns 1.Want precision in language 2.Want people to bargain fairly: punish elves if hid intent to expand factory 3.Check unequal bargaining power 4.Check who drafted

Problem C: Possible Concerns 1.Want precision in language 2.Want people to bargain fairly 3.Check unequal bargaining power A. Santa, Inc. v. little elves Keebler Cookies & Toys Int’l B.Old man v. Keebler Cookies & Toys Int’l 4.Check who drafted

Problem C: Possible Concerns 1.Want precision in language 2.Want people to bargain fairly 3.Check unequal bargaining power 4.Check who drafted: construe against the drafter

COURSE SELECTION: PREPARATION Become Familiar with Registration Procedures Become Familiar with Graduation Requirements Read Course Descriptions Read Course Evaluations

COURSE SELECTION: 2L FALL SEMESTER Not Sophomore Year in College –No Need to Get All “Basic Courses” Out of the Way Early –No Need to Take Heavy Load You Won’t Get Everything You Want, Especially if Afternoon Registration Time Prepare Alternatives

COURSE SELECTION: HOW TO CHOOSE 1.Becoming a Well-Rounded Lawyer 2.Resume Management 3.Taking Care of Yourself

Becoming a Well-Rounded Lawyer Administrative Law: Business Associations: Evidence: Federal Income Tax I: Substantive Criminal Law: Trusts & Estates: U.S. Constitutional Law II: At Least One Comparative/International Course (E.g., International Law, Comparative Law, International Business Transactions) At Least One Course Addressing a Complex Statute: (E.g., Commercial Law, Bankruptcy, Environmental Law, Employment or Housing Discrimination)

Becoming a Well-Rounded Lawyer The Bar Exam: Becoming a Practicing Lawyer Bar Review Courses Will Give You Version You Need for Bar Mildly Helpful to Have Had the Material Before Matters Less the Better You Are at Law School Exams

RESUME MANAGEMENT Preparing for a Specialty Area –Check Lists On Registrar’s Page –Not a College Major Putting Yourself in the Best Light –Alternate Forms of Evaluation Writing Papers Lawyering Skills –Schedules That Facilitate Your Doing Well

TAKING CARE OF YOURSELF Balance in Course Selection –# of Exams or Papers –Likely Size of Classes –One Subject You Really Want to Take Comfortable Daily/Weekly Schedule Choose Professors Rather Than Course Titles

FINAL POINTS Employers Care Much Less Than You’d Imagine Use Faculty Advising Sessions Talk to Me After Class or in Office Hours Housing Discrimination (T-Th 8-9:20am)

Express Easements Petersen v. Friedman & DQ Featuring Owls

Negative Easements Agreement not to use servient estate in any way that causes specific type of harm to dominant estate Limited # of harms can be protected this way. –Access to Light & Air –Access to View –Unimpeded flow of artificial stream –Extra lateral or subjacent support Most forms essentially negative rights of way: path that cannot be impeded for light/view/ water to get to dom. estate across serv. estate

Negative Easements Petersen v. Friedman (Cal. App. 1958) D Placed TV Antenna Within Negative Easement for Light, Air & View

Negative Easements Petersen v. Friedman DQ111: D’s Arguments 1.D may have argued no such thing as a view easement in California. Court says weight of authority supports existence of view easements Need to check in each jurisdiction for list of recognized negative easements

Negative Easements Petersen v. Friedman DQ111: D’s Arguments 1.No such thing as view easement in Cal. 2.Parties could not have intended to ban TV antennas (in 1942 still unknown). Court’s Response?

Negative Easements Petersen v. Friedman DQ111: D’s Arguments 1.No such thing as view easement in Cal. 2.No intent to ban TV antennas 3.Antenna doesn’t violate easement b/c it doesn’t in fact block light & view. Court’s response?

Negative Easements DQ111: D’s Arguments (Petersen) 1.No such thing as view easement in Cal. 2.No intent to ban TV antennas 3.Antenna doesn’t in fact block light & view. 4.Potential argument: Burden much greater than contemplated by parties. Can you elaborate?

Negative Easements DQ111: D’s Arguments (Petersen) 1.No such thing as view easement in Cal. 2.No intent to ban TV antennas 3.Antenna doesn’t in fact block light & view. 4.Potential argument: Burden much greater than contemplated by parties. Court’s likely response?

Negative Easements Petersen v. Friedman (Cal. App. 1958) DQ112. Why is it easier to determine the scope of a negative easement than that of a positive easement?

Chapter 8: Servitudes 1.Easements a.Express (Positive & Negative) b.Implied (Positive Only) 2.Promissory Servitudes (Brief Intro) 3.Homeowner’s Associations

Implied Easements Four Types Easement by Estoppel Easement by Implication Easement by Necessity Easement by Prescription

Implied Easements Easements are both contracts & conveyances How do you achieve contracts and conveyances without express agreement?

Implied Easements Four Theories Promissory Estoppel (Detrimental Reliance) Implied-in-Fact K (Parties’ Intent) Implied-in-Law K (Public Policy) Adverse Possession

Implied Easements Four Theories  Four Types Promissory Estoppel (Detrimental Reliance) ≈ Easement by Estoppel Implied-in-Fact K (Parties’ Intent) ≈ Easement by Implication Implied-in-Law K (Public Policy) ≈ Easement by Necessity Adverse Possession ≈ Easement by Prescription

Implied Easements Recurring “Sewage Pipe Hypo” 1.Developer builds line of houses

Implied Easements Recurring “Sewage Pipe Hypo” 1.Developer builds line of houses 2.Sewer pipes connecting last house in line to sewage disposal system pass under other houses in line

Implied Easements Recurring “Sewage Pipe Hypo” 1.Developer builds line of houses 2.Sewer pipes connecting last house in line to sewage disposal system pass under other houses in line 3.Developer sells all houses in line, but sewer lines serving last house not referenced in deeds and no notice provided orally

Implied Easements Recurring “Sewage Pipe Hypo” 1.Developer builds line of houses 2.Sewer pipes connecting last house in line to sewage disposal system pass under other houses in line 3.Developer sells all houses in line, but sewer lines serving last house not referenced in deeds and no notice provided orally 4.When can owners of last house claim one or more types of implied easement? (Note can have more than one on same facts.)

Easements by Estoppel featuring OWLS

Easements by Estoppel An owner may be estopped from barring a 2d party access to the owner’s property where 1.The owner apparently allows 2d party to use the property 2.2d party reasonably and detrimentally relies on this acquiescence

Easements by Estoppel An owner may be estopped from barring a 2d party access to the owner’s property where 1.The owner apparently allows 2d party to use the property 2.2d party reasonably and detrimentally relies on this acquiescence DQ113: Was the D’s reliance on the oral promise in Stoner reasonable? Was it detrimental?

Easements by Estoppel An owner may be estopped from barring a 2d party access to the owner’s property where 1.The owner apparently allows 2d party to use the property 2.2d party reasonably and detrimentally relies on this acquiescence Application to Sewage Pipe Hypo

Easements by Estoppel DQ114: Policy Arguments re Easements by Estoppel: Common Concerns include Doctrine undermines Statute of Frauds Claimants should make sure of legal rights before relying on mere license. Neighbors don’t typically commit all arrangements to signed writings.

Easements by Estoppel DQ114 & Note 2: Should states allow Easements by Estoppel …? Whenever there’s reasonable and detrimental reliance; Only after compensation paid; –OR– Never

Easements by Estoppel DQ114 & Note 2: Should states allow Easements by Estoppel …? NOTE: Many states do not allow!

Easements by Estoppel DQ114: Policy Arguments re Easements by Estoppel Note 3: Nelson v. AT&T: Stronger or weaker case than Stoner for granting Easement by Estoppel?

Easements by Estoppel Note 4: How Long Does an Easement by Estoppel Last? Stoner: “For so long a time as the nature of it calls for.” What does this mean … For an irrigation ditch?

Easements by Estoppel Note 4: How Long Does an Easement by Estoppel Last? Stoner: “For so long a time as the nature of it calls for.” What does this mean … In the hypo in Note 4: –House built in reliance on use of right of way, which created E-by-E. –House burns down. –Can it be rebuilt using that right of way?

Easements by Estoppel Note 4: How Long Does an Easement by Estoppel Last? P849 quote from Rerick Could read to allow right to rebuild May turn on evidence of nature of reliance –Return on investment w/o rebuilding? –Connection between safety and dilapidation

Easements by Implication & Necessity Featuring FALCONS

Easements by Implication & Necessity Both Arise from Split of Larger Parcel –E-by-I: Parties Intend that Prior Existing Use Should Continue –E-by-N: Split Creates Landlocked Parcel Needing Access Same Facts Can Give Rise to Both

EASEMENTS BY NECESSITY : 1.One parcel is split in two 2.Landlock: One resulting parcel is cut off from key access (e.g. to roads) by other parcel (alone or in combination with parcels owned by 3d parties). 3.At time parcels split, access necessary to enjoyment of landlocked parcel

EASEMENTS BY IMPLICATION : 1.One parcel is split in two 2.Prior Use of one part of parcel to benefit another part (“Quasi-Easement”) 3.Circumstances suggest parties intended to continue prior use after split NOTE: STATES VARY ON PRECISE FORMULATION

EASEMENTS BY IMPLICATION : 1.One parcel is split in two 2.Prior Use (“Quasi-Easement”) 3.Intent to continue prior use 4.*Apparent, visible or reasonably discoverable 5.*Some degree of necessity * Some jurisdictions treat 4 & 5 as separate elements; some treat as evidence of intent

EASEMENTS BY IMPLICATION : NOTICE Need notice to bind subsequent purchasers Actual Notice (Fact Q): Did buyer know about easement? Inquiry Notice (Legal Q): Sufficient info to create duty in reasonable buyer to ask? Usually can’t be notice from records b/c implied.

EASEMENTS BY IMPLICATION : NOTICE Need notice to bind subsequent purchasers Actual Notice (Fact Q): Did buyer know about easement? Inquiry Notice (Legal Q): Sufficient info to create duty in reasonable buyer to ask? Application to “Sewage Pipe Hypo”?