PROPERTY A SLIDES

Friday April 3: Music (to Accompany Chevy Chase) Carlos Santana, Supernatural (1999) Arches Critique of Today’s Rev. Prob. 5D Arguments Due Monday (4/6) at 11:30 a.m. Extra Day Due to Multiple-Holiday Weekend Please Help Bolster My Faith in the Goodwill of Law Students by Refraining from Sending Me s During Your Elective Today or During Crim Pro on Monday!!

Review Problem 5D: “Exclusive” Review Problem 5D: “Exclusive” Yellowstone (for P Nicole ) Shenandoah (for D Dolly) Arches (Critique) OO (Dolly) inherits lot w summer home & visits in APor (Nicole) Purchases w Good Faith Color of Title in 1992 Spends Every Summer on Lot OO visits in October 1999; plants flower bulbs in 15’ x 2’ strip. Never goes in house; doesn’t return again until 2007 Flowers come up every spring.

Review Problem 5D: “Exclusive” Review Problem 5D: “Exclusive” Yellowstone (for P Nicole ) Shenandoah (for D Dolly) Arches (Critique) Arguments/Missing Info? If jurisdiction accepts literal argument, OO wins. Assume it doesn’t 1.Which facts in the problem (other than the passing of time) are helpful for each side? Be prepared to respond to other side’s claims. 2.Discuss whether a court should consider what OO has done enough in light of the policies implicated by this element. 3.Identify possible additional facts or legal rules (that are not inconsistent with what I’ve told you) that might affect the outcome.

PROPERTY A: 4/3 Another Opening Day: A Brief Tribute to Jackie Robinson & Branch Rickey

PROPERTY A: 4/3 Another Opening Day … … in Brooklyn!!!

Adverse Possession “Molecules” Adverse Possession “Molecules” Issues Beyond Individual Elements 1. Multi-Element Review Problems 2. Exceptions/Limits 3. Boundary Disputes Generally (Last Time) Generally (Last Time) Nightmare on 68 th Street Nightmare on 68 th Street Intro to Rev. Problem 4H Intro to Rev. Problem 4H 4. Policy Discussion: How Should AP Law Operate?

SHENANDOAH: Boundary Disputes, Nightmare & DQs APPALACHIAN TRAIL

Nightmare on 68 th Street: SHENANDOAH: DQ5.22 BASIC ELEMENTS? Focus on Initial Border Dispute betw Smiths & Davises re Carport ACTUAL: O&N: CONTINUOUS: EXCLUSIVE: ADVERSE:

Nightmare on 68 th Street: SHENANDOAH: DQ5.22 BASIC ELEMENTS PROBABLY MET EASILY ACTUAL: Improvement plus use O&N: Same (if actual knowledge not required) CONTINUOUS: 1938  7+ Years EXCLUSIVE: No evidence of others using ADVERSE: No evidence of permission

Nightmare on 68 th Street: SHENANDOAH DQ5.23 Mr. Smith: “We paid the taxes all those years on that lot.” … “[T]hey could claim no payment of taxes.” (Middle S128) Legal significance?

Nightmare on 68 th Street: SHENANDOAH DQ5.23 Mr. Smith: “We paid the taxes all those years on that lot.” … “[T]hey could claim no payment of taxes.” Fl.Stat (S107) requires payment of taxes if no color of title. Note: Payment of taxes by the OO is almost always true in AP cases and is not a defense. Legal issue here is payment by Pullens/Davises, not by Smiths.

Nightmare on 68 th Street: SHENANDOAH DQ5.23 Mr. Smith: “We paid the taxes all those years on that lot.” … “[T]hey could claim no payment of taxes.” Fla requires payment of taxes if no color of title. Color of Title here? – Valid deed to lot *PLUS* – Incorrect survey indicating ownership of disputed strip Sufficient? (policy Q)

Nightmare on 68 th Street: SHENANDOAH DQ5.22 State of Mind Some Florida caselaw appears to require bad faith in boundary disputes Evidence of State of Mind Here?

Nightmare on 68 th Street: SHENANDOAH DQ5.22 State of Mind Some Florida caselaw appears to require bad faith in boundary disputes Should good faith reliance on faulty survey be OK? (policy Q; no cases on point)

Nightmare on 68 th Street Implicit Boundary Dispute Policy Qs IF Deed plus incorrect survey = color of title: APor wins – OR— IF Good faith payment of taxes assessed meets statutory reqmt: APor wins IF NOT There will almost never be successful boundary dispute AP Similar policy considerations to O&N and state of mind for boundary disputes. (See Rev Prob 5H)

DQ5.24 Boundary Disputes: Policy Considerations Why might states treat boundary disputes differently? Tension: Diligent OOs v. Neighborly Relations (Measuring Tapes) Maybe discourage lawsuits by neighboring APors by making difficult to win; requiring testimony re own “bad faith” Maybe Different Expectations re Diligent Behavior by OO Often hard to be exact about property line Maybe shdn’t have to be aware of w precision

DQ5.24 Boundary Disputes: Policy Considerations (Recap) Some States Have Stricter O&N or State of Mind Reqmts for Boundary Disputes. Policy Concerns: Some States Have Stricter O&N or State of Mind Reqmts for Boundary Disputes. Policy Concerns: Neighborly Relations Neighborly Relations Expectations re Diligent Behavior by OO Expectations re Diligent Behavior by OO NOTE: Making Either Reqmt More Strict Makes Litigating Old Cases Very Hard NOTE: Making Either Reqmt More Strict Makes Litigating Old Cases Very HardQuestions?

Rev. Prob. 5H (Opinion/Dissent Next Thursday) Shenandoah (In-Class for Plaintiffs) & Arches (In-Class for Defendants Redwood (Critique) 1.Should rules for boundary disputes (BDs)be different than for ordinary Adverse Possession? 2.Assuming Court is willing to consider different rules for BDs: a.Should state adopt “actual knowledge” as standard for Open & Notorious in BDs? b.Should state adopt “bad faith” State of Mind requirement in BDs?

Rev. Prob. 5H (Opinion/Dissent Next Thursday) Shenandoah (In-Class for Plaintiffs) & Arches (In-Class for Defendant) Redwood (Critique) Arguments Targeting State Supreme Court Setting Rules for the State Going Forward. Attys Can Use General Policy Arguments Attys Can Use Arguments Treating Facts of Case as Example. No Need to Apply Rules to Facts Here (Results Should be Clear)

Adverse Possession “Molecules” Adverse Possession “Molecules” Issues Beyond Individual Elements 1. Multi-Element Review Problems 2. Exceptions/Limits 3. Boundary Disputes (& Nightmare on 68 th Street) 4. DQ5.25: Policy Discussion: How Should AP Law Operate?

DQ5.25: Adverse Possession Policy: Legislative Debate Florida Legislature considering eliminating or modifying adverse possession doctrine. Proposals include Complete elimination Color of Title Only Adverse Possessor must pay market value (Forced Sale) Identifying Arguments re Strength & Weaknesses of Various Rules Central Part of Your Work on Opinion/Dissent Q

DQ5.21: Adverse Possession Policy: Legislative Debate Florida Legislature considering eliminating or modifying adverse possession doctrine. Proposals include Complete elimination Color of Title Only Adverse Possessor must pay market value (Forced Sale) Positions likely taken by Positions likely taken by Environmental Advocacy Group? Environmental Advocacy Group? Advocacy Group for Homeless Folks? Advocacy Group for Homeless Folks?

DQ5.21: Adverse Possession Policy: Legislative Debate Florida Legislature considering eliminating or modifying adverse possession doctrine. Proposals include Complete elimination Color of Title Only Adverse Possessor must pay market value (Forced Sale) Arguments suggested by facts of cases we read? Arguments suggested by facts of cases we read? Note useful technique for Opinion/Dissent Qs Note useful technique for Opinion/Dissent Qs Example: Nightmare Example: Nightmare Others? Others?

DQ5.21: Adverse Possession Policy: Legislative Debate Florida Legislature considering eliminating or modifying adverse possession doctrine. Proposals include Complete elimination Color of Title Only Adverse Possessor must pay market value (Forced Sale) Other Proposals/Arguments? Other Proposals/Arguments?

Scope of Easement: RR Easement  Recreational Trail Common Transition with Decline of RRs Federal statute encourages and gives RRs authority to transfer rights-of-way BUT doesn’t purport to resolve state law issues re allowable scope after transfer We’ll compare Chevy Chase (MD) to Preseault (Fed. Cir. 1996) (P Note 2)

Scope of Express Easements (Tuesday) RR Easement  Recreational Trail IMAGINATION EXERCISE (~6.02) Possible Increases in Burden? Everyone (but Redwoods First)