PROPERTY D SLIDES NATIONAL CHOCOLATE MINT DAY

Friday Feb 19 Music to Accompany Lutz: Billie Holiday Sings (1952) Lunch Today: Meet on 12:25 Alfonso * Clifton Kusserelis * D.Roberts Ryan * Woodbury No Dean’s Fellow Today (DCA Visit) Reminder: Everglades Critique of Rev. Prob. 2C Due Noon

Name the Musical Group: 1 st Billboard #1 Hit in 1958 Won 5 Grammys; Nominated for 8 More Featured in Major Studio Motion Picture in 2011 [Answer after Break]

Chapter 2: The Eminent Domain Power & the Public Use Requirement Federal Constitutional Background State Public Use Standards Kelo & Beyond Kelo & Beyond Kelo Majority & Kennedy Concurrence Kelo Dissents & Merrill Review Problems Review Problems Rev. Problem 2D Rev. Problem 2D Rev. Problem 2G

OLYMPIC: Rev. Prob. 2D EEL GLACIER

Review Problem 2D City developing Museum on own land next to Old Grantham OG = Slightly rundown neighborhood w shabby but occupied apt complexes, warehouses, and a few small businesses (incl. pawnshop & XXX bookstore). Developer D wants to develop 24-sq-block part of OG into mixed-use project containing residences, offices, stores and restaurants. City uses EmDom to purchase area & resell to D contingent on her building proposed project.

REVIEW PROBLEM 2D Under Rational Basis Test Purpose of Program? Upgrade N-Hood; Improve Museum Prospects Legitimate? (Connected to Health, Safety, Welfare, Morals) YES. Both are Welfare Program Rationally Related to Purpose? Plausible Successful Developer Can Upgrade Neighborhood? YES Plausible Better Neighborhood Helps Increase Visits to Museum? YES EASY CASE UNDER RATIONAL BASIS

REVIEW PROBLEM 2D EASY CASE UNDER RATIONAL BASIS TODAY: Q under Kelo Majority & KND Concurrence: Does the Situation Here Warrant Greater Scrutiny or is Pure Rational Basis the Appropriate Test

Olympic: REVIEW PROBLEM 2D Facts/Aspects Of Problem That Might Point To Greater Scrutiny Under Kelo Majority or KND?

Olympic: REVIEW PROBLEM 2D Facts/Aspects Of Problem That Might Point To Greater Scrutiny Under Kelo Majority/KND include: Deal proposed by D; Known Beneficiary. Deal proposed by D; Known Beneficiary. No evidence it arose through comprehensive planning process or resulted from thorough deliberations No evidence it arose through comprehensive planning process or resulted from thorough deliberations No evidence of state statute supporting No evidence of state statute supporting No evidence of serious economic crisis No evidence of serious economic crisis

Olympic: REVIEW PROBLEM 2D Overall: Enough Reasons for Concern to Forego Deference/Rational Basis? (Including Facts/Aspects Of Problem That Tend to Support Rational Basis/Deference)

Olympic: REVIEW PROBLEM 2D Facts/Aspects Of Problem That Might Point To Rational Basis Under Kelo Majority/KND include: Developer’s Renown & Prior Success Rate: Developer’s Renown & Prior Success Rate: Make Genuine Public/Economic Benefit More Likely Make Genuine Public/Economic Benefit More Likely Mildly Reduce Risk of Corruption Mildly Reduce Risk of Corruption Contractual Limits Mildly Increase Chances that Contractual Limits Mildly Increase Chances that Genuine Public Benefit Genuine Public Benefit No Surprise Private Benefit No Surprise Private Benefit

REVIEW PROBLEM 2D Next Week in DF: Application of Poletown & Hatchcock Tests to Rev. Prob. 2D Questions on 2D?

Chapter 2: The Eminent Domain Power & the Public Use Requirement Federal Constitutional Background State Public Use Standards Kelo & Beyond Kelo & Beyond Kelo Majority & Kennedy Concurrence Kelo Dissents & Merrill Review Problems Review Problems Rev. Problem 2D Rev. Problem 2G (ALL except OLYMPIC) Rev. Problem 2G (ALL except OLYMPIC)

Review Problem 2G & Hatchcock Why Each Particular Hatchcock Situation is/isn’t a Useful Test for Public Use: General Concerns Include: Irrelevant or Unimportant Subject Matter Relevant & Important v. Irrelevant or Unimportant Too Restrictive Restriction Necessary/Appropriate v. Too Restrictive Too Complex or Too Vague Test is Workable v. Too Complex or Too Vague

Rev. Prob. 2G & Hatchcock Situation #1 (Acadia) Public Necessity: Pros & Cons of Test Means: Means: Type of Project is important/vital & Only way to do project is through Eminent Domain Does NOT Mean Specific Project must be Necessary to Public Considerations: Considerations: Irrelevant or Unimportant Subject Matter Relevant & Important v. Irrelevant or Unimportant Too Restrictive Restriction Necessary/Appropriate v. Too Restrictive Too Complex or Too Vague Test is Workable v. Too Complex or Too Vague

Rev. Prob. 2G & Hatchcock Situation #2 (Badlands) Accountability: Pros & Cons of Test Means: Means: Private entity remains responsible to public for its use Considerations: Considerations: Irrelevant or Unimportant Subject Matter Relevant & Important v. Irrelevant or Unimportant Too Restrictive Restriction Necessary/Appropriate v. Too Restrictive Too Complex or Too Vague Test is Workable v. Too Complex or Too Vague

Rev. Prob. 2G & Hatchcock Situation #3 (Everglades) Selection: Pros & Cons of Test Means: Means: Particular parcel(s) chosen based on facts of independent public significance. Independent Independent means reasons to select location unconnected to success of intended Project Look for problems with Present Use/Ownership Does NOT consider EXTENT of importance/significance of site/project Considerations: Considerations: Irrelevant or Unimportant Subject Matter Relevant & Important v. Irrelevant or Unimportant Too Restrictive Restriction Necessary/Appropriate v. Too Restrictive Too Complex or Too Vague Test is Workable v. Too Complex or Too Vague

Rev. Prob. 2G & Rational Basis (Sequoia) Rational Basis: Pros & Cons of Test Means: Rationally Related to Legitimate State Purpose Means: Rationally Related to Legitimate State Purpose Considerations: Considerations: Obviously a Workable Test Deference here is good because… Deference here is good because… Too much deference here is problematic because… Too much deference here is problematic because…

Name the Musical Group: 1 st Billboard #1 Hit in 1958 Won 5 Grammys; Nominated for 8 More Featured in Major Studio Motion Picture in 2011

Name the Musical Group: 1 st Billboard #1 Hit in 1958 Won 5 Grammys; Nominated for 8 More Featured in Motion Picture in 2011

CHAPTER 3: ADVERSE POSSESSION OVERVIEW (Continued)

Adverse Possession: Overview Lawyering Focus: Working with Indiv. Elements Need to Understand Role and Operation of Each Element Because each Element is required, assume not redundant Each Element looking for different kind of info i.e., separate purpose/focus and different kinds of facts for each Useful to think about how each fits into purposes of AP LMNs of AP: similar from state to state exc state of mind If addressing a case in a partic jurisd, for each element: Check statute and caselaw for definitions/rules Use policy/purpose arguments to help resolve close cases

Adverse Possession: Overview Lawyering Focus: Individual Elements Our Sequence 1. Actual Use (Acadia) 2. Open & Notorious (Badlands) 3. Exclusive (Olympic) 4. Continuous (Sequoia) 5. Adverse/Hostile (Everglades) Our Coverage for Each Focus/Relevant Evidence Purpose Easy Cases/Hard Cases Judicial Opinions Review Problems for 1- 4

Cases: Brief Introduction with Memory Aids Lutz (NY 1952) Squatters’ Garden Thrives During the Great Depression Billie Holiday Sings

Cases: Brief Introduction with Memory Aids Ray (NY 1996) Creepy Summers in Empty Resort barry manilow, summer of ‘78

Cases: Brief Introduction with Memory Aids E. 13 th Street (NY. Supr. 1996) Squatters’ Ensemble Tries to Act Together RENT (Original Cast Album)

Cases: Brief Introduction with Memory Aids Bell (Wash. 1989) Houseboat Tied to Land with Woodshed, Sauna & Moving Outhouse The B-52s, COSMiC ThiNG featuring “Love Shack”

Cases: Brief Introduction with Memory Aids Vezey (Alaska 2001) The Present Depends on the Past JOHN BONGIOVI, THE POWER STATION YEARS featuring featuring “Who Said It Would Last Forever”

Cases: Brief Introduction with Memory Aids Howard v. Kunto (Wash. App. 1971) Everyone is One Lot Over from Their Deed We’re Not Reading but I’ll Use the Facts as an Example/Hypothetical

Adverse Possession: Overview Cases: Three Common Fact Patterns 1.Mistaken Owner w Good Faith Belief in Title ~Ray; Vezey; Howard 2.Boundary Dispute between Neighbors Review Problems 3B & 3H 3.Outsider “Squatting” Lutz; E. 13 th St.; Bell

SEQUOIA: DQ SEQUOIAS

Adverse Possession: Justifications DQ3.01: AP as SoL (Sequoia) Purposes Behind SoL Generally? (E.g., Torts/Contracts)

Adverse Possession: Justifications DQ3.01: AP as SoL (Sequoia) Purposes Behind SoL Generally (E.g., Torts/Contracts) Potential Ds: Repose Legal System: Evidentiary Problems Potential Ps: Encourage Rabbits; Punish Turtles (Don’t “Sleep” on Your Rights) Apply to Actions for Possession of Land?

Adverse Possession: Justifications DQ3.01: AP as SoL (Sequoia) Purposes Behind SoL: Adverse Possession Potential Ds: Repose (Quiet Titles; Protect Investment) Legal System: Evidentiary Problems (  ”Prescriptive Rights”) Potential Ps: Don’t “Sleep” on Your Rights Discourage Leaving Land Unmonitored (Drugs, Dead Bodies, Al- Qaeda) Other Purposes for AP?