1. Property II: Class #7 Tuesday 9/4/18 Power Point Presentation National Wildlife Day

2. Tomorrow: Nahrstedt & DQs2.01-2.06(a)-(d)
Music to Accompany Grading Contract: Stevie Wonder, The Definitive Collection (2002) featuring “Signed, Sealed, Delivered”
Tomorrow: Nahrstedt & DQs (a)-(d)
(All Except Ramos)
Grading Contract
Today: Read Thru/Ask Questions
By Thursday 5pm: Bring Signed Copy to Tina
Preserve Anonymity
Comments/Models to 1A Unlikely to be Helpful

3. Review Problem 1D (N19): Summary of Facts (Recap)
MM = movie star
Acquitted of murdering 3d husband,
Buys big house(H) in wealthy suburb; has spent little time at H.
When at H little noise; few guests.
Sometimes rumors: MM coming to H
Reporters/camera crews go to n-hood
Press sometimes trespass on n-bors’ lawns
S has lived next door to H for many years. Since M bought, S has tried to sell his house w/o success. Potential buyers unhappy re media presence & MM as possible murderer

4. [If you see these issues, should briefly discuss in answer.]
Review Problem 1D (N19): Possible Preclusive Issues (Covered Last Time)
Reasons a court might wish to preclude or limit liability on these facts? At least:
Policy Concern Re Home Ownership: Can simply owning a house to use as a part-time home with no other acts by the owner ever constitute a nuisance?
Policy Concern re Meaning of Acquittal: Absent civil judgment of D responsibility, do we treat acquittal as precluding claims based on assumption of D guilt?
[If you see these issues, should briefly discuss in answer.]

5. Review Problem 1D (N19): Friedhoff et al.
M Resposibility for Acts of Press?
Armory Park: D’s “activity may be enjoined upon the showing of a causal connection between that activity and harm to another. The [Q] is not whether [D] directly caused each improper act, but whether [D’s] business operation frequently attracted patrons whose conduct violated the rights of residents to peacefully use and enjoy their property.”
Application of Test?
Key Terms Easily Satisfied?

6. Review Problem 1D (N19): Friedhoff et al.
M Resposibility for Acts of Press?
Armory Park: D’s “activity may be enjoined upon the showing of a causal connection between that activity and harm to another. The [Q] is not whether [D] directly caused each improper act, but whether [D’s] business operation frequently attracted patrons whose conduct violated the rights of residents to peacefully use and enjoy their property.”
Application of Test?
Key Terms Easily Satisfied?
Key Terms that are Harder Qs? (Ways to Distinguish Armory Park?)

7. M Resposibility for Acts of Press?
Review Problem 1D (N19)
M Resposibility for Acts of Press?
[Did M’s …]
business operation (Matter if Residence?)
frequently attract (Is “Sometimes” Enough?)
patrons (Treat press like “patrons”?)
Probably undesirable to MM as well BUT
In some sense invited by M’s career/lifestyle
whose conduct violated the rights of residents …?

8. Logistics: Chapter 1 Info Memo
Look Through FirstSection: Key Authorities & Concepts
Guide to What You Need to Know
I’ll Do for Every Chapter
Let Me Know if Qs
I’ll Post Update Today After Class
Write-Up of 1D Now Includes Resp. for Press
Adds Write-Up of 1H (w Nuisance Info in Blue).
I’ll Continue to Supplement & Note Additions on Course Page (Probably through Fall Break for Chapters 1 & 2)

9. Review Problem 1H (N34): Lawyering Problem Generally
Level of Detail in Your Answer Will Vary w Number of Major Topics. Your Test Q Will Have 2 or 3 (Not 4 Like Original Version of This Q)
Possible Preliminary Issues:
Has Client Talked to Ctr? Response?
Client Preferred Result (Inj. v Future Dmgs)
Qs re Settlement (Willing? Min. Acceptable?)
Others?

10. Review Problem 1H (N34): Lawyering Problem
Legal Outline?

11. Review Problem 1H (N34): Lawyering Problem
Possible Legal Outline
Pvt Nuis Test? 1st Restmt? 2d? S/L? Bal.of Eq?
Meaning of Harm? Cases/Defs? 827 Factors
Meaning of Utility? Cases Defs? 828 Factors?
Cases Defining/Explaining Balancing
If 2dR: Meaning of “Serious”? Of “Feasible”? Cases/Defs?
Cases on Public Service/Youth Center v. Residents
Other Legal Research

12. Review Problem 1H (N34): Lawyering Problem
Possible Legal Outline
Pvt Nuis Test? 1st Restmt? 2d? S/L? Bal.of Eq?
Other Legal Research
[Fact Res: Other N-bors Complaining]  Rules for Pub Nuis [If Time]
Special Rules for Nuis by Local Govt?
Relevant Statute/Regs
re Noise or Use of Land or Occupancy Limits
Re State or County Policy re Teen Centers
Use of Easement as Nuis? (OK to Check Uncertainty)

13. Review Problem 1H (N34): Lawyering Problem Fact Investigarion: Utility (Ramos & Friedhoff)
General Headings (827 & Others)
Major Categories of Possible Benefits?
Possible Subcategories?
HFO? (Sources of Info)

14. Review Problem 1H (N34): Lawyering Problem Fact Investigarion: Harm (Mandel & McLaughlin)
General Headings (828 & Others)
Major Categories of Possible Benefits?
Possible Subcategories?
HFO? (Sources of Info)

15. Chapter 2: Actual and Desirable Limits on Homeowners’ Association Regulations [Exterior Signs Must Be Brown and White Using Sans Serif Fonts—By-Laws §6.66 (A) & (W)]

16. Homeowners’ Associations (HOA) Background: Promissory Servitudes
Servitude = A right by which a piece of land owned by one person is subject to a specified use or enjoyment by another.
Easement = Servitude Created by Express or Implied Grant
Promissory Servitude = Servitude Created by Promise. E.g.,
Owner of Greenacre Promises Residential Use Only
Owner of Blackacre Promises to Supply Water to Whiteacre

17. Homeowners’ Associations (HOA) Background: Promissory Servitudes
Q of Enforcement as between Initial Parties is Contract Issue
Key Property Q re Promissory Servitude = Does Promise “Run with the Land”
Can Original Promisee Enforce Against Promisor’s Successors
Can Original Promisee’s Successors Enforce Against Original Promisor & Successors.

18. HOA Background: Promissory Servitudes “Running with the Land”
Common Law Had Three Kinds of Req’mts (Interpreted Strictly)
“Horizontal Privity” = Sufficient Legal Connection betw Original Parties
“Vertical Privity” = Sufficient Legal Connection betw Party to Current Dispute & Original Party
“Touch & Concern” the Land = Sufficient Connection betw Promise and Parcel in Q (so that saying Agreement “Attached” to Land made sense)
If All Tests Met: “Real Covenant” (= Damages for Breach)

19. HOA Background: Promissory Servitudes Evolution of “Running with the Land”
Common Law Had Three Kinds of Req’mts (Interpreted Strictly)
“Horizontal Privity” + “Vertical Privity + “Touch & Concern”
Starts as Part of LLDd-TNt Law (When Most English Land Held by Lease) = Narrow Horiz. Privity Rule
Urban Development  Desire to Enforce Agreements Originating betw Parcels w No Legal Relationship  Equitable Servitudes (No Horiz. Privity Needed to Enforce with Injunction or Other Equitable Remedy)

20. HOA Background: Promissory Servitudes Evolution of “Running with the Land”
Common Law Had Three Kinds of Req’mts (Interpreted Strictly)
“Horizontal Privity” + “Vertical Privity + “Touch & Concern”
Development of “Subdivisions” (Groups of Parcels Together esp. Residential) Yields Problems b/c Basis of Servitude is Promise: What Happens if Developer Stops Extracting Promises from Later Buyers? Courts Struggle to Find Ways to Protect Interests of Earlier Purchasers.
Developers Try Creating HOA to Collect $ from and Enforce Promises against All Owners in Development
BUT HOA own no land  no vertical privity w original owners
Promises to pay $ to HOA  Fail Trad’l Touch & Concern Rules

21. HOA Background: Promissory Servitudes Evolution of “Running with the Land”
Common Law Had Three Kinds of Req’mts (Interpreted Strictly)
“Horizontal Privity” + “Vertical Privity + “Touch & Concern”
Developers Try Creating HOA to Collect $ from and Enforce Promises against All Owners in Development
BUT HOA own no land  no vertical privity w original owners
Promises to pay $ to HOA  Fail Trad’l Touch & Concern Rules
Neponsit Property Owners’ Assn v. Emigrant Industrial Savings Bank, 278 N.Y (1938) Interprets Requirements in Practical way to Allow HOA Power to Enforce Promises (incl. $$$) on All Owners in Subdivision. Allows Further Development of Forms of HOA

22. Common modern form of promissory servitude
HOAs Today: Overview
Common modern form of promissory servitude
Binds an adjoining group of residences to identical restrictions
Owners belong to the association & elect a governing board that enforces the restrictions.
Millions of people live in residences governed by an HOA (Condos, Co-ops, Developments of Townhouses or Single Family Homes)
Can be used to create specific kinds of community w Some Sharred Values (“Common Interest Communities”)
Compare w nuisance & zoning as method of land use control