Midterm Review - PROPERTY
.docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
New England Law *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
101
Subject
Law
Date
May 30, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
15
Uploaded by MinisterCloverStingray39
1.
Neighbor and Homeowner own directly adjacent lots in a rural area. Neighbor builds a stone patio near the back of her lot. During construction, Homeowner passes by and notes that the stone patio “better not be an inch on my property.” Neighbor truthfully tries to make sure the patio stays on her land. Neighbor completes patio and maintains it and uses it for twelve years. Homeowner then has a survey done of her land and learns that the Neighbor’s patio is, in fact, on Homeowner’s lot. Homeowner sues Neighbor for ejectment. Assuming a ten-year statute of limitations for ejectment claims,
will Neighbor prevail on a defense of adverse possession? Group of answer choices A.
Yes, if the jurisdiction follows either the majority (objective) test or the good-faith test with respect to the adverse possessor’s state of mine (CORRECT ANSWER)
B.
Yes, but only if the jurisdiction follows the good-faith test with respect to the adverse possessor’s state of mine
C.
Yes, but only if the jurisdiction follows the majority (objective) test with respect to the adverse possessor’s state of mine
D.
Yes, but only if the jurisdiction follows the intentional dispossession test with respect to the adverse possessor’s state of mind.
Answer: Yes, if the jurisdiction follows either the majority (objective) test or the good-faith test with respect to the adverse possessor’s state of mind.
Explanation:
Neighbor truthfully tries to make sure the patio stays on her land. 12 years, 10 years agile limitations. Will they prevail? – THIS IS JUST TESTING IF YOU KNOW WHAT THE DIFFERENT TESTS ARE FOR THE ADVERSE HOSTILITY ELEMENT?
We got a majority objective test which says we assume non permissive unless expressed permission. It meets the Majority test! Does it meet the good faith test? YES because they truthfully tried to make sure it stayed on their land. A good faith adverse possessor is someone who doesn’t know that
they were doing it. Mistakenly believe that it is their land. THE FLIP SIDE IS THE INTENTION DISPOSSESION TEST. THAT is someone who knows their adverse possessing and does it on purpose. Here, they truthfully tried to make sure the patio stayed on their land.
If we have either the majority obkective test or good faith test we are good. TRESPASS QUESTION
2.
A peaceful protester runs onto the front lawn of a private homeowner to shelter behind a tree to avoid stones being thrown by counter-protesters. On the edge of the front lawn is a large statue. The protester is using the statue as a shield from the stones. The protester should be free from civil liability:
Group of answer choices
A.
Even if the protester cannot prove that the statue blocked all the stones. (Correct Answer)
B.
Only if the protester can prove that he thought the front lawn was public property.
C.
Only if the homeowner fails to prove that she did not previously grant access to the protester.
D.
Only if the homeowner fails to prove that there were other public statues to hide behind.
Answer: Even if the protester cannot prove that the statue blocked all the stones.
Explanation:
The call of the question is really asking if it’s not a trespass, why isn’t it a trespass? Or two, if it is a trespass, might there be a necessity defense that would prevent there from being inside of civil liability? Not a ton of facts just the fact that protester runs on the front lawn of a private homeowner. There is nothing about permission. This is an unprivileged and intentional intrusion under the property owned by another. So, IT IS TRESPESS in a CIVIL SENSE
. The only thing that is going to make
them free from civil liability is a NECESSITY DEFENSE
. Trespasser to prove
the Necessity defense. Homeowner doesn’t have to prove necessity, only the
protester does so C, and D are not correct. Also, B is incorrect because the
intentional requirement of Trespass is the intent to enter not the intent to trespass. The protester may be able to claim a defense of necessity. Necessity is a legal doctrine that allows people to break the law in order to avoid a greater harm. In this case, the protester may argue that they were forced to trespass
on the homeowner's lawn in order to protect themselves from serious harm.
To succeed on a defense of necessity, the protester must show the following:
There was a threat of serious harm to the protester.
The protester could not reasonably avoid the harm without trespassing.
The harm caused by the trespass was less than the harm that would have been caused if the protester had not trespassed.
In this case, the protester was being threatened with serious harm by the stones being thrown by counter-protesters. The protester could not reasonably avoid the harm by staying in the public area where the protest was taking place. The harm caused by the trespass was relatively minor, as the protester was only on the homeowner's lawn for a short time and did not damage any property.
Therefore, the protester may be able to claim a defense of necessity and be free from civil liability, even if they cannot prove that the statue blocked all the stones.
3.
Amaya owned property in a jurisdiction where the statutory period for adverse possession is 10 years. Connor began camping on a corner of Amaya’s land in 2000, though he regularly hiked around its perimeter. In 2001, he gave up his tent for a more permanent, but still mobile structure. In 2003, Connor built an outhouse on the property. In 2005, Connor built a cottage near the trail head that he hiked and stocked it
with food, water and other hiking supplies. In that same year, he hired Greg, a marketing professional, to entice people to come and hike the trail, and rebranded the cottage as a visitor’s center. In 2011, Connor wants to sell his interest in the property to Greg, who is concerned about the validity of Connor’s title. Which of the following is most likely:
Group of answer choices
A.
Greg would be the rightful owner of the property if he did not know that the property originally belonged to Amaya and was never sold to Connor.
B.
Connor has the right to possess the land, but not to sell the land.
C.
Connor’s action to quiet title in 2011 would likely fail because his possession was not
continuous.
D.
Amaya maintains title to the property because Connor had not established all elements of adverse possession for the required statutory period. (CORRECT ANSWER)
Answer: Amaya maintains title to the property because Connor had not established all elements of adverse possession for the required statutory period.
Explanation:
10 year statutory period. Begins camping in 2000. Hiking around the parameter. In 2001, we got a mobile structure. In 2003 we got an outhouse ( more like actual possession). In 2005 we have a cottage (more like actual possession). We have Greg coming into to entice people to come and hike the trail (doesn’t negate exclusivity). In 2011, wants to sell it. If we are looking back 10 years- 2011-10= 2001
Is this mobile structure enough for actual possession? – Not really . He has not established all the elements of adverse possession. ACQUIRING PROPERTY
4.
A Homeowner sees a wild rabbit in her backyard. The Homeowner runs outside and traps the rabbit in a fence, thinking she will keep it as a pet. The Neighbor watches this series of events and, when the Homeowner is sleeping, intentionally temps the rabbit out of the fence and over to his property by waving carrots. The Neighbor does this to spite the Homeowner because of a longstanding disagreement they have. Without ever entering the Homeowner’s property, the Neighbor is able to get the rabbit out of the fence and then released into the woods. In such a case:
Group of answer choices A.
Whether the Homeowner was entitled to the rabbit without the Neighbor’s interference depends on whether a court will find that the Neighbor had the requisite intent to deprive the Homeowner of the rabbit (Correct Answer)
B.
Whether the Homeowner was entitled to the rabbit without the Neighbor’s interference depends on whether a court will find that the rabbit had been in the Homeowner’s possession
C.
Whether the Homeowner was entitled to the rabbit without the Neighbor’s interference depends on whether a court will find that the Neighbor knew or should have known that the Homeowner was seeking to secure the rabbit
D.
Whether the Homeowner was entitled to the rabbit without the Neighbor’s interference depends on whether a court will find that rabbits are considered a nuisance in the area.
Answer: Whether the Homeowner was entitled to the rabbit without the Neighbor’s interference depends on whether a court will find that the Neighbor had the requisite intent to deprive the Homeowner of the rabbit.
Explanation:
Should be thinking about Pearson v. Post. Whether the homeowner was entitled to the rabbit without the neighbor’s interference depends on that. If you are entitled to something without a neighbor’s interference, do you have
property interests in something? We are going to be on that same spectrum of mere persuit all the way to actual possession. Whether the Court finds the rabbit had been in the homeowner’s possession,
if you have an actual possession of something, Pearson v. Post, we know that
you have actual property rights in that thing. If you are somewhere else on that spectrum, maybe you do, maybe you don’t. It might depend a little bit on your jurisdiction. If it has been in the homeowner’s possession, they have property rights to it and they are entitled to it without the neighbor’s interference. You don’t have to determine whether the waving of the carrots is important or not. It is
an extraneous fact because whether they are entitled to that rabbit depends on whether or not they are entitled to it. Incorrect answers
Whether the neighbor knew or should have known that the homeowner was seeking to secure the rabbit. I mean, again, that only really matters if the homeowner has first achieved property rights in that rabbit itself. And it doesn't really depend on what the neighbor knew or should have known. It depends on intent, depends on control, and obviously possession is the best indicator of that.
Whether the neighbor had requisite intent to deprive the homeowner of the rabbit. Doesn’t really matter because we need, in the first instance that the homeowner to have gotten the rabbit to have had property rights in that rabbit.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help