PROPERTY QUIZ NO. TWO
Fall 2009 EVENING CLASS
Professor Peter M. Malaguti
September 11, 2009
Instructions:
A.
Place your answers on the Scantron cards. You must put your PR # on the
Scantron card to receive credit.
B.
Use a # 2 pencil to fill in your answers.
C.
You have 15 minutes to finish this quiz. You will need to work efficiently, but
should have enough time. Please stay in your seats quietly until I instruct
everyone to bring up the completed quizzes.
D.
There are five (5) questions. Scoring will be from 0 to 5.
E.
You are to choose the BEST answer for each question. There always is a BEST
answer.
F.
Please do not turn the page and begin until I give the instruction to do so.
G.
Please stay in your seat quietly until I call time.
GOOD LUCK!
PLEASE CHOOSE THE BEST ANSWER TO EACH QUESTION.
Questions 1 and 2 are based on the following fact pattern:
The St. Paul Hotel is located in St. Paul, Minnesota. For more than 20 years, Ferdinand Hotz, a
jeweler has visited St. Paul on business, and has made the St Paul Hotel his local
headquarters. He had long been one of the hotel’s regular patrons, and was personally know
by management and most of the staff employees. Several years ago, Hotz and made and sold
to Mrs. Pamela Peet an engagement ring. Recently, one of the small diamonds on the setting
fell off, and Mrs. Peet arranged with Hotz to have it replaced. They agreed that Mrs. Peet would
leave the ring for Hotz at the concierge counter of the St. Paul hotel on September 7, 2008. The
agreement was that Hotz would fix the ring and return it when he was next in town. At four p.m.
on September 7, 2008, Mrs. Peet went to the concierge counter of the St. Paul Hotel, took the
ring off her finger, and handed it to the counter attendant, Miss Edwards, an employee of the
Hotel. Peet watched as Edwards took out an envelope and wrote “Ferdinand Hotz” on it. Mrs.
Peet handed Edwards the ring and left. She did not pay any fee to the Hotel for this service.
One hour later a man came in and introduced himself as Ferdinand Hotz. Miss Edwards asked
for a form of photographic identification. The man produced a driver’s license under the name
Ferdinand B. Hotz, and bearing a photograph that matched the man standing before Miss
Edwards. Miss Edwards delivered the envelope with the ring to the man, and the man left. It
later became obvious that the man who took the ring from Miss Edwards was not Ferdinand
Hotz. It was his evil identical twin brother, Frederick Hotz, who has left for parts unknown.
Mrs. Peet has sued the St. Paul Hotel for the value of the engagement ring.
Q.1.
At common law:
A.
The St. Paul Hotel will prevail because the bailment relationship between Mrs. Peet
and the Hotel benefitted the bailor, and the low standard of care provides that the
Hotel is liable only for gross negligence or wanton and willful conduct.
B.
The St. Paul Hotel will prevail because the standard of care in all bailment cases was
ordinary negligence, and Miss Edwards exercised the care a reasonably prudent
person would exercise in the same circumstances.
C.
Mrs. Peet will prevail because the bailment relationship between Mrs. Peet and the
Hotel was one that benefitted the bailee, and the high standard of care provides that
the Hotel is liable even for slight negligence.
D.
Mrs. Peet will prevail regardless of what kind of bailment relationship she had with
the Hotel.
2
Q.2.
Under the modern rule:
A.
The St. Paul Hotel will prevail because the bailment relationship between Mrs. Peet
and the Hotel benefitted the bailor, and the low standard of care provides that the
Hotel is liable only for gross negligence or wanton and willful conduct.
B.
The St. Paul Hotel will prevail because the standard of care in all bailment cases is
ordinary negligence, and it is beyond all doubt that Miss Edwards, on behalf of the
Hotel, exercised at least the care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in
the same circumstances.
C.
Mrs. Peet will prevail because her bailment relationship with the Hotel was one that
benefitted the bailee, and the high standard of care provides that the Hotel is liable
even for slight negligence.
D.
The outcome will depend on whether the finder of fact determines that Miss
Edwards, on behalf of the St. Paul Hotel, acted as a reasonably prudent person
would act in the same circumstances.
Q.3. Oliver was the record owner of Spiritacre, a 20 acre undeveloped parcel of wooded land.
Oliver, who had inherited Spiritacre some 40 years ago, was a member of the Psychedelic
Church of the Natural Order. Since a primary principle of that religion is that people are
incapable of owning private property, Oliver did not consider himself to be the owner of
Spiritacre. In 1982, Aaron, another member of the Psychedelic Church of the Natural Order
and a good friend of Oliver, moved onto Spiritacre, constructed a shelter and lived there without
interference until 2008. Oliver and Aaron never discussed the circumstances of Aaron’s
possession of Spiritacre, but Aaron assumed that Oliver did not object given their mutually-held
belief about private property.
Assume for this question that Aaron’s possession was open and notorious, actual, exclusive
and continuous. In early 2009, Aaron quit the religion, became a capitalist and sued Oliver,
claiming that he had acquired title by adverse possession. Oliver, who also recently quit the
religion, is defending the suit. If Oliver prevails in that action it will be because:
A.
While he practiced his religion, Aaron could not have been deemed a hostile
possessor because he did not fully appreciate that his presence on Spiritacre
created an affront to Oliver’s right to exclude.
B.
Oliver’s and Aaron’s tacit understanding about Aaron’s presence on Spiritacre
caused Aaron not to be a trespasser.
C.
In failing to believe in private property Aaron could not have formed the requisite
intent to be deemed a trespasser upon Spiritacre.
D.
Human dignity and public policy requires that Aaron’s religious beliefs be respected
under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment of the United States
Constitution, thus preventing him from being treated as a trespasser.
Q.4. Bennie Gill liked to fish in the waters of the Lotsafishtocatch River located in the
Michigan Upper Peninsula. His preferred method was to employ a large “purse” net with a large
opening that Gill would “draw” closed when he wanted to haul in his catch. Using his pickup
3
truck, Gill would “draw” the large opening down into a relatively small opening, and drag the net
and fish out of the water and onto the shore. The net would hold as much as 100 pounds of fish
at a time. During the process of “drawing” and “dragging,” the mouth of the net never closed
completely, and a few fish would always escape. However, Gill’s method would usually net him
about 90 pounds of fish at a time. The applicable fishing statute allowed year-round fishing of
all types of fish except for trout. The fishing season for trout ran from April 15 to September 30,
and proscribed the “taking, capture or corporeal possession” of any trout except during the
fishing season. In addition, the statute prohibited keeping more than five (5) trout per day
during fishing season. On March 12, 2008, a time outside of the fishing season, Michigan game
wardens observed Gill place his net in the river as described above. After the net filled with
about 100 pounds of fish, but before Gill dragged it onto the shore, the wardens arrested Gill for
violating the above-described fishing law.
Gill’s best argument that he is not guilty under the applicable fishing statutes is that:
A.
He never possessed any of the fish because the state could not identify them as
trout, bass, pickerel, or the like.
B.
The state could not prove that Gill had more than five (5) trout in the net at the time
he was arrested.
C.
The method of fishing he employed failed to reduce any single fish to corporeal
possession because any one of them might escape through the small opening.
D.
In Michigan, the “wolverine state,” trout are animals “animus revertendi” rather than
“farae naturae.”
Q.5.
In a proper claim of constructive adverse possession:
A.
An adverse possessor who received a defective deed, and believed in good faith that
s/he got good title, and who satisfies all five elements of adverse possession, obtains
title to all real estate owned by the record owner rather than what s/he actually
possessed.
B.
An adverse possessor claims that the statutory period must be shortened to ten (10)
years rather than the normal amount provided under the applicable state statute.
C.
An adverse possessor claims the right to ownership under a “constructive” rather
than “actual” possession of the real estate in questions.
D.
An adverse possessor who received a defective deed, and believed in good faith that
s/he got good title, and who satisfies all five elements of adverse possession, obtains
title to the entire parcel described in the deed rather than what s/he actually
possessed.
END OF QUIZ
4