Property:
Our Social Institution
Peter M. Gerhart
c Peter M. Gerhart, 2012
ii
Summary of Contents
1 Ownership: Socially Recognized Authority Over Resources 1
1.1 Public or Private Ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3
1.2 Ownership and Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
1.3 Private Ownership and the Market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
2 Assigning Ownership
2.1 Recognition . . . . . . . . .
2.2 Capture . . . . . . . . . . .
2.3 Find . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.4 Adverse Possession . . . . .
2.5 Shifting Natural Boundaries
2.6 Conflicting Gifts . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
93
94
99
118
131
150
156
3 Ownership: Right to Exclude
3.1 Trespass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2 Exclusion Limits . . . . . . . . . . .
3.3 Remedies for Trespass . . . . . . . .
3.4 Licenses and Affirmative Easements
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
161
162
173
219
235
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4 Ownership: Rights to Transfer, Divide, and Burden
4.1 The Feudal System: “Owners” as Tenants . . . . . . . . . .
4.2 The Evolution of the Right to Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.3 The Evolution of the Right to Divide . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.4 The Evolution of the Right to Burden . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.5 Justifying the Development of Ownership
Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.6 Body Parts and the Right to Transfer, Divide, and Burden
5 Spatial Coordination of Ownership
5.1 Nuisance: Common Law Spatial Coordination . . . . . . . .
5.2 Zoning: Legislative Spatial Coordination . . . . . . . . . . .
5.3 Servitudes: Private Arrangement for Spatial Coordination .
5.4 Private Governance Regimes: Modern Spatial Coordination
271
. 273
. 275
. 277
. 279
. 282
. 284
.
.
.
.
321
322
365
375
397
6 Temporal Coordination of Ownership
405
6.1 Restricting Present Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 408
6.2 Restrictions on Marketing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 412
6.3 Restrictions on Temporal Division . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 421
iii
iv
SUMMARY OF CONTENTS
6.4
6.5
Restrictions on Running of Covenants . . . . . . . . . . . . . 457
Restrictions on Current Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 470
7 Shared Ownership Coordination
7.1 Entity Property . . . . . . . . . . .
7.2 Co-ownership Outside of Entities .
7.3 Marital Property . . . . . . . . . .
7.4 Landlord-Tenant Decision Making
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
489
491
493
507
516
8 Regulation of Property Transfers
8.1 Methods of Conveyance . . . . . . . . .
8.2 Formal Requirements . . . . . . . . . . .
8.3 Real and Personal Property Warranties
8.4 Risk of Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8.5 Fixtures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
555
556
556
556
561
561
9 Public Governance of Private Property
9.1 The Limits of Private Law as a Governance Mechanism .
9.2 Building and Fire Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9.3 Zoning: From Spatial Coordination to Development Policy
9.4 Environmental Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
571
571
571
571
571
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
10 Limits on Public Governance
573
10.1 Eminent Domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 574
10.2 Limitation on Government Regulation of Use . . . . . . . . . 604
10.3 Constitutional Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 665
Contents
1 Ownership: Socially Recognized Authority Over Resources
1.1 Public or Private Ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Hinman v. Pacific Air Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. State of Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Johnson v. M’Intosh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A Note on Shared Ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
U.S. v. One Lucite Ball Containing Lunar Material . . . . . . . .
1.2 Ownership and Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.2.1 Common Property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Tragedy of the Commons, Garrett Hardin . . . . . . . .
Toward a Theory of Property Rights, Harold Demsetz . . .
A Note on Private Governance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . Polycentric Governance. . . , Elinor Ostrom . . . . . . . .
1.2.2 Private Property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Tragedy of the Anticommons, Michael A. Heller . . . .
A Note on the Coordination Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A Note on the Holdout Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . Secret Purchases . . . , Daniel B. Kelly . . . . . . . . . . .
A Note on Disclosure Requirements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.3 Private Ownership and the Market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.3.1 Shaping the Market System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Hamlyn v. Moore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Keeble v. Hickeringill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
International News Service v. Associated Press . . . . . . . . . .
A Note On The Burdens and Benefits of Ownership . . . . .
1.3.2 Intellectual Property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Unfair Means of Competition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Misappropriation of Ends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. . . .
The Right of Publicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
White v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
3
3
5
12
17
18
24
24
25
28
36
36
42
43
48
48
49
54
56
56
56
58
60
72
73
73
74
76
86
86
2 Assigning Ownership
2.1 Recognition . . . . .
Johnson v. M’Intosh .
2.2 Capture . . . . . . .
Pierson v. Post . . . .
93
94
94
99
99
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
v
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
vi
CONTENTS
Tyler v. Wilkinson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
Ghen v. Rich . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
Popov v. Hayashi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
2.3
2.4
2.5
Find . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Hannah v. Peel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Willcox v. Stroup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Adverse Possession . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.4.1 Color of Title . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ewing v. Burnet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.4.2 Boundary Disputes and Survey Mistakes
Evanich v. Bridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Howard v. Kunto . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.4.3 Squatters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Nome 2000 v. Fagerstrom . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Shifting Natural Boundaries . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
118
118
125
131
132
132
136
136
139
143
143
150
Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
2.6
Conflicting Gifts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
Gruen v. Gruen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
3 Ownership: Right to Exclude
3.1 Trespass . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Jacque v. Steenberg Homes, Inc. .
State v. Shack . . . . . . . . . .
3.2 Exclusion Limits . . . . . . . .
3.2.1 Necessity . . . . . . . .
Ploof v. Putnam . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
161
162
162
166
173
173
173
175
180
185
185
192
200
201
A Note on Public Accommodations Legislation
Intel Corp. v. Hamidi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Remedies for Trespass . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.3.1 Property Rule Protection . . . . . . . .
Glavin v. Eckman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.3.2 Liability Rule Protection . . . . . . . .
Wetherbee v. Green . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Somerville v. Jacobs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Licenses and Affirmative Easements . . . . . .
3.4.1 Licenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.4.2 Affirmative Easements . . . . . . . . . .
3.4.3 Creation of Easements . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
202
206
208
219
219
219
224
224
227
235
235
236
238
.
.
.
.
.
.
Vincent v. Lake Erie Transp. Co. .
The No-Duty Principle . . . . . .
3.2.2 Buying Property . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Rase v. Castle Mountain Ranch, Inc. .
State ex rel. Thornton v. Hay . . . .
McConico v. Singleton . . . . . . . .
3.2.3 Owner’s Use of Property . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
State ex. rel. Postal Telegraph Cable Co. v.
Delaware & A. Telegraph & Telephone Co.
3.3
3.4
CONTENTS
A Note on Profits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Pine Valley Meats, Inc. v. Canal Capital Corp. . . . . .
Slater v. Ward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Neary v. Martin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Broyhill v. Coppage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.4.4 Interpretation and Modification of Easements
Crimmins v. Gould . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Scott v. Long Valley Farm Kentucky, Inc. . . . . . . . .
3.4.5 Termination of Easements . . . . . . . . . . .
Lindsey v. Clark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A Note on Conservation Easements . . . . . . . . . .
vii
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4 Ownership: Rights to Transfer, Divide, and Burden
4.1 The Feudal System: “Owners” as Tenants . . . . . . . . . .
4.2 The Evolution of the Right to Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2.1 Descent: Automatic Transfer After Death . . . . . .
4.2.2 Alienation: Transfer by Sale or Gift . . . . . . . . .
4.2.3 Devise: Transfer After Death by Will . . . . . . . . .
4.3 The Evolution of the Right to Divide . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.3.1 Spatial Division . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.3.2 Temporal Division . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.4 The Evolution of the Right to Burden . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.4.1 Servitudes: Exclusion and Usage Limits . . . . . . .
4.4.2 Mortgages: Financial Obligations . . . . . . . . . . .
4.5 Justifying the Development of Ownership
Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.6 Body Parts and the Right to Transfer, Divide, and Burden
4.6.1 Marketing Body Parts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Moore v. The Regents of the University of California . . . . . .
A Note on Blocked Exchanges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.6.2 Markets in Wombs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.6.3 Control of Donated Body Parts . . . . . . . . . . . .
Colavito v. New York Organ Donor Network, Inc. . . . . . . . .
Hecht v. Superior Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5 Spatial Coordination of Ownership
5.1 Nuisance: Common Law Spatial Coordination . . . .
5.1.1 The Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Problem of Social Cost, Ronald Coase . . . . .
A Note on Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.1.2 Unreasonable Location or Activity Decisions
Page County Appliance Center, Inc. v. Honeywell, Inc. .
Foster v. Preston Mill Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Kellogg v. Village of Viola . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co. .
A Note on Public Nuisance . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.1.3 Where To Internalize Unavoidable Costs . . .
Boomer v. Atlanta Cement Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
238
239
244
247
254
257
258
264
266
267
270
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
271
273
275
275
276
276
277
277
278
279
279
280
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
282
284
284
284
304
306
307
307
313
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
321
322
322
323
329
329
330
334
338
341
347
349
349
viii
CONTENTS
Fontainebleau Hotel Corp. v. Forty-Five Twenty-Five, Inc. . . . . 354
Bowlston v. Hardy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 358
Acton v. Blundell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 359
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.1.4 The Significance Requirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Zoning: Legislative Spatial Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . .
Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Nectow v. City of Cambridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Servitudes: Private Arrangement for Spatial Coordination . .
5.3.1 Creating Enforceable Private Arrangements . . . . . .
Sanborn v. McLean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Dolgencorp, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.3.2 Reasonableness of Ends and Means . . . . . . . . . . .
Shelley v. Kraemer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.3.3 Modification and Termination of Covenants Because
of Changed Circumstances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Western Land Co., Ltd. v. Truskolaski . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Private Governance Regimes: Modern Spatial Coordination .
Hidden Harbour Estates, Inc. v. Basso . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
363
365
365
371
375
377
377
380
384
385
392
392
397
399
6 Temporal Coordination of Ownership
405
6.1 Restricting Present Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 408
6.2 Restrictions on Marketing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 412
Ogle v. Burmister . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 412
6.2.1 Contractual Restraints on Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . 415
6.2.2 Forfeiture Restraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 415
6.2.3 Property Transferred to Charities and Non-Profits . . 416
Rolfe & Rumford Asylum v. Lefebre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 416
A Note on Charitable Easements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 419
6.3 Restrictions on Temporal Division . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 421
6.3.1 Present Estates and Future Interests . . . . . . . . . . 421
6.3.2 Estates Limited in Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 428
6.3.3 Nomenclature When Estates are Limited by Time . . 429
6.3.4 Nomenclature For Estates Not Limited by Time . . . 430
6.3.5 Limitations on Conditional Grants and The Rule Against
Perpetuities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 438
The Duke of Norfolk’s Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 441
A Note on the Reform of the Rule Against Perpetuities . . . 455
6.4 Restrictions on Running of Covenants . . . . . . . . . . . . . 457
Property, Contract, and Verification, Henry
Reinier Kraakman . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Cole v. Hughes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Tulk v. Moxhay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.4.1
6.4.2
6.5
Notice . . . . . . . . . .
Changed Circumstances
Paquette v. Coble . . . . . . . . .
Restrictions on Current Uses .
6.5.1 The Doctrine of Waste .
Moore v. Phillips . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Hansmann &
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
457
460
463
466
466
467
470
470
470
CONTENTS
ix
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 474
A Duty to Preserve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 478
Eyerman v. Mercantile Trust Co., NA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 478
Brokaw v. Fairchild
6.5.2
7 Shared Ownership Coordination
489
7.1 Entity Property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 491
7.2 Co-ownership Outside of Entities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 493
7.2.1 Tenants in Common . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 493
7.2.2 Joint Tenancies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 496
7.2.3 Tenancy by the Entirety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 497
Harms v. Sprague . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 498
Delfino v. Vealencis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 502
7.3 Marital Property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 507
In re Marriage of Graham . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 507
Elkus v. Elkus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 511
7.4 Landlord-Tenant Decision Making . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 516
7.4.1 Termination of Leases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 516
Philpot v. Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 518
Kajo Church Square, Inc. v. Walker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 519
7.4.2 Tenant’s Obligations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 523
7.4.3 The Landlord’s Duty to Mitigate . . . . . . . . . . . . 524
Somner v. Kridel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 524
7.4.4 The Warranty of Habitability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 531
Javins v. First National Realty Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 531
7.4.5 The Landlord’s Obligation to Correct Violations . . . 540
Robinson v. Diamond Housing Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 540
7.4.6 The Landlord’s Obligation to Exercise Approval Rights
Reasonably . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 547
Kendall v. Ernest Pestana, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 547
8 Regulation of Property Transfers
8.1 Methods of Conveyance . . . . . . . . .
8.1.1 Inter Vivos for Consideration . .
8.1.2 Donative Transfer . . . . . . . .
8.1.3 Testamentary Transfer . . . . . .
8.2 Formal Requirements . . . . . . . . . . .
8.2.1 Enfeo↵ment . . . . . . . . . . . .
8.2.2 Deeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8.2.3 Statute of Frauds . . . . . . . . .
8.2.4 Acknowledgement . . . . . . . .
8.2.5 Enrollment . . . . . . . . . . . .
8.2.6 Registration of Title . . . . . . .
8.3 Real and Personal Property Warranties
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The Market for “Lemons”, George A. Akerlof
8.4
8.3.1 Covenants of Title . . . . . .
8.3.2 Personal Property Warranties
Risk of Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8.4.1 Real Property . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
555
. 556
. 556
. 556
. 556
. 556
. 556
. 556
. 556
. 556
. 556
. 556
. 556
. 556
. 560
. 560
. 561
. 561
x
CONTENTS
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
561
561
561
563
9 Public Governance of Private Property
9.1 The Limits of Private Law as a Governance Mechanism .
9.2 Building and Fire Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9.3 Zoning: From Spatial Coordination to Development Policy
9.4 Environmental Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9.4.1 Taking Things Out of The Environment . . . . . .
9.4.2 Putting Things in the Environment . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
571
571
571
571
571
571
571
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
573
574
574
575
592
592
593
604
605
612
630
8.5
8.4.2 Personal Property . . . . . . . . . .
Fixtures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Philadelphia Mortgage & Trust Co. v. Miller .
Tea↵ v. Hewitt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10 Limits on Public Governance
10.1 Eminent Domain . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10.1.1 Public Use . . . . . . . . . . . .
Kelo v. City of New London, Conn . . . . .
10.1.2 Just Compensation . . . . . . . .
10.1.3 Taking and the Right to Exclude
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp. .
10.2 Limitation on Government Regulation of Use .
Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Penn Central Transportation Co., v. City of New York .
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 652
Miller v. Schoene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 659
A Note on Due Process . . . . . . .
10.3 Constitutional Conditions . . . . . .
Nollan v. California Coastal Com’n . .
Dolan v. City of Tigard . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
661
665
665
671
List of Figures
1.1
1.2
1.3
Apollo 17 Goodwill Moon Rock Plaque given to the nation of
Honduras by President Nixon in 1973, returned to Honduras
in 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Randall Munroe, Hotels, xkcd, http://xkcd.com/958/. . . . .
Entrance to a duck decoy pipe. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1
2.2
2.3
A picture of a fin-back whale. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Alex Popov as the ball reached his glove. . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
Diagram of Kunto’s, Moyer’s, and Howard’s properties. . . . 142
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.5
Kenneth Hamidi. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Diagram of the cattle walkway on Canal’s and HRA’s land. .
Diagram of the the six lots and the roadway as divided up by
John Medeiros. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Diagram of the road through Coppage’s land and the road
through Wyke’s Land. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Diagram of Lindsey’s and Clark’s lots. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
Page County Appliance Center in 1971. . . . . . . . . . . . . 331
A picture of a mischievous mink kitten. . . . . . . . . . . . . 335
Feedlot and Sun City development with satellite imagery. . . 342
Edon Roc Hotel pool and shadow cast by Fontainebleau Hotel.355
The Shoppes of Cresthaven, West Palm Beach, Florida. . . . 381
6.1
6.2
6.3
O’s grant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 423
O’s grant with Bob’s and Sally’s interests. . . . . . . . . . . . 423
O’s grant with Bob’s, Sally’s, Sam’s, and the Museum’s interests. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 425
O’s grant with Bob’s, Sally’s, Sam’s, and the Museum’s interests, if O is to hold the property until Sam graduates. . . . 426
Interests with a life estate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 430
Interests without a life estate but with a third party future
interest. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 432
Interests without a life estate but with a future interest in the
grantor: grantor automatically cuts o↵ the prior interest. . . . 432
Interests without a life estate but with a future interest in the
grantor: grantor has the authority to cut o↵ the prior interest. 433
Photo of #4 Kingsbury Place by Professor Monica Eppinger 479
3.4
6.4
6.5
6.6
6.7
6.8
6.9
xi
19
28
59
209
243
252
257
270
xii
LIST OF FIGURES
10.1 Susette Kelo’s house. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 577
5.1. NUISANCE
355
Figure 5.4: Edon Roc Hotel pool and shadow cast by Fontainebleau Hotel.
(it appears to have been roughly eight stories high at the time suit was filed),
alleging that the construction would interfere with the light and air on the
beach in front of the Eden Roc and cast a shadow of such size as to render
the beach wholly unfitted for the use and enjoyment of its guests, to the
irreparable injury of the plainti↵; further, that the construction of such addition on the north side of defendants’ property, rather than the south side,
was actuated by malice and ill will on the part of the defendants’ president
toward the plainti↵‘s president; and that the construction was in violation
of a building ordinance requiring a 100-foot setback from the ocean. . . .
The chancellor heard considerable testimony on the issues made by the
complaint and the answer and, as noted, entered a temporary injunction
restraining the defendants from continuing with the construction of the addition. His reason for so doing was stated by him, in a memorandum opinion,
as follows:
“In granting the temporary injunction in this case the Court
wishes to make several things very clear. The ruling is not based
on any alleged presumptive title nor prescriptive right of the
plainti↵ to light and air nor is it based on any deed restrictions
nor recorded plats in the title of the plainti↵ nor of the defendant
nor of any plat of record. It is not based on any zoning ordinance
nor on any provision of the building code of the City of Miami
Beach nor on the decision of any court, nisi prius or appellate. It
is based solely on the proposition that no one has a right to use
his property to the injury of another. In this case it is clear from
the evidence that the proposed use by the Fontainebleau will
materially damage the Eden Roc. There is evidence indicating