Principles & Definitions Cases
Capture & Trespass of Property
- Ghen did all he could do, unlike Pierson, because he killed. Idea is that you chase/pursue/hunt to the fullest extent possible.
- Ghen presents a more complicated narrative because in Pierson he who kills & captures is the only true owner, but here though Ghen has acted to the full possible extent to capture/occupy by killing and marking the whale, still Ellis has an interest in the whale as the finder.
- Ellis technically did have something to sell to Rich - the rights of the salvor/salvor's fee, but not the title to the blubber. As finder Ellis had the right to sell his salvage fee.
- Disgorgement - Injunction forcing a party to turn over all the profit they accrued from conversion/trespassory use of another's property (which can also be information).
- Trespass - Interference with a possessory right.
- Example - Intrusion on land or stealing someone's car.
- Ghen & Pierson are cases involving trespass of property.
- Ordinary remedy - Get the thing back or receive its monetary value, or punitive damages.
- What the hunter knows at the time, actually or constructively, is important. If the farmer hadn't marked the deer, the hunter assumed they were wild deer on government land, he's not liable under the law of capture. But if the hunter had notice the deer were domesticated, then the hunter owes the farmer acknowledgement of the law of capture.
- Customs arise to maximize the well-being of the group by ensuring that individuals don't take benefits for themselves that impose net losses on the group as a whole.
- General public policy considerations of property law:
- Reward productivity & foster efficiency,
- Create simple, easily enforceable rules,
- Create property rules that are consistent with societal habits & customs,
- Produce fairness in terms of prevailing cultural expectations.
- Ratione Soli - Refers to the conventional view that an owner of land has constructive possession of wild animals on his land.
- Abuse of Right Doctrine - An owner abuses their property rights when exercising them with the subjective intent to harm someone.
- We allow interference to the extent that it generates a social good that outweighs the cost. Better teacher can advertise his superior credentials, if true, because it benefits the students and ensures a greater degree of education, but not to scare them away from another school, because that minimizes how many students are educated.
- Creates a limit on the right to capture; cannot maliciously interfere with Ps lawful exercise of his trade.
- Law of capture is difficult to apply because the resources span multiple properties where each landowner has the chance to be the 1st to drill.
- Pierson was applied to natural resources because it's fugitive in character, like a wild animal in the sense that it migrates from property to property.
- If A & B share an oil reserve under their land, and A drills for oil in at an angle onto Bs property, A is responsible to B for whatever property damage he causes, the trespass, and the profit of the oil he removed from Bs land.
- Boundaries separating property are understood to extend to the center of the earth, so drilling underneath someone's property still qualifies as a trespass.
- What does A owe B in regard to a natural resource they have mutual claim to?A owes B the duty to exercise ordinary reasonable care in pursuit of the resources they mutually shared/had a claim to. If negligent, A is owes B not only the surface damage to Bs land, but the value of Bs proportionate share in the resource.
- Private land ownership forces the owner to act as a broker that, to maximize the value of his property, must consider the effects of his activities on his neighbors and future generations.
- Communal ownership tends to increase externalities, and a system of private ownership reduces them.
- Property is a means of distributing society's wealth.
- Fugitive resources tend to be over-consumed.
Facts: Post was hunting on uninhabited land, pursuing a fox, when Pierson killed the fox, knowing Post was pursuing, to prevent him from capturing. Lower ct. ruled for Post because of his intent the pursuit's proximity to success.
Issue: Does Post’s pursuit create a right to, or property in, the fox, that can be recovered from Pierson?
Reasoning:Property over wild animals is acquired by occupancy only.
Mortal wounding, capture by net/trap that removes the animal's liberty, by the hunter creates title. But mere pursuit alone doesn't create title.
Class Notes:
- Claims at issue arise from a question of relative, not absolute, title. "My claim to X is better than yours, because ….."
- Court objectives are to create rules that are certain, fair, effective, and will promote peaceful resolution of conflict.
- Capture creates ownership over previously un-owned resources.
- Being first matters - the prior claim most often takes precedence.
Facts: P Ghen killed a whale that washed up on a beach days later. The finder, instead of reporting the find according to over a decade of established custom so it could be recovered by the true owner, instead advertised the whale at an auction. D Rich bought said whale extracted the oil, which P had a right to according to custom, appeared to claim once he heard of the auction. Though neither D nor the finder knew P killed the whale they could have through reasonable discovery.
Issue:Can P claim title under common usage/custom?
Reasoning: The original whaler must first take possession of the whale through actual possession & appropriation to create title.
- Swift v. Gifford validated that local custom created legally valid terms of usage; at instance "first iron," or who first held the whale. Ct. agrees that the local customs create legally valid terms of usage.
- In whaling, the rule of the first taker must be maintained because otherwise the risks/costs inherent to the industry outweigh the benefits because the arbitrary chance of the finder supersedes the efforts of the whaler, would undermine the industry.
Keeble v. Hickeringill
Facts: P set up a decoy pond to capture ducks, which D ruined by (i) firing six shotguns so the noise and smell of gunpowder drove the animals away, and (ii) shot at the ducks.
Reasoning: Affirmed because the decoy pond was Ps trade, which D disturbed through malicious action. Would not have been a recoverable disturbance if D instead lured away the ducks through his own decoy pond through fair competition.
Class Notes: Problem with Ds behavior is there's no social good to be had from merely scaring the ducks away, D wasn't luring the ducks away through fair competition, D was interfering with Ps interest in his property for no justifiable reasons. Ds right to capture is limited to acting within bounds of fair competition & social policy; cannot act with malice.
Trespass of Land & Adverse Possession
Property - A relationship among people that entitles owners to include/permit or exclude/deny use or possession of their property by other people.The free transferability of property rights in important. The right to include & exclude are the necessary & sufficient conditions of transferability.
- Trespass protects the right to exclude.
- Exceptions to the right to exclude: civil rights legislation, laws granting public access, limits on a landlord's right to evict tenants.
- When owners grant access to others they're not unconditionally free to revoke the access. Non-owners who relied on their relationship with the owner who granted access in the past may be granted partial or total immunity from having access revoked if necessary for justice.
- When parties are in a relationship of mutual dependence involving joint efforts, and the relationship ends, property rights (access/control of valued resources) must be redistributed among the parties to protect the interests of vulnerable persons.
- Singer's concept of reliance applies in State v. Shack because the government workers had immunity from trespassing to aid farm workers they previously served, as required by justice to ensure the migrant workers (the vulnerable party) had their essential needs met.
- The purpose of adverse possession is to automatically quiet all titles which are openly & consistently asserted, to provide proof of meritorious titles, and correct errors in conveyancing.
- Adverse Possession requires: (1) an entry that is (2) open & notorious, (3) exclusive, (4) continues throughout the statutory period, and (5) is adverse & under a claim of right.
- Entry - Triggers the statute by marking the time of entry/trespass for the statute of limitations.
- Open & Notorious - Puts reasonable property owners on notice that someone is on their property. Test is objective to establish constructive, not actual, knowledge.
- Punishes negligent owners for "sleeping on their rights."
- If the AP is underground then it's necessary to prove the owner knew of the occupation, or knew of the underground space & that it was easily accessible by outsiders.
- Exclusive -The sort of entry & possession that ripens into title by adverse possession is the use the property in the manner that an average true owner would use it under the circumstances, such that neighbors & other observers would regard the occupant as a person exercising exclusive dominion.
- Exmpl: Claimant to unimproved lot paid taxes on it, dug gravel from it, and brought trespass action against those who used it without his permission.
- Court asks, "Do the occupier's acts & statements objectively appear to be claims of ownership?"
- Continuous means throughout the statutory period but not necessarily constant.
- Adverse - Requires party to assert a claim of right/hostile acquisition to property that isn't theirs, but they’ve made theirs.
- Hostile - Occupying the land without the consent of the owner & with intention to remain.
- Claim of Title - Requirement of hostility/claim of right on the part of an adverse possessor.
- Color of Title - A claim founded on a written instrument such as a deed or will, or founded on a judgment or decree, that is defective/invalid.
- Example: Will from a grantor who doesn't actually own the land. Or the deed is improperly executed.
- Actual possession even of only part of the land in the defective writing creates constructive possession of all of the land. But you have to be on enough of it to give them proper notice.
- Person who occupies land through AP without color of title acquires title only to the land they've actually physically possessed during the statute of limitations, vs. an AP who occupies under color of title, who acquires title to all the land described in the defective deed even if they've only occupied a portion of it.
- Ease of identifying the original owner/title-holder is important in determining who the true owner is, regardless of who happened to steal the property later. (Fairness & good public policy.)
- Even though the first theft was wrong/unlawful, it doesn't give the second thief the right to steal from him. The person who has quiet possession has greater legal significance/superior possessory interest than all others except the person who had original possession. Peace is best served when people aren't given incentives to take property from others.
- Some states authorize limited authority to retrieve chattels from property the original owner left on the land, but never when there's not a pre-existing relationship with the current land owner; prevents adoption of self-help tactics.
- Exceptions to trespass: (i) emergency services/public services,
(ii) private necessity. - As your property moves into the public domain you right to say no declines significantly & is going to be replaced with a presumptive yes or conditional no.
- Good Faith/Georgia Rule - Can only claim title if you enter under a good faith claim that the property is yours.
- Bad Faith/Maine Rule - Can only claim title if you specifically intended to take property they knew wasn’t their own. Abandoned by most jurisdictions.
- Objective/Majority Rule – Can claim title if the AP acted without the owner’s permission & the APs actions are objective assertions of ownership. Ct. is merely deciding whether the AP acted like a true owner, ignoring any subjective intent/knowledge.
Facts: D was delivering a mobile home, the easiest route of delivery was across Ps land, which D utilized despite Ps protests. P successfully sued D for intentional trespass. Higher ct. allowed punitive damages of $100k in addition to $1 nominal damages because of public policy relating to intentional trespass.
Reasoning: Ct. recognizes every person's right to exclusive enjoyment of their property for any purpose that doesn't invade the rights of another. Jacque did not want another to trespass on his land despite being offered money, and there was another road, though more dangerous, available for D to use. (a) It's the legal system's responsibility to protect that property right and nominal damages are insufficient to act as protection because (b) a series of intentional trespasses can threaten an individual's very ownership of land, (c) which society has a strong interest in deterring.(d) When landowners trust the legal system to punish intentional trespassers they're less likely to resort to self help remedies.
Class Notes:What's being taken away is Ps right to say No, which is being cheapened/reduced in authority if D isn't assigned punitive damages, or owes P only nominal damages.
- Intentional violation of another's right affords you an unjust enrichment at the victim's expense, which can be remedied not only by extracting the benefit, but given the social importance of the right to say no, also requires punishment.
Facts:Ds entered private property to help to aid migrant farmworkers employed & housed there, then were convicted of trespassing after refusing to leave at the landowner’ request. Ds appeal challenges the const. of the trespass statute because landownership shouldn't include the right to bar access to governmental services for migrant workers, meaning there couldn't have been a trespass.
Reasoning: Ct. reasons that property rights serve human values. Title to land doesn't include power to decide the lives of persons the owner allows to enter his land, the legal system does not permit people to contract away what is necessary for their health, welfare, or dignity.
- Focus on the weaker status of the migrant workers, who are socially disadvantaged and isolated.
- Migrant workers have a right to receive visitors at their discretion so long as it doesn't harm others.
Van Valkenburgh v. Lutz
Facts: D bought two lots of land that were difficult to reach, and cleared a path through a tract of land adjacent to theirs, but which they didn't own. They also: (i) built a shack for a relative, (ii) partially cleared the tract, (iii) sold vegetables there. A year later their feuding neighbors bought the tract & sent D an eviction letter through their lawyer, demanding he remove all his buildings from the tract. Lutz agreed to remove all his sheds & junk but claimed a "prescriptive right" to use the path to reach his house but Ps ultimately successfully sued to remove Lutz entirely.
Reasoning: Title to real property by adverse possession requires clear & convincing proof that throughout the SoL there was an actual occupation under a claim of title. Elements of proof: (i) the premises is protected by a substantial closure, or (ii) has been usually cultivated/improved.
- The land wasn't improved under a claim of title because (a) when Lutz built the shack there he knew it wasn't his (so it wasn't a hostile claim), (b) he thought the garage encroachment was solely on his land (not hostile),
(c) junk laid throughout the property cannot qualify as improvement. At previous trials D conceded the tract belonged to P, forfeiting his right to assert a hostile claim.
The farm extended from one side of the tract to the other as a boundary marking, therefore it occupied nearly all of the tract.
- Though Ds knew the property wasn't theirs they still intended to assert title to it/acquire & use it as his own. This should satisfy the hostile claim requirement.
- "Cultivated & improved" shouldn't be construed narrowly, but in reference to the nature, character, condition & location of the property. The statute doesn't require the whole plot has been cultivated, just that the act of improvement is usual under ordinary cultivation/improvement standards for thrifty owners of similar land.
- Nature & character of Ds improvements gave all his neighbors notice of his adversarial claim to the land.