September 1, 1998

Moore v Regents

Conflict of interest: if have to ask for permission to use cells for research when doctor could make lots of money. Also doctor could have patient come for lots of unnecessary appointments.

Fiduciary duty – arises in concept of trust. Don’t trust someone so put money in a trust not to be given to person until age 35. The administrator has a fiduciary duty to protect trust.

Fiduciary duty – Doctor must act on behalf of patent. Obligation to put patient first.

Conversion issue

• no cause of action was found.

September 3, 1998

Moore case

Does not have a property interest sufficient to support a causes of action in conversion.

1. because there isn’t any
2. of public policy
3. some property (in his cells) but not enough

Kass case

Said if H and W disagree will go to a property settlement court.

Contract stipulations:

Consent form #1: Disposition of pre zygotes – in case of divorce goes to property settlement court

Consent form #2: If no agreement – IVF program will get the zygotes for research

Could argue these are two different independent provisions.

Look at language on page 49.

Suppose divorced couple is really mad at the clinic.

Is it worth while to study property at all?

• seen as a specialized version of contracts
• property has logic as its own
• rest of course will consider land property

Read Lutz case with following in mind:

1. facts – write up characterization of the facts from both sides. Take notice of the vocabulary.
2. elements of Adverse Possession – actual, adverse and hostile, open and notorious, continuous, exclusive

----------

September 8, 1998

Action for ejectment - have court remove someone from your property because they won't leave voluntarily

Adverse possession elements:

1. Actual

• as opposed to constructive (invented by law)
• substantial enclosure usually cultivated or improved

1. Adverse and hostile
2. Exclusive

- do more than one party use the land?

3. Open and notorious
4. Continuous for the period of the statute of limitations

Way to write brief:

1. For AP in Alaska all you need is actual.

• law does not require substantial improvement or cultivation or activity

1. Facts - should win on facts

-----------------

September 10, 1998

Knowingly perjured testimony

Actual

Open and Notorious

Exclusive

Continuous

Hostile or adverse:

Bad faith trespasser

• NY, CA adopted. Basically majority rule
• No property is not mine, but intend to claim it anyway

Good faith trespasser

• think he has a right to be on land (owns it), but in fact does not

Objective test

• look at behavior, not subjective intent.
• See whether person acted as a true owner.

Lutz claim with respect to garage:

• he thought he owned land but in fact he did not. This is good faith trespasser.

Nome 2000 case:

Alaska follows objective test.

Constructive possession: occupy only part of the total acreage. But person is allowed to get title under AP for entire property.

Color of title: claim founded on a written instrument or a judgement or decree that is for some reason defective and invalid.

Read HOWARD V. CUNTO

Actual possession v constructive possession

Actual possession will always win over constructive

----------------

September 15, 1998

This court followed the Connecticut test. An objective test.

In a court of equity P must prove:

1. entitled to relief
2. P entitled to remedy
3. Undue hardship – show harm to P outweighs harm to D

If P’s ability to use their land is hurt by allowing D to keep it, this would be a strong argument for P.

In court of equity P can try to get an injunction. This is different from a court of law.

Estoppel - it is too late to argue adverse possession

Action or inaction by true owner reasonably relies to his detriment

Tacking –

------------------

September 17, 1998

1. Agreed Boundaries

1. Bryant v. Blevins – think of all possible issues:

• adverse possession
• prescriptive easement
• estoppel

adverse possession – need open and notorious

estoppel – never attempted to stop the fence when fence was being built. To have estoppel you need to show D is worse off than they were before…? Question is how badly will D be hurt if they are deprived of value of investment they made in reliance on inaction of other party…?

ELEMENTS OF AGREED BOUNDARIES:

1. uncertainty as to true boundary
2. agreement between the owners for the new line
3. acceptance and acquiescence in the line so fixed for a period equal to the statute of limitations

uncertainty – hard to get a certain, true survey, hard to know where property line really was

this case is agreed as shutting the door on agreed boundaries

but did CA supreme court open door a little bit that it is still possible to win an agreed boundaries case?

In CA, if following these cases is estoppel an independent cause of action or is it folded into number 3 above?

What if the survey was wrong but a fence was built on line survey said was the boundary?

The ideal case of uncertainty is two conflicting surveys.

RULE: Need to prove uncertainty, and that legal deeds can be uncertain if they don’t produce accurate surveys.

Statute of frauds – certain types of contracts must be in writing in order to be enforceable (ex: real estate contracts)

LANDLORD TENANT LAW!!!

Leases – describes any relationship between landlord/tenant; include verbal month to month agreements

A court will imply a month to month lease unless there is something other than this in writing.

Lease for a fixed term: no rights after lease ends

------------------------

September 22, 1998

How to answer essay questions

• don’t just state obvious
• raise counter arguments

Landlord/tenant law

Periodic can be either month to month or year to year

Annual rent

Payable monthly

1. intent
2. policy – do courts tend to favor shorter terms? Many courts do favor shorter terms, because it is too harsh to say can only terminate with 6 months notice

She will give us jurisdiction on exam. Almost always gives a mythical jurisdiction. Will give statutes or a specific jurisdiction maybe also.

Tenancy at will.

Also can have employment at will.

P424 problem 1 – 2 solutions:

1. could have either tenancy at will

1. tenancy so long as T desires

1. only so long as L desires

Jurisdictions are split on this right now. Modern trend is to interpret the document as the parties intended.

3 types of tenancy common law rules:

1. fixed term – not necessary to give notice. Lease expires by itself
2. periodic – if no notice give, the lease renews itself. At common law need to give half the term of the lease to terminate
3. at will – no notice is needed to terminate in common law

most important difference between the categories is the amount of time needed to terminate contract

if one party can terminate at any time, then other party should be able to terminate at any time. Another rule is that Landlord is the only one who can terminate.

--------------------------

September 24, 1998

Delivery of possession: discussion of Hannan v. Dusch case

Discussion of Ernst v. Conditt

There is privity of contract, and privity of estate.

Privity of estate: person lives on the land so therefore they should have to pay

Idea of boxes. Only one party at a time can be in privity of estate at one time. Both cannot be in privity of estate at the same time. If it is called a sublease, then original tenant has privity of estate.

First box shows assignment because lease has been reassigned. Second diagram shows sublease because the original lease has now been split even farther.

THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY RULE

Rogers intended to enter sublet in order to benefit Ernst and Ernst. T1 lease to T2 intend the agreement to be executed for benefit of the third party (the landlord), then the third party has the right to sue for damages. Then third part can enforce contract (even though third part is not entitled to privity of contract).

Exception to this rule:

Objective approach: if for entire term it is assignment, otherwise it is a sublease.

Subjective approach: what did the parties intend? Look at the party’s language plus their actions. If not look at language you see if they really did intend to transfer.

Be sure to encorporate into notes they material at end of the chapter. Tells what split ion:

If sublease or assignment says t1 reserves right to reenter, then is that legally significant? This is where jurisdictions are split.

---------------

September 29, 1998

1. Lease à express provisions
2. Lease à default provisions supplied by law
3. Statute may à supply default provision (that which governs when the lease is silent on the issue)

review of some lease stuff

lease: landlord tenant agreement about land

section 1945 if there is an oral month to month, then if nothing changes, the lease will continue each month

This case only deals with principles dealing with commercial leases, not residential leases

Was this an assignment or a sublease? Does it matter whether it is an assignment or a sublease? Court says it does not matter. This ruling applies equally to assignments and subleases (only on commercial leases).

Issue: can t1 transfer to t2? Can landlord withhold consent?

The contract called for the written consent of the landlord for the assignment of the lease by T1. This is an express condition of the contract.

Hold: LL cannot unreasonably withhold consent

Duty of good faith and fair dealing in all areas of contract law.

Arguments for landlord: should be free to chose his tenant; unambiguous nature of the clause itself;

Common law says landlord can withhold consent for any reason whatsoever. This is the majority rule, and still is followed in many areas.

Landlord is objecting in this case because, t1 is going to make a lot of money by assigning the lease. Rents have increased a lot since t1 began the lease.