1. PROPERTY D SLIDES 3-25-16 National Tolkien Reading Day

2. Friday March 25 Music (to Accompany Stoner v. Zucker): Scott Joplin, His Greatest Hits (Composed 1895-1917) Richard Zimmerman, Piano (Recorded 2006) NCAA CONTEST LEADERS 6 Points: Nugent 5 Points : Estrella; Olin 4 Points: DeGiovanni; Fernandez; Florio; Moss; Shackleton NCAA CONTEST BOTTOM 7 (1 Point Each) Brignola; Gross; Manzano Neuman; Roberts-D Weiss; Widdowson

3. EVERGLADES: Review Problem 5C Cont’d EGRET IN MANGROVE SWAMP

4. Rev. Prob. 5C (Everglades): Those living on Carr-acre can use the driveway across the western edge of Rhodes-acre in vehicles or on foot for access to and from Hungerford Highway and for exercise. Can R (owner of Rhodes-acre) prevent J from riding horse on E-mt? For J: Dornfeld; Connor; Vaccaro (Alt: J.Roberts) For R: San Roman, Knox, Campa (Alt: Lindemann) Arguments/Missing Facts? 1.Re Language 2.Re Burden 3.Re “Quality” or Evolution/Revolution (Purpose) 4.Overall Thoughts

5. Inverting Rev. Prob. 5C: Evidence of How I Think Inverting Normal Change in Technology 

6. Concerns About TV Ads Currently Running Subway Chickens Amazon Pony Door Reese’s Eggs Reese’s Eggs

7. Mike = Dominant Debbie = Servient Review Problem 5B Mike = Dominant Debbie = Servient “[Owner of M’s land] may place and maintain an antenna onto [Debbie’s] barn and run wires from the antenna to [M’s land] to allow [TV] reception for that property.” Time of Grant (1962): Mike gets poor TV reception b/c of valley location Debbie owns neighboring ranch above M’s land Antenna installed; reception still not good; no cable TV 2014: Can M replace antenna w satellite dish?

8. EVERGLADES: Review Problem 5B Arguments from Marcus Cable EGRET IN MANGROVE SWAMP

9. Mike = Dominant Debbie/Servient Review Problem 5B Mike = Dominant Debbie/Servient “[Owner of M’s land] may place and maintain an antenna onto [Debbie’s] barn and run wires from the antenna to [M’s land] to allow [TV] reception for that property.” Time of Grant (1962): Mike gets poor TV reception b/c of valley location Debbie owns neighboring ranch above M’s land Antenna installed; reception still not good; no cable TV 2014: Can M replace antenna w satellite dish? Everglades: Arguments from Marcus Cable?

10. SEQUOIA: Review Problem 5B Arguments from Chevy Chase SEQUOIAS

11. Mike = Dominant Debbie/Servient Review Problem 5B Mike = Dominant Debbie/Servient “[Owner of M’s land] may place and maintain an antenna onto [Debbie’s] barn and run wires from the antenna to [M’s land] to allow [TV] reception for that property.” Time of Grant (1962): Mike gets poor TV reception b/c of valley location Debbie owns neighboring ranch above M’s land Antenna installed; reception still not good; no cable TV 2014: Can M replace antenna w satellite dish? Sequoia: Arguments from Chevy Chase? (incl. Missing/Ambiguous Facts)

12. Review Problem 5D (S100): Thursday 3/31 Review Problem 5D (S100): Thursday 3/31 Everglades: In-Class Arguments for P Andy Olympic: In-Class Arguments for D Gudridge Academy Badlands: Critique Arguments/Missing Facts Using the Three Blackletter Tests

13. Chapter 5: Easements 1.Introduction 2.Interpreting Language a.Easement v. Fee b.Scope of Express Easements 3.Implied Easements a.By Estoppel b.By Implication and/or Necessity c.By Prescription

14. Implied Easements: Overview Easements are both contracts & conveyances (land transfers) How do you achieve contracts and conveyances without express agreement? Four Theories…

15. Implied Easements: Overview Contract/Conveyance w/o Express Agreement: Four Theories 1.Promissory Estoppel (Detrimental Reliance) 2.Implied-in-Fact Contract (Parties’ Intent) 3.Implied-in-Law Contract (Public Policy) 4.Adverse Possession

16. Implied Easements: Overview 4 Theories  4 Types of Implied Easement (1) Promissory Estoppel (Detrimental Reliance) ≈ Easement-by Estoppel (2) Implied-in-Fact Contract (Parties’ Intent) ≈ Easement-by-Implication (3) Implied-in-Law Contract (Public Policy) ≈ Easement-by-Necessity (4) Adverse Possession ≈ Easement-by-Prescription

17. Implied Easements: Overview 4 Theories  4 Types of Implied Easement (1) Easement-by Estoppel (2) Easement-by-Implication (3) Easement-by-Necessity (4) Easement-by-Prescription Helpful Ways to Think About Parties generally not trying to create implied easements. Can view each type as an after-the-fact legal result/remedy reached by a court after review of relevant facts. Similar fact patterns may yield different type if facts change a bit. In rare cases, same facts will give rise to more than one type.

18. Sewage Pipe Hypothetical Implied Easements: Sewage Pipe Hypothetical 1.Developer builds line of houses 2.Same set of pipes connect all houses in line to city sewer system. Sewage from houses further from the city sewer passes under all houses in line that are closer to the sewer.

19. SEWAGE PIPE HYPOTHETICAL: 6 5 4 3 2 1

20. Sewage Pipe Hypothetical Implied Easements: Sewage Pipe Hypothetical 1.Developer builds line of houses 2.Same pipes connect houses in line to city sewers; sewage from houses further from sewer passes under the rest. 3.Developer sells all houses in line, but creates no easements to allow flow of sewage along the line. Connected nature of sewage pipes not referenced in deeds and no notice provided orally.

21. SEWAGE PIPE HYPOTHETICAL: 6 5 4 3 2 1 Possible Issue: Lot #3 Being “Used” by Lots #4-6 to Dispose of Their Sewage

22. Implied Easements: Sewage Pipe Hypothetical 1.Developer builds line of houses 2.Same pipes connect houses in line to city sewers; sewage from houses further from sewer passes under the rest. 3.Developer sells all houses in line; creates no easements and provides no written or oral notice of connected nature of pipes. 4.When can owners of houses further from sewer claim one or more types of implied easement? – Particular variations on the facts will give rise to each type. – For each type, we’ll revisit hypo to see similarities/differences in operation

23. Chapter 5: Easements 1.Introduction 2.Interpreting Language a.Easement v. Fee b.Scope of Express Easements 3.Implied Easements a.By Estoppel b.By Implication and/or Necessity c.By Prescription

24. Background: Licenses (Note 1 P791) Easement-by-Estoppel Background: Licenses (Note 1 P791) LICENSE = Permission by owner for third party to use owner’s property. E.g., … Right to enter theater or ballpark with ticket. Come over & swim in my pool. Store your things in my house while your house is tented.

25. Background: Licenses (Note 1 P791) Easement-by-Estoppel Background: Licenses (Note 1 P791) LICENSE = Permission by owner for third party to use owner’s property. License generally revokable by owner unless: Combined with Another Interest (E.g., Right to Pick Fruit) -OR- Easement-by-Estoppel (Some States but Not All)

26. General Rule Easement-by-Estoppel General Rule An owner may be estopped from barring a 2d party access to the owner’s property where 1.The owner apparently allows 2d party to use the property (Apparent License) 2.2d party reasonably and detrimentally relies on this acquiescence

27. General Rule Easement-by-Estoppel General Rule An owner may be estopped from barring a 2d party access to the owner’s property where 1.The owner apparently allows 2d party to use the property (Apparent License) 2.2d party reasonably and detrimentally relies on this acquiescence Effect in States that Allow Easements-by-Estoppel is that License Becomes Unrevokable Usually little debate about Apparent License, so existence of E- by-E usually turns on reliance.

28. General Rule Easement-by-Estoppel General Rule An owner may be estopped from barring a 2d party access to the owner’s property where 1.The owner apparently allows 2d party to use the property (Apparent License) 2.2d party reasonably and detrimentally relies on this acquiescence Default Rule b/c clear statement that E-by-E not intended precludes reasonable reliance.

29. SEQUOIA: Stoner, Easements-by-Estoppel, & DQ5.06-5.07 SEQUOIAS

30. Easement-by-Estoppel (Sequoia) DQ5.06: Reasonable & Detrimental Reliance Stoner: Reliance on Oral Permission to Build Ditch Reasonable?

31. Easement-by-Estoppel (Arches) DQ5.06: Reasonable & Detrimental Reliance Stoner: Reliance on Oral Permission to Build Ditch Reasonable? P Presumably Aware of D’s Expenditures BUT Should You Get it in Writing Before Spending $$? Might explore more facts (nature of promise; extent of awareness of reliance; parties’ relationship, etc.) Detrimental?

32. Easement-by-Estoppel (Sequoia) DQ5.06: Reasonable & Detrimental Reliance Stoner: Reliance on Oral Permission to Build Ditch Detrimental? (Easier) $7000 in 19 th Century money to construct ditch Maybe other missed opportunities (e.g., alternate forms of irrigation now more expensive to install)

33. General Rule Easement-by-Estoppel General Rule An owner may be estopped from barring a 2d party access to the owner’s property where 1.The owner apparently allows 2d party to use the property (Apparent License) 2.2d party reasonably and detrimentally relies on this acquiescence Effect in States that Allow Easements-by-Estoppel is that License Becomes Unrevokable Usually little debate about Apparent License, so existence of E-by-E usually turns on reliance.

34. Easement-by-Estoppel Reasonable & Detrimental Reliance Nelson v. AT&T (Note 3 P792-93) Easement contained in deed invalid b/c lack of legal formalities. D placed 32 poles & maintained for 30 years. Compare to Stoner re Reliance. AT&T: Clearer that easement rather than license intended b/c explicit, in writing, & problems w deed arose after O signed BUT AT&T sophisticated party; should’ve known that deed was invalid & fixed

35. Easement-by-Estoppel Reasonable & Detrimental Reliance Nelson v. AT&T (Note 3 P851) Easement contained in deed invalid b/c lack of legal formalities. D placed 32 poles & maintained for 30 years. Mass SCt: No easement; AT&T should have known easement not properly created meaning they had a “mere license.” Essentially holds reliance was not reasonable by a sophisticated player.

36. Duration/Termination Easement-by-Estoppel Duration/Termination N.4 (P793): How Long Does an E-by-E Last? Stoner: “For so long a time as the nature of it calls for.” Means?

37. Duration/Termination Easement-by-Estoppel Duration/Termination N.4 (P793): How Long Does an E-by-E Last? Stoner: For so long a time as the nature of it calls for. What does this mean for an irrigation ditch?

38. Duration/Termination Easement-by-Estoppel Duration/Termination N.4 (P793): How Long Does an E-by-E Last? Stoner: For so long a time as the nature of it calls for. What does this mean for an irrigation ditch? So long as irrigation remains useful to Dominant Tenement? So long as no relatively cheap alternatives?

39. Duration/Termination Easement-by-Estoppel Duration/Termination N.4 (P793): How Long Does an E-by-E Last? Stoner: For so long a time as the nature of it calls for. Easy Case: House Built in Reliance on Access Through Neighbor’s Driveway  E-by-E New Public Road Built Adjoining Dominant Tenement Creates Alternate Access Use of House No Longer Relies on Driveway; E-by-E Ends