1. PROPERTY B SLIDES
3-4-19
Marching Music Day

2. Rivero-Fernández * Wade
Music to Accompany White v. Brown: Vivaldi, Four Seasons (1723) Itzhak Perlman, Violin & London Philharmonic Orchestra (Recording 1977; Remastered 1987) Grammy Award for Best Classical Performance (Soloist with Orchestra)
Lunch Tomorrow
Meet on 12:25
Becker * Couzo
Ponce de León
Rivero-Fernández * Wade
Woelfel * Youn
Next Few DF Sessions:
Current: Rev Prob 2H (Brendan)
9:40 Here
Then: Rev Prob 2K(a) (Lauren)
Wed 9:40 Here
Fri 9:40 Here

3. Fun with the English Language: Animals & Prepositions
PROPERTY B: 3/4
MONday Pop Culture Moment
Fun with the English Language:
Animals &
Prepositions

4. Animals & Prepositions HORSES are Very Different from MONKEYS …
PROPERTY B: 3/4
MONday Pop Culture Moment
Animals & Prepositions
HORSES are Very Different from MONKEYS …

5. MONday Pop Culture Moment Animals & Prepositions
PROPERTY B: 3/4
MONday Pop Culture Moment
Animals & Prepositions
So Why Is
HORSING AROUND
the Same as
MONKEYING AROUND?

6. Animals & Prepositions And why do you HORSE AROUND But PONY UP?
PROPERTY B: 3/4
MONday Pop Culture Moment
Animals & Prepositions
And why do you
HORSE AROUND
But
PONY UP?

7. MONday Pop Culture Moment Animals & Prepositions
PROPERTY B: 3/4
MONday Pop Culture Moment
Animals & Prepositions
And why is
WOLFING DOWN
the same as
PIGGING OUT?

8. PROPERTY B: 3/4 Finally, The Goldilocks Proposition
MONday Pop Culture Moment
Animals & Prepositions
Finally, The Goldilocks Proposition
(Advice for Getting Through Chapter Three):
A Careful Study of Human Nature…

9. PROPERTY B: 3/4 BEARS OUT That Sometimes The Only Way To BEAR UP
MONday Pop Culture Moment
Animals & Prepositions
The Goldilocks Proposition: A Careful Study of Human Nature…
BEARS OUT That Sometimes
The Only Way To BEAR UP
Is To BEAR DOWN

10. Previously in Property B
Chapter 2:
Rev Prob 2L(b): Tenant Selection
Habitability & Associated Remedies Cont’d
Knudsen
Rev Prob 2J
Tempest at the Teapot: Part A
Chapter 3:
Introduction
Present Possessory Estates
Intro to Reversions & Remainders

11. Tempest at the Teapot: Part B ACADIA (Argument B1) EVERGLADES (LDLD) & BADLANDS (TNT) (Argument B2)

12. Acadia: QB1
Acadia Sunrise

13. Tempest at the Teapot: ACADIA (from Argument B1):
Does the Aerial Violates Fl. Stat. §83.52
Arguably Relevant Subsections: Tenant Must …
(5) Use and operate in a reasonable manner all electrical … appliances….
(6) Not destroy, deface, damage, impair, or remove any part of the premises …
(7) Conduct himself or herself … in a manner that does not unreasonably disturb the tenant's neighbors or constitute a breach of the peace.
Pros & Cons of Each? Best Result?

14. Pet & Aerial: Argument B3
Adequacy of Notices: Issues re 1st Notice
No Pet at Time Notice Sent
“Defacement” Not Specified
Sent Automatically to All Tenants (looks like Bad Faith)
L Continued to Accept Rent Although Aerial Not Removed
Shouldn’t Count Toward Either Pet or Aerial

15. Tempest at the Teapot: From Argument B2:
Assume that the aerial violated Fl. Stat. § (“deface”), but that the May 2018 notice did not serve as a sufficient “right to cure” notice regarding the aerial.
Can M evict F for the aerial immediately (without giving a right to cure notice) under §83.56(2)(a)?
Back to Types of Eviction Arguments Used for Tim’s Party at Start of Chapter 2.

16. BADLANDS (Tnt) & EVERGLADES (Ldld) T@T QB2
EGRET IN MANGROVE SWAMP
NORBECK PASS

17. Opportunity to Cure: 83.56(2)(a) v. (b)
Tempest at the Teapot: Argument B2 EVERGLADES for Landlord BADLANDS: for Tenant
Opportunity to Cure: (2)(a) v. (b)
(a) No Cure : “destruction, damage, or misuse of the landlord's or other tenants' property by intentional act”
(b) Can Cure: “having or permitting unauthorized pets, guests, or vehicles; parking in an unauthorized manner or permitting such parking; or failing to keep the premises clean and sanitary”
Aerial (assume “Deface” under 83.52(6))
Literal Arguments:
Neither Misuse or Clean is Strong
Comparative Arguments?
Policy Arguments?

18. Caselaw & Policy Arguments on Exams
Policy Arguments Appear in Different Places on Test. E.g.,
Last Step in Eviction Problems
Arguments in Opinion/Dissent Q
Possible Ways to Resolve Short Problems Like 2G or 2H
Usually No Binding Precedent
Can Cite Cases as Supporting Particular Policy Ideas
E.g., Javins = Need to Protect TNTs w/o Much Bargaining Power
Can use “E.g.” to Make Clear Not Treating as Binding

19. WHITE v. BROWN

20. White v. Brown (S76-81) Interprets Jessie Lide’s Will
I wish Evelyn White to have my home to live in and not to be sold. I also leave my personal property to Sandra White Perry. My house is not to be sold.
Issue: What Interest in the Home Does This Language Create?

21. Significance Includes:
White v. Brown: DQ3.01
White majority says “the free alienation of property [is] one of the most significant incidents of fee ownership.”
Significance Includes:
Allows land to move to owner who can make most valuable use of it.
Means land is relatively liquid asset maximizing owner’s control & freedom (can sell or mortgage for $).

22. SEQUOIA: DQs
SEQUOIAS

23. White v. Brown Sequoia: DQ3.02
I wish Evelyn White to have my home to live in and not to be sold. … My house is not to be sold.
The White majority complains that “the words chosen by the testatrix are not specific enough to clearly state her intent."

24. White v. Brown Sequoia: DQ3.02
I wish Evelyn White to have my home to live in and not to be sold. … My house is not to be sold.
What do you think Jessie Lide’s intent is?
Why must house not be sold?

25. White v. Brown Sequoia: DQ3.02
I wish Evelyn White to have my home to live in and not to be sold. … My house is not to be sold.
Why does the majority have problems discerning Jessie Lide’s intent?

26. White v. Brown: Possible Characterizations I wish Evelyn White to have my home to live in and not to be sold.
Fee Simple
Life Estate
Conditional Fee
So long as not sold
So long as E lives there
Conditional Life Estate

27. White v. Brown Sequoia: DQ3.03
WHAT ARE THE MAJORITY’S ARGUMENTS THAT MS. LIDE INTENDED TO CREATE A FEE SIMPLE?

28. White v. Brown Sequoia: DQ3.03
MAJORITY ARGUMENTS (FEE SIMPLE)
Presumption: Grant Conveys Whole Estate
JL had FSA, so presume she gave FSA to EW
Same idea as “default estate today is fee simple”
No Gift Over (Will describes no interest in home after EW’s death)
Partial Intestacy Disfavored (Try to read will to address all of JL’s property)

29. White v. Brown Sequoia: DQ3.03
WHAT ARE THE DISSENT’S ARGUMENTS THAT MS. LIDE INTENDED TO CREATE A LIFE ESTATE?

30. White v. Brown Sequoia: DQ3.03
DISSENT ARGUMENTS (LIFE ESTATE)
Presumption: All Language Used Has Meaning (same idea re statutes, contracts, etc.)
Language Here Consistent with Life Estate:
Says: “to live in”
Says: “not to be sold”
Contrast Language in Gift to Niece: No Limits (standard construction argument: different language=different meaning)

31. White v. Brown Sequoia: DQ3.03
I wish Evelyn White to have my home to live in and not to be sold. I also leave my personal property to Sandra White Perry. My house is not to be sold.
Whose Arguments Seem Stronger?

32. White v. Brown Holds Interest is Fee Simple Absolute
Could you Read Grant as Fee Simple Conditioned on Land Not Being Sold?
No. Restraints on Alienation are Inconsistent with Fee Simple.
Even if Condition Explicit, Court Would Pencil It Out as Against Public Policy.
THUS…

33. White v. Brown Holds Interest is Fee Simple Absolute
Result: The Property Can Be Sold!!!

34. White v. Brown A Few Clarifying Points
On Q of Life Estate v. Fee Simple, Grant is Truly Ambiguous
No Explicit Language Either Way
Legal Rules of Construction Point Both Ways
You Could Beliueve Life Estate Seems to Fit Total Language of Grant Better
BUT Majority Not Rewriting/Modifying Grant, but Relying on Strength of Presumptions of F.S./Transfer of All

35. White v. Brown (S71-75) A Few Clarifying Points
Cases cited in White find F.S. Despite Stronger Life Estate Language than in White.
Green: to husband “to be used by him for his support and comfort during his life”
Williams: to children “for and during their natural lives”
BUT As Dissent points out, these cases did not include no-sale language and Williams had other language suggesting children got more than just life estate
QUESTIONS ON HOLDING/RESULT?

36. White v. Brown: Sequoia: DQ3.04
Imagination Exercise:
Possible Relevant Facts Not in Opinion
Legal Relevance Here:
Both Sides Rely on “Presumptions”
Means Can Use Other Facts to Overcome/Rebut
Important Exam Skill
Big Part of Lawyering Q
As We’ve Noted, Can Use for Short Problems/Issue-Spotter
If Consistent with Rest of Facts
If Relevant to Issues Raised

37. White v. Brown Sequoia: DQ3.04
Imagination Exercise: Possible Relevant Facts Not in Opinion
To Add Weight to Majority Position (Fee Simple)?
To Add Weight to Dissent Position (Life Estate)?

38. White v. Brown What Actually Happened?
EW had stroke, moved in w daughter
Probably wants to sell house b/c rental income not much
Significance of case:
If life estate, most of value goes to nieces/nephews
If fee simple (as court held), EW gets money for medical & living expenses

39. White v. Brown Grantor’s Intent v. “Channeling” Function
Recurring problem with estates/future interests: laypeople don’t know relevant categories.
Thus, they don’t know how to signal what they wish to future court.
Important roles that lawyers play in helping with wills:
Ask Qs to discern client wishes (“What if Evelyn gets sick?”)
Channel client desires into language that gives legal effect to those wishes.

40. QUESTIONS? White v. Brown Test Note #1:
Test Will Include At Least One Grant (Yielding Multiple Questions) That Could Be Either Fee Simple or Life Estate, So You Need to Know Arguments Distinguishing the Two
QUESTIONS?

41. Vested v. Contingent Remainders

42. FUTURE INTERESTS THAT FOLLOW FINITE ESTATES
REMAINDER
Future interest in a third party that follows naturally upon the termination of a finite estate. It is always expressly conveyed by the grantor.

43. VESTED REMAINDER
Grantee is living ascertainable person (can presume this if granted to a named individual.)

44. VESTED REMAINDER
Grantee is living ascertainable person AND
Clause creating the remainder contains no condition on grantee taking the property except expiration of prior estate.

45. VESTED REMAINDER
Grantee is living ascertainable person AND
Clause creating the remainder contains no condition on grantee taking the property except expiration of prior estate
Example: To Aaron for life, then to Oona and her heirs.

46. CONTINGENT REMAINDER
Grantee is presently unborn or unascertainable *OR*
Clause creating the remainder contains a condition on grantee taking the property

47. REMAINDERS: EXAMPLES
“To Fred for life, then to Fred’s firstborn child.”
Fred has Life Estate
Interest in Child
Follows Life Estate, so it’s a Remainder
If Fred presently has no children, grantee is unborn, so Remainder is Contingent .

48. Suppose Fred has a child, Pebbles…

49. REMAINDERS: EXAMPLES
“To Fred for life, then to Fred’s firstborn child.”
Fred has Life Estate
Interest in Child
Follows Life Estate, so it’s a Remainder
Once Fred fathers his first child, grantee is born and ascertainable, so Remainder is now Vested.
Thus, we say that, at the birth of Pebbles, the Contingent Remainder “Vests”

50. REMAINDERS: EXAMPLES
“To Fred for life, then to Fred’s oldest child living at Fred’s death.”
Fred has Life Estate
Interest in Child
Follows Life Estate, so it’s a Remainder
Even if F has living children now, can’t know which of the children will be alive at F’s death, so grantee is unascertainable, so Remainder is Contingent .

51. “To Fred for life, then to Wilma and her heirs if Dino survives Fred.”
REMAINDERS: EXAMPLES
“To Fred for life, then to Wilma and her heirs if Dino survives Fred.”
Fred has Life Estate
Interest in Wilma
Follows Life Estate, so it’s a Remainder
Condition must be met before Wilma can take, so Remainder is Contingent.

52. Contingent v. Vested Remainders: Memory/Comprehension Aids
Meaning/Derivation of Vested Right
Clearly Established Right that’s Hard to Undo
E.g., “Vested” Employee Benefits
Derivation: Putting on Robes of Office (Investment)
Analogy:
Vested Remainder  Theater Ticket
Contingent Remainder  Lottery Ticket