1. PROPERTY B SLIDES
NATIONAL PUPPY DAY
SPOT
BUTCH

2. Ferreiro * Hays * Hoover
MoreMusic to Accompany Shapira: Albéniz, Iberia (Alicia Delarrocha, Pianist ) Re-recording of Grammy Winner for for Best Classical Performance without Orchestra
Lunch Today (3/22)
Meet on 12:25
Ferreiro * Hays * Hoover
Levy * Perlaza
Next Few DF Sessions:
12:30 F309 = Chapter 3 Test (Brendan)
Mon 3/25: No DF (Test Day)
Wed/Fri Next Week (Lauren) Lawyering Problem 1H from Bank of Lawyering Qs at Bottom of Course Page

3. I’ll Respond to Reasonable E- Mail Qs Sent by 8p.m. Sunday
LOGISTICS
Pre-Test Office Hours
Today: 2-6 (My Office)
Tomorrow: 2-6 (Library Classroom G363)
Sun 3/26: 11-3 & 4-8 (Library Classroom G363)
I’ll Respond to Reasonable E- Mail Qs Sent by 8p.m. Sunday
NCAA CONTEST
Spring Reading Period 
4 Weeks/5 Weeks
LComm v. All Else

4. CHAPTER 4: ADVERSE POSSESSION THE PREMIERE EVENT

5. Adverse Possession: Overview Connections to Rest of Course
Type of Involuntary Transfer of Property Rights
Like Shack & JMB & Eminent Domain
Loss of Property Rights for Policy Reasons
About Relationship of Property & Time
Like Chapters 2 and 3
Here: Losing Property Rights Via Passage of Time

6. Adverse Possession: Overview Nature/Essence of Adverse Possession (AP)
Arises from Statutes of Limitations (SoL)
Length of State Statutes Varies (5-30 years)
If don’t act to stop trespasser quickly enough, can forfeit right to do so
Operates differently than other SoL
Running of SoL Doesn’t Completely Bar Recovery for Original Owner (OO)
Must meet detailed requirements to invoke SoL
Generally Disfavored (e.g., NY & Fla need Clear & Convincing Evid.)
BUT Result if OO loses is legal transfer of title

7. Adverse Possession: Overview Nature/Essence of Adverse Possession (AP)
Can Get Title by “Possessing” Otherwise Unused Land
for Length of Statute of Limitations
“Possession” v. Ownership: AP Doctrine largely about how much & what kind of possession is necessary to transfer ownership .)
Several Elements: Requirements beyond passage of time basically to ensure that
Adverse Possessor (APor) sufficiently possessing
Original Owner (OO) really not possessing/caring for

8. Adverse Possession: Overview Lawyering Focus
Working with Individual Elements of a Cause of Action
Need to Understand Role and Operation of Each Element
“Elements” v. “Factors”
Because each Element is required, assume not redundant
AP Elements:
Mostly Similar from State to State
Often Mix of Statutory Language & Common Law Development

9. Adverse Possession: Overview Lawyering Focus
Working with Individual Elements of a Cause of Action
Need to Understand Role and Operation of Each Element
Attys Use Cases Initially to Determine Meaning of Elements
Read Multiple Relevant Cases to Flesh Out Each Individual Element
Generally Don’t Examine Whole Cases Until Late in Process
We’ll Approach Materials in This Unit This Way
You’ll read through all cases initially to get sense of (by next Monday)
In class, we’ll work on one element at a time, referencing all cases as relevant (one panel per element).

10. Adverse Possession: Overview Lawyering Focus: Working with Indiv
Adverse Possession: Overview Lawyering Focus: Working with Indiv. Elements
Need to Understand Role and Operation of Each Element
Because each Element is required, assume not redundant
Each Element looking for different kind of info
i.e., separate purpose/focus and different kinds of facts for each
Useful to think about how each fits into purposes of AP
LMNs of AP: similar from state to state exc state of mind
If addressing a case in a partic jurisd, for each element:
Check statute and caselaw for definitions/rules
Use policy/purpose arguments to help resolve close cases

11. Adverse Possession: Overview Lawyering Focus: Individual Elements
Our Sequence
Actual Use (Acadia)
Open & Notorious (Badlands)
Exclusive (Everglades)
Continuous (Olympic)
Adverse/Hostile (Sequoia)
Our Coverage for Each
Focus/Relevant Evidence
Purpose
Easy Cases/Hard Cases
Judicial Opinions
Review Problems for 1-4

12. SEQUOIA: DQ
SEQUOIAS

13. Adverse Possession: Justifications DQ4.01: AP as SoL (Sequoia)
Purposes Behind SoL Generally?
(E.g., Torts/Contracts)

14. Adverse Possession: Justifications DQ4.01: AP as SoL (Sequoia)
Purposes Behind SoL Generally (E.g., Torts/Contracts)
Potential Ds: Repose
Legal System: Evidentiary Problems
Potential Ps: Encourage Rabbits; Punish Turtles (Don’t “Sleep” on Your Rights)
Apply to Actions for Possession of Land?

15. Adverse Possession: Justifications DQ4.01: AP as SoL (Sequoia)
Purposes Behind SoL: Adverse Possession
Potential Ds: Repose (Quiet Titles; Protect Investment)
Legal System: Evidentiary Problems (”Prescriptive Rights”)
Potential Ps: Don’t “Sleep” on Your Rights
Discourage Leaving Land Unmonitored (Drugs, Dead Bodies, Al-Qaeda)
Other Purposes for AP?

16. Adverse Possession: Justifications DQ4.01: AP as SoL
Purposes Behind SoL Generally (E.g., Torts/Contracts)
Potential Ds: Repose
Legal System: Evidentiary Problems
Potential Ps: Encourage Rabbits; Punish Turtles (Don’t “Sleep” on Your Rights)
Apply to Actions for Possession of Land?

17. Adverse Possession: Justifications Purposes Behind Adverse Possession More Broadly
Potential Ds: Adverse Possessors (APors)
Repose (Quiet Titles)
Reward/Protect Investment in Land
Reward/Encourage Beneficial Uses
Protect Psychic Connection (Holmes)
Legal System: Evidentiary Problems
Potential Ps (OOs): Don’t “Sleep” on Your Rights
Discourage Leaving Land Unmonitored (Drugs, Dead Bodies, Al-Qaeda)
Encourage/Reward OOs who send clear timely notice of interest

18. Adverse Possession: Overview Justifications/Purposes: Recap
Purposes of AP
Repose
Like SoL Generally: Act Before Evidence Lost
plus Quiet Titles; Promote Alienability/Investment
Punish Sleeping OO
Like SoL Generally: Discourage Sitting on Rights
plus Address Social Costs of Not Monitoring Land
Reward Beneficial Use/Labor by APor
Protect Connection/Investment of APor

19. Closing Up Chapter 3 Shapira Cont’d Timing Issues DQs 3.12/3.15
Review Problems 3P-3S

20. ACADIA: DQ cont’d
Acadia Sunrise

21. Acadia: DQ3.13  SHAPIRA: DISTINCTION #1 
Gift conditioned upon religious faith of beneficiary  v.
Gift conditioned upon marriage to person of particular faith 
Coercing Belief  v. Conduct 
Administrability

22. Acadia: DQ3.13  SHAPIRA: DISTINCTION #1 
Gift conditioned upon religious faith of beneficiary  v.
Gift conditioned upon marriage to person of particular faith 
Coercing Belief  v. Conduct 
Note View of Marriage in 1974
Can Use Case to Support Conditions Requiring Conduct Affecting Religious Concerns but not Coercing Belief
Administrability

23. Acadia: DQ3.13  SHAPIRA: DISTINCTION #1 
Gift conditioned upon religious faith of beneficiary  v.
Gift conditioned upon marriage to person of particular faith 
Administrability: Compare:
To Pigpen, so long as the kitchens and bathrooms are always kept very clean.
To Schroeder, so long as he never plays any work by Beethoven on the piano.

24. Acadia: DQ3.13  SHAPIRA: DISTINCTION #1 
Gift conditioned upon religious faith of beneficiary  v.
Gift conditioned upon marriage to person of particular faith 
Administrability: Compare:
 To Lucy so long as she remains a member of the Society of Friends.
 To Linus, so long as he remains a good Catholic.
QUESTIONS?

25. Acadia: DQ3.13  SHAPIRA: DISTINCTION #2 
Gift conditioned upon divorce  v.
Gift conditioned upon marriage to person of particular faith (maybe )
Court: Latter not sufficient to encourage fake marriage & divorce.
Grantee can’t avoid condition by saying “I will act in bad faith” (this concern arises regarding many legal issues).

26. Acadia: DQ3.13  SHAPIRA: DISTINCTION #3 
Conditional gift with “gift over” to third party
v. Conditional gift without “gift over”
Comprehensive Estate Plan (likely )
(Note Good 2017 Idea:
Gift Over Unrelated to Challenged Condition
Won’t Support Allowing Condition)
v. “In Terrorem” Condition (maybe )

27. Acadia: DQ3.13  SHAPIRA: DISTINCTION #4 
Forcing a marriage as a condition of a completed gift  v.
Withholding gift until marriage made 
Why Relevant?

28. Acadia: DQ3.13  SHAPIRA: DISTINCTION #4 
Forcing a marriage as a condition of a completed gift 
v. Withholding gift until marriage made 
Remedy: Injunction v. Forfeiting Gift
Like case involving divorce settlement requirement that child be raised in particular faith
Won’t impose contempt/criminal sanctions for not following religion

29. Acadia: DQ3.13  SHAPIRA: DISTINCTION #4 
Forcing a marriage as a condition of a completed gift 
v. Withholding gift until marriage made 
Remedy: Injunction v. Forfeiting Gift
Like case involving divorce settlement requirement that child be raised in particular faith
Won’t impose contempt/criminal sanctions for not following religion

30. Acadia: DQ3.13  SHAPIRA: DISTINCTION #5 
Quaker Men (Maddox)  v.
 Jewish Women (Shapira)
Why Relevant?

31. Acadia: DQ3.13  SHAPIRA: DISTINCTION #5 
Quaker Men (Maddox)  v.
Jewish Women (Shapira)
Quakers = Too Few Available Partners 
E.g., you must marry one of the Bronte Sisters 

32. Shapira v. Union National Bank Acadia: DQ3.14
Maddox held that these kinds of conditions (partially restricting marriage) are unacceptable where there is a sufficiently “small number of eligible” partners.
How few partners must there be to fail the test?

33. Shapira v. Union National Bank Acadia: DQ3.14
Maddox held that these kinds of conditions (partially restricting marriage) are unacceptable where there is a sufficiently “small number of eligible” partners.
If you were living in a state with that test, how could you prove whether it was met? (Cf. Lawyering Q on Final Exam)

34. Shapira v. Union National Bank Acadia: DQ3.14
Maddox held that these kinds of conditions (partially restricting marriage) are unacceptable where there is a sufficiently “small number of eligible” partners.
Assuming that some partial restraints on marriage are allowed, is the Maddox rule a good result?

35. Shapira v. Union National Bank Acadia: DQ3.14
Maddox held that these kinds of conditions (partially restricting marriage) are unacceptable where there is a sufficiently “small number of eligible” partners.
Good Result?
Too much restriction on grantee v.
Grantor’s Rights (can always argue that grantors should be able to dispose of their own property as they wish).

36. Closing Up Chapter 3 Shapira Cont’d Timing Issues DQs 3.12/3.15
Review Problems 3P-3S

37. Questions on Shapira?

38. Conditions: Timing Ambiguity
To Andrew for life, then to Brian, but if Caitlin graduates from law school, then to Caitlin.
If Caitlin graduates from law school during Andrew’s life estate, does she divest Andrew’s interest or just Brian’s?

39. Conditions: Timing Ambiguity Possible Arguments
To Andrew for life, then to Brian, but if Caitlin graduates from law school, then to Caitlin.
Common Law Presumption: If ambiguous, interest won’t divest life estate.
Today: Generally treated as question of Grantor’s Intent, so look at context.
I won’t test this as a difference between Common Law & Today

40. Conditions: Timing Ambiguity Possible Arguments
To Andrew for life, then to Brian, but if Caitlin graduates from law school, to Caitlin.
To Andrew for life, then to Brian, but if Caitlin has graduated from law school, then to Caitlin.
Differences in wording, especially verb tenses, suggest C takes immediately for (1); at end of Life Estate for (2).

41. Conditions: Timing Ambiguity Possible Arguments
To Andrew for life, then to Brian, but if Caitlin graduates from law school, then to Caitlin.
Andrew is 16; Caitlin is 46.
Seems unlikely Caitlin will survive Andrew
Suggests grantor intended Caitlin’s interest to cut off Andrew’s (or little point to the grant).

42. Conditions: Timing Ambiguity Change Grant: Possible Arguments
To Andrew for life, then to Brian, but if Caitlin Andrew graduates from law school, then to Caitlin.
Seems purpose of grant is either:
To discourage A from going to law school
To provide support for A unless he becomes a lawyer and can support himself
Either way, suggests C’s interest should cut off A’s Life Estate, because it’s not aimed at either B or C.

43. Conditions: Timing Ambiguity Change Grant: Possible Arguments
To Andrew for life, then to Brian, but if Andrew graduates from law school, then to Caitlin.
To Andrew for life, then to Brian, but if Brian graduates from law school, then to Caitlin.
In (2), seems odd to punish Andrew for Brian’s life choices, so absent clear reason, likely treat C’s interest as just cutting off B’s remainder

44. Conditions: Timing Ambiguity Change Grant: Possible Arguments
To Andrew for life, then to Brian, but if Andrew graduates from law school, then to Caitlin.
To Andrew for life, then to Brian, but if Brian graduates from law school, then to Caitlin.
In (2), seems odd to punish Andrew for Brian’s life choices, so absent clear reason, likely treat C’s interest as just cutting off B’s remainder
Questions on Timing Ambiguities?

45. Closing Up Chapter 3 Shapira Cont’d DQs 3.12/3.15 Timing Issues
Review Problems 3P-3S

46. ALL: DQ3.12/3.15: How Much Control Should e Grantors Have?
Why should we allow grantors to have any control at all of what happens to land after they have died?
Might say can choose who gets, but only can give fee simple absolute.
Maybe allow life estates & vested remainders but no conditions on use.
Might limit conditions even more than now. E.g.,
Can’t have conditions that limit or mandate religious behavior of an individual grantee.
Can’t have conditions on marrying or not marrying.

47. DQ : Concern re Alienability (3L): Daffy "to Tweety for life, then to Tweety's children that survive him, but if none of Tweety's children survives him, then to Peggy and her heirs."
Tweety: Life Estate
Tweety’s Children: Alternative Contingent Remainder (in f.s.)
Peggy: Alternative Contingent Remainder (in f.s.)
Daffy: Reversion (even when alternate contingent remainders)

48. Closing Up Chapter 3 Shapira Cont’d DQs 3.12/3.15
Timing Issues
DQs 3.12/3.15
Review Problems 3P-3S

49. AMBIGUITIES/QUESTIONS?
(3P) Renee conveys “to Stacy for life, then to my heirs, but should Stacy marry before she turns 35, to Marni.”
AMBIGUITIES/QUESTIONS?

50. AMBIGUITIES/QUESTIONS
(3P) Renee conveys “to Stacy for life, then to my heirs, but should Stacy marry before she turns 35, to Marni.”
AMBIGUITIES/QUESTIONS
Today or “At Common Law”?
R alive or dead?
Condition void?
M’s interest intended to cut off life estate?
Details in Review Problem Write-Up on Course Page

51. ONE (EASY) BRANCH OF DECISION TREE
(3P) Renee conveys “to Stacy for life, then to my heirs, but should Stacy marry before she turns 35, to Marni.”
ONE (EASY) BRANCH OF DECISION TREE
Condition Void  Pencil out M’s interest
R Alive  As written, contingent remainder in R’s heirs (unascertainable)
Plus Reversion in R
RESULT:
Stacy has Life Estate
Contingent Remainder in R’s Heirs
Renee has Reversion

52. SECOND BRANCH OF DECISION TREE
(3P) Renee conveys “to Stacy for life, then to my heirs, but should Stacy marry before she turns 35, to Marni.”
SECOND BRANCH OF DECISION TREE
R Dead  Remainder is vested in R’s heirs as defined by intestacy statute.
Today  Interest in Marni is in fee simple (not life estate).
Condition valid; M’s interest intended to cut off life estate  Both of the other interests could be cut off by M.
RESULT:
Stacy has Life Estate Subject to Executory Limitation
Renee’s [Ascertained] Heirs have Vested Remainder in FS Subj to Divestmt
Marni has a Shifting Executory Interest in Fee Simple

53. Problem 3Q NOT AMBIGUITIES AMBIGUITIES/Qs
Xaviera grants Brothelacre “to Betsy if it continues to be used as a house of prostitution, but if not, my heirs can take it.”
Xaviera died survived by no issue or spouse, but by her mother, Yvonne. She left a will giving all her property to her friend Phil.
Betsy replaced the existing brothel with an ad agency.
NOT AMBIGUITIES
Common Law v. Today (Ad Agency)
Who is X’s “heir”? Y not P
AMBIGUITIES/Qs

54. Problem 3Q AMBIGUITIES/Qs Condition Valid? (Nevada v. Other States)
Xaviera grants Brothelacre “to Betsy if it continues to be used as a house of prostitution, but if not, my heirs can take it.”
Xaviera died survived by no issue or spouse, but by her mother, Yvonne. She left a will giving all her property to her friend Phil.
Betsy replaced the existing brothel with an ad agency.
AMBIGUITIES/Qs
Condition Valid? (Nevada v. Other States)
Heirs take automatically v. must act? (Some language suggestive of both forms)
Ad Agency Violate Condition 
FURTHER ANALYSIS & BRANCHES OF DECISION TREE
IN WRITE-UP OF REVIEW PROBLEMS

55. (Problem 3R): R: “to C for his support and benefit so long as the property is not used for commercial purposes, then to my nephew J and his heirs if J reaches 35.” C on land writes novels & does deals on phone. - C dies; J is not NOT AMBIGUITY - Common Law v. Today (Deals on the Phone) - Cf. Medical or Law School, which date to medieval Europe AMBIGUITIES/Qs in GRANT ITSELF?

56. AMBIGUITIES/QUESTIONS IN GRANT? AMBIGUITIES/QUESTIONS AFTERWARD?
(3R) R: “to C for his support and benefit so long as the property is not used for commercial purposes, then to my nephew J and his heirs if J reaches 35.” C on land writes novels & does deals on phone. C dies; J is not 35
AMBIGUITIES/QUESTIONS IN GRANT?
Life Estate or Fee?
When Does J’s Interest Take Effect?
AMBIGUITIES/QUESTIONS AFTERWARD?

57. AMBIGUITIES ARISING AFTER
(3R) R: “to C for his support and benefit so long as the property is not used for commercial purposes, then to my nephew J and his heirs if J reaches 35.” C on land writes novels & does deals on phone. C dies; J is not 35
AMBIGUITIES ARISING AFTER
Condition Violated by Writing/Deal-Making?
Destructibility Apply?
Details in Review Problem Write-Up on Course Page

58. BRANCHES OF DECISION TREE Lots of Variations in Sample Qs
(3R) R: “to C for his support and benefit so long as the property is not used for commercial purposes, then to my nephew J and his heirs if J reaches 35.” C on land writes novels & does deals on phone. C dies; J is not 35
BRANCHES OF DECISION TREE
Lots of Variations in Sample Qs