I will be about 5 minutes late for class today.
I have a short task I have to perform at 1:15.
This is the web log for Professor Duncan's Property Class at Nebraska Law. Rugged individualism and liberty are inseparable: “There can be no liberty unless there is economic liberty.” — Margaret Thatcher "We didn't love freedom enough. We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward." -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn "This is America, we don't share land here." John Dutton Yellowstone
Friday, March 29, 2019
Thursday, March 28, 2019
Estoppel and Part Performance
Assume A orally agrees to grant his neighbor, B, a perpetual right-of-way easement over A's property Blackacre from B's property Whiteacre. B spends $5000 grading the right-of-way and putting down some gravel. After a few years, A informs B that he is no longer allowed to use the right-of-way on Blackacre.
The doctrines of estoppel and part performance are equitable doctrines which take an oral easement out of the Staute of Frauds. In other words, the oral easement will be recognized in equity which, in order to do justice, will "block the Staute's application." (Hornbook at 457).
Estoppel Theory
Hornbook p. 458: "If this theory is employed, one reasons as follows: the oral grantor represented to the grantee that he had an easement...upon the grantor's land; in reliance upon the representation, the grantee expended money or labor or made improvements upon or with reference to the easement...--detrimental reliance; and therefore, the grantor became estopped to deny the easement."
Part Performance Theory
Hornbook at p. 458: "The same facts that invoke the estoppel theory will usually support the equitable part performance theory. Here the reasoning is that the oral grantee's acts, making improvements of a kind one would make if one had an easement...,give tangible evidence, independent of the spoken words, that such an interest exists. The acts themselves 'speak of' an easement...; the trier of fact need not rely on the oral statements alone." In other words, the acts of part performance substitute for a writing to demonstrate or prove the existence of the easement.
Oral Licenses
But now suppose the oral promise is "I hereby give you permission, revocable at will, to use my land for a right-of-way." The licensee spends money constructing the right-of-way. The above doctrines allow an oral easement to be given effect in accordance with the oral promise notwithstanding the Statute of Frauds. But should those doctrines be used to transform a revocable oral incense into an irrevocable perpetual easement? Does justice require forcing a "grantor" to give much more than he promised to give?
As Prof. Clark Once put it: "Instead of the picture of the licensor prevented by the courts from taking advantage of his own fraud, it is suggested that a truer picture is that of a kind, neighborly individual who finds himself outwitted, under this rule of law, by a clever land-grabber."
What do you all think?
The doctrines of estoppel and part performance are equitable doctrines which take an oral easement out of the Staute of Frauds. In other words, the oral easement will be recognized in equity which, in order to do justice, will "block the Staute's application." (Hornbook at 457).
Estoppel Theory
Hornbook p. 458: "If this theory is employed, one reasons as follows: the oral grantor represented to the grantee that he had an easement...upon the grantor's land; in reliance upon the representation, the grantee expended money or labor or made improvements upon or with reference to the easement...--detrimental reliance; and therefore, the grantor became estopped to deny the easement."
Part Performance Theory
Hornbook at p. 458: "The same facts that invoke the estoppel theory will usually support the equitable part performance theory. Here the reasoning is that the oral grantee's acts, making improvements of a kind one would make if one had an easement...,give tangible evidence, independent of the spoken words, that such an interest exists. The acts themselves 'speak of' an easement...; the trier of fact need not rely on the oral statements alone." In other words, the acts of part performance substitute for a writing to demonstrate or prove the existence of the easement.
Oral Licenses
But now suppose the oral promise is "I hereby give you permission, revocable at will, to use my land for a right-of-way." The licensee spends money constructing the right-of-way. The above doctrines allow an oral easement to be given effect in accordance with the oral promise notwithstanding the Statute of Frauds. But should those doctrines be used to transform a revocable oral incense into an irrevocable perpetual easement? Does justice require forcing a "grantor" to give much more than he promised to give?
As Prof. Clark Once put it: "Instead of the picture of the licensor prevented by the courts from taking advantage of his own fraud, it is suggested that a truer picture is that of a kind, neighborly individual who finds himself outwitted, under this rule of law, by a clever land-grabber."
What do you all think?
Wednesday, March 27, 2019
Pound Lecture Wednesday March 27 at Noon!!!!
I am requiring the class to attend the Pound Lecture on Wednesday March 27 at Noon in the Auditorium. The lecture is property related--Corporate Purpose in a Populist Era, by one of the leading Corporate Law Profs in the country, Prof. Stephen Bainbridge.
Note: By a unanimous vote of the class, we will account for the required Pound Lecture by cancelling class tomorrow--Thursday March 14.
HAPPY SPRING BREAK
Note: By a unanimous vote of the class, we will account for the required Pound Lecture by cancelling class tomorrow--Thursday March 14.
HAPPY SPRING BREAK
Wednesday, March 20, 2019
Friday, March 15, 2019
Class Schedule
Katie Duncan with her Paint, "Easy" Duncan
We have 8 classes that need to be canceled (7 because of our 60-minute classes and 1 because of our double-header for Poletown Documentary).
Here is what I know so far about class cancellations:
1. Wed-Fri February 20-22
4. Friday March 15
5.Wednesday April 3
6.Wednesday April 10
7.
8.
The class we missed last week due to my flight being cancelled (Wednesday January 23) will be made up with a review session we will have shortly before our final exam. And also by your attending The Pound Lecture in March (which I am requiring).
Saturday, March 09, 2019
Recording of Today's Class (Thursday March 7)
Several of you missed class today because of snow. I asked Richard to record it:
Good Afternoon,
Here is the requested link to your recording:
Richard McDermott
Thursday, March 07, 2019
Link to Recording of Friday's Early Class
Here is the requested link to your recording:
Richard McDermott
Wednesday, March 06, 2019
1L Scheduling Survey
Please comment below--we are interested in your views.
Here are some of the options:
1. Faculty is committed to ensuring that no more than 4 classes will be scheduled for any one day
2. Should classes be 50 minutes three times a week, 60 minutes three times a week, or 75 minutes twice a week.
60 minute classes allow 7 classes to be cancelled without make-ups.
75 minute classes allow zero classes to be cancelled--make-up classes (for snow days, holidays, days when professor has a conflict) will be required (probably on Saturdays or nights)
3. should International Perspectives course be moved to 2L year and Criminal Law moved to Spring Semester.
4. Any other scheduling concerns.
Here are some of the options:
1. Faculty is committed to ensuring that no more than 4 classes will be scheduled for any one day
2. Should classes be 50 minutes three times a week, 60 minutes three times a week, or 75 minutes twice a week.
60 minute classes allow 7 classes to be cancelled without make-ups.
75 minute classes allow zero classes to be cancelled--make-up classes (for snow days, holidays, days when professor has a conflict) will be required (probably on Saturdays or nights)
3. should International Perspectives course be moved to 2L year and Criminal Law moved to Spring Semester.
4. Any other scheduling concerns.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)

