"The Five Minute Law School" or Why Property is "The Scream"

Prof. Michael Dorf has a very funny article over at FindLaw called "The Five-Minute Law School: Everything You Learn In Your First Year, More or Less." You can read it here:

https://supreme.findlaw.com/legal-commentary/the-five-minute-law-school-everything-you-learn-in-your-first-year-more-or-less.html

And here is an excerpt with his hilarious summary of Property:

"Property law is more of a hazing ritual than an actual subject. Typical property classes teach students the fine distinctions among different forms of ownership of land in medieval England, such as the "fee tail" and the "fee simple determinable," neither of which, alas, has anything to do with collecting a legal fee. Students forget these distinctions within a few seconds of completing their property law final exams, which is unfortunate, because then they have to learn them all over again for the bar exam. Only after successfully completing the bar exam, is it safe to forget the distinctions permanently."

Law In Literature: Charles Dickens

 

 

 If you want to read about law in literature, read Dickens. Dickens was not impressed by lawyers. And he wrote some of the most hilarious descriptions of judges and lawyers anywhere in literature.

I am reading The Old Curiosity Shop right now, and I just came across this passage in which Dickens describes Miss Sally Brass's devoted study of the law:

"In mind, she was of a strong and vigorous turn, having from her earliest youth devoted herself  with uncommon ardour to the study of law; not wasting her speculations upon its eagle flights, which are rare, but tracing it attentively through all the slippery and eel-like crawlings in which it commonly pursues its way."

Ouch! 

Since college as an English Lit major, I have read and re-read Dickens. Bleak House is his masterpiece focused on the law, but law and lawyers show up in almost all of his novels.

Assignments

 As I indicated last week, tomorrow's assignment will be: 5. Casebook p. 153-168 (adverse possession of personal property) 

Going forward, if you stay one full assignment ahead (from the assignments listed on the syllabus) you will be prepared for class.

After Class Office Hours in The Courtyard

 Don't forget that every day after class I head to the Courtyard (just outside the building, near the sacred ground of the Faculty Parking Lot) to answer questions or have discussions about Property, law school, Padres baseball, Constitutional Law, or most anything else.

I enjoy these discussions quite a bit, so don't hesitate to join us outside in the Courtyard, where masks are optional and the liberty bell rings loudly and clearly.

Schutz vs. Duncan

Suppose I run Schutz down with my car.

Schutz's story is that he was crossing in  a crosswalk with a walk sign, and I drove my car through a red light and injured him severely. My story is that I had a green light, and did not see him because he ran out in front of me from between two parked cars.

The accident occurred directly in front of a nursing home, and there were 5 residents of that home who were sitting on the porch and witnessed the accident.

This happens in 2010. Suppose Schutz waits until 2021 to sue me in tort for personal injury? What result? Where are those 5 elderly percipient [Kevin "he's so vain" McCarthy's word--gotta love that guy!] witnesses?

Now suppose I find Schutz's Rolex watch in the Faculty Lounge. He asks me to return it and I refuse. For the next 10 years I wear it and treat it as my watch.

Ten years later he sues me to get it back. What result? Who "owns" the Rolex now?

Suppose now he sees the watch in my office and takes it back into his possession. I sue him to recover the watch. What result? Why?

Adverse Possession--Holmes' Quotation

                                        

Here is a great Holmes quotation on adverse possession that goes to the heart of the purpose of the doctrine:

The true explanation of title by prescription seems to me to be that man, like a tree in the cleft of a rock, gradually shapes his roots to his surroundings, and when the roots have grown to a certain size, cannot be displaced without cutting at his life.

I love the way Holmes' wrote.

Assignment: Thursday September 9

Just to be clear, for tomorrow (Sept. 9) read the next assignment:

 

 4. Casebook P. 129-131 (Hannah v. Peel); 133-140 (Schley)

 

For Friday, we will probably (depending on whether we finish first possession cases tomorrow) move on to:  5. Casebook p. 153-168 (adverse possession of personal property)

Hannah v. Peel: Timeline

Dec.13, 1938 Def (Major Peel) buys the House but does not occupy it

1939 & 1940 House requisitioned for use by the military

Aug. 1940 Pl, Duncan Hannah, finds brooch on top of window frame

Oct.1940 Honest Dunc informs his commanding officer of his discovery and turns brooch over to police (Dunc obviously married an honest and wise woman)

Aug. 1942 T.O. has not shown--Police give brooch to Def. Peel

Pl. sues Def. for the value of the brooch

Question: Is this case more like Sharman or more like Bridges? Did the Ct "squeeze Sharman" when it described its holding on p. 130?


p. 130 "It has been said...." Who said this? Did the Sharman court say this?

It has been said that Duncan is "the greatest hitter in the history of baseball." Who said this?

Possession Hypos

 

1. Suppose Billy shoots a deer with an arrow. The deer takes off running with Billy in hot pursuit. The deer runs past Denicola who kills it and carries it off. Billy sues Denicola for conversion. What result?

2. Suppose Kanye is about to harpoon a whale when Katie Perry and fellow members of Greenpeace (an organization formed to protect whales) intervenes and frightens the whales out to sea by singing “Give Peace a Chance” acapella. Kanye sues Katie for damages.

--What should Kanye the whale-hunter argue?

--What about Katie Perry and her whale-lovers organization? What should they argue?

3. Now suppose Katie and Kanye are walking down the sidewalk when Kanye spots a wallet lying in the gutter about 10 yards ahead. He exclaims, “Oh, look what I have found, a wallet!”

Whereupon Katie dives for the wallet and beats Kanye to it.

Who wins this lawsuit for possession of the wallet?

How would you argue our cases?