I was Too Kind to California

 

                             Hotel Coronada del Mar by Hilton (I'll be staying there this August!)

 

 California does have a Race-Notice recording act, but it is not as well drafted as I gave the state credit for. 

I neglected the clearest command of federalism--you can never go broke betting against Cali!

Here is the statute as quoted on page 1158:

West’s Ann.Cal. Civil Code § 1214 (2001):
“Every conveyance of real property, other than a lease for a term
not exceeding one year, is void as against any subsequent purchaser or
mortgagee of the same property, or any part thereof, in good faith and
for a valuable consideration, whose conveyance is first duly
recorded….”

The race part of the law is clear (and that is what I praised in class). But where is the "without notice" part of the law, as some of you asked me after class today?

Well, to be protected against a prior unrecorded deed, the subsequent purchaser must (i) be "in good faith"; and (ii) first duly record.

The "good faith" part of statutes such as this one is understood as requiring the subsequent purchaser to be without notice. In other words, good faith requires that the purchaser be without notice. 

So there it is--Race-Notice. Not perfectly drafted, but it gets the job done. 

Sunset at Coronado del Mar (June 2021) (most beautiful I have ever seen):

                                                   Photo by yours truly

Courtyard Office Hours

 

Spring Flowers Have Arrived on Blackacre

I want to make sure you have an opportunity to chat with me after class. On sunny warm days (hopefully coming soon), I will be out in the courtyard immediately after class most days. Until then, I will be sitting on one of the soft chairs in the lobby outside the law library immediately after class.

Please feel free to stop by and ask questions or chat about law, or law school, or baseball, or liberty.

Assignments For Week 10

 --Casebook p. 1158-1169 

 --Casebook p. 1169-1180

 --Casebook p. 1180-1188

 FYI: We will not discuss Osin v. Johnson (p. 1169) in class. It is an unusual case, so skim it if you wish, but we will not be spending class time discussing it.

Judge Ho on Hamilton

 One of my favorite federal judges is Judge Ho of the 5th Circuit. Law can be dull or it can be joyful. Judge Ho chooses the latter. Here is the opening of his recent opinion on taxing exports:

Assignments For Week 9 (the week after Spring Break)

Have a great Spring Break! When you get back to class, here is what we will be reading for the week of March 23-25:

IV. The Recording System

15. Casebook p. 1129-1144
16. Casebook p. 1144-1158

Play Ball! In Room 113

 The snow was light, so let's have class--live and in person--in Room 113 today.

Drive safely!

Jancik and Housing Discrimination

 Notice that under the federal Fair Housing Act discrimination in the sale or rental of housing "to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin" is prohibited. 

The Act also prohibits advertisements for the sale or rental of housing that indicate "any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin, or an intention to make any such preference, limitation, or discrimination." Casebook p. 460.

Jancik deals with a case of discriminatory ads for rental housing. 

The ad noted that a "mature person preferred." And one of the protected classes under FHA is "familial status" which is defined to mean families with children under the age of 18.

In addition to his ad, Jancik also asked the "tester" applicants about their race. 

 So the issue is whether his ad or his statements expressed a preference for mature adults or for tenants of a particular race.

The Court holds that the decision of the Administrative Law Judge that Jancik's ad and statements unlawfully expressed "a preference on both race and family statues" was supported by substantial evidence.  Do you agree?

Notice the penalties Jancik was assessed by the ALJ (p. 465):

 The ALJ awarded damages to the Leadership Council ($21,386.14)
and to Marsha Allen ($2,000), assessed a civil penalty of $10,000, and
enjoined Jancik from engaging in further acts of discrimination, all as
authorized by 42 U.S.C. § 3612(g)(3). The Leadership Council subsequently
filed a petition requesting $23,842.50 in attorney’s fees[, which the ALJ
granted in full].

My math tells me this comes to a bit over $57000. About half of which went to the attorneys who brought the case.

Too much?

Too little?

About right?

Again, attorneys' fees are awarded to incentivize bringing these cases, and as a deterrent to those who violate civil rights laws such as FHA and RLUIPA.

What are your thoughts?

"I Came to College Eager to Debate. I Found Self-Censorship Instead"

 Here is a link to a thoughtful student essay (by Emma Camp) from the New York Times on self-censorship on campus and how it destroys the true experience of higher education. I am not assigning this article, but it is at the heart of our mission to develop inclusive leaders in the law who welcome respectful debate between learned friends in the law, between persons with competing visions of what is true, what is good, and what is fair.

Here is a money quotation from Camp's article:

I went to college to learn from my professors and peers. I welcomed an environment that champions intellectual diversity and rigorous disagreement. Instead, my college experience has been defined by strict ideological conformity. Students of all political persuasions hold back — in class discussions, in friendly conversations, on social media — from saying what we really think.

 My message to you has always been don't censor others and don't self-censor. Censorship is poison to education. And to community.

Assignments For Week 8

 --Town of Chester case (p. 904). Just a quick dive to finish off exclusionary zoning

--Hornbook sections 6.13 to 6.24 (background reading only); Nebraska Residential Landlord and Tenant Act (see link to Nebraska Property Laws on side bar)(sections 76-1401 to 76-1449: read through the Act generally, but pay particular attention to sections 76-1416, -1418,-1419,-1421,-1426,-1427,-1437 and -1439). Casebook p. 458-468 (Fair Housing Act)

No class on Friday March 11

Landlord's Selection of Tenant's and Fair Housing Laws

At common law, the landlord was not prohibited from discriminating in selecting his tenants. He could refuse to rent for any reason or for no reason at all. The building was his real property and he had the right to exclude others from his land.

But in 1968, Congress enacted the Fair Housing Act (as amended from time to time), which is set forth on p.459 of the casebook.

How much liberty should landlords have in selecting tenants? Which categories of persons should be protected againt discrimination?

Race?
Religion?
Gender?
Sexual Orientation?
Families with children?
People who own pets?
Political or ideological status?
Criminal convictions?