I will show up to take your questions on April 29 at 4:30 PM. Room 113.
When studying for the exam, don't forget to review the blog posts, especially when there is something you don't understand. I use the blog to help you understand the issues and the doctrine we have covered in this course. Many of the answers to your questions can be found in the relevant blog post.
Home Owners Association Threatens Homeschool
The Covent family was astonished one day when they were told that their homeschool was a violation of their Home Owner's Association Covenant and that they were required to cease homeschooling immediately or face a lawsuit.
The family had just started homeschooling for the 2005-6 school year and organized different group activities with fellow homeschooling families to supplement their program. A few homeschoolers met at the Covent home for chess, gymnastics, arts, and music. The activities were supervised by the various parents in the group.
The family was accused by the Home Owner's Association (HOA) of running a business or day care from the home, and engaging in noxious or offensive activities which constitute a nuisance.
Home School Legal Defense Association Senior Counsel Chris Klicka wrote to the HOA and challenged the HOA's threat to file suit against the family for simply homeschooling their son and hosting social/educational activities for the furtherance of their son's education. It is difficult to imagine how a chess club could violate the rules. Also, children participating in gymnastics or music is not a noxious or offensive activity.
After talking with the HOA's lawyer, HSLDA has convinced them to leave the family alone. The family did supply a notarized statement describing their educational activities and explained that they are not commercial. The Covent homeschool has not been disrupted and the family is continuing to homeschool and host the group activities.
Does this covenant run with the land? If so, is it constitutional for the courts to enforce it?
What about a covenant prohibiting political signs being displayed by homeowners?
Several students asked about private discrimination in housing, employment and public accommodations. They basically said "if the Constitution doesn't forbid private discrimination, what does?"
Of course, the answer is civil rights statutes and ordinances enacted by Congress, state legislatures, or local government.
Most constitutional law cases arise because some law enacted by Congress or the states restricts some constitutional right. Nebraska passes a law forbidding certain kinds of speech. The law is clearly state action (the speech restriction is written into the statute), this triggers the Free Speech issue, and the law may or may not violate the Free Speech Clause. Congress passes the Health Care law with an individual mandate. Clearly this is state action and the law may or may not violate the Constitution (the Court upheld it as a tax, as you may remember).
If
a private landlord discriminates on the basis of race, there is no
state action so no constitutional claim. But the discrimination
certainly violates any number of fair housing laws passed by Congress,
the states, and many cities.
I have really enjoyed Property with the class of 2026!
So, let me send you off to exams with this bit of wisdom from a man who tilts at windmills:
From Don Quixote de la Mancha (in the musical, Man of La Mancha):
Call nothing thine, except thy soul.
Love not what thou art, only what thou may become.
Do not pursue pleasure, for thou mayest have the misfortune to overtake it.
Look always forward, in last year's nests there are no birds this year.
And this, from Grant Gilmore, The Ages of American Law:
“Law reflects but in no sense determines the moral worth of a
society. The values of a reasonably just society will reflect themselves
in a reasonably just law. The better the society, the less law there
will be. In heaven there will be no law, and the lion shall lie down
with the lamb. The values of an unjust society will reflect themselves
in an unjust law. The worse the society, the more law there will be. In
hell there will be nothing but law, and due process will be meticulously
observed.”
So, where are we in 2024? And where do you want us to be in 2034?
--Casebook p. 624-640
-- Casebook p. 91-98; Re-read Moore case (casebook p. 894-896)
We are approaching the end of our Property class. I want to make sure that everyone has had an opportunity to be called on. So, in each of the last few classes, I will call on several of you whose last names are near the end of the alphabet. Thus, from Schall to Zheng get ready! Today will be a great day to get some help from several of you, because we are talking about lots of policy issues concerning covenants.
We are nearing the end of our magical mystery tour through Property.
We still have 5 or 6 classes we need to cancel because of our longer weekly schedule.
Next week is Spring Break! Have some good, clean fun and get ready for the home stretch.
The last week of classes (April 15 to 18) has been canceled.
I will also cancel class on April 10--we
have a great speaker and friend of mine (Clark Forsythe) that day--and I
need to be a great host for his visit to Nebraska Law.
We still have 1 more class we can cancel, but I want to hold on to that one in case we need it to cover material. Update: We will use that last cancel card to cancel class on April 11 as well. I will schedule an optional q & A session sometime shortly before the date of our exam (May 1).
Finally, evaluation day is Thursday March 28. First 15 minutes of class.
A Little More (maybe 15 minutes) on Chain of Title (casebook p. 1181-1182)
Adverse Possession
--O'Keefe v Snyder, p. 156-168
--Casebook p.168-191
Real Covenants and Equitable Servitudes
32. Casebook p. 617-628
33.Casebook p. 628-640
On Adverse Possession, please also read:
--O'Keefe v Snyder, p. 156-168
This is an interesting case about adverse possession of personal property (a fine art painting) as opposed to adverse possession of real property. Personal property is movable; real property is fixed in place. Does this make a difference for purposes of the doctrine of adverse possession? Should it make a difference in what the rules are?