Exam Tip: Take Advantage of the Blog Posts

 

As I have said before, I am not a big fan of outlines. I think outlines are overly simplistic and don't provide what you really need to know to prepare for a law school exam. I have never written an outline in my life!

I am a big fan of good notes, notes that are based upon our class discussions. So, I really encourage you to take good notes, and to copy and paste helpful excerpts from the blog posts. In the old days, those blog posts were just rough notes that I used to discuss in class. Some people were able to take good notes on our discussions and hypos; but some were not able to do so. It is difficult to listen and write at the same time. So, I wrote my notes up into what I hope are lucid blog posts, and everyone gets equal access to what I am trying to teach. One good study habit is to transcribe your notes soon after the class in which you took them (while still fresh in your mind). And consolidate your notes with helpful excerpts from the blog posts. 

If I were taking the exam in my course, I would take advantage of the blog. That is the first place to go when you are trying to master a case, an issue, a doctrine, or a particular estate or future interest that we have studied in this course.

Friday October 29: Assignment

For tomorrow, please read assignment 14:

 14. Casebook p. 355-370; Handout 6; Hornbook P. 97-113 (Sections 3.17 to 3.22)

Don't spend too much time on the Shaver case (p. 361). It raises issues about options to renew leases which we will not be getting into. We will not cover this case in class nor will I hold you responsible for it.
The only thing to notice about this case is FN 24 on page 363 which quotes the Uniform Statutory Rule Against Perpetuities.

Schedule: Pre-Made-Up Days

 Let's use 2 of our pre-made-up days to cancel these two Friday classes:

1. November 5

2. November 12 

You can go home and visit your family for a nice long weekend!

Executive Summary: The Doctrine of Worthier Title

 The doctrine of worthier title, when applied to an inter vivos conveyance of property, prefers a construction of language that would otherwise create a contingent remainder in the grantor's heirs as the retention of a reversion by the Grantor.

Thus, Grutz conveys "to B for life, then to the Grantor's heirs."

What is the state of the title without the rule?

B--life estate
G's heirs--contingent remainder

With the rule?

B--life estate
G--reversion
G's heirs--nothing

Suppose G conveys his reversion to me? What do G's heirs get on his death? Nothing: I own G's reversion in Fee Simple Absolute.

Notice it is a rule of construction not a rule of law. Thus, if the Grutz conveys “to A for life, remainder to my heirs in Fee Simple Absolute,” the rule should not apply and Grutz’s heirs should take a contingent remainder.

Nebraska Law: Inter Vivos Branch of Doctrine Of Worthier Title

76-115. Inter vivos conveyance to the heirs or next of kin of the conveyor; effect.

When any property is limited, in an otherwise effective conveyance inter vivos, in form or in effect, to the heirs or next of kin of the conveyor, which conveyance creates one or more prior interests in favor of a person or persons in existence, such conveyance operates in favor of such heirs or next of kin by purchase and not by descent.

Suppose Grutz conveys "To Denicola for life, then to my [i.e. Grutz's] heirs"

What is the state of the title under this statute?

Under the Doctrine of Worthier Title?

Intersting Article Today in NYT

 Today's Times has an article by Thomas Edsall about differences between Liberals and Conservatives that strikes me as relating quite a bit to issues of property and wealth issues. Here is the link:

 https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/20/opinion/conservatives-liberals-happiness.html

 And here are some interesting passages that relate to property and equity issues:

 

Liberals, Schlenker and his co-authors agree,

have become less happy over the last several decades, but this decline is associated with increasingly secular attitudes and actions (e.g., less religiosity, less likelihood of being married, and perhaps lessened belief in personal agency).

They go on:

Conservatives generally score higher on internal control as well as the Protestant Work Ethic, which emphasizes the inherent meaningfulness and value of work and the strong linkage between one’s efforts and outcomes, and is positively associated with achievement. Liberals, on the other hand, are more likely to see outcomes as due to factors beyond one’s personal control, including luck and properties of the social system.

These differences have consequences:

Perceptions of internal control, self-efficacy, and the engagement in meaningful work are strongly related to life satisfaction. These differences in personal agency could, in and of themselves, explain much of the happiness gap.

So too, in their view, does the liberal inclination to view morality in relative, as opposed to absolutist, terms, have consequences:

A relativist moral code more readily permits people to excuse or justify failures to do the ‘‘right’’ thing. When moral codes lack clarity and promote flexibility, people may come to feel a sense of normlessness — a lack of purpose in life — and alienation. Further, if people believe there are acceptable excuses and justifications for morally questionable acts, they are more likely to engage in those acts, which in turn can create problems and unhappiness.

Perhaps most significant, Schlenker, Chambers and Le found that while both liberals and conservatives place a high value on fairness, they have diverging definitions of the concept:

Liberals define fairness more in terms of equality (equal outcomes regardless of contributions) and turn to government as the vehicle for enforcing social justice and helping those in need. Conservatives define fairness more in terms of equity (outcomes should be proportional to contributions), rely on free markets to distribute outcomes, and prefer individuals and private organizations, not government, to contribute to the care and protection of those in need.

 

A few things to think about when we get tired of mastering remainders.

Class Schedule: Cancellations

 As we have discussed, we have an extra 9 scheduled class hours that need to be canceled. Here are some dates I already know about for cancelled classes:

1. Wednesday October 13 (I am speaking at BYU Law on Tuesday and taking a red-eye home)

2. Thursday October 14 (by class vote)

3. Friday October 15 (I am speaking at the Nebraska Bar Annual Meeting)

4. My current plan is to cancel the last week of class to give you additional time to get ready for exams)

 

Have a great Fall Break from Property next week.

Estates and Future Interests

Some of you are looking for an additional reference for estates and future interests. Perhaps the best book on estates is:

Sheldon F. Kurtz, Moynihan's Introduction to the Law of Real Property (5th ed. 2011).

This should be available in the library at the Reserve desk.

By the way, the subject of the picture immediately above is Blackacre of Hickman, my all-time favorite estate in Fee Simple Absolute.

"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?

 

Assignments for the Next Two Classes

 Basically, your general assignment is read one full assignment for each day. But I think if you have read through Assignment 2, you should be prepared for our next two classes (Wednesday & Thursday):

2. Casebook P. 124-126 (Armory and Bridges); p. 131-133 (McAvoy) and p. 127-129(Sharman) 

SCOTUS Ends CDC Eviction Moratorium

SCOTUSblog: " BREAKING: The Supreme Court lifts the federal eviction moratorium. In an unsigned 8-page opinion (with the three liberals dissenting), SCOTUS sides with a group of landlords who argued that the CDC lacked the authority to bar evictions during the pandemic."

 

From NYT:

The majority opinion, which was unsigned, said the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had exceeded its authority.

“The C.D.C. has imposed a nationwide moratorium on evictions in reliance on a decades-old statute that authorizes it to implement measures like fumigation and pest extermination,” the opinion said. “It strains credulity to believe that this statute grants the C.D.C. the sweeping authority that it asserts.”

 We will discuss this case briefly in class tomorrow.

Today's Discussion on Covid Mandates

I enjoyed our discussion today about the Covid mandates vs. liberty and holding onto the things that make life worth living. Thank you for sharing so many good thoughts. 

Whatever your views about the mandates, I hope that you will not become too used to having your life so heavily regulated by government for such a long period of time. It is like boiling a frog slowly; you get used to the warm water as the heat slowly increases and the next thing you know you are boiled alive. Here is something Jefferson wrote to Abigail Adams in 1787:

"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the Atmosphere."

 And here is something Reagan said along the same lines:

“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men [and women] were free.”

See you tomorrow in class.