Dzienkowski Property Outline

Dzienkowski Property Outline - Table of Contents 1 Finders...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Table of Contents 1. Finders 2 2. Adverse Possession 3. Landlord-Tenant 4. Covenants Page 1 of 41
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Finders Rule #1: “The first finder acquires property rights against the entire world except for the true owner.” - Armory v. Delamirie : chimney sweep finds jewel, courts say sweep retains possession as he is the finder - Rationale: courts believe the finder is closer to the true owner Policy for Rule #1: In order of Importance: these are the justifications for finder(s) retaining possession. 1. Rewarding the Finder: a. Labor: reward finder for bringing item back into Stream of Commerce b. Encouragement of finding and taking possession (find a 20, you’ll pick it up) 2. Closer to True Owner: you remember losing a ring near a fire place and hiring a sweep 3. Vesting CLEAR ownership: this 1) Predictability 2) Avoids future litigation and costs 3) Brings item back into the Stream of Commerce 4. Stream of Commerce: invest money to improve item thereby exposing the item to others 5. Law and Order: Discourage theft, trespassing, and unauthorized entry. 6. Expectations: expect to retain the found item – i.e. – getting it back from the jeweler Store vs. Home – Public vs. Private - Bridges v. Hawkesworth : salesman finds box of money on store floor – salesman keeps the box - Rationale: “we find no circumstance in this case to take it out of the general rule of law” i.e. Armory Distinguishing Factors: 1. Ownership: you have control over your premises via ownership – this extends to lost items found on your property 2. Unique Position: you as owner have a better ability to protect the item – relates to #2 above 3. Protect T.O Rights: Owner may be closer to T.O. Same rationale as #2 above 4. Exercising Control and Inevitable Discovery : owner would still have found item without finders labor: enhanced with large owner control (security guards, CCTV, clean up clears, etc…) 5. Standards a. Cases should be constructed on the basis of where the item is found b. The consideration of place brings in the question of public vs. private Rule #2: “Where a person has possession of house or land, with a manifest intent to exercise control over it and the things which may be upon or in it, then, if something is found on that land, whether by an employee of the owner or by some stranger, the presumption is that the possession of the thing is in the owner of the locus in quo .” - South Staffordshire Water Co. v. Sharman : rings found by an employee of the land owner – courts gave rings to owner. - Rational: concomitant with land ownership comes control over things attached to or under the land. Policy: 1. Landowner vs. Employee: the place (here, private) and thus ownership may outweigh labor. You are responsible for everything an employee does on your land: along with this comes employer liability, providing employee equipment, paying their social security, etc… 2. Labor: while courts reward finder with this – they don’t want to discourage land owners from improving/dixing
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 08/28/2008 for the course LAW 431 taught by Professor Dzienkowski during the Spring '08 term at University of Texas.

Page1 / 41

Dzienkowski Property Outline - Table of Contents 1 Finders...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online