Property 2 Outline - Property 2 Outline A. The Web of...

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Property 2 Outline A. The Web of Interests a. Neighbors b. The community c. The public d. The government e. The public, migrant workers, protesters, etc. f. Former employees g. Adverse possessors h. Tenants i. Grantors, Grantees, buyers, sellers, lenders, 3rd parties with title interests, etc. B. Nuisance a. Public Nuisance -unreasonable interference with a right common to general public, including activities injurious to the health, safety, morals, or comfort of the public i. example -structure that reflects light into eyes of freeway drivers b. Private Nuisance -substantial, non-possessory, unreasonable interference with the use or enjoyment of the land of another i. this is the focus of the course ii. can overlap with trespass as follows -noise, vibrations, fumes, and light 1. considered trespass when nuisance law cannot be applied iii. example -neighbor who produces loud and obnoxious noise at night c. Public/Private Combination -industrial facility that emanates toxic chemicals in the air – the surrounding neighbors must breathe extremely polluted air, while the community at large has reduced overall air quality d. Test For Reasonableness of Potential Nuisance ( Prah v. Maretti ) i. gravity of harm to plaintiff (DBUT) 1. 2. plaintiff’s Burden of avoiding the harm 3. plaintiff’s Use and enjoyment a. social value (how important is use/enjoyment to society?) b. suitability of use and enjoyment to character of the area 4. ii. utility of defendant’s conduct (SIV) 1. conduct’s Suitability to the character of the area 2. Impracticability of avoiding/preventing the harm 3. social Value of the conduct e. “Coming to the Nuisance” Exception ( Spur Industries v. Webb Development ) i. basically a “first in time, first in right” rule ii. the property owner complaining of the nuisance does not have a claim if the nuisance existed there first f. Access to Sunlight Policies ( Prah v. Maretti ) i. blocking sunlight can be a nuisance, though it used to not be ii. to figure out if blocking sunlight is a nuisance, weigh what the Π is doing with regard to the light versus the value of the Δ’s conduct iii. some values were historically given greater weight Complete as of 4/19/2011 Page 1 of 33
Background image of page 1

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
1. right to use property as you wish; sunlight valued only for light; society had significant interest in not restricting land development iv. the Prah court states that these values have changed and they no longer are as important 1. land use is increasingly regulated, sunlight can do more than just illuminate (solar energy), uncontrolled land development not good g. Remedies (2 Main Types) i. Injunction -historic remedy; thus, anytime the defendant’s activity was economically valuable, the courts had a tendency to say that certain things were not nuisances (i.e. munitions plant) ii. Creative Remedies 1. Permanent Damages (conditional injunction) -party performing nuisance either has to shut down or pay permanent damages
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.

Page1 / 33

Property 2 Outline - Property 2 Outline A. The Web of...

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