4 Wild Deed \u00e0 recorded deed not in chain of title Hickey v Green Lohmeyer v

4 wild deed à recorded deed not in chain of title

This preview shows page 4 - 7 out of 7 pages.

4. Wild Deed à recorded deed not in chain of title Hickey v Green; Lohmeyer v Bower; Stambovsky v Ackley; Johnson v Davis; Jones v Lee; Kutzin v Pirnie; Sweeney v Sweeney; Brown v Lober Creation of Easements Termination of Easements 1. By an express grant or reservation 2. By implication - Prior use or by (strict) necessity i. Prior use requires apparent servitude, continuity, necessity 3. By prescription a. Open & notorious, continuous, hostile, under claim of right Van Standt v Royster; Othen v Rosier; Willard v First Church of Christ; Kienzle v Myers 1. Expiration (time) 2. Merger of Title 3. Release by holder of easement 4. Abandonment (clear intent req d) 5. Cessation of purpose of the easement (only for easements by necessity) 6. Destruction of servient tenement 7. Prescription à if servient tenement owner excludes easement holder for use for the statute of limitations.
Image of page 4
Covenants If over 1 year à must be in writing. A covenant will run with the land if: 1. Must have been in writing 2. Intent of original parties was that it would run with the land 3. Must touch and concern the land 4. Horizontal privity 5. Vertical privity (entire interest transferred) 6. Transferee had actual or constructive notice at time of taking possession Tulk v Moxhay ; River Heights v Batten à Equitable servitudes only need elements 1, 2, 3 & 6 to be enforceable Real Covenant to run with the land = (1) Must touch & concern the land; (2) Horizontal privity: shared interest in the land at time of contract; (3) intent to bind successors - Mutual Covenant Between Neighbors à no shared interest in land o Enforceable as contract between original parties o MAY be enforceable on successors as equitable servitude o Mutual restrictions on land use. - Covenants that do not touch and concern the land are still enforceable as contracts between the original parties. Eminent Domain (5 th Amendment) 1. Any takings by gov t must be for a public use AND 2. Any gov t that does take property, even for public use, must fully compensate the owner of the property. Kelo v City of New London Public Use can be for: (1) Public Health; (2) Safety; (3) Morals or (4) General Welfare Regulatory Takings Standard approach: Ad Hoc Balancing - PA Coal v Mahon; PA Central v City of New York Categorical Rules: 1. Permanent physical occupation authorized by gov t is a taking. 2. Economic use doctrine: If a zoning law eliminates all economically viable use of a parcel of property then it is a taking per se. Loretto v Teleprompter; Lucas v SC Coastal Council
Image of page 5
Assignment Lease License Easement Creation When the original tenant transfers leasehold to another tenant for remaining term . Assignee becomes liable to original lessor & not assignor or lessee. Transfer of rights where the Assignee steps into the shoes of the original lessee.
Image of page 6
Image of page 7

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture