RAP

1. Soc. Policy
   1. Can tie up land 4 a rsbl per. of X but no longer
   2. Rule against remoteness in vesting
2. Analysis
   1. Classify: 3 FI's of VRSTO, CR, & EI
      1. Warnings that int. must B tested (s.t.'s work & s.t's not work: just hints)
         1. Int. in unborn
         2. Contingencies before vest
         3. Req'ed 2 survive 2 a future date
         4. All these R descriptions of CR & EI
      2. Classify by
         1. Owners
         2. Estates
         3. Test / not
         4. Lives
         5. Result
   2. Test
      1. Test 3 FI's: VRSTO, CR, EI
      2. Must vest / fail 2 vest w/in life / livs in being + 21 yrs
         1. Life / lives must B human
      3. If pass, o.k. but if fail, destroy
      4. Meas'ing Lives
         1. Meas'ing lives where life / lives may save the int. / prove it's no good
         2. Sometimes, we kill all the people in the world 2 show no life saves int.
         3. Open class of lives never saves an int.
         4. Ideally comes from family
      5. Warnings that int. may B bad / perpetuity
         1. Gifts 2 members of a class @ an age beyond 21
         2. Gift 2 a settlor's grandch. in an intervivos transfer (settlor: someone who creates)
         3. Gift 2 someone else's grandch. in a will, when that someone else is living
         4. Gifts that vest on death of person described by marital rel.
         5. Gifts that vest upon finishing some act not pinned down 2 anyone's life / contingencies uncert. 2 occur w/in per. of RAP
      6. Tricks 2 Grnch
         1. Grandch. of testator always take under RAP if there's a wait of no more than 21 yrs. b/c of the ch. of the testator always constitute lives in being
         2. Grandch. of any dead person, not just testator, always take under RAP if there's wait of no more than 21 yrs. b/c ch. of the dead person constitute closed group of class that guarantees that the int. will vest / fail 2 vest w/in the per.
         3. W/o more int., int. in grandch. of living people R prime candidates 4 failure
      7. Widow's can't serve as meas'ing lives b/c don't know who they R
   3. Destroy
3. Creating Effective Int's
   1. Sometimes can create w/2 pieces of paper what U can't do w/1
      1. Can't create POR in 3rd person but can transfer POR
   2. Goal 2 tie up prop. 4 long X then make meas'ing lives babies
4. Class Implications
   1. If 2 large 2 B manageable, then own uncert. even if closed class & not allowed
   2. Desc's of Queen Victoria living @ date of my death
      1. To tie up 4 long X
      2. Largest group of class tolerable in US

Co-ownership

1. Charact.
   1. Two people who want 2 own a piece of prop.
   2. Not a preferred arr.
   3. X Frame
      1. FI's R consecutive but here concurr. ownership of P/E & F/E in same X line
      2. Gen'ly FSA
      3. Not have 2 B ownership of P/E
   4. Three C/E's
      1. Joint Tenancy w/rt. of survivorship (JTWROS)
      2. Tenancy by the entirety (TBE)
      3. Tenancy in common (TIC)
2. JTWROS
   1. Key
      1. Rt of survivorship so when A dies, B gets A's share
      2. Historically, A's & B's shares were =
   2. Wording
      1. O -->A & A as JTWROS & not as TIC
   3. Severance
      1. Can always sever as 2 himself
      2. Express / implied
      3. If sever, then JTWROS is ended
   4. Can always transfer int.
3. TBE
   1. Key
      1. Like JTWROS but only btwn husband & wife
   2. Recog'ed Jxn's
      1. Not exist in community prop. jxn's so not in CA
      2. Exists in some C/L states & imp. in those jxn's that recog.
   3. Wording
      1. To H & W as TBE
   4. Can't transfer int. sep'ly so H & W has 2 transfer jointly
4. TIC
   1. Key
      1. No rt. of survivorship
      2. Int. passes @ death by will / by intestacy
      3. Fractions not have 2 B =
   2. Can transfer int.
5. Expansion of JTWROS
   1. Charact's
      1. Four Unities in C/L
         1. X :Must B @ same X
         2. Title: under same instrument
         3. Int. : identical int's = %'s
         4. Poss'n: common rt. of poss'n & ownership
         5. If 1 of the unities missing, then TIC
      2. Presumptions
         1. In C/L, if unclear had JTWROS but today if unclear then have TIC
      3. Wording
         1. Perfect would B: 2 A & B as JTWROS & not as TIC
         2. : 2 A & B as JTWROS / 2 A & B as JT & not as TIC
         3. Quest'able: 2 A & B as JT
         4. Probably no good: 2 A & B jointly
      4. Must have combination of P/E & F/E
      5. Not subj. 2 intestacy / will
      6. One always wins & 1 always loses
         1. If die 1st, lose
         2. If risk averse, dislike this
      7. Purpose
         1. Transfer prop. @ death w/o probate
         2. Express solidarity btwn 2 people
      8. Shares
         1. Unequal shares now but historically had = shares b/c unity in int.
         2. To set aside the unity of int. rule, do equitable pwr 2 assign proceeds of sale 2 do indir'ly what ct. couldn't do dir'ly
         3. Legally would still have = shares
      9. When 2 Imply Severance
         1. Intended
         2. Soc'ly wholesome but limited b/c do something Tenant (T) didn't do 4 themselves
      10. Mortgage as Severance
          1. Lien Theory Mortgage
             1. Borrowing $ 2 buy house, then legal title in buyer but bank puts lien, sec. int. / equit. int.
             2. Can't imply severance b/c buyer didn't convey legal title 2 bank
             3. So mortgage isn't an implied severance
          2. Title Theory Mortgage
             1. Legal title w/the bank & buyer has equit. title
             2. Min. jxn's formalistice arg. there's conveyance so implied severance but dumb arg. b/c probably had no intent 2 sever
   2. Riddle v. Harmon (Mrs. Riddle tried 2 convert JT into TIC)
      1. Severance
         1. Safe express severance would B 2 convey 2 a straw & straw conveys back
         2. Here, conveyed 2 herself
      2. Express Secret Severance
         1. CA civil code restrict & Dobris doesn't like it
      3. Intent Effectuation Not Formalism
         1. Can create JT in 1 person 2 himself so should B able 2 sever
   3. Harms v. Sprague (2 bros, 1 cosigned sec. int. & devised will 2 leave all 2 friend)
      1. Formalism
      2. Implied Secret Severance
         1. Mortgage doesn't sever JT by implied severance in title theory state / lien theory state
         2. Lien on mortgage doesn't survive the death
      3. Bro Did Intend 2 Sever
         1. Willed all 2 friend
         2. Moved out 2 friend's prop
         3. Note says proceeds from salfe of int. in JT
         4. Rel. btwn bro & friend probably lovers b/c household, finance, etc. which may have affected the outcome b/c not heterosexual marriage
      4. Policy Protecting Parties in JT
         1. Protect wife, widow, surviving spouse (surviving bro stand in as widow)
         2. Protect partners, sibs, parents / kids
      5. No Implication of Severance & Effect on Lenders
         1. Grant of lease
         2. Grant of L/E
         3. Prof'al lenders would get both JT's / none 2 protect themselve but casual lenders probably wouldn't know the rule & would B hurt
         4. Protects other T against bad investment / policy of making wives win
   4. Soc. Policies of JTWROS
      1. Rts of use R reciprocal
      2. Each has rt. 2 use entire prop. consistent w/rt. of others so must get along / get rid of prop.
   5. Rt 2 Partition
      1. Can't Get Along
         1. Co-ten's can partition prop. / rt. 2 end the rel. judicially
         2. Can vol'ly end & better 2 do so
      2. Methods: Equitable Axn of Partition
         1. Partition by sale & split the proceeds & this methos preferred
         2. Partition in kind: div. the prop. phys'ly
   6. Delfino v. Vealencis (D had waste busi. & P wanted partition by sale)
      1. Partition in Kind Exception Case
         1. No good rsn 2 sell
         2. Family busi. protected
         3. Sanctity of home
      2. Partition in Kind v. Partition by Sale (Judge's concern about mistakes)
         1. Partition in kind when ez 2 div. land & no decr. in value of whole
         2. Most ct's like partition by sale b/c ez, not misvalue pieces, more value 2 sell the whole plot, & jud. eff.
         3. Here, could probably have gotten more $ 4 whole plot so exception
   7. Grey v. Crotts
      1. Drew Lots 4 Home
         1. Ct's great equitable pwr when either partition / acct'ing shown
         2. Ez'er & = chance by casting lots
         3. Would sell if really wanted the piece
   8. Never v. Some Cloud 4 Agmt Not 2 Partition
      1. Never is perpetuity so void as unrsbl restraint on alienation
   9. Spiller v. Mackereth (TIC & not letter 2 pay rent / get out)
      1. TIC Case
      2. No duty 2 pay rent 2 Co-T unless agmt / ouster
         1. Good rule 4 family sit's
         2. Ouster when ouccupying co-T refuses demand of = use & enjoyment
      3. Failed 2 put in letter = use lang. so no ouster
         1. Good b/c after, 1 co-T would end up owning prop. which is pref'able
   10. Swartzbaugh v. Sampson (JTWROS & wife wanted lease 2 B cancelled, didn't sign)
       1. Could void lease by ouster b/c husb's int. was rented, not hers
          1. Could partition then / collect rent 4 her half
          2. Partition 4 TFY, Term of RVY, / the whole thing
       2. No Adv. Poss'n
          1. Can't as lessee but can start bldg title by ousting her
   11. Rent & Profit
       1. C/L req'ed no acct'ing 4 rents & profit
       2. Statute of Ann in 1704
          1. Req. acct'ing 4 rents recived of 3rd parties
          2. No acct'ing 4 own use but co-T's have 2 acct 4 rent
       3. Rental of co-T's rts
          1. Rent is rt 2 stand in co-T's shoes & keep all $
          2. Any X rent 2 3rd party, only 1 T's rt's / rent of all B/A issue
          3. If not express, co-T can sue the other co-T 4 rent
       4. Contrib. & Credit
          1. C/A of limited scope 4 contrib.
          2. Acct'ing can B sep C/A which comes in as sep. part of partition so equit. C/A

L-T

1. Concept
   1. If rent house 2 T, T has some kind of tenancy & L has RVN
   2. Status Law
2. Four Kinds
   1. Term 4 yrs (TFY)
   2. Periodic Tenancy
   3. Tenancy @ will
   4. Tenancy of sufferance
3. TFY
   1. Estate that lasts 4 fixed amt of X
   2. Used 4 residential rentals & commercial leases
4. Periodic Tenancy
   1. Per. of some fixed duration which cont's 4 succeeding per's until either L/T gives notice
   2. Renew automatically
   3. Gen'ly residential tenancy of lwr socioecon but also mo. 2 mo. 4 high socioecon
      1. Money protects L & T / transfer of rent
      2. Not lease on paper
5. Tenancy @ Will
   1. No fixed per. & endures only so long as both L & T desire / will it
6. Tenancy @ Sufferance
   1. Hold-over tenancy where T entered rt'ly but held over wrongfully after lease
      1. Law 4 those who didn't work normal way so lack clarity
   2. TFY Ends
      1. Ten. @ Suff. when T stays w/o new arr. after TFY ends
   3. L's Election in Rsbl X
      1. Holdover & bind 2 whatever local holdover ten. OR
      2. Treat as trespasser & evict T
   4. Soln's
      1. Punish by holdover 4 yr. by old terms 2 protect L & prospective T
      2. Pay holdover T's
      3. Modernly not punish as hard
7. Garner v. Gerrish (empty bldg)
   1. Nonstand. Tenancy
      1. Life ten. term . @ will, strange ten. @ will, / no category
      2. Effectuate parties intent
8. Crechale & Polles, Inc. v. Smith (T not vacate & oral agmt wasn't acknowledged)
   1. Ct's dislike holdovers esp'ly punishing dramatically
   2. L didn't make a choice & said both trespasser & holdover
   3. Pro-T Policy
      1. Treat letter as trespasser
      2. Rough justice & damage only 4 actual occupancy
   4. Categories differ by chronology
9. Lease
   1. Part Convey & Part K: See Conveyance Before K
      1. Convey as core of L-T: transfer piece of X line from L 2 T so T has TFY & L has RVN w/o prom's
      2. K involves prom's like rent, heat, quiet, etc. & law can imply prom's / cov's
         1. Dep. prom's 4 poss'n, rent, cov. of Q/E but all others indep. prom's
         2. Not imply dep'cy gen'ly but ct. could
   2. Implied cov's (covenants) (Hannah v. Dusch)
      1. Imply most imp's prom's so can imply anything if imp.
      2. Three implied in all leases
         1. Rent
         2. Poss'n
         3. Cov. of quiet enjoyment (Q/E) against all who rt'fully claimed through / under L
   3. Amer. Rule Jxn
      1. Cov. such that L will prom. 2 put new T into legal poss'n
      2. Burden on T so eff. b/c higher incentive on T
   4. Eng. Rule Jxn
      1. Legal & phys/actual pos'n when lease starts the 1st day
      2. Better than Amer. rule b/c L knew prior T, better suited @ eviction, L created the prob, & rational
   5. Any Rule good b/c people known & can barg. away
10. Ernst v. Conditt (sublease v. assignment)
    1. Assignment (substitution)
       1. Lessee conveys entire T's int. in X line terms so T1 pays rent 2 L
       2. Burden of prom's run down 2 assignee such as rent
       3. Default 2 find substitute
    2. Sublease (subinfeudation)
       1. T conveys less than whole piece of X line so re-rent T's int. w/T acting as subL
       2. RVN & ROE kept by T so subT pays rent 2 T, & T pays rent 2 L
       3. Orig. lease called head lease & L not a 3rd party benefic.
    3. Prom's Run Down in this Case
       1. Conditt pays rent b/c burden runs down 2 him as assignee
       2. Conditt's prom. 2 Roger created 3rd party benefi. in Ernst, L so has C/A
    4. Privity
       1. Privity of Estate (P*E) is shared int. in X line & liab. 4 X U R in poss'n
       2. Privity of K (P*K) is prom. exch'ed & connected by K
       3. Orig. L & T has both privities
       4. When T transfers TFY 2 T1, T1 is in P*E w/L but not P*K
       5. Assignment, L&T no longer P*E but still P*K so T still needs 2 keep prom's & 2nd'ly liab.
       6. L & T1's P*E means T1 keeps prom's made by T rel'ing 2 tenancy but only the ones that R imp. & runs w/the land
    5. Assignment Where T1 Embraces T's Lease
       1. If T1 assumes prom's of head lease, then all orig. prom's run down 2 T1
       2. Creates 3rd party benefic. in L & P*K btwn T1 & L
    6. L Only Recov's ONCE if there's been succession of T's
11. Berg v. Wiley (T had restaurant & L wanted it closed; T won b/c L was a jerk)
    1. No Self Help 2 Evict
       1. In Minn, changed law & no self help in getting rid of T
    2. Other Jxn's on Self Help
       1. Est. conduct of T
       2. Must B peaceable so no violence, not against T's will & narrow interp.
    3. Risk of Self Help so L gen'ly use it in slums, against the poor
    4. Policy Aginst Self Help
       1. B/c unfair b/c denies due process, poor gets hurt, & breaches peace
       2. Consid. inherently bad now
    5. Adv. 2 Self Help
       1. Harms L fin'ly going 2 ct & T not deserve X delay
       2. Maybe lwr rent / allow more people 2 B L's
    6. Barg'ing Lwr Rent 4 Self Help
       1. Split of auth. & allow in commercial but not in res.
       2. Here, forbidden even in commercial b/c like slavery
12. Duties, Rts, & Remedies
    1. Caveat Lessee so let T beware
    2. Exceptions 2 Caveat Lessee
       1. Latent defect: L must disclose known dang. cond's that R latent, concealed, / not discov'able by ord. inspection b/c mkt works w/full info
       2. Fraudulent concealment by L
       3. Furnished house must B fit 4 use (short term)
       4. Underlying all is that mkt fails by lack of info so law steps in
13. Reste Realty Corp. v. Cooper (driveway, flooded)
    1. Defense of Constructive Eviction
    2. Actual Eviction is explusion, excl, denial of access 2 premise, / phys'ly remove U from premise
    3. Breach Cov of Q/E & Constructive Eviction
       1. T not have 2 pay rent b/c rent prom. dep. on cov of Q/E
       2. Subst'l breach, then seriously interfere w/use & enjoyment of prop.
       3. Must leave if constructive eviction w/in rsbl X
14. Eviction
    1. Actual: Total / partial
       1. Remedy of Partial gen'ly same as total eviction & no rent b/c L shouldn't apportion wrong by lwring rent & L created the pro.
    2. Constructive: Total / partial but split of auth. on partial
       1. Prob. on partial b/c if recog. it, then ask remedy same as partial actual eviction of no rent
          Pro T then no rent but if dislike dramatic result, then no remedy
       2. Partial constructive eviction would've played maj. role if didn't invent implied warranty of habitability
    3. Burt Case
       1. Decl Jgmt of constructive eviction given so good 4 commercial T's 2 know before moving / walking out
       2. But if walk out, more clear b/c U R serious, filters nuisance cases, etc.
15. Hilder v. St. Peter (slum housing, T won)
    1. Soc. Soln 2 Slum Housing is $ but not know whose $
    2. Prop owner's key enemy is water b/c prop. gets damaged
    3. Punitive Element in this case
       1. Transgressed human decency
       2. All busi. have in. stand. & L no dif.
    4. Constructive Eviction Not Solve Slum Housing
       1. T can't afford 2 move / would move 2 same kind of place
       2. Mkt disfn. so law should step in
    5. Implied Warranty of Habitability
       1. Implied from L 2 T that apt. habitable & fix & dep. on rent prom.
       2. If breach, T entitled 2 damages of rent
       3. L gets 0 but might B bad b/c no $ 2 fix bldg but want 2 make a pt
       4. This doc. exists b/c mkt, constructive eviction, & housing code failed & no enforcement exists 4 HC even though priv. C/A b/c no polit. will / $
       5. Some jxn's won't allow 2 waive this doc. as pub. policy
    6. Arg's 4 & against jud. activism: leg. slow, not legit.
    7. Arg's 4 & against rotten housing: econ, better than st.

This material is copyrighted by the author. Use of this material for profit is strictly prohibited without the written permission from the author.

Go Back to Law School Notes