Source: https://www.oxbridgenotes.com/revision_notes/law-university-of-virginia-property-6a2397eb-1bb6-4e79-8c77-5500f6187b04/samples/property_outline
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 02:56:43+00:00

Document:
This is an extract of our Property document, which we sell as part of our Property Outlines collection written by the top tier of University Of Virginia students.
3. Targeted Restraints on Alienation a. Do they frustrate the value of the property?
b. Is the prohibition limited to a small group of people, or to the general public?
4. Use Restrictions: Enforceable unless a backdoor to alienation restriction a. E.g. Mountain Brow Lodge v. Toscano: No-sale language unenforceable, but limitation to use as a fraternal lodge is valid because it could be sold to another fraternal organization.
1. Does not necessarily carry the right to transfer, etc.
2. Other key element: Notice and Continuity of pursuit a. See: Pierson, Eads b. Notice (from Eads): Possession requires more than notice, but also due diligence in acting to achieve full dominion and control over the resource.
1. Midler v. Ford Motor Co.: Person's distinctive identity incurs a property right to the extent that it allows them to make a living.
3. Acceptance a. Presumed for positive value property b. Disclaimer presumed for negative value property ii. Inter Vivos Gift: Any gift made during the giver's lifetime iii. Gift Causa Mortis: Deathbed gift that supersedes will, but only enforceable if giver dies.
1. Courts do not award property rights against the whole world, just against the other litigant. In personam.
b. Anderson v. Gouldberg: Courts do not balance which wrongful holder is less wrongful (efficiency concerns) c. Policy: Discourages further theft and keeps chain closest to true owner (at expense of allowing careless finders to recover) G. Accession i. Accession: Afford rights to owner of resource most prominently connected to property in question, to which ownership has already been established.
1. No longer applied in practice: replaced by nuisance and takings doctrines a. Hinman v. Pacific Air Transport: Airplanes flying over property do not trespass unless owner makes active use of air rights, and are not nuisance unless they actually interfere with use and enjoyment b. Causby v. United States: Overflights actionable (a taking) because they made the owner's chicken farm unprofitable.
2. Open and Notorious: "Communicate to the whole world, including the true owner" a. Standard of Notice: reasonable person i. True owner does not need actual notice ii. No one need know that the possession is adverse, only that the party is in possession of the property b. Marengo Cave Co v. Ross i. SOL does not begin running until a reasonable true owner would be put on notice.
4. Adverse or Hostile: Without permission a. General Rule: State of mind irrelevant b. Modern Trend: Bad faith actors rarely win i. Some state statutes require a certain state of mind, either innocent or knowingly adverse ii. Carpenter v. Ruperto: Woman who met all elements of AP classified as a squatter because she acted in bad faith the entire time. iii. State statutes, including NY, may require a good-faith mindset c. Overstaying: Permissive use does not become adverse or hostile until a request to vacate or withdrawal of permission is made. d. Always defeated by a grant of permission, lease, or license.
a. Doctrine of Agreed Boundaries: Long-term acquiescence to boundaries will set property lines as such even if they differ from those on the official title. i. Must be in response to an uncertainty in boundaries. ii. May be oral, written, or implied iii. Reliance on an agreed boundary will estop assertion of the true boundary.
2. Compensatory Damages: Always awarded for actual damage done a. See Producers Lumber; court awards minor damages for trespass even in the midst of a much more complicated case. ii. Nuisance: A "thicket"
c. Open area: may holders of non-fully vested interests bring waste action?
2. Encourages holdout. Forces present possessor to contract with each future interest holder.
3. Types of Waste: a. Affirmative Waste: Actions of misfeasance that make the property less valuable i. Must distinguish from modifications within rights of present possessor ii. Test: Would holder of FSA behave this way?
1. Natural resources cases: Would holder of FSA deplete this quickly?
2. Taking itself need not be unlawful, only holding a. Holding leased personal property beyond agreement i. If it's real property, bring ejectment b. Lawful acquisition from a wrongful holder c. Collateral: use replevin to take it when debtor defaults.
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Property Outlines.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.