Principles of Property Law
Authors:
Hovenkamp, Herbert / Kurtz, Sheldon F. / Gallanis, Thomas P.
Edition:
7th
Copyright Date:
2016
26 chapters
have results for Principles of Property Law
Chapter 12. Legislative Control over Land Use—Zoning, the Takings Clause, and Housing Discrimination 229 results (showing 5 best matches)
- the Supreme Court concluded that even in the absence of any trespass a taking could occur when (1) a government regulation reduces the value of property to nearly zero; and (2) there was insufficient precedent for the challenged regulation in the state’s laws and legal traditions, such that the regulation could be said to be part of the property owner’s reasonable expectations. “Any limitation so severe cannot be newly legislated or decreed (without compensation), but must inhere in the title itself, in the restrictions that background principles of the State’s law of property and nuisance already place upon land ownership. A law or decree with such an effect must, in other words, do no more than duplicate the result that could have been achieved in the courts …” under existing statutory or common law principles.
- Applicable Law:
- A sues to enjoin the enforcement of any of the provisions of this zoning ordinance contending that to do so would take his property without due process of law and would deny him equal protection of the laws under the 14th Amendment of the U. S. Constitution. A specifically contends that the zoning ordinance prohibits the use of his property for industrial purposes for which it is peculiarly adapted, that it lies squarely in the path of industrial development from the large city nearby, and that the enforcement of the ordinance will depreciate his property from $10,000.00 per acre to $2,500.00 per acre. Should the injunction issue?
- Applicable Law:
- Applicable Law:
- Open Chapter
Chapter 9. Landlord and Tenant Law 366 results (showing 5 best matches)
- While the Restatement of Property, Second, is generally in accord with the traditional common-law principle where the entire property is taken by eminent domain, in the case of only a partial taking, the lease also is terminated if “the taking significantly interferes with the use contemplated by the parties.” If there is no significant interference, the tenant is entitled to a reduction in the amount of rent.
- Applicable Law:
- Applicable Law:
- 2. When the only use intended is legal and plausible at the inception of the lease but later becomes illegal or impossible because of a change of law, a typical “frustration of purpose” situation, the following principles apply:
- Applicable Law:
- Open Chapter
Title Page 4 results
Chapter 1. Personal Property: Rights of Some Possessors 119 results (showing 5 best matches)
Chapter 2. Bailments 90 results (showing 5 best matches)
- A can only recover $500 from Hotel. Modern statutes generally have modified the “insurer’s” liability created by the common law. Under the common law the guest did not have to disclose the value of the property in order to impose liability on the innkeeper, but this rule has changed. Modern statutes require a guest to use reasonable care and prudence in the protection of the guest’s property. One aspect of this care is the disclosure of the value of the property to the innkeeper in order to hold the inn liable for the excess of that provided for in the statute. Failure to disclose is an act of negligence that precludes recovery beyond $500.
- Applicable Law:
- In order for A to recover, A must first prove that a bailment relationship existed between A and B. Generally, a bailment relationship exists either by express or implied contract, by operation of law, or by statute. (Most bailments arise by express contract). A bailment arises when a bailor transfers possession of the bailor’s personal property to the bailee and gives the bailee primary control over the property for some period of time. The bailee, however, must return the bailor’s property to the bailor or the bailor’s designee when the bailor demands the property’s return or when the bailment otherwise comes to an end. During the bailment—that is, when the bailor’s property is in the bailee’s possession—the bailee has sole custody, control and exclusive possession of the property, subject only to the bailor’s instructions.
- Applicable Law:
- As noted, if a bailee does not return a bailor’s goods or does so when they were damaged while in the bailee’s control, the bailee may be liable under either a claim for conversion or negligence. A claim for conversion is premised on the bailee’s “unauthorized act of dominion over the bailor’s property inconsistent with [his] rights in the property.” The bailor may establish a prima facie case of conversion by demonstrating that the bailor delivered property to the bailee, demanded its return, and the bailee failed to return it. This showing shifts the burden to the bailee to prove what happened to the bailor’s property. At this point if the bailee offers no explanation for the bailee’s failure to return the property to the bailee or claims either that the bailee used the property for the bailee’s own purposes or delivered the goods to another without the bailor’s consent, the bailee is liable to the bailor regardless of any negligence. On the other hand, the bailee may offer up an...
- Open Chapter
Chapter 8. Marital and Concurrent Estates 108 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Generally, an elective or forced share equals some percentage (e.g., one-third) of the value of all real and personal property owned by the deceased spouse at the time of death. Thus, unlike common-law dower, the spouse’s share also extends to personal property. On the other hand, in many states the share attaches only to property owned at death. This is unlike the common law, where dower attached to real property owned at any time during the marriage. Under these modern statutes, sometimes no measure of protection is provided a surviving spouse against lifetime or nonprobate transfers of property that have the effect of reducing the value of the decedent’s probate estate. Some states, concerned by the inequities that could result to a surviving spouse by such transfers, have by statute or judicial decision adopted rules which permit the surviving spouse to reach such assets in satisfaction of a forced share.
- Applicable Law:
- (b) It was said that under the common law the husband and wife were one, and the husband was the one. The wife’s personality was merged in that of the husband. She was burdened with the common-law disabilities including inability to contract or to use or convey her property. When W, being seised of Blackacre, married H, at that instant she lost—and H gained—control of Blackacre. He could, during their coverture, enjoy the rents and profits of the property and dispose of these for the period of coverture. Furthermore, the property could be levied upon to satisfy his debts. The husband’s coverture estate continued until the marriage was dissolved by death or divorce (an absolute divorce at common law could be obtained only by act of Parliament and so was a rarity) or until issue were born of the marriage at which time his estate was enlarged into a curtesy estate. Thus, during the joint lives of H and W, H had full control of the land of W. This right extended to land in which W had...of
- Applicable Law:
- (b) Tenancy by the entirety is a species of joint tenancy. This estate adds a fifth unity to the four unities of the joint tenancy—the unity of marriage. This tenancy can exist only between spouses. In common with the joint tenancy, upon the death of the first tenant by the entirety, the survivor owns the whole of the property. It is created by deed or will and not by descent. Unlike the joint tenancy, however, neither spouse can voluntarily dispose of his or her interest in the property. Rather, H and W must join in any conveyance. Thus, a creditor of either spouse cannot levy on the spouse’s interest in the property owned by the entirety unless state or federal law provides to the contrary.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 14. Seller And Buyer: The Land Sale Contract 247 results (showing 5 best matches)
- The principles discussed in this problem also apply to sales contracts where the seller is to be paid in full at the closing and prior to the buyer taking possession. For example, Seller contracts to sell Blackacre to Buyer for $300,000 in cash to close 30 days later. Ten days after the contract is signed, Blackacre is totally destroyed by fire. Under the common law and the doctrine of equitable conversion, title to Blackacre is in Buyer. Buyer bears the risk of loss for casualties that wholly or partially destroy the property prior to the closing. Thus, if a fire totally destroys Blackacre prior to the closing, Buyer still owes Seller $300,000. To address this risk, of course, Buyer might purchase casualty insurance on Blackacre commencing with the effective date of the contract. While many states do not follow this rule but instead place the risk of loss on the seller, sellers and buyers should not be dependent on laws that may or may not reflect their intent. Thus, it would be...
- 2. At common law, a non-builder seller was liable only for common law fraud, which generally required an affirmative misrepresentation of fact. Increasingly, however, either courts or state or local legislation imply a duty to disclose known defects, as well as other information affecting the value of the property.
- Applicable Law:
- The above case illustrates an erosion of the basic principle that casualty insurance is strictly a personal contract of indemnity to reimburse the insured for actual losses sustained. Some jurisdictions hold that when the parties agree that the seller will carry insurance on the property until the exchange of possession and/or title is transferred, under the doctrine of equitable conversion, the buyer is entitled to the benefit of insurance proceeds paid to the seller for damage loss occasioned by fire or other casualty. The proceeds are held by the seller as trustee for the buyer. A practical approach to the insurance problem in an ordinary executory contract situation, and one that should result in substantial justice, would be for the seller pursuant to an agreement with the buyer to have his policy endorsed “payable to the seller or buyer as their interests shall appear.”
- 1. The traditional doctrines of equitable conversion and mutuality of remedies and the fact that the uniqueness of real property often makes damages an inadequate remedy at law create the basis of permitting both the buyer and seller to seek specific performance against the other for breach of contract. However, the buyer could obtain specific performance against the seller only if the seller was legally capable of performing. If the seller owned a smaller interest than promised in the contract, the buyer could demand specific performance of that part which the seller owned.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 4. Rights of Possessors of Land, Including Adverse Possession 226 results (showing 5 best matches)
- In most jurisdictions and under common law, adverse possession cannot be asserted against the government; local, state, or federal. However, a number of states have changed the common law rules, whether by legislation or judge-made law. A few states permit adverse possession against government property on same conditions as against private property; others extend the statutory period required; while others permit it only against government property held in a proprietary (as opposed to a public or governmental) capacity. See, e.g.,
- The common law as to when the statute runs ignored the diligence of the true owner who actively sought to ascertain the whereabouts of the lost property under what might be difficult circumstances. It is probably for this reason that at least the New Jersey court rejected the common law rule in favor of applying a so-called “discovery rule.”
- If the true owner is to benefit from the discovery rule, the court should consider the following issues: (1) whether the true owner used due diligence to recover the stolen property at the time it was stolen and thereafter; (2) whether at the time the property was stolen there was an effective method to alert the marketplace that the property had been stolen; (3) whether the lost property was subject to any form of registration that could put the world on notice of ownership claims. Because personal property can be easily concealed, use of the discovery rule rather than the common law rule makes it easier for true owners to protect their rights so long as they use due diligence in seeking to ascertain the whereabouts of the lost property. Under this rule, so long as the search continues the statute does not begin to run. The statute starts to run when the true owner actually knows or reasonably should know that she has a cause of action, and knows the identity of the possessor.
- Applicable Law:
- Applicable Law:
- Open Chapter
Chapter 7. Special Rules Governing Future Interests 192 results (showing 5 best matches)
- At common law the Doctrine applied to dispositions of real property. Today, it can apply to dispositions of all property, outright or in trust. For example, if O transferred property to T to hold in trust to pay the income to A for life, then upon A’s death to distribute the trust corpus to O’s heirs, O’s heirs would have nothing and O would have a reversion.
- T devises property to Trustee to pay the income to “B for life, then to B’s children for their lives” then to pay the trust corpus outright to “B’s then-living grandchildren.” B and two children of B, namely C and D, survive T. B dies survived by C and D. Is the gift to B’s grandchildren valid under the common-law Rule? If not, can it be saved under a “wait-and-see” approach or by judicial modification? If B is T’s child, is the gift to B’s grandchildren valid under the reformulated Rule in the Restatement Third of Property?
- 3. In 2010, the American Law Institute, in the Restatement Third of Property, proposed a reformulated Rule Against Perpetuities. The reformulated Rule is no longer a rule against remote vesting. Instead, it is a direct time-of-termination rule. A donative disposition of property is subject to judicial modification if the disposition does not terminate (or ripen into ownership in fee simple absolute) on or before the expiration of the reformulated perpetuity period. The reformulated perpetuity period is limited to the lives of individuals no more than two generations younger than the transferor. If judicial modification is required, the court is instructed to modify the disposition in a manner that most closely approximates the transferor’s manifested plan of distribution and is within the reformulated perpetuity period.
- Applicable Law:
- 9. Historically the Rule applied only to conveyances and devises of real property; it had no application to transfers of personal property and chattels real. Some jurisdictions, however, applied an analogous rule to personal property as a rule of construction.
- Open Chapter
Preface 2 results
- This book is an abridged version of our book, The Law of Property, An Introductory Survey (6th ed. 2014). Both books are designed to cover nearly all of the material encountered in the typical law school’s first year property law curriculum, plus some of the material covered in more advanced courses. The text of this abridged book, with a few exceptions, is essentially the same as the unabridged version, but many of the footnotes have either been eliminated or shortened.
- Each chapter opens with a “summary,” or brief outline of the law encompassed under the title of that chapter. This outline, which cites relatively few cases, is designed to give the reader an overview of the rules in a particular area of law. Then follows a series of factually-based problems designed to force the property student to think about how these rules ought to be applied in a real life situation. Each problem is in turn followed by a short statement of the applicable law, and then by a lengthy analysis of the legal issues raised, likely outcomes, and up-to-date case citation of various views, as well as to commentators in the treatises and periodicals. Individual problems are designed to be intensive, in that they require close analysis of the particular legal rules under application. In the aggregate, the problems are also meant to be extensive, in that they cover most of the areas of interest and complexity pertaining to a given body of law.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 15. The Evolution of the Modern Deed 19 results (showing 5 best matches)
- (a) The deed could be a common law “grant.” At common law only incorporeal rights or hereditaments lay in grant, that is, could be transferred by deed. These rights, having no physical existence, could not be delivered over to the grantee. Only physical property was subject to livery of seisin and required delivery of possession by feoffment. If the legislature of State X intended, by prescribing the above form of conveyance, to say that corporeal real property lay in grant as well as in livery, then the deed can operate as a conveyance equivalent to a common law “grant.”
- 2. Each state has the power to prescribe the form which a conveyance of real property shall take and the power to determine the legal effect of a conveyance, subject only to federal law.
- (c) This statutorily prescribed form can operate as a conveyance wholly independently of the past methods of transfer of real property, whether common law, equity or under the Statute of Uses, simply because the legislature of State X has so declared. The local statute gives this form the efficacy of a conveyance, and no reasons are needed beyond the fact that the legislature has power to prescribe forms of conveyance and this is the form so prescribed.
- In some states a simple form of conveyance of real property is set forth as follows:
- Applicable Law:
- Open Chapter
Chapter 10. Servitudes: Easements, Covenants, Equitable Servitudes 386 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Applicable Law:
- One item deserves attention. In the preceding Problem the benefit of the covenant ran with the descent of Blackacre. In this Problem the burden runs with the descent of Whiteacre and the easement appurtenant to it. If an assignment is voluntary, the assignee has the power to refuse to receive the property. At common law the heir could not prevent the vesting of the title in him. This is not objectionable when a benefit is conferred. But in this case by the descent of Whiteacre together with the burden end of the covenant. H finds himself personally liable on a covenant he never made and which has come to him without power to prevent it. The common law made no distinction between a voluntary assignment and one by operation of law and at common law there was nothing H could do to escape the personal liability imposed on him by this set of facts. Today, most states have statutes that enable the heir at law to reject title by descent to property if he or she decides that the burdens of...
- Applicable Law:
- Applicable Law:
- Applicable Law:
- Open Chapter
Chapter 5. Classifying Possessory Estates 226 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Applicable Law:
- 4. The fragmentation of property on temporal lines is not unlimited. The fragmentation can take only a fixed number of previously-defined forms. This is known as the principle of the (Latin for “closed number”). The effect of the is to limit the forms of fragmentation. This has a beneficial by-product in the classroom: students need only learn a fixed number of possessory estates and future interests and how to recognize (or classify) them.
- (b) At common law a fee simple in remainder could not follow a fee simple in possession because the remainder in fee simple was considered repugnant to the estate in possession. Furthermore, at common law a remainder could not take effect in derogation of the preceding freehold estate which supported it. Thus, at common law, C’s estate was void under both of these principles. Prior to the Statute of Uses (1536), the equity courts were not bound by either of these principles. C was permitted to take the estate described in the conveyance if C’s interest were created by bargain and sale which created a use, instead of a legal interest created by feoffment or livery of seisin. The result was that B’s equitable fee simple could be defeated upon the happening of the event, that is, by B’s dying without issue surviving him. After the Statute of Uses, equitable interests were converted into legal interests, and the shifting interest of C was valid if the conveyance operated under the Statute
- B takes a fee simple absolute. Prior to the statute and at common law, the expression “to B and the heirs of his body” created a fee tail estate in B. This estate was limited to lineal heirs. Many states have statutes which provide that an estate which was at common law a fee tail shall be deemed a fee simple. Under this type of statute, B would take a fee simple estate. Thus if B owned the property at the time of his death and died intestate, the property would pass to B’s lineal descendants or, if none, to his other heirs.
- 2. The hierarchy of possessory estates and future interests is a refined, artificial structure that took centuries to develop fully. If it had been designed in one fell swoop, the system could be much simpler and more straightforward. The American Law Institute has approved a simplified system of possessory estates and future interests in the Restatement Third of Property.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 11. Nuisance 99 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Applicable Law:
- Applicable Law:
- Ordinarily, whether or not B’s use of his property was reasonable or unreasonable would be a fact question. If it were so in this case then the equity court sitting as a trier of fact has, by denying the injunction, found the fact against A. But in this case the facts seem to exist without conflict, and being thus settled, the reasonableness of B’s use of his property is a question of law which the court properly determined in B’s favor.
- 10. If the facts are settled or are such that reasonable people cannot differ about them, then the question of the reasonableness of the use of the property is one of law.
- Applicable Law:
- Open Chapter
Chapter 13. Cooperatives, Condominiums and Homeowners Associations 110 results (showing 5 best matches)
- “[I]nherent in the condominium concept is the principle that to promote the health, happiness and peace of mind of the majority of unit owners since they are living in such close proximity and using facilities in common, each unit owner must give up a certain degree of freedom of choice which he might otherwise enjoy in separate, privately owned property. Condominium unit owners comprise a little democratic sub-society of necessity more restrictive as it pertains to use of condominium property than may be existent outside the condominium organization.” For example, courts generally uphold restrictions designed to preserve the residential character of the condominium complex.
- 5. Since the common law recognizes fee ownership and lesser property interests in usable airspace, it is feasible to create a condominium form of ownership at common law. Precedent for this form of ownership goes back to at least the Middle Ages, but condominium regimes were seldom created in the United States prior to statutory enactments in the 1960’s.
- Further, the social evils frequently asserted as avoidable by invalidating restraints on alienation are not shown to be perpetrated by a cooperative device such as this. The restraints involved will not tend to keep the property in the same family and concentrate wealth; the member is not prevented from liquidating his interest and consuming the property; creditors are usually not prevented from satisfying their claims; and members are not discouraged from improving their homes. The restrictions on transfer are reasonably necessary to the continued existence of the cooperative association. Of course, cooperative enterprises are just as subject to federal and state antidiscrimination law as any other entity. But there is no evidence of that in this instance.
- 6. All states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia have statutes authorizing the creation of condominium regimes. The provisions of these statutes vary considerably, as do the names of the acts themselves. Such phrases as “Apartment Ownership,” “Condominium Ownership,” and “Horizontal Property” are the most commonly appearing terms in the titles to the various acts.
- The tenant-owner of a condominium can deduct mortgage interest and property taxes, while a lessee cannot generally deduct any part of the rental payment. Likewise, gains earned on the resale of housing may be long-term capital gains which, at various periods in our tax history have qualified for lower tax rates than ordinary gains.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 17. Assurance of Title 258 results (showing 5 best matches)
- In the cases involving priorities of instruments of conveyance, the underlying principle should be constantly kept in mind. It is this—one is protected by the recording statutes if one is diligent but not if one is negligent. The purchaser of real property is duty bound to make diligent search of the records for prior claims, and a diligent inspection of the property for possible claims by possessors. If (a) the record gives the purchaser constructive notice, (b) the record is such as to leave the purchaser in doubt, (c) someone is in possession of the land that is inconsistent with the record, or (d) the possession of the land leaves the purchaser in doubt; in all of these cases the purchaser is charged with notice and cannot be a bona fide purchaser entitled to protection under the recording statutes.
- 8. The construction of these covenants, which may vary with the language used in each case, is governed by contract law principles.
- Assuming, however, a jurisdiction that would follow the earlier interpretation and would construe the title covenant most strictly against the grantor and without modification, then we would find that C’s mortgage with its covenant of warranty is a conveyance by A of a larger interest than A had in the property at the time it was given. After B’s foreclosure, A had no interest in the property because it had been completely cut off by B’s foreclosure action. Thereafter, A acquires by purchase the fee simple in the property. At the instant of reacquisition, the benefit inures to C under estoppel by deed. The doctrine is binding both on A, a party to the original second mortgage, and on those who take through him, D in our case. This is true whether or not D is a bona fide purchaser. This was the common law rule and were we to stop at this point the answer to our question would be yes, and C could foreclose C’s mortgage. In other words, if this case were to be determined wholly on the...
- Applicable Law:
- Applicable Law:
- Open Chapter
Chapter 6. Classifying Future Interests 314 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Applicable Law:
- 14. At common law if an instrument could be construed to create either a vested or a contingent remainder, the construction that resulted in the creation of a vested remainder was preferred. This preference was intended to make the property more alienable since the holder of a contingent estate could not alienate the property. There is some doubt whether this preference should continue. A preference for early vesting could result in subjecting property to a death tax it might not otherwise have been subjected to and this is likely inconsistent with a grantor’s intent. Furthermore, the preference for early vesting is not as essential to assure the alienability of property given that contingent remainders as well as vested remainders generally are alienable.
- 3. The class members take by representation. The form of representation may be specified in the terms of the governing instrument creating the class gift or, if the governing instrument is silent, the property “is divided in accordance with the form of representation adopted in the intestacy law of the domicile of the designated ancestor.”
- Applicable Law:
- Of course, if the common-law Rule of Destructibility applied, then in this case the remainder would be destroyed at B’s death because there was then no remaindermen capable of taking possession of the property.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 3. Gifts, Including Bank Accounts 121 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Applicable Law:
- Under state law, death taxes are payable only on a decedent’s property owned at death. Did O own the 18,000 shares of X Corporation stock and the $16,000 of cash at the time of her death?
- The court also rejected the notion that the donee already had possession of the gift property making delivery unnecessary because the gift property was in the family home. Even if delivery is dispensed with where the donee has possession of the property, the court stated that in this case the house was decedent’s property and although the husband resided in the house he did not know the property was in the house or its exact location.
- The requirement of delivery to the extent it entails an actual transfer of the personal property has been considerably diluted over the years. The nature of the delivery requirement depends in a large measure upon the circumstances of each case. Where actual transfer of possession is either impossible or ridiculous, various substitutes have been recognized as sufficient. For example, if the subject matter of the gift is already in the possession of the intended donee, as here where the donee is a bailee of the donor, then the law does not require the donee to redeliver the items to the donor to have him, in turn, transfer them back to the donee. Under such circumstances, the requirement of delivery is obviated, and all that is necessary is donative intent. Under these circumstances, the requirement of delivery is usually satisfied by a clearly expressed intent that the title, or a portion thereof, to the personal property already in the donee’s physical possession be presently...
- A future interest is an interest in property where the right to the possession of the property is postponed until some future date. For example, if O transfers property to A for life, and upon A’s death directs the property shall pass to B, B has a future interest because B’s right to the possession of the property is postponed until A dies. A, on the other hand, has a present interest, i.e., the right to possess the property for the rest of A’s life. See Chapters 5, 6 & 7.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 16. Conveyancing by Deed 194 results (showing 5 best matches)
- 25. Under the common law, a remainder interest was dependent upon a life estate and the refusal of the life tenant to accept the life estate defeated the remainder. However, under the Uniform Disclaimer of Property Interest, if the life tenant disclaims then the remainder is accelerated in favor of the remaindman.
- Applicable Law:
- 22. At common law, an heir could not prevent title coming to the heir by descent by operation of law, although most states now have statutes permitting such refusal, albeit called a disclaimer. While many states require the disclaimer to be made within nine months of the intestate’s death, under the Uniform Disclaimer of Property Interests Act the disclaimer can be made at any time.
- The common law ceremony of feoffment by which a freehold estate was conveyed was oral and no writing was required. The common law “grant” conveying such incorporeal interests as remainders, reversions, easements and profits was a deed and had to be under seal. The Statute of Frauds required a writing and a signature by the conveyor of an interest in real property, excluding short term leases. Covenants to stand seised and bargain and sale deeds under the Statute of Uses were required to be under seal. No general statement concerning the requirements of conveying instruments in the United States can have widespread, much less, universal application. The Statute of Frauds and the statute on conveyancing in each state should be consulted. In most states a seal is no longer required for the validity of a deed.
- Applicable Law:
- Open Chapter
Advisory Board 9 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Professor of Law Emeritus, University of San Diego Professor of Law Emeritus, University of Michigan
- Professor of Law, Chancellor and Dean Emeritus, University of California, Hastings College of the Law
- Professor of Law, Pepperdine University Professor of Law Emeritus, University of California, Los Angeles
- Earle K. Shawe Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law
- Distinguished University Professor, Frank R. Strong Chair in LawMichael E. Moritz College of Law, The Ohio State University
- Open Chapter
Index 112 results (showing 5 best matches)
Table of Contents 60 results (showing 5 best matches)
Summary of Contents 7 results (showing 5 best matches)
Table of Cases 95 results (showing 5 best matches)
Copyright Page 2 results
- The publisher is not engaged in rendering legal or other professional advice, and this publication is not a substitute for the advice of an attorney. If you require legal or other expert advice, you should seek the services of a competent attorney or other professional.
- Printed in the United States of America
- Open Chapter
- Publication Date: October 6th, 2016
- ISBN: 9781634607018
- Subject: Property
- Series: Concise Hornbook Series
- Type: Hornbook Treatises
- Description: Cases and statutory law are updated and the material reorganized; conforms with modern law school courses in real property. Chapters open with brief outlines of the law encompassed within, providing an overview of rules in that area. This is followed by a series of factually-based problems designed to generate thoughts about how these rules could be applied in real life situations. Chapters then discuss statements of applicable law and analysis of legal issues raised, plus likely outcomes and current citations of the various laws.
