. All of us live somewhere. What property rights come with our home?
2. Are there any restrictions on what you can do with your property and home (homeowner’s or condominium association)?
3. Under what circumstances can the government seize your home for a public purpose?
4. All of us turn our personal property over to the care of others–a dry cleaners, a parking lot, storage. Under what circumstances are the bailees (the holders of your goods) responsible for the loss or damage of your property? Can bailees successfully disclaim or limit liability for negligent acts on their part, resulting in the loss or damage to your property?
5. How about some examples of bailments? List some of the times you’ve placed your property in the control of someone else. What is necessary to create a bailment and what are the different types of bailment? Please give an example and describe what type of bailment relationship you have given.
6. Please describe the definition of each situation (lost, mislaid, abandoned) and who has the right to the property in each situation.
7. Your responses to the following questions should be well-rounded and analytical, and should not just provide a conclusion or an opinion without explaining the reason for the choice. For full credit, you need to use the material from the week’s lectures, text, and/or discussions when responding to the questions. It is important that you incorporate the question into your response (i.e., restate the question in your introduction) and explain the legal principle(s) or concept(s) from the text that underlies your judgment. For each question (and each component if there are multiple sections of one question), you should provide at least one reference in APA format (in-text citations and references as described in detail in the Syllabus).
47.1 Gift For 12 years, Theodore Alexander Buder’s father made substantial gifts to his minor grandchildren. Theodore Buder and his wife divorced during this period. The cash gifts, typically in the form of checks made directly payable to the children, were given to Buder with the understanding that he would safeguard the money and invest it on behalf of the children. Buder invested various amounts of the children’s money in “blue chip” stocks traded over the New York and American stock exchanges. Buder also invested substantial sums of the children’s money in speculative penny stocks. The stocks were purchased in Buder’s name as custodian for the children, as required by the Uniform Gifts to Minors Act (UGMA). At one point, almost half of the children’s money was invested in penny stocks. All the penny stocks except one suffered substantial losses. Buder’s ex-wife, Sartore, sued him, alleging that he had breached his fiduciary duty owed to the children under the UGMA. She sought to recover the funds lost by Buder’s investment of the children’s funds in penny stocks. Who wins? Buder v. Sartore, 774 P.2d 1383, Web 1989 Colo. Lexis 227 (Supreme Court of Colorado)
48.8 Adverse Possession Joseph and Helen Naab purchased a tract of land in a subdivision of Williamstown, West Virginia. At the time of purchase, there were both a house and a small concrete garage on the property. Evidence showed that the garage had been erected sometime prior to 20 years earlier by one of the Naabs’ predecessors in title. Two years after the Naabs bought their property, Roger and Cynthia Nolan purchased a lot contiguous to that owned by the Naabs. The following year, the Nolans had their property surveyed. The survey indicated that one corner of the Naabs’ garage encroached 1.22 feet onto the Nolans’ property and the other corner encroached 0.91 feet over the property line. The Nolans requested that the Naabs remove the garage from their property. When the Naabs refused, a lawsuit ensued. Who wins? Naab v. Nolan, 174 W.Va. 390, 327 S.E.2d 151, Web 1985 W.Va. Lexis 476 (Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia)
49.2 Implied Warranty of Habitability Sharon Love entered into a written lease agreement with Monarch Apartments (Monarch) for apartment 4 at 441 Winfield in Topeka, Kansas. Shortly after moving in, she experienced serious problems with termites. Her walls swelled, clouds of dirt came out of the walls, and when she checked on her children one night, she saw termites flying around the room. She complained to Monarch, which arranged for the apartment to be fumigated. When the termite problem persisted, Monarch moved Love and her children to apartment 2. Upon moving in, Love noticed that roaches crawled over the walls, ceilings, and floors of the apartment. She complained, and Monarch called an exterminator, who sprayed the apartment. When the roach problem persisted, Love vacated the premises. Did Love lawfully terminate the lease? Who wins? Love v. Monarch Apartments, 13 Kan.App.2d 341, 771 P.2d 79, Web 1989 Kan.App. Lexis 219 (Court of Appeals of Kansas)
49.5 Tort Liability Luis and Barbara Chavez leased a house they owned in Arizona to Michael and Terry Diaz. The lease provided that no pets were to be kept on the premises without prior written approval of the landlords. The Diazes, without the landlords’ consent or knowledge, kept a Pit Bull and another dog, which was half Pit Bull and half Rottweiler, at the leased premises. Two weeks later, the Diazes’ two dogs escaped from the backyard and attacked and injured Josephine Gibbons. Gibbons sued the landlords for damages. Are the landlords liable? Are the tenants liable? Gibbons v. Chavez, 160 Ariz. 73, 770 P.2d 377, Web 1988 Ariz.App. Lexis 373 (Court of Appeals of Arizona)