Property Law - Overview Through Conversion

Property law gives owners rights over non-owners

a. Right to exclude non-owners from property

b. Imposes duty on others not to enter without consent

c. Power to transfer title

d. Immunity from having property taken or damaged without consent

e. Privilege to use = power over people

i. pros: creates jobs

ii. harms: causes pollution, inadequate distribution of resources

Rights can be disaggregated (given up)

Landlords

a. grant tenants possession rights

b. in exchange, get periodic rental payments

c. still, they retain the right to regain possession at the end of the lease, despite the foreign occupancy

Ownership entails

1. Right to exclude access

2. Privilege to use

3. Power to transfer

4. Immunity from loss

5. Contractual Freedom

Reasonableness requirements

a. may encourage compromise more than clear (bright line) legal rules might

b. lowers cost of owning property

c. social consequences

d. gives the choice to the courts about which rule, broad or narrow, best promotes social welfare.

CONQUEST

Johnson v. McIntosh [Supreme Court] ( 1823 )

FACTS: Johnson had a contract from the Piankashaw Indians. M'Intosh had one from the Federal government.

Court agrees that at the time of plaintiff's contract, "the whole territory was owned by Indian Soverigns with to allegiances to European powers." Indian sovereigns were unrecognized and their land wasn't protected from conquest.

HOLDING: The US government's deed usurped the power of the baseless Indian deed. Indian deed is invalid because it gives away land not owned by the Indians -- taken by US through conquest.

RATIONALE: Marshall feels sympathetic to the Indians, but has to rule this way because of public policy. The US couldn't have Indian tribes claiming title to land all over the country.

State v. Shack

Cause of Action: Trespass

Main Idea: Right to Exclude

RATIONALE: The law doesn't want landowners to have an undue control over tenants lives.

EXCEPTIONS TO TRESSPASS

-significant need

-public policy

-privilege

-public policy can be important enough

Does the owner of the land have to be explicit in warning others not to trespass?

a. "Civil" Trespass doesn't have to be explicitly stated

b. If the request not to trespass is explicitly given to a party, then it becomes "Criminal" trespass if that party does decide to trespass.

---

How is Property Obtained?

1. Theft - Thieves never get ownership of the property they steal, only custody.

2. Purchase of stolen property - Good faith purchasers of stolen property are likely to be able to keep the property.

a. A Pawnshop provides a "loan secured by chattle"

3. Inheritance - In the US there are no automatic rights to inherit anything.

4. Conquest - One sovereign takes away from another

a. Who may conquer something?

i. Only a sovereign (the one who makes the laws) can conquer using force.

ii. To become a sovereign, other sov's have to recognize you as a sovereign.

5. Discovery - (in theory) no-one owns a piece of land in question and a sovereign "discovers" it by laying claim to it.

a. Must be consummated by possession

b. First claim to land (vis-vis other sovereigns at least). It only matters that other sov's that we recognize, recognize that this is our territory

i. Virgina, owned by British when settled, not natives.

Moor v. Regent of UCLA

[definition] Conversion - a tort that protects against interference w/ possessory and ownership interest in personal property

RATIONALE: Since Moore did not expect to retain possession of his cells following their removal, he couldn't sue. He must've retained an ownership interest

Plaintiff's argument: Proprietary interest in one's person should equal right in one's genetic material.

Court disagrees: Defendant's used cells to manufacture lymphokines. Lymphokines are unlike a name and face. Lymphokines have the same molecular structure in every human being and the same important functions in every human.