LIVE OAKS PROBLEM A: Santa-acre & Elfacre

• Elves: Mannello; Webb; Donnelly

•Santas: Ford; Patel; Sapir• Judges: Edelstein; Lungarelli; Quigley• Reserves: Albrecht; Lobel; McCay; Schwarz

• MUSIC: Jason Mraz, Waiting for My Rocket to Come (2002)

PROBLEM ASanta-acre next to garbage dump. Elfacre =

big lot w small cottage.

Grant = “E’s owners shall have the right to cross S to dump garbage in the adjacent garbage dump”

Es replace cottage w toy factory (7x garbage).

Evolutionary not revolutionary change allowed?

S next to garbage dump. E = big lot w small cottage. Grant = “E’s owners shall have the right to cross S to dump garbage in the adjacent garbage dump”

Es replace cottage w toy factory (7x garbage).

Greater burden than contemplated by parties?

S next to garbage dump. E = big lot w small cottage. Grant = “E’s owners shall have the right to cross S to dump garbage in the adjacent garbage dump”

Es replace cottage w toy factory (7x garbage).

Reasonable considering terms of grant ?

S next to garbage dump. E = big lot w small cottage. Grant = “E’s owners shall have the right to cross S to dump garbage in the adjacent garbage dump”

Es replace cottage w toy factory (7x garbage).

Problem A: Possible Concerns

1. Want precision in language: punish Santa for not specifying limits

2. Want people to bargain fairly

3. Check unequal bargaining power

4. Check who drafted

Problem A: Possible Concerns

1. Want precision in language

2. Want people to bargain fairly: punish elves if hid intent to expand factory

3. Check unequal bargaining power

4. Check who drafted

Problem A: Possible Concerns1. Want precision in language

2. Want people to bargain fairly

3. Check unequal bargaining power

A. Santa, Inc. v. little elves

B. Old man v. Keebler Cookies & Toys Int’lKeebler Cookies & Toys Int’l

4. Check who drafted

Problem A: Possible Concerns

1. Want precision in language

2. Want people to bargain fairly

3. Check unequal bargaining power

4. Check who drafted: construe against the drafter

TOMORROW

• PROBLEM 7B (MANGOS): Apply Cases to Problem as Persuasive Authority

• Finish Prescriptive Easements

• Begin Recording Acts (ALL for DQ119)

Closing Points: Emt by Estoppel:

• V.Bauza Concern: P849 quote from Rerick– Could read to allow right to rebuild– May turn on evidence of nature of reliance

• Return on investment w/o rebuilding?• Connection betw safety and dilapidation

Closing Points: Emt by Estoppel:

• Terminology in DuPont– Court says can’t have easement w/o writing– Allows possibility of irrevocable license– Really means same thing as Emt by Estoppel

EASEMENTS BY IMPLICATION& NECESSITY

featuring

ROYAL PALM

continued

Questions on Necessity• “Reasonable necessity” in Williams Island?

Court’s Noted Alternatives (P853 fn.1):– Cross highway, travel 200 feet on sidewalk, cross

highway again– Backtrack along a substantial portion of the golf course

to get around defendant’s tract

Questions on Necessity• “Reasonable necessity” in Williams Island • Lawyering Task: Other Possible Alternatives?

Questions on Necessity

• Note 3: Should lack of access to utilities meet the strict necessity test?

Questions on Necessity

Is the majority’s analysis of necessity in Dupont more convincing than that of the dissent?

Thoughts on Dupont: Easement by Necessity Tricky

• Road to Southern part of lot existed when purchased, so lot as a whole is not landlocked

• House on Northern part not built when purchased, so no necessity for enjoyment

• Would have to view essentially as two separate parcels divided by water with no access between them to get E-mt by Nec. to Northern part

• What if road crossing wetlands easy in 1981?

Thoughts on Dupont: Confusing on Standard

• Fl. Stat. §704.01(1): “reasonably necessary”; “reasonable & practicable”– §704.03: “practicable” means w/o use of “bridge, ferry,

turnpike road, embankment or substantial fill.”

• Tortoise Island (Fla Supr Ct): “absolute necessity”• Hunter (1st DCA interpreting Tortoise Island): “no

other reasonable mode of accessing the property”

Thoughts on Dupont

• No easement by implicaton (no prior use)

• No easement by prescription (permission)

• BUT bad facts for servient owners: their own story is revoking license after 14 years

Thoughts on Dupont

• If Whiteside’s version of facts is true, good case for easement by estoppel: – Purchasing land & building expensive house =

detrimental reliance– Duponts building road prior to closing

probably makes reliance reasonable

A Little More Doctrine

• Easements by Necessity end when the necessity ends

• Easements by Implication do not end w/o necessity (because based entirely in intent)

A Little More Doctrine

• Cts almost always hold that negative easements can’t be implied by implication or by necessity.

• Penn case cited in Note 4 is very rare in even considering.

A Little More Doctrine

• Some states have statutes like those described in Note 8 allowing private condemnation to provide access to landlocked parcels.

Note 8: Nice Exam Q

• Suppose a state uses its eminent domain power to condemn easements to provide access to landlocked parcels and has the owner of the landlocked parcel pay for the easement. Does this use of Eminent Domain meet the public use requirement?

EASEMENTS BY PRESCRIPTION

featuring

FICUS

EASEMENTS BY PRESCRIPTION

115. To what extent do the following rationales for adverse possession also support the doctrine of Prescriptive Easements?

(a) reward beneficial use of land

EASEMENTS BY PRESCRIPTION

115. To what extent do the following rationales for adverse possession also support the doctrine of Prescriptive Easements?

(b) punish sleeping owners