finders.
what are the interests of a private party who owns the real property on which the chattel is found? (hanna v. peale showed factual grounds on which we could decide who has superior claim to the chattel based on relationship of found and real property; relationship between the property and land owners)
what is the distinction between lost and mislaid property? policy concerns -- under factual circumstances, our policies would be better served by giving better title to finder for property that is lost, and for mislaid property our policies would be better served by giving title to whomever land owner the property is laid on. why? true owner might be more likely to get the property back (though this of course is speculative).
bailments (contractual transfer of possession but not title, and mutual understanding that the property will be returned)
disputes of who has rights to property and possession.
peet v. roth hotel.
what duties arise when a bailment is created?
previous cases had distinguished who was receiving the benefit, but the modern trend is to consider many circumstances formulating the standard of care applicable.
"The wrongdoer, having once paid full damages to the bailee, has an answer to any action by the bailor."
who are the parties in interest? the postmaster, who is bailee for the mail
what is the gov't as bailee going to do with respect to the claims? bringing the claim on behalf of the parties whose mail was lost
claim is asserted against the owners of the winkfield on the basis of making the
tort claim for damages to the postal materials, and the claim was admitted, because there was a regulation that limited its
what's the problem? there's only so much money in the pot for all the claims. so part of the process is distinguishing the claims that will be allowed and which will not.
three classes of claims - (1&2) postmaster has been sued for value of lost packages, and so postmaster has standing as bailee. (3) no known value of unID parcels because no claims.
get to master of the roles on appeal to third type of claim...
reasoning: spins around jus tertii as both defense and offense. postmaster has a superior claim to the value inherent in the third class of parcels to anyone else except the true owners and therefore can assert the rights against a wrong doer to protect them.
why???
1) bailment where true owner has entrusted the postmaster with posession, and we know at some point in time, the true owner is going to come after the bailee for the property or value.
2) if you can forsee a situation where a loss might occur, it's better to put the liability of loss on you because you then will be responsible for protecting from the loss of property.
a possessor can recover against a wrongdoer who damages or destroys the chattel.
3) the bailor and bailee already have a relationship, so it is more efficient and easy to rely on this relationship for recovery.
relativity of title review
at some point in time, it will be too late to assert claim of ownership...
adverse possession. "possession ripens into title."
time is important in adverse possession cases.
lutz bought and conveyed in 1912, and begins his truck farm probably around this same time. he builds charlie's house around 1920.
in 1937, the van valkenburgs move into the area.
spring of 1946, lutz (34 years) and van valkenburgs (9 years), when van valkenburgs buy lot 19 at auction for tax forclosure, and had the cops usher lutz off the property and then erect a fence on lot 19, even blocking lutz' way to his home.
1948 - lutz sues and wins rights to use traveled way to access his property even though he doesn't own it
what is this really all about? relationships and hurt feelings are the core of the cases we're looking at so far... this case, like pierson v. post, is really about the soul of the community...
how is prescriptive right different from ownership? lutz had some rights, at least to use the land, but not right to ownership
on appeal - was the occupation sufficient to establish title by adverse possession? did his use merit the land becoming his?
what must the lutz show to establish adverse possession? (1) actual possession (2) exclusive to adverse possessor (3) adverse or hostile (4) open¬orious (5) continuous for the statutory period -- in this case, adverse and claim of right is at question.
the dissent says that actions should speak louder than words.
why have a doctrine of adverse possession in the first place?
No comments:
Post a Comment