Brief Fact Summary. The Plaintiffs, Broadway, had a debt due from defendant Adams.  A trust fund created for Adams’s brother Charles Adams by will called for $75,000 to be held in trust, income to be paid semiannually to Charles, and Adams wanted to attach the debt to this trust.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. The public policy rule that subjects a debtor’s property to the payment of his debts does not subject the property of a donor to the debts of his beneficiary, and does not give the creditor a right to complain that it is out of reach.

Facts. The Plaintiffs, Broadway, had a debt due from defendant Adams.  A trust fund created for Adams’s brother Charles Adams by will called for $75,000 to be held in trust, income to be paid semiannually to Charles.  Upon Charles’s death the income to be paid to Charles’s wife (if she survives Charlie) for the benefit of herself and the children of Charles in equal proportions, so long as she remains single.  Upon their death to be shared equally by the children of Charles and all his wives.

Issue. Whether the founder of a trust can secure the income of a trust to his heirs, by providing that it shall not be alienable by him or be subject to be taken by creditors.

Brief Fact Summary. Since Colonial times the predominant system for achieving an efficiently operated real estate market has been the “recording system”, which relies on public records containing the history of all transactions for a tract of land.  The buyer consults this record and gathers evidence that the seller has good title and that no other valid claims exist.  Under the recording system, there is still a possibility that an unrecorded claim exists or that there has been an error made in the public record, therefore the buyer does not have proof that the seller holds good title.  In order to avoid the risks of the buyer in losing his interest if an unknown party later asserts a claim, and to avoid the costs of title insurance (which provides financial indemnification in the event of a loss), in 1858 Sir Robert Torrens developed an alternative system for ensuring that a state’s legal procedure guarantees the owner’s title.  The court exams the title and ultimately issues a certificate to the owner that establishes legal ownership against any claims that are undeclared or unrecorded at the time of registration.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. Under the recording system a good-faith purchase bears the risk of losing his interest if a claimant comes forward, whereas under the Torrens system the owner’s certificate defeats any competing claims not declared at the initial proceeding.  Undeclared claimants can seek monetary compensation from a public Torrens indemnity fund financed by registration fees.  There is also no need to purchase title insurance with the Torrens system.  The Torrens system clears clouded titles, making land more marketable and encourages development.

Brief Fact Summary. Plaintiff Willcox found 444 documents, from the administration of governors of South Carolina, involved in the civil war concerning the war and wishes to sell them. Defendant Stroup wishes to prevent this sale claiming the documents are owned by the state of South Carolina.

Synopsis of Rule of Law.  There is a rebuttable presumption that those in possession of property are the rightful owners of that property. Possession is nine-tenths of the law.

Facts. Willcox’s great-great uncle was the Confederate Major General Evander McIver Law. In 1865, Union General William Tecumseh Sherman attacked South Carolina. The Governor of South Carolina, A.G. Magrath declared martial law in Columbia and appointed General Law the Provost Marshal of the City. A large number of records where removed from Columbia for safekeeping. It is assumed that at this time General Law came in possession of the documents, and there is no evidence that he do so illegally. In 1896 General Law tried to sell the documents to a New York Book Dealer. Later in 1940 General Law’s granddaughter had the documents and attempted to sell them to various Universities in South Carolina describing them as documents entrusted to her grandfather at the time of surrender. No sale resulted but the documents where put on microfilm at the Southern Historical Collection at the University of North Carolina. It is unclear how those documents ended in Willcox’s step-mothers closet some 50 years later, where Willcox found the documents; however, these documents it would appear have been in the family for over 140 years. The defendant Stroup is the director of the South Carolina Department of Archives and History obtained a temporary restraining order to prevent the sale. Then Willcox brought this declaratory action to declare title.

Issue.  Whether mere possession of documents without clear chain of title or evidence of ownership is sufficient to grant rightful title.

Brief Fact Summary. A tree on Fagella’s property is causing damage to Fancher’s property. Fancher wants Fagella to remove the tree and pay for the damages.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. Encroaching trees and plants will only be considered a nuisance if they cause actual harm or pose imminent harm to adjoining properties.

Facts. Fancher and Fagella are neighbors. Fagella’s property is higher than Fanchers property. There is a masonry wall that separates the two properties. On Fagella’s property that is a large tree. The roots of the tree cause damage to the wall, the underground water, sewer pipes, and to the bricked that lay on the floor of Fancher’s patio. The branches leave debris on the roof and rain gutters causing problems. Fancher tried self-help remedies by repairing everything but the problem is more than he is willing to handle. Fancher brought an action requesting the court order Fagella to remove the tree and pay Fancher for the damages to his property.

Issue. Whether an encroaching tree that causes harm to someone else property is considered a nuisance that would require the owner to remove that tree and pay damages to the other owner.

Brief Fact Summary. Edouard is a tenant in Kozubal’s building. Edouard filed a compliant alleging sex discrimination to the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination based on certain events.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. Emotional distress damages will be appropriate in a land-lord tenant relationship where the plaintiff can show a prima facie case of sexual discrimination.

Facts. s. Edouard is a nurse and school bus driver who has two children. When she signed the lease to live in Mr. Kozubal’s apartment he invited her for a trip to Plymouth MA and she declined. When she arrived at his place to pick up the keys there was no answer. When she got in touch with him he stated that if she couldn’t help him, he couldn’t help her. She was upset and went back to his he answered and stated unless she gave him 3 months rent in advance he would not give her a key. This was one extra month that was originally asked for. When she asked why he stated because she refused to go to Plymouth with him. Eventually she agreed to pay the three months in advance. There was another incident several weeks later where he saw in the hall and slapped her on the buttocks in a joking manner. Then sometime in August he used his key to get in her apartment but there was a double lock. He spoke through the door to one of her sons and he told the son to tell his mother that he wished to go to Plymouth for the weekend. Sometime in October he told her that he would need her to move to the first floor apartment, she agreed but wanted to inspect the place. When she was looking in the cabinet he came from behind her and grabbed her nipples. He then pushed her to the floor while she was crawling away he grabbed her legs and attempted to grab her private parts. She got out of the apartment and filed charges against him and received a restraining order. He violated the order once by showing up insisting if she drops the charges she could live there rent free. These actions led to her being scared, depressed, and experienced diminished self-esteem. She then began therapy as a result of his conduct.

Issue. Whether claims of sex discrimination based on sexual harassment can be applied in a land-land tenant relationship thus allowing damages for emotional distress.

Brief Fact Summary. Appellee Ross sued Appellent Marengo Cave Co. to quiet title to land that consisted of underground passages of a cave that began on Appellants land, but extended beneath Appellee’s land.  The trial court ruled for the Appellee and the Supreme Court of Indiana affirmed.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. A record title may be defeated by adverse possession, which requires that the possession must be actual, visible, notorious, exclusive, hostile to the true owner, and continuous for the full statutory period.

Facts. Appellant Marengo Cave Co. owned land on which stood the opening to a cave.  Appellee Ross owned land adjacent to Appellant’s land, and the cave’s passages extended underground into Appellee’s land.  Beginning in 1883 when the opening to the cave was first discovered, Appellant’s predecessors took complete possession of the entire cave and began using it for exhibition purposes, charging an admission fee.  Over the next 46 years, the Appellant (and its predecessors) advertised the cave in various media, made improvements within the cave, and excluded therefrom the “whole world” except those who paid admission.  Appellee, however, did not know that the cave’s passages extended underneath his land until 1929, when Appellee had a survey made by a civil engineer.  After making this discovery, Appellee brought an action to quiet title to those subterranean passages under his land.  The trial court ruled for Ross, the Marengo Cave Co. appealed, and the Supreme Court of Indiana affirmed.

Issue. Whether a 46-year possession of a subterranean cave that extends beneath another person’s land is open, notorious, and exclusive to obtain title to the cave by adverse possession.

Brief Fact Summary.  Defendants owned a beach-front resort and wanted to fence in the dry-sand area for the enjoyment of their guests.  The trial court held for the State, and the Supreme Court of Oregon affirmed, finding that the beach-going public had the right to use that area due to long-established custom.  Accordingly, Defendants were enjoined from erecting a fence.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. The public can acquire an easement in the land of another through either an easement by prescription or established custom.  An easement by prescription must be uninterrupted open, notorious, and hostile for the statutory period.  The elements of custom are (1) the custom must be ancient; (2) must be exercised without interruption; (3) use must be peaceable; (4) use must be appropriate to the land and community; ( 5) area must have visible boundaries; (6) obligatory; and (7) must not be inconsistent with other customs. 

Facts. Defendants Hay owned a tourist facility on Cannon Beach and wanted to erect a fence around the beach area adjacent to their property for the enjoyment of their guests.  Specifically, they wanted to enclose the dry-sand area that is between the high-tide line and the vegetation line – the area where beach-goers typically lounge to escape the wet sand and tide.  The State sought a decree to enjoin defendants from building such fence.  The trial court ruled in favor of the State, finding that the public had acquired over the years an easement for recreational purposes to enjoy the dry-sand area.  The Supreme Court of Oregon affirmed under the doctrine of custom.

Issue. Whether the State has the power to prevent landowners from enclosing the dry-sand area contained within the legal description of their ocean-front property.

Brief Fact Summary. Stoyanoff seeks to build a house that is highly modernistic and unusual in design.  The Architectural Board found the home was not in conformity with the style and design of surrounding structures, and refuses to issue the building permit.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. The city government’s delegation of authority to a non-elected Architectural Board was constitutional, even without very specific standards.  “The Board shall disapprove the application if it determines that the proposed structure will constitute an unsightly, grotesque or unsuitable structure in appearance, detrimental to the welfare of surrounding property or residents…”

Facts. Stoyanoff seeks to build a house that is highly modernistic and unusual in design “but complied with all existing building and zoning regulations and ordinances of the City of Ladue, Missouri”.  The Architectural Board examines the application to determine if it conforms to proper architectural standards in appearance and design and found the home was not in conformity with the style and design of surrounding structures, and refuses to issue the building permit.

Issue.  Whether the city government’s delegation of authority without very specific standards delegated to a non-elected Architectural Board was constitutional.

Brief Fact Summary. Plaintiff Anderson stole logs from a third party’s property and Defendant Gouldberg took them from Plaintiff.  Plaintiff successfully sued Defendant to recover the value of the logs.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. Even though a person may have unauthorized possession of a piece of property, his title to the property is superior against anyone except the real owner or someone who has authority from the owner to possess it.  In other words, bare possession of property, though wrongfully obtained, is sufficient title to enable the party enjoying it to maintain possession over a mere stranger.

Facts. Plaintiff Anderson cut ninety-three pine logs from trees on a parcel of land, “Section 22”, in Isanti County then hauled them to a mill.  Plaintiff did not know who owned the land at Section 22, nor did he have permission to cut the trees on that parcel.  In other words, plaintiff obtained possession of the logs by trespassing upon the land of a third party.  Defendant Gouldberg subsequently took those logs from the mill, believing that such logs had been cut from Section 26.  Section 26 was owned by the Ann River Logging Company, which had directed Gouldberg to take the logs from the mill.  Plaintiff brought an action in replevin against Defendant to recover possession of the logs or the value thereof.  The court charged the jury with determining whether the logs were cut from Section 22 or Section 26.  The jury determined that the logs were cut from Section 22 and found for plaintiff.  Defendants appealed from an order denying their motion for a new trial.

Issue.  Whether a person who has stolen property from a stranger has a right to that property over another person.

Brief Fact Summary. Defendants signed an agreement offering to purchase property from Plaintiff.  The agreement contained a “subject to financing” clause.  When the Defendants could not obtain financing, they failed to perform, and Plaintiff sued.  The court found that the “subject to financing” clause was vague and therefore the contract was void.

Synopsis of Rule of Law.  Where a term is vague and it is impossible to ascertain the parties’ intentions, a contract must fail for indefiniteness.

Facts. Defendants signed an agreement offering to purchase property from Plaintiff.  The agreement included a clause which made the purchase offer contingent upon the Defendant obtaining the proper amount of financing, without providing a precise dollar figure as the amount.  Defendants attempted to borrow $75,000 from the bank but were denied because they would exceed their $100,000 borrowing limit due to having obtained other loans.  Plaintiff then offered to finance $45,000, but that offer was refused by Defendants, a move with which Plaintiff took issue.  Accordingly, Plaintiffs sued for performance and the trial court dismissed the complaint in favor of Defendants, finding that the “subject to financing” clause was a condition precedent to Defendants’ performance.  Plaintiff appealed and the Supreme Court of Wisconsin affirmed.

Issue. Was the “subject to financing” term vague to the point of rendering the parties’ contract void for indefiniteness?