[1] the Basics of Property Division
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
DCCA Opinion No. 01-CV-1437: Sylvia Maalouf V. Imran Butt, Et
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go to press. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS No. 01-CV-1437 SYLVIA MAALOUF, APPELLANT, V. IMRAN BUTT, et al., APPELLEES. Appeal from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia (SC-20704-00) (Hon. Milton C. Lee, Hearing Commissioner) (Hon. Steffen W. Graae, Trial Judge) (Submitted November 19, 2002 Decided February 20, 2003) Sylvia Maalouf, pro se. Sean D. Hummel was on the brief, for appellees. Before TERRY and STEADMAN, Associate Judges, and FERREN, Senior Judge. FERREN, Senior Judge: In this small claims case, appellant Maalouf, proceeding pro se, sought damages from appellee Butt for the loss of her car at Butt’s repair shop. The hearing commissioner, sustained by a trial judge, found for Maalouf but awarded her only $150 for the loss of the car radio. Maalouf contends on appeal that the commissioner erred in denying full damages for loss of the car on the ground that Maalouf had failed to present sufficient evidence of the car’s value (in addition to the value of the radio) as of the time she brought the vehicle to Butt’s shop for repair. We reverse and remand for further 2 proceedings. Maalouf testified that her car, while under Butt’s control, had been vandalized twice and eventually stolen. The hearing commissioner accepted her testimony as true for purposes of decision, and the issue thus became the amount of recovery.1 “The traditional standard for calculating damages for conversion is the fair market value of the property at the time of the conversion”– here, as of the time Maalouf brought the car to Butt’s shop for repair. -
Sniadach, the Replevin Cases and Self-Help Repossession -- Due Process Tokenism? Julian B
Boston College Law Review Volume 14 Article 2 Issue 3 Number 3 2-1-1973 Sniadach, The Replevin Cases and Self-Help Repossession -- Due Process Tokenism? Julian B. McDonnell Follow this and additional works at: http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/bclr Part of the Fourteenth Amendment Commons Recommended Citation Julian B. McDonnell, Sniadach, The Replevin Cases and Self-Help Repossession -- Due Process Tokenism?, 14 B.C.L. Rev. 437 (1973), http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/bclr/vol14/iss3/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Boston College Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. For more information, please contact [email protected]. SNIADACH, THE REPLEVIN CASES AND SELF-HELP REPOSSESSION-DUE PROCESS TOKENISM? JULIAN B. MCDONNELL* Last term, a divided United States Supreme Court invalidated the replevin statutes of Pennsylvania and Florida. In Fuentes v. Shevinl and Parham v. Cortese' (the Replevin Cases), the Court held these statutes unconstitutional insofar as they authorized repossession of collateral through state officials before the debtor was notified of the attempted repossession and accorded an opportunity to be heard on the merits of the creditor's claim. The Replevin Cases involved typical consumer purchases of household pods,' and accordingly raised new questions about the basic relationship between secured creditors and consumer debtors—a relationship upon which our consumer credit economy is based. Creditors have traditionally regarded the right to immediate repossession of collateral after determining the debtor to be in default as the essence of personal property security arrange- ments,' and their standard-form security agreements typically spell out this right. -
Park West Condominium Association, Inc. V. Bryan T. Morgan, Lawrence K
Brigham Young University Law School BYU Law Digital Commons Utah Court of Appeals Briefs 2005 Park West Condominium Association, Inc. v. Bryan T. Morgan, Lawrence K. Deppe and Judith S. Deppe : Reply Brief Utah Court of Appeals Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/byu_ca2 Part of the Law Commons Original Brief Submitted to the Utah Court of Appeals; digitized by the Howard W. Hunter Law Library, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah; machine-generated OCR, may contain errors. Denver C. Snuffer, Jr.; Bret W. Reich; Nelson, Snuffer, Dahle & Poulsen; James R. Blakesley; Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellee. Steven R. McMurray; Bradley L. Tilt; Joan M. Andrews; Fabian & Clendenin; Attorneys for Defendants-Appellants. Recommended Citation Reply Brief, Park West Condominium Association v. Morgan, No. 20050800 (Utah Court of Appeals, 2005). https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/byu_ca2/6022 This Reply Brief is brought to you for free and open access by BYU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Utah Court of Appeals Briefs by an authorized administrator of BYU Law Digital Commons. Policies regarding these Utah briefs are available at http://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/utah_court_briefs/policies.html. Please contact the Repository Manager at [email protected] with questions or feedback. IN (HUMAN < OHIO HI Al'PkUS PARK WEST CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellate Case Nu JOOMWOf Plaintiff-Appellee, BRYAN T. MORGAN, LAWRENCE K. DEPPE AND JUDITH S. DEPPE, Defendants-Appellants. REPLY BRIEF OF DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS LAWRENCE K. DEPPE AND JUDITH S. DEPPE Interlocutory Appeal from a Decision of the Third Judicial District Court In and For Summit County, State of Utah, Honorable Bruce C. -
Four Property Wrongs of Self Storage
FOUR PROPERTY WRONGS OF SELF-STORAGE LAW Jeffrey Douglas Jones Table of Contents Introduction: Setting Aside the Constitutional Question I. The Wild, Wild Lease: Self-Storage Agreements and Default Practices A. Owner’s Liens B. Lien Attachment and Risk of Loss C. From Default to Lien Enforcement D. Lien Enforcement Transferring Title to Landlord E. Lien Enforcement by Public Auction II. The Property Wrongs of Self-Storage Law A. The “Crap” Rule B. Tort Law Misfires and the Elimination of Bailments C. Ignored Parallels to Residential Landlord-Tenant Reform D. Treasure Trove and Self-Storage Treasure Hunters III. Conclusion: Legal Reform, Voluntariness, and the Property Ethic “Own Less” Jeffrey Douglas Jones, Associate Professor of Law, Lewis & Clark Law School; J.D., The University of Michigan Law School-Ann Arbor; Ph.D. Philosophy, The University of Wisconsin-Madison. [Thanks] 1 Jones / Four Property Wrongs of Self-Storage Law Introduction: Setting Aside the Constitutional Question Self-storage leases are troubling. Under such leases, self-storage facility owners may freely dispose of defaulting tenants’ medical and tax records, family ashes, heirlooms, etc. in the same manner as they would treat fungible items such as chairs or a bookshelf. Facility owners are legally entitled to do so through facility-sponsored auctions, most of which are unrestricted by any duty to conduct commercially reasonable sales. Still worse, these legal self- storage practices have generated a clandestine culture of treasure-hunting that often leaves tenants—some of whom default due to medical emergencies, bankruptcy or who are homeless working poor—with little opportunity either to regain good standing or obtain fair market value for their belongings. -
SC11-2231 Initial Brief
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case No. SC11-2231 Lower Tribunal Case Nos.: 1D10-2050, 2004-CA-2290, 2005-CA-2231, 2006-CA-2338, 2007-CA-2908, 2008-CA-3919 1108 ARIOLA, LLC., et al., Petitioners, v. CHRIS JONES, etc., et al., Respondents. PETITIONERS’ INITIAL BRIEF ON THE MERITS ON REVIEW FROM THE FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA DANNY L. KEPNER TALBOT D’ALEMBERTE Florida Bar No: 174278 Florida Bar No.: 0017529 SHELL, FLEMING, DAVIS & MENGE PATSY PALMER Post Office Box 1831 Florida Bar No.: 0041811 Pensacola, Florida 32591-1831 D’ALEMBERTE & PALMER, PLLC Telephone: (850) 434-2411 Post Office Box 10029 Facsimile: (850) 435-1074 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-2029 Email: [email protected] Telephone: (850) 325-6292 Email: [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Petitioners TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CITATIONS .......................................................................................... iv-vii PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .............................................................................. 1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND OF THE FACTS ......................................... 1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ................................................................................. 11 ARGUMENT .............................................................................................................. 13 I. PETITIONERS ARE NOT OWNERS OF THE LEASEHOLD IMPROVEMENTS .......................................................................................... 13 A. The Ordinary Leases Here -
Inadequate Protection of Tenants' Property During Eviction and the Need for Reform Larry Weiser Prof
Loyola Consumer Law Review Volume 20 | Issue 3 Article 2 2008 Adding Injury to Injury: Inadequate Protection of Tenants' Property During Eviction and the Need for Reform Larry Weiser Prof. & Dir. Of Clinical Law Programs, Gonzaga University, School of Law Matthew .T Treu Assoc., Alverson, Taylor, Mortensen & Sanders, Law Vegas Follow this and additional works at: http://lawecommons.luc.edu/lclr Part of the Consumer Protection Law Commons Recommended Citation Larry Weiser & Matthew T. Treu Adding Injury to Injury: Inadequate Protection of Tenants' Property During Eviction and the Need for Reform, 20 Loy. Consumer L. Rev. 247 (2008). Available at: http://lawecommons.luc.edu/lclr/vol20/iss3/2 This Feature Article is brought to you for free and open access by LAW eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Loyola Consumer Law Review by an authorized administrator of LAW eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FEA TURE AR TICLES Adding Injury to Injury: Inadequate Protection of Tenants' Property During Eviction and the Need for Reform By Larry Weiser* & Matthew W. Treu** I. Introduction Irene Parker, an 82 year-old single woman with health problems, was evicted at Christmas-time due to repair and rental disputes with her landlords. The amount in dispute was $1,200, far less than the monetary value of Ms. Parker's life possessions, which was $15,000. Upon being evicted and having everything she owned put on a public curb, Ms. Parker was forced to pay for a cab so that she could stay at a friend's home until she could find a new place to live. -
Torts Mnemonics
TORTS MNEMONICS 1) Torts are done IN SIN: I – INTENTIONAL harm to a person (e.g., assault, battery, false imprisonment, or the intentional infliction of emotional harm) N – NEGLIGENT conduct causing personal injury, wrongful death, or prop damage S – STRICT tort liability I – INTENTIONAL harm to property (e.g., trespass, conversion, or tortious interference with a contract) N – NUISANCE 2) Tortious conduct makes you want to SING: S – STRICT tort liability I – INTENTIONAL conduct N – NEGLIGENT conduct G – GROSS negligence a/k/a reckless conduct 3) A D’s FIT conduct is unreasonable/negligent when P was within the foreseeable zone of danger: F – FAILURE to take reasonable precautions in light of foreseeable risks I – INADVERTENCE T – THOUGHTLESSNESS 4) To establish a negligence claim, P must mix the right DIP: D – DUTY to exercise reasonable care was owed by the D to the injured P and the D breached this duty (for a negligence claim the duty is always to conform to the legal standard of reasonable conduct in light of the apparent risks) I – Physical INJURY to the P or his property (damages) P – P’s injuries were PROXIMATELY caused by the D’s breach of duty 5) A parent is liable only for the torts of a SICK child: S – in an employment relationship where a child commits a tort, while acting as a SERVANT or agent of the parent I – where the parent entrusts or knowingly leaves in the child’s possession an INSTRUMENTALITY that, in light of the child’s age, intelligence, disposition and prior experience, creates an unreasonable risk of harm to -
Contra Costa Superior Court Martinez, California Department: 21 Hearing Date: 01/30/19
CONTRA COSTA SUPERIOR COURT MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT: 21 HEARING DATE: 01/30/19 1. TIME: 9:00 CASE#: MSC16-01717 CASE NAME: JOHNSON VS. COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA HEARING ON TRIAL RE-SETTING * TENTATIVE RULING: * Parties to appear. CourtCall is acceptable if there is no argument on line 2. 2. TIME: 9:00 CASE#: MSC16-01717 CASE NAME: JOHNSON VS. COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA HEARING ON DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT FILED BY BAILEY T. LEE, M.D. * TENTATIVE RULING: * The demurrer of defendant Bailey Lee, M.D., to plaintiffs’ complaint is overruled. Defendant shall file and serve his Answer on or before February 13, 2019. Plaintiffs filed this medical malpractice case on September 6, 2016 against defendant Contra Costa County, several physicians, and Does 1-100. Plaintiffs contend they discovered possible liability on the part of Dr. Lee several years after they suit, based upon conversations with an expert consultant. Shortly thereafter, they filed a Doe amendment on September 25, 2018, naming Dr. Lee as Doe 1. Dr. Lee now demurs to the complaint. He argues that the complaint contains no charging allegations against him and that it is uncertain. (CCP § 403.10 (e), (f).) A party who is ignorant of the name of a defendant or the basis for a defendant’s liability may name that defendant by a fictitious name and amend to state the defendant’s true name when the facts are discovered. (CCP § 474; see Breceda v. Gamsby (1968) 267 Cal.App.2d 167, 174.) If section 474 is properly used, no amendment of the complaint is necessary other than the Doe amendment itself. -
I. A. Intellectual Approaches to Tort Law 1. Corrective Justice 2. Economic Approach/Deterrence Approach 3. Compensation Approac
Torts, Sharkey Fall 2006, Dave Fillingame I. INTRODUCTION A. Intellectual Approaches to Tort Law 1. Corrective Justice 2. Economic Approach/Deterrence Approach 3. Compensation Approach B. Holmes: Two theories of common-law liability: 1. Criminalist (Negligence) 2. “A man acts at his own peril” (strict liability) 3. Judge People by an Objective not a Subjective Standard of Care C. Judge v. Jury in Torts II. INTENTIONAL TORTS A. Elements B. Physical Harms 1. Battery a. Eggshell Skull Rule (Vosburg v. Putney) b. Intent to Act v. Intent to Harm c. “Substantial Certainty” Test (Garratt v. Dailey) d. “Playing Piano” (White v. University of Idaho) e. “Transferred” Intent 2. Defenses to Battery: Consent a. Consent b. Consent: Implied License c. Consent to Illegal Acts 3. Defenses to Battery: Insanity 4. Defenses to Battery: Self-Defense and Defense of Others a. Can be used as a defense when innocent bystanders harmed b. Can be used in defense of third-parties c. Must be proportional force 5. Defenses to Battery: Necessity C. Trespass to Land 1. No Damage is Required, Unauthorized Entry on Land is Enough a. An unfounded claim of right does not make a willful entry innocent. b. Quarum Clausum Fregit 2. Use of Deadly Force in Protection of Property a. Posner: We Must Create Incentives to Protect Tulips and Peacocks. b. Use Reasonable Force: Katko v. Briney (Iowa 1971) 3. Defense of Privilege a. Privilege of Necessity b. “General Average Contribution” c. Conditional (Incomplete) Privilege Vincent v. Lake Erie (Minn. 1910) d. The privilege exists only so long as the necessity does. -
Nuisance – Elements
Nuisance – Elements Nuisance is the cause of action you use when someone is interfering with your right to enjoy your property; but trespass is not applicable Private Nuisance: Elements: 1) Plaintiff has the right to possess or ownership of land; 2) The defendant undertakes an action that interferes with the use or enjoyment of that land; 3) In a manner that is substantial and in a manner a reasonable person would not tolerate (subjective test) Public Nuisance: - This occurs when the interference is with public property, not specifically with anyone’s private property (e.g., a street or a park) - Such an action can typically only be brought by a governmental authority because no person has standing to bring an action for public nuisance. Of course, if the private person suffered specific economic harm, she may be able to sue for negligence, etc. Nuisance - Other Factors - The nuisance must have arisen from an act that’s actionable as an intentional, negligent or strict liability tort! - The actions that give rise to the nuisance must be “unreasonable” under the circumstances. Thus: A “balancing test” must be performed between the harm that the nuisance causes and the benefits of the activities that create the nuisance, taking into account: o The economic and social importance of the activity o The burden on the defendant and on society of forcing the activity to cease o Whether there is a more appropriate place to conduct the activity - All the rules regarding causation and damages apply, as with negligence and strict liability - The defenses of assumption of risk and contributory negligence apply; as with any other tort. -
(BAILOR) This BAILMENT
Attachment A BAILMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (BAILEE) AND [Name of Vendor] (BAILOR) This BAILMENT AGREEMENT is entered into by and between [Name of Vendor], Inc., with offices located at [address of Vendor] , hereinafter referred to as the "Bailor," and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), through the named Contracting Officer, hereinafter referred to as the "Bailee." Bailor and Bailee are also referred to individually as a “Party” and collectively as the “Parties.” The Parties Agree as follows: 1. PURPOSE. 1.1. The Purpose of this Agreement is for Bailor to loan to Bailee at no cost to Bailee, and Bailee to take possession of and use certain property, more fully described within the inventory sheet provided in Phase 2 of the Network testing Request for Information (RFI), hereinafter referred to as the “Bailed Property,” in accordance with its design for the benefit of the Bailee; while the Bailee may test or evaluate the Bailed Property while it is in the Bailee’s possession, the Parties agree that the Bailee is under no obligation to make its test or evaluation results known to the Bailor. 1.2. The Parties agree that entering into this Agreement for the stated Purpose is to their mutual benefit, and that such benefit constitutes full and adequate consideration for entering into this Agreement. By entering into this Agreement, neither party assumes any obligations of any kind to the other party not expressly stated herein. This Agreement does not constitute or create a joint venture, partnership, or formal business entity of any kind. 1.3. -
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Case: 15-55550, 07/10/2017, ID: 10502017, DktEntry: 127-1, Page 1 of 61 FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DAVID CASSIRER; AVA CASSIRER; No. 15-55550 UNITED JEWISH FEDERATION OF SAN 15-55977 DIEGO COUNTY, a California non- profit corporation, D.C. No. Plaintiffs-Appellees, 2:05-cv-03459- JFW-E v. THYSSEN-BORNEMISZA COLLECTION FOUNDATION, an agency or instrumentality of the Kingdom of Spain, Defendant-Appellant. DAVID CASSIRER; AVA CASSIRER; No. 15-55951 UNITED JEWISH FEDERATION OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, a California non- D.C. No. profit corporation, 2:05-cv-03459- Plaintiffs-Appellants, JFW-E v. OPINION THYSSEN-BORNEMISZA COLLECTION FOUNDATION, an agency or instrumentality of the Kingdom of Spain, Defendant-Appellee. Case: 15-55550, 07/10/2017, ID: 10502017, DktEntry: 127-1, Page 2 of 61 2 CASSIRER V. THYSSEN-BORNEMISZA COLLECTION Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California John F. Walter, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted December 5, 2016 Pasadena, California Filed July 10, 2017 Before: Consuelo M. Callahan, Carlos T. Bea, and Sandra S. Ikuta, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge Bea Case: 15-55550, 07/10/2017, ID: 10502017, DktEntry: 127-1, Page 3 of 61 CASSIRER V. THYSSEN-BORNEMISZA COLLECTION 3 SUMMARY* Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act / Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act The panel reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment, on remand, in favor of Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation, the defendant in an action under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act concerning a Camille Pissarro painting that was forcibly taken from the plaintiffs’ great-grandmother by an art dealer who had been appointed by the Nazi government to conduct an appraisal.