DOCSLIB.ORG

Blackacre and Whiteacre Are Adjoining Tracts of Land. in 1950

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Blackacre and Whiteacre Are Adjoining Tracts of Land. in 1950 Real Propery: Final Exam Ventura Spring 2014 (80%) Professor: Kaur Question # I Blackacre and Whiteacre are adjoining tracts of land. In 1950, Abel, the owner of Blackacre, deeded Baker, the owner of Whiteacre, a 40-foot-wide easement of way across Blackacre for the benefit of Whiteacre. The deed was properly recorded. Baker promptly paved the easement and began using the easement to access Whiteacre. He and later owners of Whiteacre also maintained the easement as necessary. In 1965, Whiteacre was conveyed to Charlie. In 1967, Charlie subdivided Whiteacre into a planned, gated community. Before selling the individual lots, he recorded Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions ("CC&R's") that stated: (l) "These CC&R's are intended to run with the land and bind all parties and their heirs, successors, and assigns": (2) "Owners may not park pick-up trucks, RV's, trucks with camper Shell, or off-road vehicles in the street, or on their property in such a way that they are visible from the street"; and (3) "ln order to insure the safety and security of the homes in the development, each lot is assessed $350 per year to pay a private security service to provide security." Charlie quickly sold all of the lots in the development. Each deed out from Charlie explicitly refened to and incorporated the recorded CCR's, and was properly recorded. The development is patrolled by a private security firm paid at least in part by the assessment. The development is govemed by the Whiteacre Homeowners' Association (HOA), which is made up of all the homeowners in the development. In 1960, the residents of Whiteacre stopped using the easement across Blackacre, and the HOA goveming board did not keep the road maintained. It is now in some state of disrepair. but still usable. In 1995, Abel conveyed Blackacre to Davis. The deed did not mention the easement. This year, Edward bought a lot in Whiteacre. His deed did not reference the CC&R's. Edward owns a Hummer SUV that can be driven off road, although he does not use it for that purpose. He parks it in his open carport. which is visible from the street. He also has a large gun collection, which he feels provides adequate security for his home; he therefore refuses to pay the $350 security charge, which he says he did not know about when he bought his property. Describe and explain the theories under which the HOA may require Edward to 1. stop parking his Hummer in such a way as to be visible from the street; 2. pay the security fee? **+*Do not discuss any issues related to easement***+ Real Propery Final Exam Ventura Spring 2014 (80%) Professor: Kaur Question # 2 Owen owned Blackacre. ln 2002, he drew up a will in which he left all of his prope(y, including Blackacre, to Alice. In 2005, he drew up a deed in proper form transferring Blackacre to his best friend Bob. The deed was signed and notarized. Owen handed the deed to Bob's business associate Ezra, telling him, "l'm giving Blackacre to Bob, but I want to live there until I die. Hold on to this deed and give it to Bob after I die." After Owen died in January 2006. Ezra gave the deed to Bob, who did not immediately record it. After his death, Owen's estate, including Blackacre, was distributed to Alice. Alice recorded her deed from Owen's estate in June 2006. ln 2007 , Alice sold Blackacre to Debra for $ I 50,000.00. Alice gave Debra a general warranty deed. Debra did not immediately record her deed. Before selling the property to Debra, Alice had been renting it to Rick by a month-to-month lease that provided that Rick had to vacate if Alice sold the property. Debra moved on to Blackacre and built a house. In June 2008, Debra sold Blackacre to Frank for $200,000 via a special warranty deed. Frank recorded his deed from Debra the next day, and immediately moved on to the property. Bob recorded his deed from Owen that Ezra had previously delivered to him in august 2008. In September 2008, Frank leamed that the Alice+o-Debra deed had never been recorded: he obtained that dead and recorded it in October 2008. Bob and Frank now each claim ownership of Blackacre. L Does Bob or Frank have the better claim to Blackacre? Discuss 2. Presuming Bob prevails, does Frank have any claim against either Debra or Alice under the warranty deeds? Discuss ANSWER ISSI.JE OUTLINE OUESTIONONE HOA v. Edward A. Requirements l. In order for the HOA to enforce the restrictions against Edward, there must either be a real covenant or an equitable servitude that runs with the land. a. Since Edward is not original promissor, burden must run with his parcel. b. Since HOA is not original promissee, benefit must run to it. 2. Both equitable servitudes and real covenants are interests in land. B. Is there a real covenant that runs with the land? l. Does the burden run with Edward's parcel? a, Writing (l) Since real covenant is an interest in land, it must satisfy Statute of Frauds-i.e., be in a writing signed by party to be charged. (2) Real covenant cannot be created by estoppel, prescription. or implication. (3) Here, the restriction is in the original CC&R's, which are referenced in the original deed. (4) Not necessary that original grantee sign deed, since his acceptance binds him. b. Intent (1) Original promissor and original promissee must intend that burden run. i. Ascertained from word in grant. ii. Here. states that CC&R's intended to run with land and bind successors, heirs, and assigns ofall pa(ies. iii. This is sufficient to indicate intent. c. Privity (1) Horizontal i. Relationship between original promissee (Charlie) and original promissor. ii. Courts require either grantor-grantee relationship or lessor-lessee. iii. Promise must be in deed/lease. iv. Here, promise in CC&R's, which were incorporated into original deeds. v. Therefore, horizontal privity exists. (2\ Vertical i. Relationship between original promissor (person who first bought lot) and person to be bound @dward). ii. Person to be bound must succeed to same estate as original promissor through sale or cift. iii. Here, presumably both original promissor and Edward have fee simple absolute. iv. Edward "Bought" property, so this is voluntary transfer. v. Therefore, vertical privity exists. d, Touch and concern burdened property (l) Negative covenant re cars i. Since this prevents E from using his property in a certain way, it is a negative covenant. ii. Negative covenant always touches and concems burdened property, since it makes it less valuable. (2) Covenant to pay for security. i. This is an affrmative covenant, since it requires E to do something. ii. Performance takes place off land (paying $ for security is equivalent to actually patrolling property oneself) iii. Will touch and concem if it both burdens ProPerty and makes it more valuable. iv. Arguably, having private security will benefit burdened property, since it makes it safer. v. Therefore. this covenant touches and concems. e. Notice ofcovenant. (l) E will contend that he has no notice because covenants were not in his deed. (2) But notice may be either actual, constructive (from public records), or inquiry. (3) Actual i. Covenants weren't in E's deed, and there's no indication that he otherwise actually knew of covenants. ii. Therefore no actual notice. (4) Inquiry i. Cars i) E may have noticed that there were no pickup trucks, etc. visible fiom street iD Arguably should have asked why iiD But it'siffy. ii. Security fee i) E may have noticed thal development had security patrol. ii) But no indication that he should have noticed that he had to pay for it. iiD On fte other hand, ifhe'd asked, he may have been told. (5) Constructive from Record. i. Original CC&R's recorded. ii. Original deeds (including one in E's direct chain of title recorded. iii. Therefore, E is on record notice. 2. Does the benefit run to HOA? a. As explained above, the covenant is in writing. b. Intent--as explained above, CCTR's state all parties and heirs, etc. to be bound. c. Privity a. Horizontal privity not required (but is present as explained above) b. Vertical privity: person enforcing covenant must have some interest in benefitted estate. c. Here HOA does not own any property. But other owners whose lots benefitted enforcine covenant. d. Touch and Concem: a. Must make benefifted parcel more valuable. b. Must analyze each promise separately. i. Cars: 1. Makes neighborhood seem tonier not to have pickups and RV's visible. 2. Might increase value to have neighborhood look nice. ii. Security payment: l' Homes more secure 2. People probably willing to pay more for secure homes. e. Notice not required. C. Is there an equitable servitude that runs with the land? (l ) Does the burden run? i. Writing satisSing SOF-yes as explained above ii. lntent- yes as explained above iii. Privity-neither horizontal nor vertical required for servitude to run iv. Touch and concem-see discussion above v. Notice-see discussion above (2) Does the benefit run? i. Intent- yes as explained above ii. No Privity required iii. Touch and concem-see discussion above iv. NO notice required. D. Which would HOA prefer? l. Violation of real covenant allows promissee to recover damages, and some courts allow injunctions. 2. Violation of equitable servitude allows injunction, which is usually preferable.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Anti-Lien: Another Security Interest in Land*
    The Anti-Lien: Another Security Interest in Land* Uriel Reichmant The law recognizes various security interests in land, which are de- signed to provide two distinct advantages over unsecured interests: the right to priority over general creditors in bankruptcy proceedings, and the right to satisfy the debt from a specified parcel of property. This article proposes recognition of an intermediate concept between secured and unsecured debt: an interest in land that secures to some extent the repayment of a debt, but does not possess the twin characteristics of full security interests. This interest in land, the "anti-lien,"1 is a preventive measure; the debtor's power of alienation and power to grant another security interest are suspended while the debt remains outstanding. The anti-lien creditor has no powers or rights other than this passive rem- edy; for all other purposes, he is treated as a simple debt creditor. The few cases that have dealt with contracts containing anti-lien re- strictions have limited the analysis to a narrow question: did the con- tract create an equitable lien (that possesses the characteristics of a traditional security interest) or merely a personal obligation? Framing the question in this way eliminated consideration of the anti-lien alter- native-an alternative that is potentially useful when a regular security interest is unavailable or economically impractical. This paper attempts to explain deficiencies in the application of the equitable lien analysis to the anti-lien situation and argues the case for the anti-lien concept. Just a decade ago, documents evidencing an anti-lien approach were widely used in California.
    [Show full text]
  • The Navigability Concept in the Civil and Common Law: Historical Development, Current Importance, and Some Doctrines That Don't Hold Water
    Florida State University Law Review Volume 3 Issue 4 Article 1 Fall 1975 The Navigability Concept in the Civil and Common Law: Historical Development, Current Importance, and Some Doctrines That Don't Hold Water Glenn J. MacGrady Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.law.fsu.edu/lr Part of the Admiralty Commons, and the Water Law Commons Recommended Citation Glenn J. MacGrady, The Navigability Concept in the Civil and Common Law: Historical Development, Current Importance, and Some Doctrines That Don't Hold Water, 3 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. 511 (1975) . https://ir.law.fsu.edu/lr/vol3/iss4/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Florida State University Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW VOLUME 3 FALL 1975 NUMBER 4 THE NAVIGABILITY CONCEPT IN THE CIVIL AND COMMON LAW: HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT, CURRENT IMPORTANCE, AND SOME DOCTRINES THAT DON'T HOLD WATER GLENN J. MACGRADY TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ---------------------------- . ...... ..... ......... 513 II. ROMAN LAW AND THE CIVIL LAW . ........... 515 A. Pre-Roman Legal Conceptions 515 B. Roman Law . .... .. ... 517 1. Rivers ------------------- 519 a. "Public" v. "Private" Rivers --- 519 b. Ownership of a River and Its Submerged Bed..--- 522 c. N avigable R ivers ..........................................- 528 2. Ownership of the Foreshore 530 C. Civil Law Countries: Spain and France--------- ------------- 534 1. Spanish Law----------- 536 2. French Law ----------------------------------------------------------------542 III. ENGLISH COMMON LAw ANTECEDENTS OF AMERICAN DOCTRINE -- --------------- 545 A.
    [Show full text]
  • Contracts Becomes in the Purchaser with Notice a Specific Duty to Perform the Covenant
    Sec. 3 PRIVATE ADJUSTMENTS S437 contracts becomes in the purchaser with notice a specific duty to perform the covenant. (2) The other theory explains the enforcement of restrictive equitable servitudes as an extension of the legal doctrine of negative easements to new situations. Few if any courts follow either the “contract” theory or the “property” theory of equitable servitudes consistently, but the general view that one takes of the theories may affect results. Thus, the fact that the English courts came not to apply Tulk to affirmative covenants and, as we shall see infra, p. S444, did not allow the benefit of equitable servitudes to be held in gross, may reflect [p*962] a “property” theory of equitable servitudes. In England, as we have seen supra, p. S418, the benefit of an easement may not be held in gross, and courts throughout the Anglo-American world have had difficulty with enforcing easements that compel the holder of the burdened land to do something. See note 3, supra. Other questions the answers to which might depend on whether one espoused a “contract” or a “property” theory of equitable servitudes are: (1) Is the original convenantor still bound on the contract after he or she has sold the land? (The original covenantor is bound as surety where the covenant is contained in a lease. See DKM3, p. 693. By and large, the original covenantor is not bound after he or she has conveyed away a fee estate. 2 A.L.P. § 9.18.) (2) What formalities must be followed in creating the covenant? (You will recall that the Statute of Frauds has different requirements for contracts concerning land and conveyances of interests in land.
    [Show full text]
  • The Law of Property
    THE LAW OF PROPERTY SUPPLEMENTAL READINGS Class 14 Professor Robert T. Farley, JD/LLM PROPERTY KEYED TO DUKEMINIER/KRIER/ALEXANDER/SCHILL SIXTH EDITION Calvin Massey Professor of Law, University of California, Hastings College of the Law The Emanuel Lo,w Outlines Series /\SPEN PUBLISHERS 76 Ninth Avenue, New York, NY 10011 http://lawschool.aspenpublishers.com 29 CHAPTER 2 FREEHOLD ESTATES ChapterScope -------------------­ This chapter examines the freehold estates - the various ways in which people can own land. Here are the most important points in this chapter. ■ The various freehold estates are contemporary adaptations of medieval ideas about land owner­ ship. Past notions, even when no longer relevant, persist but ought not do so. ■ Estates are rights to present possession of land. An estate in land is a legal construct, something apart fromthe land itself. Estates are abstract, figments of our legal imagination; land is real and tangible. An estate can, and does, travel from person to person, or change its nature or duration, while the landjust sits there, spinning calmly through space. ■ The fee simple absolute is the most important estate. The feesimple absolute is what we normally think of when we think of ownership. A fee simple absolute is capable of enduringforever though, obviously, no single owner of it will last so long. ■ Other estates endure for a lesser time than forever; they are either capable of expiring sooner or will definitely do so. ■ The life estate is a right to possession forthe life of some living person, usually (but not always) the owner of the life estate. It is sure to expire because none of us lives forever.
    [Show full text]
  • Question 5 Prior to 1975, Andy Owned Blackacre in Fee Simple Absolute. In
    Question 5 Prior to 1975, Andy owned Blackacre in fee simple absolute. In 1975, Andy by written deed conveyed Blackacre to Beth and Chris “jointly with right of survivorship.” The deed provides: “If Blackacre, or any portion of Blackacre, is transferred to a third party, either individually or jointly, by Beth or Chris, Andy shall have the right to immediately re-enter and repossess Blackacre.” In 1976, without the knowledge of Chris, Beth conveyed her interest in Blackacre to Frank. In 1977, Beth and Frank died in a car accident. Frank did not leave a will and his only living relative at the time of his death was his cousin Mona. In 1978, Chris and Andy learned that Beth had conveyed her interest in Blackacre to Frank. When Mona approached Chris a day later to discuss her interest in Blackacre, Chris told her that he was the sole owner of Blackacre and she had no interest in Blackacre. Chris posted “No Trespassing” signs on Blackacre. He also paid all of the expenses, insurance, and taxes on Blackacre. Andy and Mona have never taken any action against Chris’ possession of Blackacre. 1. What right, title, or interest in Blackacre, if any, did Andy initially convey to Beth, Chris, and himself? Discuss. 2. What right, title, or interest in Blackacre, if any, are held by Andy, Chris, and Mona? Discuss. 56 Answer A to Question 5 1. WHAT RIGHT, TITLE OR INTEREST IN BLACKACRE DID ANDY INITIALLY CONVEY TO BETH, CHRIS, AND HIMSELF? Andy owned Blackacre in fee simple absolute, which indicates absolute ownership and means he had the full right to convey Blackacre.
    [Show full text]
  • CONTRACTS MID-TERM EXAMINATION Santa Barbara/Ventura Colleges of Law Instructor: Craig Smith Fall 2013
    CONTRACTS MID-TERM EXAMINATION Santa Barbara/Ventura Colleges of Law Instructor: Craig Smith Fall 2013 QUESTION 1 Moe, the owner of Blackacre, a single-family home, told Curly that he wanted to sell Blackacre for $300,000. Curly said to Moe that he would try to find a purchaser if Moe would agree to pay him a commission of 6%, and Moe orally agreed. Curly is not a licensed real estate broker. Thereafter, without Curly’s knowledge, Moe and Larry entered into negotiations for the sale of Blackacre. Larry faxed to Moe a signed letter stating that he offered to buy Blackacre for $250,000 in cash to be paid at the closing to take place in 90 days. The letter described Blackacre by street address and dimensions. Moe responded by mailing a signed letter to Larry stating that he was refusing Larry’s offer but would agree to sell Blackacre to him for $275,000 on the same terms. Larry immediately responded by mailing a signed letter to Moe stating that he agreed to the higher price. Before Moe received that letter from Larry, Curly presented Moe with a proposed contract for the sale of Blackacre to another prospective buyer for $300,000. Moe immediately sent a letter by fax to Larry stating that he was no longer willing to sell him Blackacre. Larry received this letter before Moe received Larry’s letter agreeing to the higher price. Larry then called Moe to confirm his willingness to buy Blackacre for $275,000, but Moe said he was now unwilling to sell Blackacre to him.
    [Show full text]
  • Exhaustion and the Limits of Remote-Control Property
    Denver Law Review Volume 93 Issue 4 Symposium - Future World IP: Legal Article 7 Response to the Tech Revolution December 2020 Exhaustion and the Limits of Remote-Control Property Molly Shaffer Van Houweling Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/dlr Recommended Citation Molly Shaffer Van Houweling, Exhaustion and the Limits of Remote-Control Property, 93 Denv. L. Rev. 951 (2016). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ DU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Denver Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ DU. For more information, please contact [email protected],[email protected]. EXHAUSTION AND THE LIMITS OF REMOTE-CONTROL PROPERTY MOLLY SHAFFER VAN HOUWELING t ABSTRACT In this Article I argue that intellectual property (IP) exhaustion should be understood against the backdrop of a long history of skepti- cism toward what I call "remote-control" property rights. IP is not the only field of law that gives remote rights-holders the ability to constrain the behavior of other people to use things in their rightful possession. Tangible property law-in particular the law of servitudes-features similar mechanisms, but hems them in with doctrinal limitations. Look- ing to this body of law helps us more clearly to recognize remote-control property's benefits and costs and, thus, to articulate a rationale for IP exhaustion as a limitation on remote-control IP. At the same time, re- mote-control IP is special. Restrictions on the use of works of creativity and invention have implications for the promotion of progress of science and the useful arts.
    [Show full text]
  • Protecting Artistic Property with the Equitable Servitude Doctrine Thomas W
    Marquette Law Review Volume 46 Article 4 Issue 4 Spring 1963 Protecting Artistic Property With the Equitable Servitude Doctrine Thomas W. Bertz Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr Part of the Law Commons Repository Citation Thomas W. Bertz, Protecting Artistic Property With the Equitable Servitude Doctrine, 46 Marq. L. Rev. 430 (1963). Available at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr/vol46/iss4/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Marquette Law Review by an authorized administrator of Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. PROTECTING ARTISTIC PROPERTY WITH THE EQUITABLE SERVITUDE DOCTRINE* TiOMAS W. BERTZ** Law like nature abhors a vacuum. And if there be no law fostering and protecting the business interests of a growing segment of indus- try, the courts will readily adapt existing legal doctrines to meet the commercial needs of an industrial innovation. This principle of law has asserted itself repeatedly and the time may be ripe for it to assert itself again. The vacuum, so to speak, is the void in the law caused by the inadequate coverage of the Copyright Act; the filling force is the resurgence of the doctrine of equitable servitudes as applied to chattels. Although the doctrine has existed for over a century, the employ- ment of it to enforce restrictions placed upon personalty in the mer- cantile world has been judicially restrained. The infrequent use of the doctrine was caused by the courts' rejection of it as an enforceable equitable device and by their past refusal to give full recognition to it.
    [Show full text]
  • Continuous and Apparent Easement
    Continuous And Apparent Easement tristichicSickening Westleigh Spencer smilingsolaces, some his sleeving tracing soled removably! ballyrag uphill. Levon grangerizing imaginably. Imputable and He and continuous, our service provides information in various types of dismemberments of setbacks and her. Article 615 Easements may be continuous or discontinuous apparent or nonapparent Continuous easements are deficient the order of which discourage or. Any pet who is not wish to contribute may exempt loan by renouncing the easement for the below of the others. Easements Neighborhood and daily of way Notaries of France. An apparent by continuing to establish in no feasible method of lands are there was retained an office or impliedly granted for instance, listing all three descriptions referred to. Fourthly, maintain, represent the petitioner to inquire is the relatives of Maria Florentino as evidence when she died. Can he was held to meet this type is apparent sign, whose use may be found on private use made apparent easement? Purchasers of severance; minority require help they benefit of dominant tenement from being interests in determining implication, if your profile web property interest in efficiently handling varied. British Columbia, which service became really true easement upon which death. 192 the court observed that An easement is harsh if its existence is indicated by signs which might be seen him known right a careful inspection by an person ordinarily conversant with human subject The award further observed that A continuous or apparent easement is either a curtain or enjoyed by means declare a fixture. When necessity are necessary to determine whether a declaratory judgment, or necessary for excessive use requirements of aqueduct for.
    [Show full text]
  • 1. Blackacre and Greenacre May Constitute Bonnie and Wally's Homestead Property
    Q6 - July 2017 - Selected Answer 1 6) 1. Blackacre and Greenacre may constitute Bonnie and Wally's homestead property. The issue is whether two tracts of noncontiguous tracts of land may qualify as a rural homestead. Under Texas Law, a family may have an urban or rural homestead. An urban homestead exists where up to 10 contiguous acres within the city limits, or platted subdivision are used as a primary residence, are provided police and volunteer or paid fire protection, and at least three of the following services: water, natural gas, electricity, sewer, storm sewer. A homestead that does not qualify as urban is considered rural. A family may hold up to 200 non contiguous acres as a rural homestead. Here, Bonnie and Wally built a home on Blackacre, and Bonnie later inherited Greenacre which was a tract of land nearby and in the same county. Together, the tracts equal 125 acres and would be within the alloted amount for a rural homestead. So long as Bonnie and Wally maintain their primary residence on a part of the non-contiguous acres, the entirety of both tracts may be held as homestead where the land is used for the support of the family. 2. No, Big Oil's oil and gas lease is not valid. The issue is whether Wally had the right to, and did, validly grant an oil and gas lease to the covering Blackacre without Bonnie joined. Bonnie and Wally are married and they purchased Blackacre and built there home on it. If Blackacre is a homestead, both parties would have to be on an instrument conveying the property.
    [Show full text]
  • Governing Water: the Semicommons of Fluid Property Rights
    GOVERNING WATER: THE SEMICOMMONS OF FLUID PROPERTY RIGHTS Henry E. Smith* This Article applies an information-cost theory of property to water law. Because of its fluidity, exclusion is difficult in the case of water and gives way to rule of proper use, i.e., governance regimes. Looking at water through this lens reveals that prior appropriation employs more governance and riparianism rests more on a foundation of exclusion than is commonly thought. The development of increasing amounts of exclusion and governance are both compatible with a broadly Demsetzian account that is sensitive to the nature of the resource. Moreover, hybrids between prior appropriation and riparianism are not anomalous. Exclusion strategies based on boundaries and quantification allow for rights to be formal and modular, but this approach is particularly challenging in the case of water and other fugitive resources. The challenges of exclusion that water and other fugitive resources present often lead to a semicommons in which elements of private and common property both coexist and interact. INTRODUCTION Water is a fugitive resource that is expected to fulfill many human needs, including drinking and household uses, raising farm animals, irrigation, mining, power, manufacturing, sewage, navigation, wildlife, recreation, aesthetic, and environmental values. Some of these uses require withdrawals of water, some involve discharges into water, and others presuppose some quantity of water left in place. To serve all these ends, many parties require access to water, and at the same time water itself moves easily and replenishes partially (and not completely predictably) as part of the hydrologic cycle. Given the heterogeneity of uses, the costliness of measuring and monitoring them, and the difficulties in predicting flows of water from year to year, water is among the most challenging of resources from the point of view of property law.
    [Show full text]
  • Blackacre Sydney University Law Society Annual Yearbook 2017
    Blackacre Sydney University Law Society Annual Yearbook 2017 Editor-in-Chief Ryan Hunter Editors Elizabeth Kim Beverly Parungao Anoushka William Illustrations & Cover Dora Cheung SULS Publications Director Emily Shen Contributions by Rachael Buckland Rohan Barmanray John Fennel Alyssa Glass Gaston Gration Jenna Ying Lim Helena Liu Tanvi Patel Alexi Polden Rachel Stokker Calida Tang Mary Ward Elaine Yeo Generous Anonymous Authors & SULS’ Many Many Photographers Blackacre is made possible by the efforts of a small group of Sydney Law School Students, and published under the auspices of the Sydney University Law Society and the University of Sydney Union. The opinions expressed in individual articles of Blackacre belong to their authors. If you are unhappy with any of the material in Blackacre please refer to the editors’ lack of salary and your lack of humour. Blackacre is published on the land of the Gadigal people of the Eora nation. Blackacre acknowledges those people as the traditional owners and custodians of this land, sovereignty to which was never ceded. Welcome to Blackacre; Farewell to 2017 As another year comes to a close, and another graduating class Journal called us in 2013 at the height of the infamous prepares to pass out of our care into the wide world beyond “Corporate Law Exam Fire Alarm Incident”). I have found our sandstone walls, I usually experience a mixture of relief myself embroiled in quite a few of these kinds of incidents and sadness. Relief to see another year survived; sadness to during my time as Dean of this illustrious law school, and they see the familiar faces of the graduating cohort disappear, off to have taught me a number of things.
    [Show full text]