DOCSLIB.ORG

Original Title to Personal and Real Property

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Original Title to Personal and Real Property ORIGINAL TITLE TO PERSONAL AND REAL PROPERTY ASSIGNMENT #1 - LAND - Primacy - First in time, first in right - Externalities - negative effects on third parties due to transactions between two other parties - Commodification - converting anything people are willing to sell/buy into a “property” - Main premise of private property: exclusivity and transferability - Maximizes incentive to buy and allows obtainability by the person who values it most - Limitations on land owner’s freedoms: taxation, nuisances, zoning, eminent domain - Socio-political considerations - altering and refining social and political relationships - Using government/state power to protect interest minimizes personal spending on security Johnson v. McIntosh - Supp #1 - FITFIR only applies when “root of title” is from a valid source - an accepted government - Culturally contingent nature of legal concept - Indians not deemed to be in possession - “Progress” was reason for expansion, takeover improves society, efficiency of land use ASSIGNMENT #2 - TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY - Actual Possession - physically possessing the object (ex. Holding dead fox) - Constructive Possession - legal fiction (ex. Mortally wounded fox still on ground) I. Wild Animals (ferae naturae) - includes minerals A. Pierson v. Post - Ownership defined by two part “capture rule”: 1. Depriving of its natural liberty (kill, mortally wound, or trap) 2. Intent to appropriate B. Ownership ends when animal escapes, is released, OR chase is abandoned, EXCEPT: 1. Tamed animal that has habit of returning is still owned 2. Animal is not in its natural environment (ex. Tiger on Franklin St) C. Positive aspects: 1. Provides bright-line test - avoids confusion in courts 2. Promotes efficient hunting of “noxious” beasts - must kill to possess 3. Rewarding labor - mixing labor of killing the beast grants ownership D. Negative aspects 1. Overcapitalization - hunters buying better guns, better dogs - too costly 2. Overexploitation - killing everything in sight to gain possession 3. Discouraging activity - hunters won’t hunt if someone can sneak in and kill 4. Not rewarding labor - person doing all the hunting losing at end - atypical E. Landowner’s rights 1. Landowner has no rights to wild animal on his land, HOWEVER 2. Trespassing laws grants exclusive right to capture on own land - post notice II. Fugitive Resources - Oil, Gas, Water A. Minerals (oil/gas) treated mainly as ferae naturae (wild) - not owned until extracted 1. Hammonds - no trespass if gas in natural state under property b/c no possession B. Water 1. Western states - “prior appropriation” - FITFIR if reasonable/beneficial use 2. Eastern states - “riparian rights” - owning land by water gives right to water III. Common law forms of action A. Trespass - money for D’s direct interference with P’s actual poss of land/chattels B. Trespass on the case - money for D’s indirect inter. due to D wrongful act C. Trover - recover the monetary value of an object wrongfully taken – effectively sold D. Replevin - recover the possession of chattels wrongfully taken E. Ejectment - recover the possession of real property wrongfully taken F. Conversion - action against someone treating your property as their own - Differences between conversion and trespass to chattels: - Conversion damages equal value of the chattel - Trespass to chattels damages equal harm caused to plaintiff - Trespass to chattels must interfere with P’s actual possession IV. Other Notes - Must consider application of customs (ex. 300 tons of mussels is not “recreational”) - Granting trover is comparable to selling property - D gets ownership that P had before ASSIGNMENT #3 - Finders, Bailments, and Accessions I. Finders A. Four categories of “found” property: 1. Abandoned - owner intends to lose ownership - must act to show this 2. Lost - unintentionally parts with property and doesn’t know where 3. Mislaid - mistakenly places and fails/forgets to reclaim 4. Treasure Trove - Gold, silver, etc intentionally placed in secret location in past B. Rights of Finder - title is relative to the parties 1. Finder of lost property gains right to possession, UNLESS: - Property acquired illegally typically not retained by finder - If in soil or on private property goes to landowner (not if treasure trove) - Sometimes not true if landowner was unaware or not occupying 2. Finder of abandoned property becomes owner even over TO 3. Finder of mislaid typically awarded to location found - Helps TO locate the mislaid property easier 4. Finder of treasure trove typically given to finder if not trespassing 5. Statutes often dissolve differences between lost, mislaid, and abandoned - Public place finder has ownership if they report and TO doesn’t claim - Sometimes TO must give a reward to finder 6. Intangible property escheats to state if not claimed w/in certain time (dividend) 7. Shipwrecks governed by federal statute and law of salvage – Finders handout 8. Native American artifacts are typically awarded to the tribe C. Additional Notes 1. Claim based on relativity of title - who of parties has greater possession 2. Jus tertii - rights of third party - no defense for a claim of possession - D saying P has no possession because TO does it meaningless II. Bailments - Bailment is delivery of possession of personal property to another w/out title transfer - Public accommodations typically strictly liable for loss/theft (ex. Hotel, comm carrier) - Gratuitous bailees taking care for free held to very low standard (ex. Finder of goods) - Statutes limit liability of innkeepers requiring guest notice or maximum liability - General principle is reasonableness as bailment is typically contractual III. Accession and Fixtures - Law of Accessions - Converting property and adding signif value or changing property - Physical ID Rule - physical properties fundamentally changed (ex. Wine from grapes) - Relative Value Rule - who contributed most to value and what is fair - Only valid if good faith conversion - bad faith conversion usually denies accession - If transferring title to good faith converter, original owner entitled to damage for loss - Fixtures - Personal property becoming fixed to real property treated as real property - Ex. Light fixtures when selling house, crops still connected to land CREATION OF NEW PROPERTY RIGHTS ASSIGNMENT #4 - Intangible Personal Property/Natural Resources Alliance Against IFQs v. Brown - Supp #7 - Creating fishing permits for rights to fish off Alaskan waters - Creation of a property interest by administrative body - granted power by legis - Property interest basic characteristics: Right to (1) possess (2) use (3) exclude (4) transfer - If no regulation: - Incentive to capture as much as possible - will deplete population - Lower population leads to higher demand and price - more fisherman, more boats - Incentive to purchase best equipment possible - overcapitalization Property = Bundle of Sticks - Metaphor that property is an aggregate of various rights in the thing - Owner may “unbundle” these parts and distribute to others - A thing may be owned by more than one person - each co-owner thus having limited rights - Property is not itself physical - derives from government’s ability/commitment to protect it - Property is a legal construct - relations among persons with regard to something of value ASSIGNMENT #5 - Ideas and Persona Joyce v. General Motors - pg. 95 - Based on traditional common law rule of ideas - Ideas are free and not protected until doing what society deems necessary to gain as property - Reasoning: to encourage competition, commerce, avoid monopoly, low cost options - If a patent, copyright, or trademark is given by authoritative figure (congress) idea protected - Intellectual Property - tension between encouraging innovation and promoting competition - Copyrights protect the particular manner an idea is expressed - not the idea itself - Trademarks are used to identify the source of a particular product - incentive for quality I. Right of Privacy A. Intrusion upon one’s seclusion or solitude B. Public disclosure of embarrassing private facts C. Publicity which places one in a false light D. Appropriation of one’s name or likeness - Right of Publicity II. Right of Publicity A. Statutory example (California) 1. Knowingly 2. Name or likeness - context not taken into account (photo, signature, voice) 3. In any manner or purpose 4. Purposes of advertising/selling 5. No prior consent 6. Injury ($$) B. Common law example (California) 1. Identity - context (Bette Midler sound alike voice) 2. To another’s advantage 3. No prior consent 4. Injury C. Policy Consideration for creating 1. Time invested in identity - unfair for others to profit on your work D. Defenses 1. Lanham Act - no likelihood of confusion 2. 1st Amendment/Parody - not if used as “commercial speech” 3. Right of privacy denied once you become a public figure - public interest Smith v. Doss - Handout (Cross and Vail) - No privacy where: public character, dissemination of news/events, public interest/benefit Carson v. Portable Toilets - Handout (Cross and Vail) - Phrase “Here’s Johnny” used to market another company’s product without consent - Likelihood of confusion only if public believes brand is approved by owner (Carson) - Based on - strength of brand, related goods, intent, marketing, possible expansion, etc. - Identity may be exploited even without name or picture - common law right of publicity - Motschenbacher v. RJR - picture of distinctive race car violation of driver’s ROPub - Ali v. Playgirl
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Rehabilitating Repugnancy? Preserving That Piece of Medieval Lumber
    REHABILITATING REPUGNANCY? PRESERVING THAT PIECE OF MEDIEVAL LUMBER SCOTT GRATTAN* This article examines restraints on alienation imposed by the grantor as a condition in the transfer of property to the grantee (rather than contractual restraints subsequently entered into by an owner). It considers whether the doctrine of repugnancy has any useful part to play in testing the validity of such restraints in light of Glanville Williams’ criticism of the doctrine as ‘pseudo-logical’ and lacking utility. Examining the numerus clausus principle and Australian, English and (certain) American cases in which the doctrine has been addressed, the article argues that a wholesale rejection of repugnancy is unwarranted. First, some version of the repugnancy doctrine is necessarily required as part and parcel of distinguishing between various forms of proprietary (and non- proprietary) interests. Second, the courts continue to apply the repugnancy doctrine in distinguishing between determinable interests and those defeasible by condition subs- equent when ascertaining the validity of a condition that operates upon a purported alienation or bankruptcy. Finally, it may be seen that testing restraints by reasonableness and policy alone, without recourse to repugnancy, can produce problematic results. The doctrine of repugnancy cannot, therefore, simply be dismissed as a mere historical relic. CONTENTS I Introduction .............................................................................................................. 922 II The Context: Restraints
    [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]
  • Get a Glossary of Terms Used in the Title Industry
    GLOSSARY A Abstract Plant – A geographically arranged abstract plant, currently kept to date, that is adequate for use in insuring titles, so as to provide for the safety and protection of the policyholders. An abstract plant as further defined in Rule P-12 and as further provided for in the Insurance Code, Chapter 2501.003 and Chapter 2502, must include an abstract plant for each county in which a title insurance agent or direct operation maintains an office. Abstract of Title - A compilation of all the recorded documents relating to a parcel of land. Usually kept by the land owner and used as the basis for an attorney as to the condition of title. Still in use in some states, and in some areas of Texas, but mostly replaced by issuance of title insurance. Abstract of Judgment – A lien created by a statutory filing of a court judgment in the real property records. This lien, commonly referred to as an AJ (in Texas), attaches to all non- exempt real property of the person or entity that the judgment was against. Acceleration Clause (in a mortgage) – Specifies conditions under which the lender may advance the time when the entire debt which is secured by the mortgage becomes due. For example, most mortgages contain provisions that the note shall become due immediately upon the sale of the securing land without the lender's consent or upon failure of the landowner to pay an installment when due. Access – The right to enter and leave a tract of land from a public way. Can include the right to enter and leave over the lands of another.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Civil Law Property - the Law of Treasure and Lost Things Gerald L
    Louisiana Law Review Volume 20 | Number 4 June 1960 Civil Law Property - The Law of Treasure and Lost Things Gerald L. Walter Jr. Repository Citation Gerald L. Walter Jr., Civil Law Property - The Law of Treasure and Lost Things, 20 La. L. Rev. (1960) Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/lalrev/vol20/iss4/9 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews and Journals at LSU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Louisiana Law Review by an authorized editor of LSU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Notes CIVIL LAW PROPERTY-THE LAW OF TREASURE AND LOST THINGS Upon the death of the decedent her heirs were placed in pos- session of her estate. In disposing of the estate the heirs,sid decedent's mattress to the vendee-claimants for two dollars, and fifty cents. The mattress was delivered to a mattress factory for renovation. In the process of renovation the cotton contents, when subjected to a blast of air, yielded several thousand dollars in gold certificates. The mattress company made no claim, for the certificates. The United States brought an interpleader, 1 claiming the certificates but agreeing to pay the rightful owner their face value. The vendees claimed ownership of the certifi- cates by virtue of Article 34232 of the Louisiana Civil Code, con- tending that the certificates were treasure and that therefore ownership vested in them as finders. 3 The heirs, in asserting their right to the certificates, relied on Article 3422, 4 contending that the certificates were lost property and as such should be returned to them.
    [Show full text]
  • UNDERSTANDING INDEFEASIBILITY UNDER the VICTORIAN TRANSFER of LAND ACT by BERNARD O'brien*
    UNDERSTANDING INDEFEASIBILITY UNDER THE VICTORIAN TRANSFER OF LAND ACT By BERNARD O'BRIEN* INTRODUCTION The central concept in Torrens system legislation is the principle of indefeasibility. It is commonly thought that once a title is recorded on the register, not only is the title created by the act of registration, but upon registration the statute will guarantee the validity of that title and confer upon it an immunity from any attack. Whilst it seems to be universally acknowledged that indefeasibility will result from the registration of title, controversy nonetheless exists as to when indefeasibility will attach to a registered title. The line of battle is drawn between those who favour the view of immediate indefeasibility and those who prefer the concept of deferred indefeasibility. It is dubious whether the various protagonists in this debate can be all grouped behind such simple labels. For instance, the deferred indefeasibility camp in turn divides according to two basically different approaches. There are those who rest their case on the basis that the registration of a void instrument cannot confer an indefeasible title in favour of the registrant even when that person is a bona fide purchaser for value.1 Alternatively, there are those who place paramount importance on s.43 of the Transfer of Land Act 1958 as being fundamental to the statutory scheme of indefeasibility.2 That section can be briefly described as providing that when a transferee of a registered proprietor deals with the registered proprietor he shall be relieved of the requirements of notice. The proponents of this view argue that this provision implies that indefeasibility only attaches to those titles which have been registered by a person who has acquired his title and entered the transaction on the faith of the register.
    [Show full text]
  • REAL ESTATE LAW LESSON 1 OWNERSHIP RIGHTS (IN PROPERTY) Real Estate Law Outline LESSON 1 Pg
    REAL ESTATE LAW LESSON 1 OWNERSHIP RIGHTS (IN PROPERTY) Real Estate Law Outline LESSON 1 Pg Ownership Rights (In Property) 3 Real vs Personal Property 5 . Personal Property 5 . Real Property 6 . Components of Real Property 6 . Subsurface Rights 6 . Air Rights 6 . Improvements 7 . Fixtures 7 The Four Tests of Intention 7 Manner of Attachment 7 Adaptation of the Object 8 Existence of an Agreement 8 Relationships of the Parties 8 Ownership of Plants and Trees 9 Severance 9 Water Rights 9 Appurtenances 10 Interest in Land 11 Estates in Land 11 Allodial System 11 Kinds of Estates 12 Freehold Estates 12 Fee Simple Absolute 12 Defeasible Fee 13 Fee Simple Determinable 13 Fee Simple Subject to Condition Subsequent 14 Fee Simple Subject to Condition Precedent 14 Fee Simple Subject to an Executory Limitation 15 Fee Tail 15 Life Estates 16 Legal Life Estates 17 Homestead Protection 17 Non-Freehold Estates 18 Estates for Years 19 Periodic Estate 19 Estates at Will 19 Estate at Sufferance 19 Common Law and Statutory Law 19 Copyright by Tony Portararo REV. 08-2014 1 REAL ESTATE LAW LESSON 1 OWNERSHIP RIGHTS (IN PROPERTY) Types of Ownership 20 Sole Ownership (An Estate in Severalty) 20 Partnerships 21 General Partnerships 21 Limited Partnerships 21 Joint Ventures 22 Syndications 22 Corporations 22 Concurrent Ownership 23 Tenants in Common 23 Joint Tenancy 24 Tenancy by the Entirety 25 Community Property 26 Trusts 26 Real Estate Investment Trusts 27 Intervivos and Testamentary Trusts 27 Land Trust 27 TEST ONE 29 TEST TWO (ANNOTATED) 39 Copyright by Tony Portararo REV.
    [Show full text]
  • Assignment Or Subletting?
    MERCER LAW REVIEW [Vol. II ASSIGNMENT OR SUBLETTING? In an article of this short length it would be futile to at- tempt a reconciliation of the decisions relating to the question posed by the title in transactions whereby a lessee has transferred his interest in a lease. The writer will in the main discuss a few of the decisions dealing with the question in Georgia. Furthermore, as a necessary incident to the problem of assignments and sublettings, some men- tion will be made of the effect Code§§ 6I-ioi et seq. and 85- 8oi et seq. have on transactions involving assignments and sublettings, and the importance of determining which section is applicable to a particular situation. However, at the out- set, a brief summary of the general law might prove heplful. The general principle as held by all the authorities is that, where the lessee transfers his whole interest in his lease, without reserving to himself a reversion therein, a privity of estate is at once established between the transferee and the original landlord, and the latter then has a right of action directly against the assignee on the covenants running with the land; but if the lessee transfers the premises re- serving or retaining any reversion, however small, the privity of estate between the transferee and the original lessor is not established and the latter has no right of action against the former, there being neither privity of estate nor privity of contract between them.' Reading the decisions on this particular phase of the law emphasizes the fact that a great deal of confusion can arise in the application of prin- ciples so apparently clear and unambiguous on their face.
    [Show full text]
  • Property--Restraint on Alienation
    Volume 67 Issue 1 Article 12 December 1964 Property--Restraint on Alienation Charles Edward Barnett West Virginia University College of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/wvlr Part of the Property Law and Real Estate Commons Recommended Citation Charles E. Barnett, Property--Restraint on Alienation, 67 W. Va. L. Rev. (1964). Available at: https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/wvlr/vol67/iss1/12 This Case Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the WVU College of Law at The Research Repository @ WVU. It has been accepted for inclusion in West Virginia Law Review by an authorized editor of The Research Repository @ WVU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Barnett: Property--Restraint on Alienation 1964] CASE COMMENTS A contrary result may be reached where the elements of an estoppel are present. Simmons v. Simmons, 203 Ark. 566, 158 S.W.2d 42 (1942); Huffman v. Hatcher, 178 Ky. 8, 198 S.W. 236 (1917). The cases involving a change which increases the amount of prop- erty conveyed present few problems, and, as evidenced by the principal case, can be decided correctly without even considering other fact situations. However, a statement purporting to give the law concerning the effect of a change by the parties should be applicable to changes that propose to decrease as well as to those that increase the grantee's estate. In considering situations in which the parties to an excuted deed have changed its terms upon agree- ment, the following rule controls: The delivery of what is in effect a new deed can not reduce the size of a grant already completed.
    [Show full text]
  • A Legislative Proposal to Regulate Timesharing Agreements in Iraq Al-Al
    Bangor University DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Modernising Iraq: A Legislative Proposal to Regulate Timesharing Agreements in Iraq Al-Ali, Dhurgham Award date: 2017 Awarding institution: Bangor University Link to publication General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal ? Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Download date: 07. Oct. 2021 Modernising Iraq: A Legislative Proposal to Regulate Timesharing Agreements in Iraq By Dhurgham Fadhil Hussein Al-Ali, LLB, LLM (Iraq) A thesis submitted to the University of Bangor, School of Law in fulfilment of the requirements for the award of degree of Doctor of Philosophy July 2017 Abstract This thesis seeks to provide the Iraqi legislature with a proposal to regulate the timesharing industry in Iraq. The aim of the primary research question of the thesis is to ascertain what features of legal regimes for timeshare are likely to provide the optimal system of a timeshare operation in any jurisdiction, from which a legislative proposal for Iraq will be suggested.
    [Show full text]
  • Treasure Trove May 2021
    Treasure Trove may 2021 This ediTion: officer’s desk reference The LeGaL sTaTUs and TaX cLassificaTion of canadian coUnciLs The forUm Lock iT Up – secUre passwords home secUriTy oTher pUbLicaTions indeX (arTicLes of inTeresT in pasT newsLeTTers) worThy coUnciL financiaL secreTaries & TreasUrers welcome to theTreasure Trove. It is dedicated to all Council Financial Secretaries & Treasurers but shared with the Council Grand Knight and all District Deputies. You may share this with anyone in your Council, but it relates strictly to your responsibilities in the Council. It is designed to provide Financial and other information on the Rules and Laws of our Order. Remember…it is your responsibility to ensure that the Council Executive knows, understands, and follows these Laws and Rules. The LeGaL sTaTUs and TaX cLassificaTion of canadian coUnciLs A local Knights of Columbus / Chevaliers de Colomb Council in Canada is an unincorporated association, chartered by the Supreme Council. For purposes of Canadian tax law, it is considered to be a tax-exempt non-profit organization. It is not a registered charity. The legal classification … An unincorporated association is defined as a group of individuals working together for a common purpose. An unincorporated association is not legally separate and distinct from 2 the members of the association, which means that the Council lacks legal status for certain purposes. For example, it may not hold real property in its own name. The tax status … A Council qualifies as a tax-exempt non-profit organization (NPO) under the Canadian Income Tax Act. See paragraph 149(1)(l) of the Act. That means that it is exempt from taxes for all or part of its income, provided that no portion of the Council’s income is payable to or available for the personal benefit of a Council member.
    [Show full text]
  • Florida Sea Grant College Program Use of Future Interests in Land As A
    Florida Sea Grant College Program Building 803 McCarty Drive A statewide university program for P O Box 110400 Coastal Research, Education & Extension Gainesville, FL 32611-0400 U.S.A. (352) 392-5870 FAX (352) 392-5113 [email protected] www.flseagrant.org Use of Future Interests in Land as a Sea-Level Rise Adaptation Strategy in Florida By: Thomas Ruppert, Esq.1 In a 2011 paper, James Titus of the U.S. EPA spends considerable time discussing the potential for the use of defeasible estates and future interests in land as potential tools for adaptation to sea-level rise (SLR). Defeasible estates and future interests in land—such as a fee simple determinable and fee simple subject to a condition subsequent—offer many potential strengths as tools for adaptation to SLR. As Titus indicates, for example, a fee simple determinable would allow a developer (D) to grant land to a buyer (B) “for so long as B does not attempt to armor the shoreline.” D thus has a possibility of reverter should B seek to protect B’s property from SLR via use of armoring. In theory this is an excellent idea as it would allow maximum use of land and would only impact B once SLR or erosion reaches a point that construction on the land is at the water-land interface and negatively impacting the coastal system—one of the harms that regulation often seeks to avoid. In reality in Florida, the situation presents more difficulties. Titus’ discussion mostly involves a generalized version of the common law of property.
    [Show full text]