DOCSLIB.ORG

The Moral Paradox of Adverse Possession: Sovereignty and Revolution in Property Law Larissa Katz

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Moral Paradox of Adverse Possession: Sovereignty and Revolution in Property Law Larissa Katz Document generated on 10/01/2021 12:15 p.m. McGill Law Journal Revue de droit de McGill The Moral Paradox of Adverse Possession: Sovereignty and Revolution in Property Law Larissa Katz Volume 55, Number 1, March 2010 Article abstract On what grounds can we justify the transformation of squatters into owners? URI: https://id.erudit.org/iderudit/039836ar To understand the moral significance of adverse possession, the author DOI: https://doi.org/10.7202/039836ar proposes an analogy. Much of the moral analysis of adverse possession has proceeded on the basis that adverse possessors are land thieves. The author See table of contents first explains why the analogy of adverse possessor to land thief is misleading. Then, she argues that there is a much closer analogy between adverse possession and revolution or, more precisely, a bloodless coup d’état. The Publisher(s) recognition of the adverse possessor’s (private) authority solves the moral problem created by an agendaless object just as the recognition of the existing McGill Law Journal / Revue de droit de McGill government’s (public) authority, whatever its origin, solves the moral problem of a stateless people. The morality of adverse possession, seen this way, does ISSN not turn on any particularized evaluation of the squatter’s deserts or her uses of the land. The author thus does not propose that adverse possession is 0024-9041 (print) justified in the same way that some argue a conscientious revolutionary is 1920-6356 (digital) justified in resisting an oppressive or otherwise unjust sovereign. Rather, the morality of adverse possession is found where we might least expect it: in its Explore this journal positivist strategy of ratifying the claims to authority of a squatter without regard to the substantive merits of her agenda or her personal virtue. Cite this article Katz, L. (2010). The Moral Paradox of Adverse Possession: Sovereignty and Revolution in Property Law. McGill Law Journal / Revue de droit de McGill, 55(1), 47–80. https://doi.org/10.7202/039836ar Copyright © Larissa Katz, 2010 This document is protected by copyright law. Use of the services of Érudit (including reproduction) is subject to its terms and conditions, which can be viewed online. https://apropos.erudit.org/en/users/policy-on-use/ This article is disseminated and preserved by Érudit. Érudit is a non-profit inter-university consortium of the Université de Montréal, Université Laval, and the Université du Québec à Montréal. Its mission is to promote and disseminate research. https://www.erudit.org/en/ McGill Law Journal ~ Revue de droit de McGill THE MORAL PARADOX OF ADVERSE POSSESSION: SOVEREIGNTY AND REVOLUTION IN PROPERTY LAW Larissa Katz* On what grounds can we justify the trans- Quelle justification peut-on offrir pour formation of squatters into owners? To under- transformer des squatteurs en propriétaires ? stand the moral significance of adverse posses- L’auteure propose une analogie pour sion, the author proposes an analogy. Much of comprendre l’importance morale de la the moral analysis of adverse possession has possession adversative. Elle explique d’abord proceeded on the basis that adverse possessors pourquoi l’analogie entre possesseurs are land thieves. The author first explains why adversatifs et voleurs de terre, qui sert souvent the analogy of adverse possessor to land thief is de prémisse à l’évaluation morale de la misleading. Then, she argues that there is a possession adversative, est trompeuse. Elle much closer analogy between adverse posses- soutient ensuite qu’une bien meilleure analogie sion and revolution or, more precisely, a blood- existe entre la possession adversative et une less coup d’état. The recognition of the adverse révolution ou, plutôt, un coup d’État sans possessor’s (private) authority solves the moral effusion de sang. Le problème posé par la chose problem created by an agendaless object just as sans objet est résolu par la reconnaissance de the recognition of the existing government’s l’autorité (privée) du possesseur adversatif sur (public) authority, whatever its origin, solves ladite chose, tout comme le problème moral the moral problem of a stateless people. The posé par un peuple sans État est résolu par la morality of adverse possession, seen this way, reconnaissance de l’autorité (publique) du does not turn on any particularized evaluation gouvernement présent. De ce point de vue, la of the squatter’s deserts or her uses of the land. moralité de la possession adversative ne dépend The author thus does not propose that adverse pas des mérites du squatteur, ni de l’usage qu’il possession is justified in the same way that fait du terrain. Ainsi, l’auteure ne suggère pas some argue a conscientious revolutionary is jus- de justifier le possesseur adversatif comme tified in resisting an oppressive or otherwise un- certains justifient le révolutionnaire just sovereign. Rather, the morality of adverse consciencieux parce qu’il résiste à un régime possession is found where we might least expect abusif ou injuste. La moralité de la possession it: in its positivist strategy of ratifying the adversative se trouve plutôt là où l’on s’y attend claims to authority of a squatter without regard le moins : dans la stratégie positiviste de to the substantive merits of her agenda or her ratification des revendications d’autorité du personal virtue. squatteur sans égard ni aux mérites de ses objectifs, ni à sa vertu personnelle. * Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, Queen’s University. I am indebted to Eduardo Penȅalver, Michael Pratt, Arthur Ripstein, Malcolm Thorburn, and reviewers at the McGill Law Journal for their excellent comments and suggestions. I am grateful to Christine Ashbourne for research assistance. Larissa Katz 2010 Citation: (2010) 55 McGill L.J. 47 ~ Référence : (2010) 55 R.D. McGill 47 48 (2010) 55 MCGILL LAW JOURNAL ~ REVUE DE DROIT DE MCGILL Introduction 49 I. Three Models of Adverse Possession 52 A. A Proceduralist Approach 52 B. A Legal Moralist Approach 60 C. An Inconsistent Use Model 63 II. Revolution and Rehabilitation 72 A. Justifying Adverse Possession 75 B. Imperfect States, Imperfect Owners 78 Conclusion 80 THE MORAL PARADOX OF ADVERSE POSSESSION 49 Introduction Property law is remarkably stable over time. Innovations in the form and content of ownership, for instance, are few and slow to catch on.1 But that is not to say that property law, through its long history, has produced a clear and unequivocal understanding of what these fundamental con- cepts are. The idea of ownership around which the law of property is or- ganized is itself a subject of controversy.2 Adverse possession is one aspect of property law that is caught in this controversy over the nature of ownership. Our idea of ownership influ- ences how we answer basic questions about what it takes to succeed as an adverse possessor as well as more complicated questions about the moral- ity of adverse possession. Seen one way, the law of adverse possession produces a radical transformation in the position of squatters pre– and post–limitation period, in some cases turning land thieves into owners. This approach, which I associate with the majority of American jurisdic- tions, sees adverse possession as morally paradoxical and so invites re- strictions on deliberate squatting.3 Seen another way, the law of adverse possession concerns not the ac- quisition of new ownership rights by the squatter, but rather the extinc- tion of the original owner’s superior right to possess due to her own inac- tion.4 The squatter, on this view, does not acquire a new kind of right but is successful by default. This approach, found in current English law, downplays the radical change in the squatter’s position pre– and post– limitation period, thus avoiding some of the appearance of a moral para- dox. But at the same time, the English approach ignores important con- ceptual differences between owner and possessor, treating them both simply as holders of rights to possess of differing strengths. 1 See e.g. Eduardo Peñalver & Sonia K. Katyal, “Property Outlaws” (2007) 155 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1095 at 1133. Cf. Lee Anne Fennell, “Homeownership 2.0” (2008) 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1047 (proposing changes to the form of ownership). 2 For a conception of ownership as an organizing idea, see Jeremy Waldron, The Right to Private Property (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991); Larissa Katz, “Exclusion and Exclusivity in Property Law” (2008) 58 U.T.L.J. 275 [Katz, “Exclusion and Exclusivity”]. For controversy as to what ownership means, see ibid.; J.E. Penner, “The ‘Bundle of Rights’ Picture of Property” (1996) 43 UCLA L. Rev. 711; Bruce A. Ackerman, Private Property and the Constitution (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1977). For the Eng- lish lawyer’s perspective on the idea of ownership with respect to land, see Kent McNeil, Common Law Aboriginal Title (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989). 3 Lee Anne Fennell, “Efficient Trespass: The Case for ‘Bad Faith’ Adverse Possession” (2006) 100 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1037 at 1046 [Fennell, “Efficient Trespass”]. 4 See E.H. Burn & J. Cartwright, eds., Cheshire and Burn’s Modern Law of Real Prop- erty, 17th ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006) (relativity of title). 50 (2010) 55 MCGILL LAW JOURNAL ~ REVUE DE DROIT DE MCGILL There is a third approach to adverse possession that I will argue makes sense of the morality of adverse possession without weakening the concept of ownership at work in the law. A basic component of this third approach is still the law in some Canadian jurisdictions and until recently had currency in much of the common law world, including England and Australia.5 This is the inconsistent use test, according to which a squatter succeeds in a claim for adverse possession only where she establishes, by acts of possession that are inconsistent with the owner’s intended uses of the land, that the original owner lacks effective authority over the land.6 This standard presents a significant hurdle for most adverse possessors.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Real Estate Law Review Real Estate Law Review
    the Real Estate Law Review Law Real Estate Real Estate Law Review Seventh Edition Editor John Nevin Seventh Edition lawreviews © 2018 Law Business Research Ltd Real Estate Law Review Seventh Edition Reproduced with permission from Law Business Research Ltd ThisTh article was first published in March 2018 For further information please contact [email protected] Editor John Nevin lawreviews © 2018 Law Business Research Ltd PUBLISHER Tom Barnes SENIOR BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT MANAGER Nick Barette BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT MANAGERS Thomas Lee, Joel Woods ACCOUNT MANAGERS Pere Aspinall, Sophie Emberson, Laura Lynas, Jack Bagnall PRODUCT MARKETING EXECUTIVE Rebecca Mogridge RESEARCHER Arthur Hunter EDITORIAL COORDINATOR Gavin Jordan HEAD OF PRODUCTION Adam Myers PRODUCTION EDITOR Claire Ancell SUBEDITOR Gina Mete CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER Paul Howarth Published in the United Kingdom by Law Business Research Ltd, London 87 Lancaster Road, London, W11 1QQ, UK © 2018 Law Business Research Ltd www.TheLawReviews.co.uk No photocopying: copyright licences do not apply. The information provided in this publication is general and may not apply in a specific situation, nor does it necessarily represent the views of authors’ firms or their clients. Legal advice should always be sought before taking any legal action based on the information provided. The publishers accept no responsibility for any acts or omissions contained herein. Although the information provided is accurate as of February 2018, be advised that this is a developing area. Enquiries
    [Show full text]
  • CREATING an AMERICAN PROPERTY LAW: ALIENABILITY and ITS LIMITS in AMERICAN HISTORY Claire Priest
    CREATING AN AMERICAN PROPERTY LAW: ALIENABILITY AND ITS LIMITS IN AMERICAN HISTORY Claire Priest Contact Information: Northwestern University School of Law 357 East Chicago Ave. Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: (312) 503-4470 Email: [email protected] Acknowledgements: ∗Associate Professor of Law, Northwestern University School of Law. B.A., J.D., Ph.D. Yale University. I would like to thank James McMasters of Northwestern’s Law Library for his help in finding copies of many of the primary sources used to write this Article. For extremely valuable comments and suggestions, I would like to thank Bernard Bailyn, Stuart Banner, Kenworthey Bilz, Charlotte Crane, David Dana, Michele Landis Dauber, Christine Desan, Tony A. Freyer, Morton J. Horwitz, Daniel Hulsebosch, Stanley N. Katz, Daniel M. Klerman, Naomi Lamoreaux, Charles W. McCurdy, Edmund S. Morgan, Janice Nadler, Sarah Pearsall, Dylan Penningroth, George L. Priest, Richard J. Ross, Emma Rothschild, Dhananjai Shivakumar, Kenneth L. Sokoloff, Vicky Saker Woeste, Gavin Wright and the seminar participants at Northwestern University School of Law’s Faculty Workshop, Stanford Law School’s Faculty Workshop, UCLA’s Legal History Colloquium and Economic History Workshop, NYU’s Legal History Colloquium, the University of Florida Fredric G. Levin College of Law’s Faculty Workshop, the Chicago Legal History Seminar, the American Society for Legal History’s Annual Meeting, the University of Illinois College of Law’s Faculty Workshop, the Omohundro Institute of Early American History’s Annual Conference, and Harvard University’s Conference on Atlantic Legalities. The Julius Rosenthal Fund at Northwestern University School of Law provided generous research support. CREATING AN AMERICAN PROPERTY LAW: ALIENABILITY AND ITS LIMITS IN AMERICAN HISTORY This Article analyzes an issue central to the economic and political development of the early United States: laws protecting real property from the claims of creditors.
    [Show full text]
  • Property Law for the Anthropocene Era
    PROPERTY LAW FOR THE ANTHROPOCENE ERA John G. Sprankling* Human activity has replaced nature as the principal force shaping our planet. As a result, we stand at the dawn of a new geological epoch: the Anthropocene. Fundamental changes in American law will be required to mitigate and adapt to the negative environmental impacts produced in this new era. These changes will go far beyond the traditional scope of environmental law to encompass property law and other subjects. This Article analyzes how American property law should respond to the Anthropocene challenge. It demonstrates the need to transition from a property law system based on stability to a more dynamic system that accommodates large- scale environmental disruption. It argues that we must develop a new vision of ownership in which property rights are more flexible and less categorical than in the past, and that we must implement this transition in a manner that does not violate the Takings Clause. The Article proposes four overarching principles to guide the evolution of our property law system in the coming decades. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 738 I. THE ANTHROPOCENE CHALLENGE .................................................................... 740 II. THE ENGLISH PROPERTY LAW FOUNDATION ................................................... 743 A. Static Conception of Property .................................................................... 743 B. Rigidity and Absolutism
    [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]
  • The Real Estate Law Review
    [ Exclusively for: Eddy Leks | 04-Apr-14, 08:41 AM ] ©The Law Reviews The Real Estate Law Review Third Edition Editor David Waterfield Law Business Research The Real Estate Law Review Reproduced with permission from Law Business Research Ltd. This article was first published in The Real Estate Law Review, 3rd edition (published in March 2014 – editor David Waterfield). For further information please email [email protected] The Real Estate Law Review Third Edition Editor David Waterfield Law Business Research Ltd THE LAW REVIEWS THE MERGERS AND ACQUISITIONS REVIEW THE RESTRUCTURING REVIEW THE PRIVATE COMPETITION ENFORCEMENT REVIEW THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION REVIEW THE EMPLOYMENT LAW REVIEW THE PUBLIC COMPETITION ENFORCEMENT REVIEW THE BANKING REGULATION REVIEW THE INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION REVIEW THE MERGER CONTROL REVIEW THE TECHNOLOGY, MEDIA AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS REVIEW THE INWARD INVESTMENT AND INTERNATIONAL TAXATION REVIEW THE CORPORATE GOVERNANCE REVIEW THE CORPORATE IMMIGRATION REVIEW THE INTERNATIONAL INVESTIGATIONS REVIEW THE PROJECTS AND CONSTRUCTION REVIEW THE INTERNATIONAL CAPITAL MARKETS REVIEW THE REAL ESTATE LAW REVIEW THE PRIVATE EQUITY REVIEW THE ENERGY REGULATION AND MARKETS REVIEW THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY REVIEW THE ASSET MANAGEMENT REVIEW THE PRIVATE WEALTH AND PRIVATE CLIENT REVIEW THE MINING LAW REVIEW THE EXECUTIVE REMUNERATION REVIEW THE ANTI-BRIBERY AND ANTI-CORRUPTION REVIEW THE CARTELS AND LENIENCY REVIEW THE TAX DISPUTES AND LITIGATION REVIEW THE LIFE SCIENCES LAW REVIEW THE INSURANCE AND REINSURANCE LAW
    [Show full text]
  • Ownership – Acquisition, Proof and Extinction
    Ownership Acquisition of ownership Modalities of Acquisition of Individual Ownership . Generally, the law recognizes two types/class of acquiring ownership: Original acquisition, and Derivative acquisition . Ownership is said to be acquired through original acquisition when an individual acquires ownership over a given thing by his own, without depending on anyone's title/ownership. Ownership may be acquires in this manner over a thing which: - has never been owned, res nullius - has had owner but abandoned, res derelictae - has owner, but the new owner doesn’t depend on the pre-existing OP as a source . Derivative acquisition refers to the acquisition of ownership through transfer of ownership. This is a case of buying/taking the right rather than establishing original ownership. It is a derivative mechanism of acquiring ownership. It requires juridical acts and is dependent on the quality of ownership of the original acquirer. Original Acquisition of Ownership . The CC recognizes 4 modes of original acquisition of OP: - Occupation - Possession in good faith - Usucaption - Accession . Some apply to acquisition of OP only on corporeal movables, others to immovable only & some for both. Acquisition of OP by Occupation . No clear definition of the term in the CC . From a systematic reading of Art 1151 we can describe Occupation as: a mode of acquiring OP whereby a person becomes an owner of a masterless corporeal chattel by taking possession of the thing with the intention of becoming owner. Thus, in order to become owner by occupation, the following elements must be fulfilled cumulatively: - The thing must be a corporeal movable - The thing must be susceptible of private appropriation - The thing must be masterless - The person must have taken possession of the thing - The possession must be with intention of becoming owner of the thing.
    [Show full text]
  • Patent Exhaustion Connects Common Law to Equity: Impression Products, Inc
    Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property Volume 17 Issue 1 Article 4 1-18-2018 Patent Exhaustion Connects Common Law to Equity: Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc. Kumiko Kitaoka Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/ckjip Part of the Intellectual Property Law Commons Recommended Citation Kumiko Kitaoka, Patent Exhaustion Connects Common Law to Equity: Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc., 17 Chi. -Kent J. Intell. Prop. 96 (2018). Available at: https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/ckjip/vol17/iss1/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons @ IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property by an authorized editor of Scholarly Commons @ IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. PATENT EXHAUSTION CONNECTS COMMON LAW TO EQUITY: IMPRESSION PRODUCTS, INC. V. LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL, INC. KUMIKO KITAOKA I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................ 97 II. BACKGROUND .............................................................................. 101 A. Brief Summary of Impression Products ............................ 101 1. Facts and Procedural Highlights: Imported Modified Single-Use Printer Cartridges ................................... 101 2. The Federal Circuit: Territoriality and Patentees’ Freedom to Contract ................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Owning the Center of the Earth John G
    University of the Pacific Scholarly Commons McGeorge School of Law Scholarly Articles McGeorge School of Law Faculty Scholarship 2008 Owning the Center of the Earth John G. Sprankling Pacific cGeM orge School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/facultyarticles Part of the Property Law and Real Estate Commons Recommended Citation John G. Sprankling, Owning the Center of the Earth, 55 UCLA L. Rev. 979 (2008). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the McGeorge School of Law Faculty Scholarship at Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in McGeorge School of Law Scholarly Articles by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. OWNING THE CENTER OF THE EARTH * John G. Sprankling How far below the earth’s surface do property rights extend? The con- ventional wisdom is that a landowner holds title to everything between the surface and the center of the earth. This Article is the first legal scholarship to challenge the traditional view. It demonstrates that the “center of the earth” theory is poetic hyperbole, not binding law. Broadly speaking, the deeper the disputed region, the less likely courts are to recognize the surface owner’s title. The emergence of new technologies for use of the deep subsurface—such as heat mining and carbon sequestration, both of which may help mitigate global climate change—requires that we develop a new model of subsurface owner- ship. Accordingly, this Article proposes and evaluates four alternative approaches to subsurface property rights. The preferred model would recognize the surface owner’s title for only 1000 feet downward.
    [Show full text]
  • Property Law Capsule Summary
    [Note: Numbers in brackets refer to the printed pages of Understanding Property Law by John G. Sprankling where the topic is discussed.] LexisNexis Capsule Summary Property Law PART I: INTRODUCTION Chapter 1 WHAT IS PROPERTY? § 1.01 An “Unanswerable” Question? [1-2] The term property is extraordinarily difficult to define. The ordinary person defines property as things that are owned by people. However, the law defines property as rights among people that concern things. § 1.02 Property and Law [2-4] [A] Legal Positivism The dominant view in the United States is that property rights arise only through government; this view is known as legal positivism. For example, in Johnson v. M’Intosh, 21 U.S. 543 (1823), the Supreme Court stressed that in deciding land claims based on Native American rights, it could only rely on laws adopted by the federal government, not on natural law or abstract justice. [B] Natural Law Theory Natural law theory, in contrast, posits that rights arise in nature as a matter of fundamental justice, independent of government. The Declaration of Independence is the high-water mark of this theory in the United States. § 1.03 Defining Property: What Types of “Rights” Among People? [4-7] [A] Scope of Property Rights Under our legal system, property rights are limited, not absolute. They exist only to the extent that they serve a socially useful justification. 1 Copyright © 2003 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. [B] Property as a “Bundle of Rights” It is common to describe property as a “bundle of rights” in relation to things.
    [Show full text]
  • Conceptual Foundations of Property Rights: Rethinking De Facto Rural Open Access to Common-Pool Resources in Ethiopia
    CONCEPTUAL FOUNDATIONS OF PROPERTY RIGHTS: RETHINKING DE FACTO RURAL OPEN ACCESS TO COMMON-POOL RESOURCES IN ETHIOPIA Elias N. Stebek ♣ Abstract This article, inter alia, attempts to highlight some major concepts and theories on property and the rationales and elements of property rights. It also briefly deals with the distinction between property rights on the stock of resources and its flows, and indicates the downsides of open access in the efficient utilization and sustainability of common-pool resources. Where de jure public property becomes de facto open access, certain common-pool resources in the rural areas of Ethiopia (such as forests) are exposed to encroachment, unlawful logging and overgrazing. The article attempts to show that it is usually impossible to effectively exclude persons from the use and overconsumption of common- pool resources in Ethiopia in the absence of well-defined and effectively implemented public property regime, or unless the property rights of indigenous communities and collectives such as peasant associations are duly recognized and clearly defined so that the right holders can have vested interest in the preservation, protection and development of these resources. Key words: Property rights, rural open-access, common property, public property, common-pool resources, Ethiopia. _____________ Introduction According to Article 40(3) of the Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, “the right to ownership of rural and urban land, as well as natural resources is exclusively vested in the State and in the peoples of Ethiopia” and “shall not be subject to sale or to other means of exchange.” One of the fundamental issues that can be raised in relation to public property of rural land and natural resources is whether it has the impact of open access to a significant part of these resources.
    [Show full text]
  • Establishment by Virtue of the Law of Land Easement with the Content Corresponding to Transmission Easement in the Light of T
    Anna Maria Barańska ORCID: 0000-0001-7312-3587 Jagiellonian University DOI: 10.19195/1733-5779.29.16 Establishment by virtue of the law of land easement with the content corresponding to transmission easement in the light of the resolution of the Supreme Court of June 5, 2018, in case III CZP 50/17 JEL Classification: K11 Keywords: land easement, transmission easement, state-owned company, transmission company Słowa kluczowe: służebność gruntowa o treści odpowiadającej służebności przesyłu, uwłaszcze- nie, przedsiębiorstwo państwowe, przedsiębiorstwo przesyłowe Abstract: The subject of this article is the resolution of the enlarged composition of the Supreme Court of 5 June 2018, which resolves the issue of acquiring by land easement with content corre- sponding to transmission easement together with the acquisition by a state-owned company of trans- mission facilities developed on State Treasury properties. As a result of granting property rights to state-owned companies of state property in the early 1990s, the ownership of transmission infra- structure and the property on which they were situated were separated. In the judicature, divergent concepts emerged regarding the solution of the issue of further use of this land by transmission companies. According to the first one, the transfer of property rights was accompa- nied by the creation by law of land easement with content corresponding to a transmission easement. On the other hand, according to the second concept, obtaining a legal title for further use of the property was possible only through contractual acquisition or prescription of transmission easement. Powstanie z mocy prawa służebności gruntowej o treści odpowiadającej służebności przesyłu w świetle uchwały Sądu Najwyższego z dnia 5 czerwca 2018 roku, sygn.
    [Show full text]
  • Ownership Is Nine-Tenths of Possession: How Disparate Concepts of Ownership Influence Possession Doctrines
    OWNERSHIP IS NINE-TENTHS OF POSSESSION: HOW DISPARATE CONCEPTS OF OWNERSHIP INFLUENCE POSSESSION DOCTRINES Martin Hirschprung*† INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 143 I. PROPERTY AND POSSESSION .................................................................. 145 II. WHAT IS POSSESSION? .......................................................................... 147 III. POSSESSION FOR CULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS PROPERTIES .............. 149 IV. DOMINIUM........................................................................................... 151 V. STEWARDSHIP....................................................................................... 156 A. Stewardship and Religion ................................................................ 157 B. Stewardship and Jewish Law ........................................................... 158 VI. COMPARING ROMAN AND JEWISH LAW .............................................. 159 A. First Possession ............................................................................... 161 B. Adverse Possession .......................................................................... 164 C. Deathbed Bequests ........................................................................... 169 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 175 INTRODUCTION The concept of possession is central to property law.1 It is vital to establishing and providing evidence of ownership.2 However,
    [Show full text]