Deck 30: Real Property and Landlord and Tenant Law

Question 1

Generally speaking, when the United States Supreme Court hears a case it involves some sort of major league controversy, like the establishment of a defendant's rights in court, or a review of the constitutionality of an abortion statute, or an analysis of a college's limitation on the free speech of its faculty and students. Sometimes, however, even the Supreme Court must deal with matters that seem mundane and ordinary. A case on point is the dispute in Kelo v. City of New London. This controversy started when the city fathers of New London, Connecticut, agreed to help the Pfizer Corporation which had decided to build a research and manufacturing center in the city. To do this, the city activated the New London Development Corporation (NLDC) which began to buy up the land in that area of town. Many residents in the targeted area did not want to sell or leave their homes. Therefore, many of them simply refused to sell. Then unexpectedly, some bright boy or gal in the city's legal department recommended invoking the city's power to confiscate land for public use under eminent domain as found in the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. Then somebody else in the city's legal department discovered that the power to exercise eminent domain in economic development situations was granted to the City by a Connecticut statute. A homeowner named Susette Kelo , along with several other owners, sued to end the unconstitutional seizure of their property. The homeowners argued that the taking of their land for private development purposes did not fall under the heading of "public use" as visualized by the Founding Fathers when they wrote the Fifth Amendment. The property owners also argued in the alternative that, even if the annexation of their property did qualify as public use, the city had to prove with "reasonable certainty" that the appropriation of their land really would result in the public benefits predicted by the development corporation. The suit was filed in the state court of Connecticut and eventually reached the Supreme Court of Connecticut which supported the city. In the end, the case was heard by the United States Supreme Court which granted a writ of certiorari. After considering the arguments from both sides, the Court, in a 5-4 ruling, held that the city's seizure of the land really was public use. The Court also disagreed with the homeowner's contention that the city could be forced to show with reasonable certainty that the benefits would be actualized by the city and by the local neighborhood. [See Kelo v. City of New London, 125 S.Ct. 2655 (U.S. Supreme Court).]
What types of rights are associated with the ownership of real property? Explain.

Answer 1

Rights Associated with Ownership of Real Property
The case is that of a case between the N L City and the citizens. The city wanted to build a research center which will be funded by P Corporation. The city believed that the research center will be of great use to the public and wanted to acquire public property to build the facility. The citizens protested that there is no guarantee that the research center will be of use to the public and also such a seizure by the government will be illegal. The federal Supreme Court gave a verdict in favor of the city.
Real property:
Real property is a term that is associated with the rights of the owner of a farm or land. The rights possessed by the owner on the land or the real estate by the owner are called as real property.
There are several rights which are owned by real estate owners which can be treated as real property rights. The rights are such as the one's discussed below:
1. Plantation of trees, vegetable and plants:
A real estate owner will have ownership rights on the trees, vegetables and plants which are already in existence on the field and the owner also retains the right to use such property for use. Also an owner can plant new plants and vegetables and use them for personal purposes or for commercial purpose.
2. Rights on the air, on the terrain and water rights:
A real estate owner will have rights on the air, in terms of height; normally a land or a real estate owner will have rights over the air on his land up to height of 1,000 feet. Similarly, a real estate owner will have rights over the terrain such as the roads, grass lands or hills existing in his fields. Similarly, a real estate owner will have rights over the water streams which flow through the terrain, or other water resources.
3. Rights of ownership on Buildings and Structures:
A real estate owner will have rights on the buildings and other structures existing on the firm or new structures coming up in the land. These are the various rights of a real owner.

Question 2

What constitutes real property?

Answer 2

Property is considered as a thing or things that belong to someone and have the possession over it. The property is of two types: personal property and real property.The real property is considered as a land and all the properties which are fixed to it. Real property constitutes buildings, fences, trees and things on and under the surface. Oil, gas and timber are also considered as real property because they are also considered as the part of the land. Real property also includes rights and interests.
Real property refers to the ownership rights of the property. Real property is permanent and immovable in nature. The rights of real property generally include rights that are related to air rights, water rights, and the rights regarding fixture and easements.

Question 3

Generally speaking, when the United States Supreme Court hears a case it involves some sort of major league controversy, like the establishment of a defendant's rights in court, or a review of the constitutionality of an abortion statute, or an analysis of a college's limitation on the free speech of its faculty and students. Sometimes, however, even the Supreme Court must deal with matters that seem mundane and ordinary. A case on point is the dispute in Kelo v. City of New London. This controversy started when the city fathers of New London, Connecticut, agreed to help the Pfizer Corporation which had decided to build a research and manufacturing center in the city. To do this, the city activated the New London Development Corporation (NLDC) which began to buy up the land in that area of town. Many residents in the targeted area did not want to sell or leave their homes. Therefore, many of them simply refused to sell. Then unexpectedly, some bright boy or gal in the city's legal department recommended invoking the city's power to confiscate land for public use under eminent domain as found in the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. Then somebody else in the city's legal department discovered that the power to exercise eminent domain in economic development situations was granted to the City by a Connecticut statute. A homeowner named Susette Kelo , along with several other owners, sued to end the unconstitutional seizure of their property. The homeowners argued that the taking of their land for private development purposes did not fall under the heading of "public use" as visualized by the Founding Fathers when they wrote the Fifth Amendment. The property owners also argued in the alternative that, even if the annexation of their property did qualify as public use, the city had to prove with "reasonable certainty" that the appropriation of their land really would result in the public benefits predicted by the development corporation. The suit was filed in the state court of Connecticut and eventually reached the Supreme Court of Connecticut which supported the city. In the end, the case was heard by the United States Supreme Court which granted a writ of certiorari. After considering the arguments from both sides, the Court, in a 5-4 ruling, held that the city's seizure of the land really was public use. The Court also disagreed with the homeowner's contention that the city could be forced to show with reasonable certainty that the benefits would be actualized by the city and by the local neighborhood. [See Kelo v. City of New London, 125 S.Ct. 2655 (U.S. Supreme Court).]
What is eminent domain and how does it apply in this case? Explain.

Answer 3

Eminent Domain and Applications
The case is that of a case between the N L City and the citizens. The city wanted to build a research center which will be funded by P Corporation. The city believed that the research center will be of great use to the public and wanted to acquire public property to build the facility. The citizens protested that there is no guarantee that the research center will be of use to the public and also such a seizure by the government will be illegal. The federal Supreme Court gave a verdict in favor of the city.
Eminent Domain:
An eminent domain refers to the government's rights to acquire private property for public use by paying a fair price for the land taken. In this case the eminent domain principle is of primary importance because the local authorities believed that building of a research establishment will be of use to the public even at the moment the authorities are not in a position to define the exact nature of the benefit. By using the rights sanctioned under a C S the local authorities can acquire a privately owned property for public purpose.
Thus, the local owners of the real estates cannot pose an argument that such a move by the local authorities is illegal and therefore should be stopped. The federal Supreme Court's verdict is also based on the same grounds that building such a research facility will be of use to the public and thus the land acquisition is not illegal.

Question 4

What is the difference between freehold and leasehold estates?

Question 5

Generally speaking, when the United States Supreme Court hears a case it involves some sort of major league controversy, like the establishment of a defendant's rights in court, or a review of the constitutionality of an abortion statute, or an analysis of a college's limitation on the free speech of its faculty and students. Sometimes, however, even the Supreme Court must deal with matters that seem mundane and ordinary. A case on point is the dispute in Kelo v. City of New London. This controversy started when the city fathers of New London, Connecticut, agreed to help the Pfizer Corporation which had decided to build a research and manufacturing center in the city. To do this, the city activated the New London Development Corporation (NLDC) which began to buy up the land in that area of town. Many residents in the targeted area did not want to sell or leave their homes. Therefore, many of them simply refused to sell. Then unexpectedly, some bright boy or gal in the city's legal department recommended invoking the city's power to confiscate land for public use under eminent domain as found in the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. Then somebody else in the city's legal department discovered that the power to exercise eminent domain in economic development situations was granted to the City by a Connecticut statute. A homeowner named Susette Kelo , along with several other owners, sued to end the unconstitutional seizure of their property. The homeowners argued that the taking of their land for private development purposes did not fall under the heading of "public use" as visualized by the Founding Fathers when they wrote the Fifth Amendment. The property owners also argued in the alternative that, even if the annexation of their property did qualify as public use, the city had to prove with "reasonable certainty" that the appropriation of their land really would result in the public benefits predicted by the development corporation. The suit was filed in the state court of Connecticut and eventually reached the Supreme Court of Connecticut which supported the city. In the end, the case was heard by the United States Supreme Court which granted a writ of certiorari. After considering the arguments from both sides, the Court, in a 5-4 ruling, held that the city's seizure of the land really was public use. The Court also disagreed with the homeowner's contention that the city could be forced to show with reasonable certainty that the benefits would be actualized by the city and by the local neighborhood. [See Kelo v. City of New London, 125 S.Ct. 2655 (U.S. Supreme Court).]
What is unusual about the Supreme Court's interpretation of eminent domain in this case? Explain.

Question 6

What are the different types of co-ownership of real property?

Question 7

Generally speaking, when the United States Supreme Court hears a case it involves some sort of major league controversy, like the establishment of a defendant's rights in court, or a review of the constitutionality of an abortion statute, or an analysis of a college's limitation on the free speech of its faculty and students. Sometimes, however, even the Supreme Court must deal with matters that seem mundane and ordinary. A case on point is the dispute in Kelo v. City of New London. This controversy started when the city fathers of New London, Connecticut, agreed to help the Pfizer Corporation which had decided to build a research and manufacturing center in the city. To do this, the city activated the New London Development Corporation (NLDC) which began to buy up the land in that area of town. Many residents in the targeted area did not want to sell or leave their homes. Therefore, many of them simply refused to sell. Then unexpectedly, some bright boy or gal in the city's legal department recommended invoking the city's power to confiscate land for public use under eminent domain as found in the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. Then somebody else in the city's legal department discovered that the power to exercise eminent domain in economic development situations was granted to the City by a Connecticut statute. A homeowner named Susette Kelo , along with several other owners, sued to end the unconstitutional seizure of their property. The homeowners argued that the taking of their land for private development purposes did not fall under the heading of "public use" as visualized by the Founding Fathers when they wrote the Fifth Amendment. The property owners also argued in the alternative that, even if the annexation of their property did qualify as public use, the city had to prove with "reasonable certainty" that the appropriation of their land really would result in the public benefits predicted by the development corporation. The suit was filed in the state court of Connecticut and eventually reached the Supreme Court of Connecticut which supported the city. In the end, the case was heard by the United States Supreme Court which granted a writ of certiorari. After considering the arguments from both sides, the Court, in a 5-4 ruling, held that the city's seizure of the land really was public use. The Court also disagreed with the homeowner's contention that the city could be forced to show with reasonable certainty that the benefits would be actualized by the city and by the local neighborhood. [See Kelo v. City of New London, 125 S.Ct. 2655 (U.S. Supreme Court).]
Did the Supreme Court overstep its authority in this case when it used eminent domain to support a private real estate development corporation? Explain.

Question 8

What are the methods of acquiring title to real property?

Question 9

Generally speaking, when the United States Supreme Court hears a case it involves some sort of major league controversy, like the establishment of a defendant's rights in court, or a review of the constitutionality of an abortion statute, or an analysis of a college's limitation on the free speech of its faculty and students. Sometimes, however, even the Supreme Court must deal with matters that seem mundane and ordinary. A case on point is the dispute in Kelo v. City of New London. This controversy started when the city fathers of New London, Connecticut, agreed to help the Pfizer Corporation which had decided to build a research and manufacturing center in the city. To do this, the city activated the New London Development Corporation (NLDC) which began to buy up the land in that area of town. Many residents in the targeted area did not want to sell or leave their homes. Therefore, many of them simply refused to sell. Then unexpectedly, some bright boy or gal in the city's legal department recommended invoking the city's power to confiscate land for public use under eminent domain as found in the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. Then somebody else in the city's legal department discovered that the power to exercise eminent domain in economic development situations was granted to the City by a Connecticut statute. A homeowner named Susette Kelo , along with several other owners, sued to end the unconstitutional seizure of their property. The homeowners argued that the taking of their land for private development purposes did not fall under the heading of "public use" as visualized by the Founding Fathers when they wrote the Fifth Amendment. The property owners also argued in the alternative that, even if the annexation of their property did qualify as public use, the city had to prove with "reasonable certainty" that the appropriation of their land really would result in the public benefits predicted by the development corporation. The suit was filed in the state court of Connecticut and eventually reached the Supreme Court of Connecticut which supported the city. In the end, the case was heard by the United States Supreme Court which granted a writ of certiorari. After considering the arguments from both sides, the Court, in a 5-4 ruling, held that the city's seizure of the land really was public use. The Court also disagreed with the homeowner's contention that the city could be forced to show with reasonable certainty that the benefits would be actualized by the city and by the local neighborhood. [See Kelo v. City of New London, 125 S.Ct. 2655 (U.S. Supreme Court).]
How might the city use its zoning powers in this case? Explain.

Question 10

What is eminent domain?

Question 11

What are the five elements necessary to create a landlord-tenant relationship?

Question 12

What are the essential requirements of a lease?

Question 13

What are rent control and security deposits?

Question 14

What are the duties of landlords and tenants?

Question 15

How does tort liability apply to landlords and tenants?