Principled limits to property law and equitable interests

¶ … stability afforded to the law of property by imposing a limit on the number of permissible legal estates are seriously undermined by the existence of a seemingly endless number of equitable interests.

Laws and Decrees

Cases

Effects

Theories

It is clear that law has limits even when it comes to the law of property. It has what is recognized as being the practical or 'means-end' limits; what lawmakers are trying to do could possibly may misfire in numerous ways. More fascinatingly, however, does law have principled limits and are they being are undermined by the existence of a seemingly endless number of equitable interests? It is clear that the best recognized positive answer to this question is that provided by John Stuart Mill. Mill's 'harm principle' is inspected in this admission, together with the more current resistances of the belief by Joseph Raz and Joel Feinberg. Other influential proposals for principled law of property limits to the law are likewise observed: for instance, the suggestion that law must avoid certain types of otherwise lawful moral explanations and that the law must be in some sense unbiased. Finding principled limits to the law, and rather or not they are seriously being undermined by the existence of a seemingly endless number of equitable interests will be discussed in this paper.

Laws and Decrees

Research argues that laws and ordinances that are at all levels of government (federal, state, county and municipal) do put a restriction on what can be done with the real property that is being owned. Enforcement of these laws typically resides with government organizations, normally local government nonetheless occasionally on the state or federal level. The three most common restrictions forced by government are:

(1) Zoning - limiting the use of the property to industrial, residential, agricultural, or commercial dedications are very typical. The height and size of improvements attached to the property are equally subject to restriction.

(2) Environmental Hazards - ordinances and statutes outline what materials that are able to be stored on the known real property. Also, responsibility for remediation of environmental hazards (for example lead paint, asbestos, petro-chemicals, toxic wastes and radon) is also government-controlled.

(3) Public Easements and Right of Way - a helping of certain real property could more than likely need to be open for others to be able to utilize. Governments use right of way laws and easements in order to control some kind of an admission to other property, provide for sidewalks and roads to permit installation of electric / sewer lines / gas/telephone/.

Cases

Research shows that the extent to which governmental authorities are able to impose a limitation on property without condition land without seriously undermining the existence of a seemingly endless number of equitable interests. This was done and not an issue because of the use of permits on exactions and concessions from land use permit which applicants were getting extraordinary attention from the United States Supreme Court in current years.

Recently, the Court handed down another decision relating the U.S. Constitution's Fifth Amendment to pressure the power of the government to impose such conditions when it comes to imposing a limit on the number of permissible legal estates. For example, in Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District, (Docket No. 11-1447) 570 U.S. __ (June 25, 2013), the Court, in a 5-4 decision, held that the government's demand for property from a land-use permit applicant must have an "essential nexus" to and "rough proportionality" with the planned project's effects even when it rejects the authority and even when its appeal is for money.

Up until now, it was not obvious that these morals, recognized by the Court in the landmark cases such as the Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825 (1987) and Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994), used when a document application is denied, or when the condition of approval did not involve a devotion of or limit on the utilization of a real property right. Also, these rules are discovered on the "unconstitutional circumstances" policy, which holds that the government cannot condition profits on the recipient forfeiting a lawful right. This policy has unusual application in the area of land use rule, guarding the Fifth Amendment right to "having just recompense" for property taken by the government when the owner is applying for the land-use permits.

This kind of holding will some kind of wide-ranging influences on the situations the government may execute when exercising its power to be able to control property (Abramowitz, 2005). This is particularly true in California which has long made a difference among demands for land devotion vs. A request for impact dues or other similar financial exactions. Ensuing the California Supreme Court's choice in Ehrlich v. Culver City (1996) 12 Cal. 4th 854 and repeated in San Remo Hotel v. City and County of San Francisco (2002) 27 Cal. 4th 643, it has been the law in California that a lawful challenge to the obligation, on a progress project, of a legislatively ratified impact payment for overall application was subject to the very respectful "reasonable relationship" standard more willingly than the "heightened inspection" of "essential connection" and "uneven proportionality" founded by Dolan and Nollan.

Research shows that the decision in Koontz now puts in question the ongoing applicability of both San Remo and Ehrlich. Therefore, there appears to be much closer scrutiny that is provided to the application of government enforced impact charges and in lieu payments, and more challenges to such fee programs. Additionally, this ruling may have the possibility of putting into question the validity of California's AB 1600 expansion impact fee procedure, which utilizes a "reasonable relationship" norm. however, it may possibly bring into question the current California Appellate court judgment which took place in CBIA v. City of San Jose (June 6, 2013), Ct. Of App. 6th Dist. (H038563), putting together the "reasonable relationship" norm to an inclusionary housing decree, and could help as the foundation of an plea to the California Supreme Court.

Effects

Coy Koontz owned 14.9 acres of undeveloped Florida property, and sought permits to basically get some legal estates (Abramowitz, 2005). In order to be lessen the environmental effects of the future development and get a wanted permit, Koontz did something by offering a deed to the defendant District a conservation easement that would be toward the remaining 11 acres. However, the case against him was saying that there should be a limit on this and that he should not be able to get more property that what he already had. With that being said, it is clear that the District rejected the proposal as insufficient, and only gave out juts two alternatives: (1) lessen everything down to just 1 acre and the give out deed which would be a conservation easement to the District on the what was leftover; or (2) build some type of a 3.7 acre project, deed a conservation easement which would be placed on the remainder, and then try and hire contractors to make progress on District-owned property that would many miles away. However, believing the District's burdens to be too much, Koontz went ahead and filed some suit, quarrelling that he was permitted to have some kind of monetary damages.

Demanding landowners to lessen impacts that were being caused by proposed development has long been part of the approving procedure. But then again under the Court's choices in Dolan and Nollan, any mitigation a government could pick to enforce must have a "vital nexus" and be "unevenly proportional" to those type of impacts (Abramowitz, 2005). Now when it comes up under the Court's decision, it is clear that these requirements are not supposed to change depending on whether the permit is give the "okay" on the circumstance that the projected mitigation is assumed, or the permit is deprived of for the reason that the mitigation was not accepted. Although no property is strictly taken in the latter case, an overpriced demand, although disallowed, impermissibly burdens the privilege not to have any kind of property taken without compensation that is looked at as being just. And it does not even make a difference if the government could deny the permit application outright without attaching conditions; it cannot condition permit approval on the landowner's forfeiture of constitutional rights. The Court also noted that although the Fifth Amendment provides a remedy only for takings, whether money damages are available for denial of a permit depends on the particular claim, here brought under Florida state law, a question the Court refused to consider however they did not believe that imposing a limit on the number of permissible legal estates undermined the existence of a seemingly endless number of equitable interests. They believed that there should be some kind of a limit on legal property such as the Koontz case.

Not only did the court believe that imposing a limit on the number of permissible legal estates was not seriously undermined by the existence of a seemingly endless number of equitable interests but the Court likewise held that the fact that the government requested the landowner to spend currency for offsite mitigation. They felt that was much better instead of requiring a dedication of property which to them does not matter anyway. These types of in lieu charges are the functional equal of other kinds of land use exactions and will need to placate the "heightened scrutiny" necessities of "rough proportionality" and "essential nexus" founded by Dolan and Nollan (Andrew, 2008). On account of the direct link that was among the government's financial demand and the property that was specific, the circumstance was a taking and did not cross over into the territory of the government's power of taxing. In her opposition, Justice Kagan made the argument that the Court's inspection into financial payments created undefined boundaries among takings and ordinary financial responsibilities that the government has the power to levy, and that a huge collection of land use principles, applied daily all over the country, would now be subject to intensified scrutiny.

However, it is clear that in California, they believe that imposing a limit on the number of permissible legal estates should be done. From some of the cases that were just talked about, they do not think that putting those restrictions has anything to do with undermining the existence of a seemingly endless number of reasonable interests. As talked about from above, the allegations of this decision are chiefly important in California as a result of the distinction the California courts having long made among real property vs. financial exactions and on account of the use of the "reasonable relationship" average by the courts in going over challenges to legislatively adopted financial exaction programs and by the state in its AB 1600 impact fee lawmaking (Butler, 2014). It seems that the decision puts both of these into some kind of question and will possibly lead to a lot more challenges to the substantial impact fee services that have been and will continue to be uses in the state of California. However, it could possibly be, that in defending or adopting these programs, the applying government entities will have to try and grow much more tangible support for these services in order to meet the intensified analysis of the "rough proportionality" and "essential nexus" requirements.

Conclusion

In the end, there are a lot of mixed emotions when it comes to imposing a limit on the number of permissible legal estates. From the research, it seems to vary by different states. In California there is a lot more restrictions. They do not believe that it is seriously being undermined by the existence of a seemingly endless number of equitable interests. However other states seem to have more support for human property rights and do a much better deal with making sure that there is not an issue with limitations. In these states, they are actually supported by certain services that offer them the protection that they need.

References:

Abramowitz, Michael. "On the Alienability of Legal Claims." The Yale Law Journal 114, no. 4 (2005): 697-779.

Adler, Matthew D., and Chris William Sanchirico. "Inequality and Uncertainty: Theory and Legal Applications." University of Pennsylvania Law Review 155, no. 2 (2006): 279-377.

Aickin, David Kaye & Mikel. "A Comment on Causal Apportionment." J. Legal Stud. 13 (2014).

Akee, Randall. "Checkerboards and Coase: The Effect of Property Institutions on Efficiency in Housing Markets." Journal of Law and Economics 52, no. May 2009 (2013): 17.

Alessi, Louis De. "The John M. Olin Fellowship Program in Law and Economics." Case Western Review Law Review 30 (1999-2000): 341-46.

Andrew M. Francis, Hugo M. Mialon. "The Optimal Penalty for Sexually Transmitting Hiv." Am. L. & Econ. Rev. 10, no. 2 (2008).

-- -- . "Causal Apportionment: Reply to the Critics." J. Legal Stud. 15 (1986).

Ayres, Ian. "Protecting Property with Puts." Val U.L. Rev. 32 (1998).

Barbara Luppi, Francesco Parisis. "Toward an Asymmetric Coase Theorem." European Journal of Law and Economics 31 (2010): 16.

Baron, Jonathan. "A Psychological View of Moral Intuition." The Harvard Review of Philosophy 5 (1995): 36-40.

Benoliel, Daniel. "Technological Standards, Inc.: Rethinking Cyberspace Regulatory Epistemology." Cal. L. Rev. 92 (2004).

Berall, Frank S. "Tax Consequences of Unmarried Cohabitation." QLR 23 (2004).

Bernstein, Omri Ben-Shahar & Lisa. "The Secrecy Interest in Contract Law." Yale L.J. 109 (2000).

Brinig, Margaret F. "Does Parental Autonomy Require Equal Custody at Divorce?." La. L. Rev. 65 (2005).

Brooks, Richard. "The Relative Burden of Determining Property Rules and Liability Rules: Broken Elevators in the Cathedral." Nw U.L. Rev. 97 (2002).

Browne-Barbour, Vanessa S. "Bartering for Babies: Are Preconception Agreements in the Best Interests of Children?." Whittier L. Rev. 26 (2004).

Bush, Darren. "Caught between Scylla and Charybdis: Law & Economics as a Useful Tool for Feminist Legal Theorists." Am U.J. Gender Soc. Pol'y & L. 395 7 (1999).

-- -- . "Moving to the Left by Moving to the Right: A Law & Economics Defense of Same-Sex Marriage." Women's Rts. L. Rep. 22 (2001).

Butler, Henry N. "The Manne Programs in Economics for Federal Judges." Case Western Reserve Law Review, no. 50 (2014).

Calabresi, Guido. "An Introduction to Legal Thought: Four Approaches to Law and to the Allocation of Body Parts." Stan. L. Rev. 55 (2002): 2113.

Cass, Ronald A. "One among the Manne: Changing Our Course." Case Western Reserve Law Review 50, no. 2 (1999): 203-14.

Charny, David. "Book Review: Economics of Death. ." Harvard Law Review 107 (20144).

Coase, R.H. "Law and Economics at Chicago." Journal of Law and Economics 36, no. 1 (1993): 239-54.

Coleman, Jules L. "The Grounds of Welfare." Yale Law Journal 112 (2003): 1511-43.

Comanor, William S. "Child Visitation and Performance: The Evidence." La. L. Rev. 66 (2006).

Cooter, Robert D. "Law and the Imperialism of Economics: An Introduction to the Economic Analysis of Law and a Review of the Major Books." UCLA Law Review 29 (1981-82): 215-44.

Coughlin, Anne M. "Representing the Forbidden." Cal. L. Rev. 90 (2002).

2002 1 of 2