NO Plaguarism

rET'I {JNtT rOUn lThe ReWlatoU Envircnment Questions and Case Problems Ownership. -lr'r'cntr tuo )'cars .1.q(), Loranz nlls 'a wanderer. At that trme, he decided to settle down on an r-rnoccuprecl. three-acre parcel of lanci that he c1ic1 not ow'n. People in the area Lold him that the1, l'rad no rclea u.ho owned the propertl,. Lorenz built a house on the iand, got married, and raised three children lvhile hvrng there. He fenced in the 1and, installed a gate $'ith a sign abor-e it thar read "Lolenzs Homestead," and remor-ed trespassers. Lorenz is no\. confronted b1'Joe Reese, r'ho has a deed in his name as o ner o[ the property. Reese, clarming o 'rer- ship of the 1and, orders Lorenz and his fan-rily off the prop- extrenrely Jarge.:rncl his presenL and lulule use ol rt nill not involve thc entrre area. Gemnra wallts Io builcl a single- car garage and clnr,elva), along the llre-sent lot ltoundanr Beciruse tl-re placement ol l-rer exrsttng sLrltctllres n]ll- if tl-re . of ihe pltics if the g]S-1g!i-:-5n !et of land later p19ie1o be {electrle.-' Eviction. Jrmes orrns a three-srory building. He leases the ground floor to Juan's Mexican restaurant. The lease is ro run for a frve-year period and contains an express covenanl of quiet enjoyment. One year later, James ieases the top two stodes to the Upbeat C1ub, a discotheque. The clubs hours run from 5:00 p.u. to l:00 A.M. The noise fuom the Upbeat Club is so loud that it is driving customers away lrom Juan's restaurant. Juan has notified James of the inter- ference and has called the police on a number of occasions. James refuses to talk to the owners of tlre Upbeat Club or to do anything to remedy the situation. Juan abandons the premises. James fi1es surt for breach of the lease agreement and for the rental paymenrc stiil due under the lease. Juan claims that he was constructlvely evicted and fi1es a coun- tersuit for damages. Discuss who wlll be held iiable. 22-4. Ownership in Fee Simple. Thomas and Teresa Cline built a house on a 76-acre parcel of real estate next to Roy Bergs home and property in Augusra County, Virginia. The homes were about 1,800 feet aparr but in view of each other. After several disagreements between the par- ties, Berg equlpped an 1I-foot tripod wlth morion sensors and floodlights that intermittently illuminated rhe Clines' home. Berg also installed surveillance cameras that tracked some of the movement on the Clines' property. The cam- eras transmitted on an open frequency, which could be received by any televlslon within range. The Clines asked Berg to turn off, or at least redirect, the lights. When he refused, they erected a lence for 200 feet along the parries' common property line. The 32-foot-high fence consisted of 20 utility poles spaced 10 feet apart with plastic wrap stretched between the po1es. This effectively blocked the Iights and cameras. Berg fi1ed a suit against the Clines in a Virginia state court, complaining that the fence interfered unreasonably wlth his use and enjoyment of his property. He asked the court to order the Clines to take the fence down. What are the limits on an owner's use of property? How should the court rule in this case? Why? lCline y. Berg, 273 Ya. 742,639 S.E.2d 231 (2007)l 22-5. Commercial Lease Terms. Gi Hwa Park entered inro a lease with Landmark HHH, LLC, for retail space in the Plaza at Landmark, a shopping center in Virginia. The lease required that the landlord keep the roof "in good repair" and that the tenant obtain insurance on her inventory and absolve the landlord from any losses to the extent of the insurance proceeds. Park opened a store-The Four Seasons-in the space, speciaiizing in imported men's suits and acces- sories. Within a month of the opening and continuing for nearly eight yearc, water iatermittently leaked through the roof, causing damage. l-andmark eventually had a new roof installed, but water continued to leak into The Four Seasons. On a night of record rainfail, the store suffered substantial water damage, and Park was lorced to close the store. On what basis might Park seek to recover from Landmark? What might Landmark assert in response? Which partys argument is more 1ike1y to succeed, and why? Lltndmarh HHH, ILC v. GiHwaParh,277 Ya. 50,671S.E.2d 143 (2009)l 22-6. Fi Case Problem with Sample Ansrver. Adverse lEIl possession. ln 1974, Alana Manseli built a large shed, which she used as a three-car garage, on the back of her property. Thls building encroached on a neighbors property by fourteen feet; however, the nelgh- bor knew of the encroachment and informally approved it. But the neighbor did not transfer ownership of the property to Mansell. In 2001, Betty Hunter bought Mansell's neighbor's property The survey done at that time indicated the encroachmeni. In 2003, Hunter's attor- ney notified Mansell about the encroachment, but noth- ing was done. In 2006, Mansell installed a concrete foundation under the garuge, which had previously been dirt. Mansell also sought a declaratory judgment that she was the fee simple owaer of the area under the garage that encroached on Hunter's property, arguing that the posses- sion of the property from 1974 to 2001 gave her owner- ship by adverse possession. Hunter filed a counterclaim, demanding removal of the encroaching structure. The trial court held that the property belonged to Hunter, but did not order removal of the garage. Hunter and Mansell appealed. Would the open occupation of the property for to the