LEB320F Meakin C 2013 Spring Week 6 Lecture 10 February 19 Outline of Last Lecture II Deeds III Issues IV Baler v Zingelman V Storage VI Other transfers A Adverse possession VII Sexton v Wagnon VIII Eminent Domain IX Purdie v Attorney General X Zoning XI Restrictive covenants XII Warranty of habitability XIII Smith v Levine XIV Personal Property A How s ownership acquired Outline of Today s Lecture Chapter 34 9 XV Review Case Studies A Johnson v Hicks B Baker v Zingelman C US Bank National Association v Ibanez D Sexton v Wagnon E Gordon v Bialystroker Center Bikur Cholim Inc F State of Texas v 281 420 00 G Meaux v Sisters of Charity of the incarnate world H Whatley v Lindeman Inc I Employers Insurance of Wausau v Chemical Bank J University of Texas v KST Electric Ltd K Integrated cash management services v Digital transactions Inc L Lough v Brunswick Corp M Larami Corp v Alan Amron Talk to me Products Inc N Feist Publications Inc v Rural Telephone Service Co O Benay v Warner Brothers Entertainment P Suntrust Bank v Houghton Mifflin Company XVI Lost socks A Mislaid B Lost C Abandoned XVII Bailment XVIII Duty to return XIX Intellectual Property These notes represent a detailed interpretation of the professor s lecture GradeBuddy is best used as a supplement to your own notes not as a substitute A B C D Trademark Patent Copyright Trade secret Chapter 33 Real Property Johnson v Hicks o Margaret and Hoy Johnson owned land in Klamath County Oregon Neil and Maxine Hicks Hoy s sister lived on an adjoining tract Hoy and Neil installed an irrigation system to serve both pieces of land and shared maintenance electricity costs equally About of the system was underground Hoy testified that the installation was to be permanent When Margaret and hoy were experiencing marital problems Hoy and Neil entered an agreement declaring the irrigation system was to be their joint property When Margaret and Hoy divorced the divorce awarded Margaret the family home and 1 3 of an acre on which it was located her personal property A portion of the irrigation system was on Margaret s land Neil moved 140 feet of irrigation pipe from Margaret s land and placed it on his land on Hoy s Margaret plaintiff filed suit against Neil Hicks alleging the irrigation system was a fixture and that part of the system was passed onto her in the divorce decree She sought injunction requiring Neil to restore pipe to its original position on her land and prohibiting further interference with it damages Trial court held that part of system was not fixture and dismissed claims Reversed Baker v Zingelman o Margaret and Carl DeBow owned land known as the Lakeland Allotment They asked Marie Baker Margaret s sister and her husband George to move to their farmhouse and operate the antique shop Margaret prepared a deed conveying the property to the Bakers Margaret measured the land to be transferred and asked Bakers if they thought it was sufficient footage Bakers moved into farmhouse and Carl DeBow died Margaret married Zingelman which created family tension Margaret s attorney informed Bakers part of the barn which projected onto Margaret s property would be forcibly removed unless Bakers chose to purchase strip of property for 10 000 Bakers plaintiffs sued to enjoin Margaret from parking her truck in garage and cutting off part of the barn Lower court enjoined Margaret from any further trespass and ordered her to convey to the Bakers the strip of land which would then place the buildings on the Baker property Affirmed US Bank National Association v Ibanez o Antonio Ibanez took out 103 500 loan for purchase of property secured by a mortgage to lender Rose Mortgage Rose Mortgage executed an assignment of this mortgage in blank that didn t specify Ibanez as the name of the assignee The blank space was at some point was stamped with the name of Option one Mortgage Option One executed an assignment of the Ibanez mortgage in blank According to US Bank Option One assigned the Ibanez mortgage to Lehman Brothers Bank which then assigned it to the Structured Asset Securities Corp which then assigned the mortgage to US Bank With this assignment Ibanez and other loans were pooled into a trust and converted into mortgage backed securities that can be bought and sold by investors US bank filed complaint to foreclose on Ibanez mortgage and represented that it was the Owner and holder of the mortgage given by Ibanez for the property At the foreclosure sale the Ibanez property was purchased by the US bank for 94 350 a value significantly less than the outstanding debt and estimated market value Lower court judge found among other things that plaintiffs acquired mortgages by assignment only after foreclosure sales and thus had no interest in the mortgages being foreclosed at time of publication of notice of sale Plaintiffs appealed Sexton v Wagnon o Sexton and Lowes the plaintiffs are holders of the record title to tract 10 Wagnon is the holder of the record title to track 9 which is adjacent and to the west of tract 10 Wagnon s father drove a metal rail and a galvanized pipe into the ground to mark the boundary line between the two tracts Wagnon s father placed a mobile home a short distance from the bed rail and planted three poplar trees along the boundary line Wagnon s father conveyed tract 9 to her The deed didn t convey to her any part of tract 10 that her father may have possessed adversely Owners of tract 10 never gave their permission for Wagnon s father or WAgnon to use the gore which was east of the survey line Wagnon insisted possession line is the boundary between the properties Trial judge found Wagnon had acquired title to gore by adverse possession and therefore the possession line is the true boundary between the properties Affirmed Chapter 34 Personal Property Gordon v Bialystroker Center Bikur Cholim Inc o Ida Gorodetsky was 85 when she had a stroke and remained partially paralyzed confused and sometimes semi comatose The Bialystoker Nursing home sent a social worker to visit Gorodetsky and upon finding out she had money sent the social worker back to sign a withdrawal slip to obtain 15 000 for her care at the home Upon her admission she was visited by the home s executive director its fund raiser and one of its social workers to get her to sign a withdrawal slip to the home for the 12 864 46 remaining in her bank account and a letter making a donation to the home of any part of the 27 864 46 remaining after paying expenses for