Any law students wanna discuss Property?

[TheEschaton]

Ummm, yeah. So I totally don't understand equitable conveyance in terms of recording.

IE, A and B sign a contract for selling, A -> B, and A dies before foreclosure on the property. B has already paid consideration, the courts apply equitable SOMETHINGSOMETHING and this is where I get lost because there's all sort of crazy hypos and remedies here which just make my head hurt.

Something about horizontal privity and vertical privity, and needing privity of estate to sue.

-TheE-

[Danical]

I've got no idea. But I suggest the SA forums. They tend to have quite a large base. Just make sure you post in the right forum. Lemme know if you don't have access and I'll see what I can do.

[TheEschaton]

I don't even know what the SA forums are.

-TheE-

[Danical]

SomethingAwful.

I'll ask.

[Sean of the Thread]

I was hoping this was a discussion on women and how to legally own them.

[Gan]

Are you talking about equitable conversion?

Where the purchaser becomes the equitable owner of title when the contract is signed. Seller is the owner of the legal title until date of conveyence. Yet the nature changes from real property to a right of personal property (payment of money).

Death of the seller before forclosure means that the property sold is treated as personal property and not real property with regards to heirship.

Am I close?

[Keller]

Are you talking about equitable servitudes?

That's one issue covered in 1L real property, but it deals more with restrictions on real property.

The issue I think you're talking about is a constructive trust, which is an equitable remedy. A constructive trust is not a trust at all, but a method of completing an otherwise illegal transfer.

In your A to B, but A dies example -- I assume that A's agent does not have power of attorney and cannot complete the transfer on A's behalf. If that is the case, the court would apply a constructive trust on "equities behalf" because otherwise the estate of A would be unjustly enriched.

Hope that helps.

[Keller]

It's not letting me cut and paste anything from my outline into the PC. Suffice to say I don't have the time to retype it all. If you PM me your e-mail before 10 eastern, I can e-mail you my outline.

Basically, I found a section dealing with equitable reformation and the resulting constructive trust. That sounds a lot like your hypo but doesn't deal with intermediate title.

The section I did find dealing with intermediate title describes the use of an equitable lien in the application of a constructive trust.

In both sections I think the material points are that: 1) There is a legal barrier to transfering title to the "right" owner. 2) The courts will apply a constructive trust in the face of this barrier to prevent unjust enrichment.

[Keller]

Are you talking about equitable conversion?

Where the purchaser becomes the equitable owner of title when the contract is signed. Seller is the owner of the legal title until date of conveyence. Yet the nature changes from real property to a right of personal property (payment of money).

Death of the seller before forclosure means that the property sold is treated as personal property and not real property with regards to heirship.

Am I close?

That's likely the answer. You're describing a constructive trust.

A constructive trust is basically a court-imposed declaration of trust where the legal title owner (A) is settlor and trustee over the property for the benefit of the equitable title owner (b), the beneficiary.

The constructive trust is considered a legal fiction because at it's creation, the settlor has no intention to create a trust and there is no trust property (known as "res") because the constructive trust immediately conveys legal title to the equitable title holder (A --> B).

I'm not sure the distinction between real/personal property w/ regards to the decedent's estate -- but I can make an argument why that would be true. The idea is that the real property is devised in the will to the beneficiary C. If A had already transfered legal title to B, C would get nothing because the real property would be considered "adeemed" and the personal property (cash) resulting from the sale would go to the residue of the estate. But, as in this case, A still retains legal title -- the property should not be considered adeemed and C should get the personal property instead.

Like I said, I didn't learn this as a fact, but I did learn that if a decedent dies in a house fire and the house is insured, the house will NOT be adeemed and the beneficiary will receive the insurance proceeds.

[TheEschaton]

Then what does this all have to do with recording? The title simply doesn't change until it's recorded, even if the sale has gone through and cash has changed hands? My property teacher is obsessed with records.

<still confused on this topic, but has moved on to the Statute of Perpetuities>

-TheE-

[Keller]

Rule Against Perpetuities?

Title is a legal property interest which does not change until it is recorded. Recording title is actually filing the deed w/ the gov't. So in your hypo, A had not recorded the deed in B's name. Therefore A still had title to the property and it would pass through A's estate. But, the court will step in and apply the equitable remedy of constructive trust construing the transaction as such:

A's estate is the settlor/trustee who will "hold" and convey the title of A's property to B. B is the beneficiary who, while the trust exists ( which it never does, as it's merely a function and not an actual trust), has equitable title to A's property. But once the constructive trust is used, legal title will transfer from A to B.

[Gan]

Moreso to the point. This is why all contracts involving real property must be written down for presentation to the courts for justification of claim or dispute.

[Hulkein]

I've been burning my brain cells cramming for Torts and didn't notice this thread. Doesn't look like I'm gonna help, though, the only thing I remember involving privity off the top of my head is when we were discussing subleases.

I'll check out my notes when I get home to see if we went over the same thing.

[TheEschaton]

Ahh, I have Property on Monday, Torts on Thursday. Torts strikes me as eminently more straightforward though, so I'm just cramming Property.

Contracts on the 19th....not even in my consciousness.

-TheE-

[Keller]

Moreso to the point. This is why all contracts involving real property must be written down for presentation to the courts for justification of claim or dispute.

The statute of frauds requires all transfers of land to be written. The only way to obviate the need for writting is through the equitable claim of part performance.

[Keller]

Who are your casebook authors, E?

[TheEschaton]

Dukeminier, Krier, Alexander, and Schill.

[Keller]

What about torts? Contracts?

[TheEschaton]

Those are buried in my locker, which is a whole 100 yards away. I'll let you know during my next study break.....

...oh, and by the way, your property outline IS TEH R0x0r. You are my new best friend. Plugged all the gaps in my outline.

-TheE-

[Keller]

I have outlines for every other 1L course. So let me know what you need.

[Hulkein]

Mind sending me that prop outline? It's my only final left.

[Keller]

PM me your e-mail and I'll toss it your way.