Law Commons^™

Emergency Takings, Brian Angelo Lee

Michigan Law Review

Takings law has long contained a puzzle. The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires the government to pay “just compensation” to owners of private property that the government “takes.” In ordinary circumstances, this requirement applies equally whether the property is confiscated or destroyed, and it also applies to property confiscated in emergencies. Remarkably, however, courts have repeatedly held that if the government destroys property to address an emergency, then a “necessity exception” relieves the government of any obligation to compensate the owner of the property that was sacrificed for the public good. Although the roots of this startling principle …

Passive Takings: The State's Affirmative Duty To Protect Property, Christopher Serkin

Michigan Law Review

The purpose of the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause is to protect property owners from the most significant costs of legal transitions. Paradigmatically, a regulatory taking involves a government action that interferes with expectations about the content of property rights. Legal change has therefore always been central to regulatory takings claims. This Article argues that it does not need to be and that governments can violate the Takings Clause by failing to act in the face of a changing world. This argument represents much more than a minor refinement of takings law because recognizing governmental liability for failing to act means …

The Taming Of A Duty--The Tort Liability Of Landlords, Olin L. Browder

Michigan Law Review

For one inclined to reform the first-year curriculum in law schools the most simple and comprehensive solution is to expand the treatment of the law on landlord and tenant, and only then break up into the traditional basic subjects to deal with matters not previously covered. Thereby one could embrace all the traditional first-year subjects except Criminal Law, and a good deal more as well.

The other side of this conceit is that one who approaches the modem law of landlord and tenant from traditional property perspectives encounters particular problems that arise from the margins, or along the frontal thrust, …

Compulsory Joinder Of Parties In Civil Actions, John W. Reed

Michigan Law Review

Compulsory joinder cases involving interests in land display one peculiar and important characteristic: there is almost never any need in the state courts to wrestle with the question of whether a person is indispensable as distinguished from necessary. One hastens to add that this attribute of land cases appears to have gone largely unnoticed, but it exists none the less. It arises out of the fact that in a suit involving real property it is never impossible for the court to obtain jurisdiction over all persons interested therein to an extent which will enable the court to adjudicate controversies over …

Principal And Surety - Effect Of Release Of Principal Debtor With Reservation Of Rights Against Surety, Raymond H. Rapaport

Michigan Law Review

Plaintiff leased property to defendant, who in turn assigned his rights under the lease to one Garber, the latter assuming the covenants to pay rent and against commission of waste. Plaintiff did not release defendant from the lease. After the expiration of the lease plaintiff recovered judgment for $2,844.75 against defendant, for breaches of the covenants, and then recovered a similar judgment against Garber. Subsequently Garber paid the plaintiff $2,000, and plaintiff gave him a receipt acknowledging "full satisfaction of the judgment rendered against me in the within action. The receipt of said sum is not a release of any …

Eminent Domain - Covenants - Violation Of Building Restrictions By Exercise Of Public Authority - Necessity For Compensation, Edmund R. Blaske

Michigan Law Review

It is the purpose of this comment to examine the contract and the property theories of restrictive covenants; and to suggest other possible grounds upon which to decide whether or not a public agency should compensate owners in the subdivision for interference with their restrictive covenants.

Mortgages - Limitation Of Actions - Deficiency Decree On Basis Of Covenant In Mortgage When Action On Note Barred, Donald M. Swope

Michigan Law Review

Defendant executed and delivered to plaintiff a promissory note and a mortgage securing it. The mortgage contained a covenant to pay $10,000 (the principal amount of the note) "according to the terms of a certain promissory note bearing even date herewith." Upon foreclosure it was held, three judges dissenting, that the mortgagee was entitled to a deficiency decree notwithstanding action on the note was barred by the statute of limitations. Guardian Depositors Corporation of Detroit v. Savage, 287 Mich. 193,283 N. W. 26 (1938).

Landlord And Tenant - Liability Of Subtenant For Rent After Surrender Of Head Lease, Virginia M. Renz

Michigan Law Review

Plaintiff, as assignee of the original lessor, sued the defendant, sublessee, for rent. On September 3, 1930, the head lease was surrendered to the owner, subject to all subleases. The defendant was in possession until about January 4, 1933. At that time he learned of the surrender and vacated the premises. Held, the lessee's surrender of the head lease to the owner did not terminate either the rights or obligations of the sublessee. The doctrine of merger is inapplicable. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Hellinger, 272 N. Y. 24, 3 N. E. (2d) 621 (1936).

Quasi-Contracts-Waiver Of Tort-Suit Against Governmental Agency

Michigan Law Review

County officials forcibly ejected plaintiff from five acres of his land, harvested and used plaintiff's oat crop thereon, and converted the land into a road. Held, that although a county, being an agency of the State, is not liable in tort in the absence of statute, the tort may be waived and recovery allowed on the implied promise to pay for the taking of private property for public use without just compensation. Kerns v. Couch, (Or. 1932) 12 Pac. (2d) 1011.

Mortgages - Equity Jurisdiction - Personal Decrees Against The Mortgagor

Michigan Law Review

The Michigan supreme court recently held that the jurisdiction of equity in proceedings for the foreclosure of mortgages is governed by statute, and that equity can only render a personal decree against the mortgagor where the statute expressly permits it. This view, if correct, must be recognized as an exception to the well settled doctrine that a court of equity which has obtained jurisdiction of a controversy on any ground or for any purpose, may retain such jurisdiction for the purpose of administering complete relief. Michigan has repeatedly affirmed this general doctrine.

Tort Liability Of A Landlord, Raymond Harrison Harkrider

Michigan Law Review

The discussion thus far has dealt with the tort liability of a landlord for failing to perform some duty owed by him to persons upon the demised premises. There remains to be considered the tort liability of a landlord who fails to perform some duty owed by him to persons not upon the demised premises. The majority of the people composing this class are users of property adjoining that of the landlord. The cases dealing with the landlord's duties to persons upon the demised premises should always be distinguished from those dealing with his duties to persons using adjoining property. …

Tort Liability Of A Landlord, Raymond Harrison Harkrider

Michigan Law Review

At Common Law. According to the rules of the common law a landlord is under no legal duty to repair the demised premises during the term unless he expressly agrees to do so. It therefore may be stated, as a general rule, that he is liable neither to the tenant nor to the tenant's invitees for injuries caused by the premises falling into a state of disrepair during the term.