1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread Forum

[Flips88]

So for adverse possession, does the APer have to exercise the exact same activity as the landowner? Say, a house next door mows a section of land as part of their yard or a university uses part of a field for football practice, but the land actually begins to a farmer... for AP, would they have to use the land consistently with their ownership/possession, or with the farmer's? E.g. would they have to be farming the land to get AP? I say no, other members of my study group say yes.

No. Do they actually cite to any specific cases, I can't even imagine where they got that idea from.

Was in property last semester, so I'm fuzzy, but there was some case about adverse possessing a summer home and the person only had to use it like the true owner did, i.e. not for the whole year.

[3|ink]

Can anyone explain the difference between a crossclaim under FRCP 13(h) and an impleader under 14? It seems like 13(g) and (h) say you can join a party through 19 or 20 to file a cross-claim against it. Then what's the point of 14?

[Voltaire]

Can anyone explain the difference between a crossclaim under FRCP 13(h) and an impleader under 14? It seems like 13(g) and (h) say you can join a party through 19 or 20 to file a cross-claim against it. Then what's the point of 14?

You use 14 to bring someone into the suit that the plaintiff didn't. If they're already in the suit, you have to use rule 13 .

[piccolittle]

So for adverse possession, does the APer have to exercise the exact same activity as the landowner? Say, a house next door mows a section of land as part of their yard or a university uses part of a field for football practice, but the land actually begins to a farmer... for AP, would they have to use the land consistently with their ownership/possession, or with the farmer's? E.g. would they have to be farming the land to get AP? I say no, other members of my study group say yes.

No. Do they actually cite to any specific cases, I can't even imagine where they got that idea from.

Was in property last semester, so I'm fuzzy, but there was some case about adverse possessing a summer home and the person only had to use it like the true owner did, i.e. not for the whole year.

Yeah I've been bringing up that case to support that seasonal use can result in AP (because of the seasonal football practices), but that also supports their claim that the use has to be the same as the actual owner's (i.e. the owner also used the property seasonally). I always thought you just had to exercise rights consistent with ownership (e.g. mowing, making improvements, playing on the land), but they seem to think that because the land is a farm, the use of the AP must also be consistent with the farmer's.

[3|ink]

Can anyone explain the difference between a crossclaim under FRCP 13(h) and an impleader under 14? It seems like 13(g) and (h) say you can join a party through 19 or 20 to file a cross-claim against it. Then what's the point of 14?

You use 14 to bring someone into the suit that the plaintiff didn't. If they're already in the suit, you have to use rule 13 .

Thank you. It just seems like 13(h) says you can use permissive joinder to add a defendant and then cross claim.

[hijodehombre]

So for adverse possession, does the APer have to exercise the exact same activity as the landowner? Say, a house next door mows a section of land as part of their yard or a university uses part of a field for football practice, but the land actually begins to a farmer... for AP, would they have to use the land consistently with their ownership/possession, or with the farmer's? E.g. would they have to be farming the land to get AP? I say no, other members of my study group say yes.

No. Do they actually cite to any specific cases, I can't even imagine where they got that idea from.

Was in property last semester, so I'm fuzzy, but there was some case about adverse possessing a summer home and the person only had to use it like the true owner did, i.e. not for the whole year.

Yeah I've been bringing up that case to support that seasonal use can result in AP (because of the seasonal football practices), but that also supports their claim that the use has to be the same as the actual owner's (i.e. the owner also used the property seasonally). I always thought you just had to exercise rights consistent with ownership (e.g. mowing, making improvements, playing on the land), but they seem to think that because the land is a farm, the use of the AP must also be consistent with the farmer's.

It has to do with the nature of the property, not what the true owner did before neglecting it, so if its farmland, then yes, the adverse possessor must show he farms it, if it's a house, he must reside in it, if it's a ranch, he must raise livestock on it. But just because the previous owner was trying to grow lemon trees on a parcel in the desert, doesn't mean the adverse possessor has to try to grow lemon trees, as well. Sprankling says the adverse possessor must physically use the land in the same manner that a reasonable owner would.

[Voltaire]

Can anyone explain the difference between a crossclaim under FRCP 13(h) and an impleader under 14? It seems like 13(g) and (h) say you can join a party through 19 or 20 to file a cross-claim against it. Then what's the point of 14?

You use 14 to bring someone into the suit that the plaintiff didn't. If they're already in the suit, you have to use rule 13 .

Thank you. It just seems like 13(h) says you can use permissive joinder to add a defendant and then cross claim.

I'm pretty sure that's talking about defendant joining someone else when he counterclaims against the plaintiff or crossclaims against another defendant. 99.9 percent sure.

[3|ink]

Can anyone explain the difference between a crossclaim under FRCP 13(h) and an impleader under 14? It seems like 13(g) and (h) say you can join a party through 19 or 20 to file a cross-claim against it. Then what's the point of 14?

You use 14 to bring someone into the suit that the plaintiff didn't. If they're already in the suit, you have to use rule 13 .

Thank you. It just seems like 13(h) says you can use permissive joinder to add a defendant and then cross claim.

I'm pretty sure that's talking about defendant joining someone else when he counterclaims against the plaintiff or crossclaims against another defendant. 99.9 percent sure.

Oh yeah. Thanks again.

[JenDarby]

I'm pretty sure that's talking about defendant joining someone else when he counterclaims against the plaintiff or crossclaims against another defendant. 99.9 percent sure.

Oh yeah. Thanks again.

Yep. 13(h) is used to add parties not already in the suit, BUT to invoke it a party must be asserting a Rule 13(a), (b), or (g) claim against someone who is already a party.

[lisjjen]

The takeaway is I am so glad I am done with CivPro. Well, I'm done with the 1L class at least.

[Dany]

May I complain about my brief here?

[094320]

..

[Dany]

May I complain about my brief here?

Sure have at it.

I actually just want to complain that I'm a huge procrastinator and brought this misery upon myself. It's due tomorrow at 8:15 am.

[094320]

..

[Xifeng]

May I complain about my brief here?

Sure have at it.

I actually just want to complain that I'm a huge procrastinator and brought this misery upon myself. It's due tomorrow at 8:15 am.

Or it was so miserable that it just wasn't worth working on until you had to? Are you a caffeine drinker?

We have the dumbest topic ever. Ugh.

And Dany is a caffeine pro.

[Dany]

May I complain about my brief here?

Sure have at it.

I actually just want to complain that I'm a huge procrastinator and brought this misery upon myself. It's due tomorrow at 8:15 am.

Or it was so miserable that it just wasn't worth working on until you had to? Are you a caffeine drinker?

Oh yes. Will be making many a cup of coffee tonight. Luckily I have some awesome coffee beans that a TLSer got me!

/cries into coffee cup

[094320]

..

[Xifeng]

Oh yes. Will be making many a cup of coffee tonight. Luckily I have some awesome coffee beans that a TLSer got me!

/cries into coffee cup

...on the bright side y'all are <24 hrs away from being done with LRW forever!

Except our oral arguments. In front of our LRW professor, a normal professor, and someone else (probably a judge?).

At least it's ungraded, but it's going to be lulzy.

[094320]

..

[tedalbany]

First exam in 19.5 hours. Terrified.

[vertex]

So for adverse possession, does the APer have to exercise the exact same activity as the landowner? Say, a house next door mows a section of land as part of their yard or a university uses part of a field for football practice, but the land actually begins to a farmer... for AP, would they have to use the land consistently with their ownership/possession, or with the farmer's? E.g. would they have to be farming the land to get AP? I say no, other members of my study group say yes.

The possessor only has to use it like a reasonable owner would to satisfy the 'actual' element of adverse possession. Since Spitz's land is a farm, it's an open issue for discussion whether it needs to be used like a reasonable farmer or a reasonable owner of land generally. (That is, there is no "right" answer.) Ultimately, since the 'actual' element is to put the true owner on notice that someone is claiming a right, I would come down on the side that the students' use is sufficiently reasonable to meet this requirement for AP.

The football players' use of the land only in the Fall for practice speaks to the 'continuous' element more than it does the 'actual' element, and there we do have a case on point (Kunto). But the pickup games and the shed make this an easy element to satisfy.

[piccolittle]

So for adverse possession, does the APer have to exercise the exact same activity as the landowner? Say, a house next door mows a section of land as part of their yard or a university uses part of a field for football practice, but the land actually begins to a farmer... for AP, would they have to use the land consistently with their ownership/possession, or with the farmer's? E.g. would they have to be farming the land to get AP? I say no, other members of my study group say yes.

The possessor only has to use it like a reasonable owner would to satisfy the 'actual' element of adverse possession. Since Spitz's land is a farm, it's an open issue for discussion whether it needs to be used like a reasonable farmer or a reasonable owner of land generally. (That is, there is no "right" answer.) Ultimately, since the 'actual' element is to put the true owner on notice that someone is claiming a right, I would come down on the side that the students' use is sufficiently reasonable to meet this requirement for AP.

The football players' use of the land only in the Fall for practice speaks to the 'continuous' element more than it does the 'actual' element, and there we do have a case on point (Kunto). But the pickup games and the shed make this an easy element to satisfy.

Funny how exam period brings old TLSers back to life

Thanks for weighing in! We were actually going to bring some of this up with Scott at the review session or whatever it is we have tomorrow. Good to know I'm not totally off base with this; I think you and I agree substantially.

[merc280]

Con law exam tomorrow. So un prepared. still don't know all of the little nuances or stipulations that ally to the basic doctrine. I think the fight might already be over.

[vertex]

Funny how exam period brings old TLSers back to life

Yeah, this exam period is straight brutal.

[BlueDiamond]

can anyone tell me Nicastro's importance to the stream of commerce cases? Up until like 20 minutes ago when I found out my class has read it I was planning on just using the 4-4 asahi split..