Top Law Schools

Hello everyone,

I'm hoping to get some clarification on the difference between the Majority's reasoning in this case, and the Dissent's reasoning.

Here's what I have:

Majority: Assign separate segments of the cave based on land surface boundaries.

Dissent: The surface owners are joint owners of the entire cave in proportion to their respective shares of the overlying surface.

So, for the dissent, does that mean the surface owners are joint owners of the cave, meaning that they can use the cave for their own purposes, but can only use up to the proportion of what they own on at the surface level?

Thank you.

ltp93 wrote:Hello everyone,

I'm hoping to get some clarification on the difference between the Majority's reasoning in this case, and the Dissent's reasoning.

Here's what I have:

Majority: Assign separate segments of the cave based on land surface boundaries.

Dissent: The surface owners are joint owners of the entire cave in proportion to their respective shares of the overlying surface.

So, for the dissent, does that mean the surface owners are joint owners of the cave, meaning that they can use the cave for their own purposes, but can only use up to the proportion of what they own on at the surface level?

Thank you.

I haven't read the case, but joint ownership might mean they all the the right to use the entire cave but only own a certain portion of it. There is a concept in property law called "tenancy in common" which is similar. Or maybe joint owners means that they all need to consent in order to alienate the property. What's the case citation?

Kentucky Ct. of Appeals, 1936

265 Ky. 418, 96 S.W.2d 1028

But, please do not go out completely out of your way. I can always clarify my confusion with the professor.

I was just hoping someone on the forum had some on-hand knowledge about the case.

ltp93 wrote:Hello everyone,

I'm hoping to get some clarification on the difference between the Majority's reasoning in this case, and the Dissent's reasoning.

Here's what I have:

Majority: Assign separate segments of the cave based on land surface boundaries.

Dissent: The surface owners are joint owners of the entire cave in proportion to their respective shares of the overlying surface.

So, for the dissent, does that mean the surface owners are joint owners of the cave, meaning that they can use the cave for their own purposes, but can only use up to the proportion of what they own on at the surface level?

Thank you.

without having read the case, it's impossible to provide help. It appears to me that separate land owners discovered a cave that sits underneath their lands, and the issue is the legal status of ownership of the cave. The majority says that each owner owns part of the cave, limited to the boundaries of their land, while the dissent thinks the owners should be joint tenants (not TIC). Again, this is without having read the case.

Majority uses ad coelum rule and says the guy who owns the land above the cave has the ability to keep whoever he wants out of the portion of the cave below his property.

Dissent thinks the ad coelum rule is stupid and the owner of the entrance to the cave should be the owner of the entire cave. The dissent says the ad coelum rule should only be applied to the extent someone can use the land, and since Lee wasn't going to use the cave himself he doesn't get to claim ownership over it.

NVM. The above applies to the predecessor case Edwards vs. Sims.

Tiago Splitter wrote:Majority uses ad coelum rule and says the guy who owns the land above the cave has the ability to keep whoever he wants out of the portion of the cave below his property.

Dissent thinks the ad coelum rule is stupid and the owner of the entrance to the cave should be the owner of the entire cave. The dissent says the ad coelum rule should only be applied to the extent someone can use the land, and since Lee wasn't going to use the cave himself he doesn't get to claim ownership over it.

see i thought so too but isnt that Edwards v Sims and not the followup Edwards v lees admin? bc in Sims the dissent applies the reasonable use limitation of ad coelum of Hinman Air to the ad inferos aspect of the rule.

My bad. I assumed Edwards v. Sims was the same case.

Tiago Splitter wrote:My bad. I assumed Edwards v. Sims was the same case.

i did too at first. posted a big paragraph and then deleted it.