Gareth's Blackacre Property Issues

Land Law: Blackacre

Issue

Gareth has just acquired a registered freehold title to Blackacre from Rudolf. Talking of Blackacre, this is a vast piece of land, made up of a filed, with a large house located on the western end of the property. On the eastern side of the large tract of land is a well-decorated small shade. By acquiring the title in this particular property, Gareth is intending to develop the land raising a magnificent hotel facility on the site.

Gareth has walked into the office seeking legal advice on various issues that have come up since he finalized the acquisition of the property. Gareth has his neighbor Rahul, who runs bread and breakfast next door, in the same facility. Over a period of one year, Rahul has managed to produce a deed. This comes after Rudolf has assured Rahul, on behalf of himself and those who will succeed him in the title, will never establish a hotel or any facility of that kind in this particular piece of land. This implies that already, by allowing Gareth to run a hotel in this tract of land, he has already gone against the initial agreement the two had; Rudolf and Rahul.

Juraj is another neighbor to Gareth, within the same property. Juraj has been storing his bicycles in the shed located on the eastern side of the property. According to Juraj, he has all the rights to crisscross the property, without anyone questioning him. This is based on the fact that the shed is on the other end of the property, and can only reach there by crossing the fields of Blackacre. In fact, he has gone as far as producing a written note from Rudolf, which grants him these kinds of permissions. The implication, therefore, is that he has the right to do so since an agreement had been signed on the same. A further implication is that Rudolf has breached the agreement they had in the lease. Continue your journey with our comprehensive guide to Formalities in Land Law Exceptions.

The following day, Gareth spots Juraj on his bike while crossing the field. At one time, Juraj gets off his bike and picks up a golden bracelet, which someone must have dropped accidentally. This happens at the middle of the field; with Gareth having ownership of the same, as defined under the occupancy agreement. Gareth makes a move of confronting Juraj about the same. The latter insists that he owns the bracelet, considering that he is the founder.

Olympia is another party who comes into play. According to Olympia, he has the exclusive rights of staying in one of the rooms in the house. In fact, he claims that the room must be one of those ones on the top of the house. He argues that a month before making the purchase, she was accorded exclusive use of the room. This would go a period of two years, where she was expected to undertake rental payments of $65 on a weekly basis. This sheds light to another breach of contract, considering that Gareth was not informed of the ongoing contracts in the land during the lease.

Rule

If the information provided by Gareth is anything to go by, then it is clear that he leased the property from Rudolf. However, the legal definition of law guides more on the same. In Specht v. Netscape Communications Corp, the supreme court ruled that a lease of immovable property refers to the transfer of not ownership but the right to enjoy the facility over an agreed period of time. The agreement is reached upon after considering such factors like price, possible underlying shares, the service to be undertaken on the piece of land. The above-definitions give a perfect explanation of the title Gareth has just acquired from Rudolf.

In United States v. Paramount Pictures, the supreme court held that upon engaging in leasing contract, the lessee has the right to enjoy the property as per the conditions mentioned while signing the contractual agreement. He is accorded the right, not only to possess but also enjoy the property, with the lease expected to convey the same fully. In Softman Products Co., LLC v. Adobe Systems, Inc., the court ruled that the lessee has the right to enjoy the property until that time when the contract will be dully terminated. The termination should also come at that time when a lawful eviction has taken place.

In International Salt Co. v. United States, the supreme court verdict stated that is the responsibility of the landlord to see that the tenant has not only safe but also functional facility. The court further ruled that the landlord has the obligations of adhering to the stated terms under the lease agreement. This comes alongside the rights and responsibilities that the lessee has under the same, as stated by the law. For instance, the lease has the responsibility that he makes good use of the property as agreed under the contractual terms.

In Court in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., the court held that lessee has the right to privacy. The fact that the landlord owns the building or rather the property does not give him/her the right to barge when it comes to their mind that they should. The court argues that lessee has the right to a reasonable level of both privacy and security. For instance, there are instances where the owner might want to access the property for other reasons. However, he should only go ahead with the same by giving the lessee a notice beforehand. The same applies in the case of the property owner’s family and friends.

Application

As from the above legal frameworks, it is clear that Rudolf breached the conduct that he had with Gareth. This can further be interpreted as a failure to disclose information that is truthful with regard to other existing contracts in the property. Failure to disclose the relevant contractual information has subjected Gareth into a number of challenges and legal mayhem, such as considering Juraj as a trespass.

Borrowing from the Supreme Court verdict in ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, Rudolf has breached the contractual agreement by failing to declare relevant information pertaining to the property. Despite considering the agreement as a lease of immovable property, Rudolf has failed to transfer Gareth the right to enjoy the facility over the agreed period of time. Similarly, the failure to disclose the relevant information by Rudolf has seen Gareth lacking the required level of privacy in the property. He regularly meets neighbors who were never disclosed while signing the contract.

Conclusion

From the current analysis, it is clear that Rudolf has failed to adhere by the contractual agreements. This has seen Gareth feeling embarrassed and fully frustrated. It is important that he heads to the court in order to settle the same. However, is they can settle out court, it will be a good move as long as Rudolf agrees to compensate him.

Land Law: Leases and Licenses

Introduction

There are three major or rather common ways through which individuals can occupy a property. The three include tenancy at will, seeking licensing as well as lease. Analysis of United States v. General Elec. Co. has revealed that it is of great relevance for tenants and landlords to understand the difference existing between the three common types of occupation. Similarly, it is important that tenants and landlords be in a better position to go for the most suitable type of occupation that meets their requirements and expectations. On that note, this paper seeks to develop a detailed comprehension on leases and licensing, by looking at the major difference that comes between the two types of occupation.

Differences between Leases and Licenses

Among the concerns arising in the land law is the distinction between the two types of occupations: a lease and a license. In Specht v. Netscape Communications Corp., it clearly emerged that the two tend to sound like the same thing, with professionals and those concerned in land law using them interchangeably. However, the two common types of occupations are completely separate legal concepts. On that basis, each come with different rights and duties.

Lease

While defining a license, Softman Products Co., LLC v. Adobe Systems, Inc., refers to the right that one has in exclusively possessing a property over a defined timeframe. Talking of exclusive possession, this is all about the ‘freedom’ that one has in exerting the rights of a person owning the land. Furthermore, the exclusion aspect extends to the landlord and the third parties from the given property in question. However, it is limited to the entire rights that have been reserved to the actual owner of the land as stated in the lease. For instance, this may include accessing the property in given circumstances, such as during repair.

License

In ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, the Supreme Court defined a license as personal permission granted to an individual making use of the property to run an initiative or activity in the property of the landowner so as to do away with the act being trespassed. The individual who is granted the permission is referred to as the licensee while the landowner called the licensor. The issuance of a license comes with little security to the licensee, with either of the party having the right to terminate or rather bring the license to an end, on short notice.

In most cases, a license is used on a short-term basis, and when engaging in informal arrangements. Drafting of a license calls for more attention and carefulness. For instance, failure to draft the license correctly will see the tenant claiming for protection. With this kind of protection, the tenant can ask for protection, as stipulated under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. It encompasses security of tenure for those seeking or undertaking business tenancies, hence remaining in the premises even when the contract expires. Also, the protection allows them to ask for renewal under the already defined and existing terms.

Primary Distinctions

The following are the primary distinctions that are useful in understanding the difference between a lease and a license. They include:

A lease stands for a transfer of an interest in a particular property that cannot be moved from one place to another; immovable. On the other hand, a license is basically a bare permission, which comes alongside non-transfer of an interest.

In the process of creating interest, a lease does it while taking care of the needs of the lessee; favors the lessee. This is different in the case of a license, which creates none of such interests.

A lease is not only transferable but heritable as well. It paces the way for creating a sub-tenancy upon the death of the tenant. The case is different for licensing, where there is neither room for transfer neither inheritance.

The Supreme Court in United Shoe Machinery Corp. v. United States held that a license is terminated upon the death of the party signing as the grantor. This is based on the fact that a license is signed as a personal contract. On the other hand, a lease is not terminated upon the death of either the grantor or whoever signs as a grantee.

The withdrawal of a license can take place at any time; indefinite, with the grantor deciding on the same. However, the case is different for a lease, where the ‘contract’ can only come to an end as per the already laid terms and conditions under the ‘documented’ contract of the tenancy agreement.

Whenever the property is transferred as a result of the sale to a third party, the lease remains unaffected. The implication, therefore, is that the purchase has to ‘exercise patience’ until the earlier defined time frame comes to an end. It is until this time when the third party gets the possession of the property. The is completely different in the case of licensing, where the contract comes to an end at the point where the property is transferred to the third party.

A lessee is accorded the right to offer protection to the contract. This is different in the case of a license, where the licensee has no right for defending the possession since he lacks proprietary rights in the given property in question.

A lessee possessing a given property has the entitled to undertake any improvements. The case is different to a licensee who lacks the same.

A Lease or a License

In addition to the above primary distinction between the two types of occupancy, ascertaining the true definition of the document signed under either required that it is preferred to its form. In such a case where the document creates an interest in the given property, it suits the true definition of a lease. However, if the document only allows another person to use the property it is defined as a license. In addition to the above, a license does not come with any interest in the related property. This implies that whether a given instrument works like a lease or license, whatever matters it is the substance. According to United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., whatever is taken into consideration the prime motive held by the two parties. However, the motive has to be gathered on an openness while constructing the agreement rather than mere description brought alongside by each.

The other basis for interpreting the difference between a lease and license is the real intention of driving the two parties to engage in the agreement. The above assertion was held by the court of appeal International Salt Co. v. United States, clearly defining the difference to be determined by evaluating the real intentions of the involved parties as well as the circumstances surrounding the same. The court further held that each party’s conduct, before and after signing the contract, plays a significant role in establishing the parties’ intention. The above assertion was confirmed by the Supreme Court ruling in FCC v. Beach Communications, Inc., stating that the difference between a license and a lease is reflected by the real intention of the involved parties and the circumstances surrounding the same.

The Supreme Court in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., had the opinion that a mere license does not come with interest in the related property. This is completely different in the case of a lease, where a room is created to permit the transfer of property. In most case, a license can either be personal or contractual in nature. In the absence of a grant, the licensor enjoys a right to access the property and enjoy it.

Looking for further insights on Gareth's Blackacre Property Issues? Click here.

Conclusion

From the above analysis, it is clear that the subject matter of the two forms of occupancy is less the same thing. This is based on the fact that they all come with the right to make use of premises or property in a given manner. However, there exists a key legal difference between the two, which has to be taken into account when going for either. More particularly, a lease comes with an interest in the given land, where the tenant enjoys an exclusive possession as well as the security of tenure. On the other hand, a license as an arrangement is quite flexible and fails to accord the same security of tenure as for the case of a lease.

Bibliography

Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 114 S. Ct. 1164, 127 L. Ed. 2d 500 (1994).

FCC v. Beach Communications, Inc., 508 U.S. 307, 113 S. Ct. 2096, 124 L. Ed. 2d 211 (1993).

International Salt Co. v. United States, 332 U.S. 392, 68 S. Ct. 12, 92 L. Ed. 20 (1947). ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996).

Softman Products Co., LLC v. Adobe Systems, Inc., 171 F. Supp. 2d 1075 (C.D. Cal. 2001).

Specht v. Netscape Communications Corp., 306 F.3d 17 (2d Cir. 2002).

United States v. General Elec. Co., 272 U.S. 476, 47 S. Ct. 192, 71 L. Ed. 362 (1926).

United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 334 U.S. 131, 68 S. Ct. 915, 92 L. Ed. 1260 (1948).

United Shoe Machinery Corp. v. United States, 258 U.S. 451, 42 S. Ct. 363, 66 L. Ed. 708 (1922).