Personal Property

Arizona Supreme Court enforces parties’ contractual agreement on disposition of frozen embryos.

/ Personal Property

In Terrell v. Torres, 2020 WL 370239 (Ariz. 2020), the Arizona Supreme Court enforced a contract between a woman and a man over the disposition of fertilized embryos. The contract provided that the embryos would be the couple’s joint property and joint consent would be required for their use or disposition. The contract provided that upon divorce or dissolution of the relationship, the embryos would either be donated to another couple or used to achieve pregnancy by implantation in one of the parties. The couple subsequently got married and then divorced. After creation of the embryos, the woman underwent treatment for cancer that left her unable to bear a child without use of the embryos. She wanted the embryos for future implantation in her while her ex-husband wanted them donated to another couple. Although there was ambiguity in the way the agreement was worded, the Arizona Supreme Court found that the …

Arizona Supreme Court enforces parties’ contractual agreement on disposition of frozen embryos. Read More »

Courts continue to get property law wrong when trying to apply it to the Fourth Amendment

/ Fourth Amendment, Personal Property, Trespass

As happened in the Supreme Court cases of Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006) and United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012), the Sixth Circuit has used property law concepts to interpret the Fourth Amendment while misunderstanding what the property laws in force. US v. Jones held that the fourth amendment was violated when police put a tracking device on a car because that would have been a trespass to chattels. Most states, however, do not recognize a trespass to personal property unless it is damaged or commandeered. In an extension of Jones,the Sixth Circuit found a violation of car owners’ property rights (and a violation of the fourth amendment) when parking attendants drew chalk lines on car tires to keep track of how long they had been there for the purpose of parking laws. Taylor v. City of Saginaw, 922 F.3d 328 (6th Cir. 2019). Chalk lines wash off …

Courts continue to get property law wrong when trying to apply it to the Fourth Amendment Read More »

While real property held as tenancy by the entirety cannot be conveyed absent consent of both spouses, funds held in a bank account can be withdrawn by either spouse and, upon withdrawal, cease to be entireties property

/ Concurrent or Common Ownership, Estates and Future Interests, Marital Property, Personal Property

The Supreme Court of Tennessee overruled prior cases and adopted the Arkansas approach that allows spouses that own bank account as tenants by the entirety are free to withdraw funds unilaterally (without consent of their co-owner) and that moneys so withdraw become the individual property of the spouse that withdrew the funds. This contrasts with real property which neither spouse may convey without the consent of the other. In re Estate of Fletcher, 538 S.W.3d 444 (Tenn. 2017). It should be noted as well that Tennessee presumes that a conveyance to a married couple is held as a tenancy by the entirety unless the language provides otherwise.

First Circuit resolves dispute over religious real and personal property by reference to formal agreements

/ Personal Property, Religious Freedom, Title Issues, Trusts

The First Circuit Court of Appeals has resolved a longstanding and complicated dispute between two congregations over control of the real and personal property of the Touro Synagogue in Newport, Rhode Island. In an opinion by Judge John J. McConnell, Jr., the trial court had found that an implied or constructive trust existed by which a New York Congregation Shearith Israel (CSI) held title to the property for the benefit of the Newport Rhode Island Congregation Jeshuat Israel (CJI). Congregation Jeshuat Israel v. Congregation Shearith Israel, 186 F.Supp.3d 158 (D.R.I. 2016), rev’d, 2017 WL 3276805 (1st Cir. 2017). That opinion enforced Rhode Island property law and reviewed objective evidence of the parties’ relationship to find that the New York congregation held the property for the benefit of the Newport congregation. In an opinion by Justice Souter, the First Circuit reversed on the ground that the First Amendment requires courts to refrain from involvement in …

First Circuit resolves dispute over religious real and personal property by reference to formal agreements Read More »

Engagement rings must be returned if the marriage does not happen

/ Personal Property

The Supreme Court of Viriginia held that engagement rings are conditional gifts given in contemplation of marriage and that, when the marriage is called off, the ring donor has a right to have the ring returned. McGrath v. Dockendorf, 2016 Va. LEXIS 187 (Va. 2016). The technical holding of the case was that such claims are not barred by the “heart balm” statute, Va. Code § 8.01-220, that precludes claims for breach of promise to marry. Older cases held that engagement ring gifts were permanent but the modern approach is to view them as conditional and this court follows the modern trend.

Sixth Amendment right to counsel prohibits state from freezing legitimate assets of a criminal defendant needed to pay for counsel of choice

/ Due Process, Personal Property

The Supreme Court held in Luis v. United States, 136 S.Ct. 1083 (U.S. 2016), that the government may not prevent a criminal defendant from using funds not derived from a crime to pay for counsel of choice. No constitutional issue arose from confiscating the proceeds of a crime but the law in question froze the defendant’s assets to ensure that moneys would be available to pay any eventual fines or penalties. While that was a legitimate government purpose it was not sufficient to justify the imposition on the defendant’s right under the Sixth Amendment to seek assistance of counsel of the defendant’s choice.

Court refuses to allow emotional damages for negligent killing of a pet

/ Personal Property

If someone negligently kills someone else’s pet, courts generally limit damages to the market value of the animal and do not allow damages to be assessed for loss of companionship even though this amount does not adequately account for the emotional loss. In Strickland v. Medlen, 397 S.2d 3d 184 (Tex. 2013), a dog escaped the family’s backyard and was picked up by the animal control officials. When the owner went to pick up the dog, he did not have enough money to pay the required fees. Although the shelter tagged the dog to alert workers that the owner was coming back to retrieve the dog, a shelter worker mistakenly put the dog to sleep. The court held that emotional distress damages are not available for the negligent destruction of a dog even though Texas does allow such damages for the loss of a family heirloom. The court noted that loss of …

Court refuses to allow emotional damages for negligent killing of a pet Read More »

Eleventh Circuit rejects publicity rights claim for Rosa Parks

/ Intellectual Property, Personal Property

In a well-known case, the Georgia Supreme Court upheld a publicity rights claim brought by the estate of Martin Luther King. Martin Luther King Jr. for Social Change v. American Heritage Products, 296 S.E.2d 697 (Ga. 1982). The court enabled the estate to prevent the sale of plastic busts of Dr. King by a seller who had not been authorized to do so by the estate. However, in Rosa and Raymond Parks Inst. for Self-Development v. Target Corp., 2016 WL 25495, the Eleventh Circuit found that the Michigan Constitution’s guarantee of free speech rights prevented recognition of publicity rights in the estate of Rosa Parks. The seller in that case marketed various items adorned with images of Rosa Parks or which concerned her life, including a plaque showing Parks with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., six books, and a movie. The court found that Michigan’s state constitutional protections for free speech included …

Eleventh Circuit rejects publicity rights claim for Rosa Parks Read More »

Takings clause applies to physical seizure of personal property

/ Due Process, Eminent Domain, Personal Property, Takings

The Supreme Court held in Horne v. Dep’t of Agric., — U.S. — (2015), that the takings clause applies to physical takings of personal property (like cars) as well as to real property. Thus a government program designed to shore up the price of raisins by requiring farmers to hand over a certain percentage of the raisin crop to the government effected a categorical physical taking of personal property. The limit on supply of raisins for sale was intended to increase the price farmers receive for the raisins they sell, thus promoting the profitability of their businesses. The expropriated raisins are given away or sold by the government and if any profits remain they are returned to the farmers. The Court held any economic benefits farmers received from increased raisin prices or moneys from sales of the raisins turned over to the government do not affect the question of whether a taking has occurred. …

Takings clause applies to physical seizure of personal property Read More »

First Circuit holds there is no federal remedy for discriminatory treatment by store personnel

/ Antidiscrimination Law, Personal Property

Once again a federal court has held that the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (as amended in 1991) provides no relief to a store customer who was subjected to racial insults while trying to buy merchandise. The First Circuit held, in Hammond v. Kmart Corp., 2013 WL 5763267 (1st Cir. 2013), that the “right to contract” protected by 42 U.S.C. §1981 only protects the ability to enter a contract; it provides no relief for racially disparate treatment when one is in a store. Because the customer was able to complete the transaction (laying away merchandise), the store did not prevent her from “contracting.” Being subjected to “racial slurs and insults” as she was engaged in the transaction did not deter her from completing the transaction. The ruling oddly protects those who are deterred from completing the sale but not those who insist on going through with it despite the discriminatory treatment. It …

First Circuit holds there is no federal remedy for discriminatory treatment by store personnel Read More »

Scroll to Top