SelectedWorks @ Chapman University Dale E. Fowler School of Law
Not a member yet
    1539 research outputs found

    Dealing with Dirty Deeds: Matching Nemo Dat Preferences with Property Law Pragmatism

    No full text
    An organizing principle of the rule of law based on individualism and order is expressed by the Latin maxim nemo dat quod non habet – roughly translated to mean that one can only give what they have or one can only transfer what they own. Yet when title disputes arise between two or more purchasers, we have accepted pragmatically that exceptions must be made to nemo dat and that, at times, we may have to, in essence, validate fraud and other dirty deeds. The Article outlines the basic place of the nemo dat principle in our system of law, introduces the tensions between the ideal adherence to the maxim and the realities in the world that necessitate exceptions to (or a sometimes less-than-ideal achievement of) the maxim, summarizes the recording acts and their purposes (along with the types of notice and their uses), and exposes the tensions these recording systems each have with a strict notion of nemo dat. It explains why the protections for bona fide purchasers are necessary to facilitate markets in property and serve other goals, while examining the role of individual responsibility – particularly as it relates to purchaser obligations to record and examine records – as the core justification for setting the rules in a manner that first-in-time title holders sometimes lose out to subsequent purchasers. Pragmatism concerns make some nemo dat exceptions necessary, but we should find ways to minimize the need for invoking such exceptions principally by shrinking the pool of those who fit the criteria for the bona fide purchaser exception. This Article proposes that we should search for ways to inject more information about land conveyances into the public view – beyond traditional recording mechanisms – so that more and earlier notice of possible competing property claims is available to responsible purchasers exercising due diligence. To accomplish that goal, this Article presents a proposal to take advantage of what can be characterized as “the underexploited utility of inquiry notice.” The Article outlines the components of a proposed new and innovative service called the “Title-Related Inquiry Notice Triggering System” (TINTS). As outlined, TINTS would operate in a manner that would provide a means for purchasers of property to protect their claim to title even earlier than official recording might accommodate. TINTS, or other innovations like it, can assist us in matching nemo dat preferences with property law pragmatism

    A Minimum Wage of Zero

    No full text

    The Rise and Fall (and Rise) of Anti-Semitism Here and Abroad

    No full text

    The House of Representatives Lawsuit Against the Executive Branch

    No full text

    Thin-Skinned and Upset? Call a Lawyer

    No full text

    Hillary\u27s Emails and the Law

    No full text

    Cheating Marriage: A Tragedy in Three Acts

    No full text
    In his dissenting opinion in United States v. Windsor, Justice Scalia accused the Court of “cheating,” because it decided an issue that properly belonged to the voters. But the cheating that went on in the case, and the parallel case involving Proposition 8 in California, was also of the vintage variety. This article tells the largely untold story about the many machinations by elected officials and judges to produce the end result in favor of same-sex marriage, from conflicts of interest, to collusion by nominally “opposing” counsel, and finally to an aggressive refusal by high-ranking government lawyers (including one who would then cast the deciding vote in the case) to defend laws for which there were perfectly reasonable defenses well-rooted in then-existing precedent

    Are the Green Bay Packers Socialists?

    No full text
    The Green Bay Packers are an oft-misunderstood organization — not in the decisions that the Packers make, but in their legal status and structure. Scholars, commentators, and even the general public refer to the Packers as “community-owned.” While this characterization is true — to a degree — the specifics of this unique ownership structure in professional sports have never been comprehensively documented and analyzed. Perhaps this is the reason that some political pundits have termed the Packers “socialists.” However, such commentators also seem to not fully appreciate the historical development, and contemporary understanding, of this social, economic, and political ideology. This confluence of confusion has led to the misapplication of the term socialism to the Green Bay Packers. This article seeks to set the record straight

    The Unintended Consequences of Campaign Finance Reform

    No full text

    Cameras in the Supreme Court

    No full text

    0

    full texts

    1,539

    metadata records
    Updated in last 30 days.
    SelectedWorks @ Chapman University Dale E. Fowler School of Law
    Access Repository Dashboard
    Do you manage Open Research Online? Become a CORE Member to access insider analytics, issue reports and manage access to outputs from your repository in the CORE Repository Dashboard! 👇