This website provides updated
information about the course and assignments. It also contains links to the
handouts and materials used in the course, as well as links to sites on the
web. Feel free to contact me if you have
Please note: All materials on this web site are protected by copyright and intended for use only by students enrolled in Property II at California Western School of Law. Students enrolled in the class may copy these materials to their own computers. However, these materials may not be transferred to others or posted on publicly accessible web sites.
Past Assignments: As the semester moves forward, you can find earlier assignments by clicking here: Past Assignments.
Current Assignments: Below are the day-to-day assignments for the course. They are updated often so hit the “Refresh” button on your browser to assure you are viewing the most recent updates. Many browsers will use a cached version of the website & may not reveal the most recent updates unless you hit the refresh button. All of the Assignments for the course are on-line via this link: Assignments for the entire Semester.
1. Thursday, December 1
a. Easements Created by Implication:
i. Van Sandt v. Royster at pages 825-831.
ii. Notes at pages 831-833.
b. Creation of Easements: Respond to this hypothetical:
i. In 1904 Laura Bailey sold Lot 19 to John Jones, retaining Lots 20 & 4. No easement by implication was established because there was no pre-existing use. In 1905, the sewer is installed when John Jones grants “permission” to Laura to install. No deed of easement was executed. Laura installed the sewer line and used it for Lots 4 and 20. In 1938, Van Sandt (John Jone’s successor to Lot 19) brought an action to enjoin use of the sewer line, claiming no easement exists in favor of Lots 20 & 4. Could Royster & Gray (owners of Lots 20 & 4) assert some other method(s) of easement creation? Be specific as to the possible success of each method of creation. You should come up with at least 3 methods of easement creation.
c. Scope of Easements:
i. Brown v. Voss at pages 865-874 and notes 1-5 following the case.
ii. Formulate responses to the following hypos: Scope Hypos
2. Tuesday, December 6
a. Review Scope Hypos
b. Termination of Easements: Pages 50-52 of the Supplement.
c. "Negative" Easements: Pages 887-889.
d. Reminder about Backups: This is the magical time of year when students’ laptops break down, get lost or are stolen. It’s always a good idea to back up essential data like outlines, briefs, notes, papers, etc. Two backups are better than one: USB flash drives, cloud storage, etc.
e. Evaluations & Feedback
f. Review of Multiple Choice Questions: Questions
Essay Question review. We will review the following essay question: Sample Essay Question
There is a password for some documents on this website. It will be announced in class and emailed to you.
2. Answers to the Rule Against Perpetuities Hypos: Answers
7. California Codes. This link connects you to the official site of the State of California and allows you to search any of the California Codes. For instance, to find out about tenant security deposits, click “Civil Code” and insert “tenant security deposit” in the search block.
If you have a question that you would like answered, e-mail Prof. Ehrlich at: firstname.lastname@example.org. Your name will not be posted, just the question & answer. We have powerful & enthusiastic junk email filters. If you send me email from an outside account (not your law school email account) make sure you put the word “Property” in the Subject line.
The following links will take you to a compilation of questions posed by prior students, and answers posted by Prof. Ehrlich:
E-mail: email@example.com – Please
put the word “Property” in the Subject line.
Office: Room 309, Administration Building (225 Cedar St.)
I’m often available, please knock.