- Property law
"Property law" is the area of
lawthat governs the various forms of ownershipin real property(land as distinct from personal or movable possessions) and in personal property, within the common lawlegal system. In the civil law system, there is a division between movable and immovable property. Movable property roughly corresponds to personal property, while immovable property corresponds to real estateor real property, and the associated rights and obligations thereon.
The concept, idea or philosophy of
propertyunderlies all property law. In some jurisdictions, historically all property was owned by the monarchand it devolved through feudal land tenureor other feudalsystems of loyaltyand fealty.
Though the Napoleonic code was among the first government acts of modern times to introduce the notion of absolute ownership into
statute, protection of personal property rights was present in medieval Islamic law and jurisprudence,citation|last=Makdisi|first=John|year=2005|title=Islamic Property Law: Cases and Materials for Comparative Analysis with the Common Law|publisher=Carolina Academic Press|isbn=1594601100] and in more feudalist forms in the common law courts of medieval and early modern England.
Definition of property
Roman law, property was defined as follows: "ius utendi et abutendi re sua, quatenus iuris ratio patitur", 'the right to use and abuse a thing, within the limits of the law' ( Justinian, "Code" 4, 35, 21; see also, commentary by P.J. Proudhonin ch. 2 of "What is Property?" [http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/proudhon/property/index.htm] ).
One modern textbook on property law states:
::When a layman is asked to define "property," he is likely to say that "property" is something tangible "owned" by a natural person (or persons), a corporation, or a unit of government. But such a response is inaccurate from a lawyer's viewpoint for at least two reasons: (1) it confuses "property" with the various "subjects" of "property," and (2) it fails to recognize that even the subjects of property may be intangible.
::For a lawyer, "property" is not a "thing" at all, although "things" are the subject of property. Rather, as
Jeremy Benthamasserted, property is a legally protected "expectation * * * of being able to draw such or such an advantage from the thing" in question [ . . . .] [R.A. Cunningham, W.B. Stoebuck & D.A. Whitman, "The Law of Property", p. 1 (West 1984) (footnote reference omitted; italics and quotation marks in the original).] Black's Law Dictionary(5th ed. 1979) states that " [i] n the strict legal sense, [property is] an aggregate of rights which are guaranteed and protected by the government" and that the term property "includes not only ownership and possession but also the right of use and enjoyment for lawful purposes."
By contrast, Barron's Law Dictionary (2d ed. 1984) defines property as "one's exclusive right to possess, use, and dispose of a thing" [ . . . ] "as well as the object, benefit, or prerogative which constitutes the subject matter of that right."
Property law, in systems derived from English common law, is divided into personal and real property. Real property concerns itself with rights "in rem", or relating to land. Personal property concerns itself with rights "in personam", or relating to chattels. Gray & Gray (1998) describe the definition of property in the modern sense as oscillating between 'competing models of property as a fact, property as a right, and property as a responsibility' [Edgeworth, B. et al, Property Law: Cases and Materials, 7th ed., (Butterworths, Australia, 2004): 6.] Declared ownership in and of itself is insufficient to constitute property in a legal sense. Rather, the notion of property arises where one can have his/her right to land or chattels respected and enforced by a court of law. Therefore to possess good title (and thus enforceable rights) on property one must acquire it legitimately, according to the laws of the jurisdiction in which one seeks enforcement.
Theory of property
Early American theory
James Wilson, U.S. Supreme Court Justice and professor of law at the University of Pennsylvania, in 1790 and 1791, undertook a survey of the philosophical grounds of American property law. He proceeds from two premises: “Every crime includes an injury: every injury includes a violation of a right.” (Lectures, III, ii.) The government’s role in protecting property depends upon an idea of right. Wilson traces the history of property in his essay On the History of Property. In his lecture, “Of the natural rights of individuals,” (Lectures II, xii) he articulates related contemporary theory.
That theory was brought to a focus on the question of whether man exists for the sake of government, or government for the sake of man – a distinction which may derive from, or lead to, the question of natural and absolute rights, and whether property is one of them. While he doubts this is so, he nonetheless states: “In his unrelated state, man has a natural right to his property, to his character, to liberty, and to safety.” James Wilson asks whether “the primary and principal object in the institution of government… was… to acquire new rights by human establishment? Or was it, by a human establishment, to acquire a new security for the possession or the recovery of those rights….?” He indicates a preference for the latter.
In the opening sentence of On the History of Property, he states quite clearly: “Property is the right or lawful power, which a person has to a thing.” He then divides the right into three degrees: possession, the lowest; possession and use; and, possession, use, and disposition – the highest. Further, he states: “Man is intended for action. Useful and skilful industry is the soul of an active life. But industry should have her just reward. That reward is property, for of useful and active industry, property is the natural result.” From this simple reasoning he is able to present the conclusion that exclusive, as opposed to communal property, is to be preferred. Wilson does, however, give a survey of communal property arrangements in history, not only in colonial
Virginiabut also ancient Sparta.
Property rights and contractual rights
Property rights are rights over things enforceable against other persons. By contrast,
contractual rights are rights enforceable against particular persons. Property rights, however, may arise from a contract, so there is an overlap between the two systems of rights. In relation to the sale of land, for example, two sets of legal relationships exist alongside one another: the personal right to sue for damages on the contract, and the proprietary right exercisable over the thing.
A separate distinction is evident where rights granted are insufficiently substantial to confer on the non-owner a definable interest right in the thing. The clearest example of these rights is the
licence. In general, even if licences are created by a binding contract, they do not give rise to proprietary interests.
Property rights and personal rights
Property rights are also distinguished from
personal rights. Practically all contemporary societies acknowledge this basic ontologicaland ethical distinction. In the past, groups lacking political power have often been disqualified from the benefits of property. In an extreme form this has meant that persons have become "objects" of property right, legally "things", or chattels - see slavery. More commonly, marginalised groups have been denied legal rights to own property. These include Jewsin Englandand married women in Western societies until the late 19th century.
The dividing line between personal rights and property rights is not always easy to draw. For instance, is one's
reputationproperty which can be commercially exploited by affording property rights to it? The question of the proprietary character of personal rights is particularly relevant in the case of rights over human tissue, organs and other body parts.
There have been recent cases of women being subordinated to the
fetus, through the imposition of unwanted caesarian sections. English judges have recently made the point that such women lack the right to exclusive control over their own bodies, formerly considered a fundamental common law right. In the United States, a " quasi-property" interest has been explicitly declared in the dead body. Also in the United States, it has been recognised that people have an alienable proprietary " right of publicity" over their "persona". The patenting of biotechnological processes and products based upon human genetic material may be characterised as creating property in human life.
Property law is characterised by a great deal of historical continuity and technical
terminology. The basic distinction in common law systems is between real property (land) and personal property (chattels).
Before the mid-19th century, the principles governing the devolution of real property and personal property on an
intestacywere quite different. Though this dichotomy does not have the same significance anymore, the distinction is still fundamental because of the essential differences between the two categories. An obvious example is the fact that land is immovable, and thus the rules that govern its use must differ. A further reason for the distinction is that legislation is often drafted employing the traditional terminology.
The division of land and chattels has been criticised as being not satisfactory as a basis for categorising the principles of property law since it concentrates attention not on the proprietary interests themselves but on the objects of those interests. [Felix Cohen, "Dialogue on Private Property" (1954) "Rutgers LR" 357.] Moreover, in the case of
fixtures, chattels which are affixed to or placed on land may become part of the land.
Real property is generally sub-classified into:
#corporeal hereditaments - tangible real property (land)
#incorporeal hereditaments - intangible real property such as an easement of way
The concept of possession developed from a legal system whose principal concern was to avoid civil disorder. The general principle is that a person in possession of land or goods, even as a wrongdoer, is entitled to take action against anyone interfering with the possession unless the person interfering is able to demonstrate a superior right to do so.
United Kingdom, the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act1977 has significantly amended the law relating to wrongful interference with goods and abolished some longstanding remedies and doctrines.
Transfer of property
The most usual way of acquiring an interest in property is as the result of a consensual transaction with the previous owner, for example, a
saleor a gift. Dispositions by will may also be regarded as consensual transactions, since the effect of a will is to provide for the distribution of the deceased person's property to nominated beneficiaries. A person may also obtain an interest in property under a trust established for his or her benefit by the owner of the property.
It is also possible for property to pass from one person to another independently of the consent of the property owner. For example, this occurs when a person dies
intestate, goes bankrupt, or has the property taken in execution of a court judgment.
Occasionally, as a result of fraud or mistake, several people claim interests in one object, the claims being inconsistent with each other. This may arise where the person purporting to create or transfer the interest has a valid title, but purports to create several interests wholly or partially inconsistent with each other. In this case it is necessary for the courts to resolve the priorities conflict by determining the ranking of these interests. The need to resolve such conflicts suggests that different classes of proprietary interests have different spheres of enforceability depending on their place in the hierarchy.
Over the centuries,
leases have served many purposes and the nature of legal regulation has varied according to those purposes and the social and economic conditions of the times. Leaseholds, for example, were mainly used for agriculturalpurposes until the late 18th century and early 19th century when the growth of cities in industrialised countries had made the leasehold an important form of landholding in urban areas.
The modern law of
landlordand tenantin common law jurisdictions retains the influence of the common law and, particularly, the " laissez-faire" philosophy that dominated the law of contractand the law of property in the 19th century. With the growth of consumerism, consumer protectionlegislation recognised that common law principles that assume equal bargaining power between the contracting parties are acknowledged to work hardship when that assumption is inaccurate. Consequently reformers have emphasised the need to assess residential tenancy laws in terms of protection they provide to tenants. Legislation to protect tenants is now common.
* cite web
title=Property(Moveable and Immoveable Property)
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.