About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


Case Citations [1] (July 2020 - August 2021)

handle is hein.ali/relwprpty0261 and id is 1 raw text is: PROPERTY DIVISION 1. INTRODUCTION CHAPTER 1. DEFINITION OF CERTAIN GENERAL TERMS § 7. Possessory Interests in Land Ariz.2021. Subsec. (a) and com. (b) quot. in sup. Invitee sued sublessees of commercial building, alleging that defendants breached their duty of care towards plaintiff when defendants were repairing the building's roof, because plaintiff fell through a rooftop skylight and sustained injuries. The trial court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment. The court of appeals affirmed in part as to one sublessee and reversed and remanded as to the other. This court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded, holding, inter alia, that defendants did not owe plaintiff a duty of care to keep the roof in a reasonably safe condition, because plaintiff failed to materially dispute that defendants occupied the roof with intent to control while conducting repairs. Citing Restatement of Property § 7, the court pointed out that defendants' lacked the authority to exclude others from the premises and to direct how the roof was repaired and maintained, which weighed towards precluding a finding that defendants had possession of the roof. Dabush v. Seacret Direct LLC, 478 P.3d 695, 700. DIVISION 2. FREEHOLD ESTATES CHAPTER 4. ESTATES IN FEE SIMPLE DEFEASIBLE TOPIC 1. CREATION OF AN ESTATE IN FEE SIMPLE DEFEASIBLE § 44. Fee Simple Determinable-Form of Limitation Or.App.2020. Cit. in conc. and diss. op. Property managers who lived and worked in an apartment complex filed a claim under the Oregon Residential Landlord Tenant Act against owner of the complex, alleging that they experienced health issues attributable to mold in the apartments. The trial court granted summary judgment for owner. This court reversed and remanded, holding that owner failed to show that managers' claim under the Act failed as a matter of law under an exception for occupancy by an employee of a landlord whose right to occupancy was conditional upon employment in and about the premises. The concurring and dissenting opinion argued by analogy to the law of future estates that owner's right to elect to evict managers upon termination of employment was akin to a fee simple subject to a condition subsequent under Restatement of Property § 45, and that an express and automatic termination of tenancy, like a devise of an estate in fee simple determinable under Restatement of Property § 44, was not required. Rowden v. Hogan Woods, LLC, 476 P.3d 485, 504. § 45. Fee Simple Subject to a Condition Subsequent-Form of Limitation Or.App.2020. Cit. in conc. and diss. op. Property managers who lived and worked in an apartment complex filed a claim under the Oregon Residential Landlord Tenant Act against owner of the complex, COPYRIGHT ©2021 By THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America For earlier citations, see the Appendices, Supplements, or Pocket Parts, if any, that correspond to the subject matter under examination.