The Peculiarities of Protection and Measures of Legal Liability for Violations of the Rights of Real Estate Owners in the United States

This article analyzes the specificity of protection, as well as the grounds and procedure for the application of measures of legal liability for violations of the rights of real estate owners in the United States. Delinquency prevention mechanisms and ways of ensuring the interests of owners are reviewed in the context of the characteristics of the American system of treatment of structured models of ownership. Special attention is given to the key concepts underpinning the regulation of property relations in the United States: the Posner's Economic Theory of Property Rights, the Hohfeld's Theory of Legal Relations, as well as theories on "a bundle of rods", allowing splitting ownership of the potentially infinite number of powers, the breach whereof entails specific liability measures. № 5 (126) май 2017 lex даж 215 LEX RUSSIICA ЗАРУБЕЖНОЕ ПРАВО The article focuses on the fact that penalties for violations of the rights of real estate owners are determined on the basis of two main factors: type of violation and applicable method of protection. The author explores the tort concept "nuisance" (creation of a nuisance for the property owner), and "trespass" (invasion of property boundaries), through which the ownership powers are protected. There is a tendency to blur the boundaries between these kinds of torts, which complicates the application of appropriate penalties. The author indicates the key requirements for the order of the real estate maintenance and objects located on it in order to prevent possible violations of rights. The article reveals the exemptions from liability for violation of ownership powers, when the invasion of property boundaries cannot be characterized as arbitrary. The remedies granted in accordance with the rules on the protection of the property, on the application of liability and the recognition of inalienable rights are studied. The author provides examples of consequences of claims for nuisance and trespass with the demand to impose an injunction, damages and the recognition of inalienable rights. As a way to protect their entitlements, the possibility to clear the property from any violators on your own is being considered. In the context of the studied problems the author deals with procedural matters, including the Statute of limitations.

nuisance, trespass, United States, liability, property, ownership, violation of rights, protection of rights, ways of protection, legal authority, thing, property, tort, real estate, property boundaries, land, injunctive relief, compensation, recognition of inalienable rights, injury, harm, compensation, nuisance, trespass

1. Posner R. A. Op. cit. P. 13-39.

2. Restatement of Property. Introductory Note. P. 3 (1936).

3. Waldron J. What Is Private Property? // Oxford Journal of Legal Studies. 1985. № 5. P. 313, 318.

4. Скловский К. И. Собственность в гражданском праве. М., 2008. С. 156-157

5. Hohfeld W N. Fundamental Legal Conceptions. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1923. P. 23-124.

6. Маттеи У., Суханов Е.А. Основные положения права собственности. М., 1999. С. 114-118.

7. Stoebuck W B., Whitman D. A. The Law of Property. St. Paul: West Group, 2002. P. 4-6.

8. Kocourek A. The Hohfeld System of Fundamental Legal Concepts // Illinois Law Review. 1920. № 15. P. 24

9. Singer J. W. The Legal Rights Debate in Analytical Jurisprudence from Bentham to Hohfeld // Wisconsin Law Review. 1982. P. 975

10. Vatiero M. From W. N. Hohfeld to J. R. Commons, and Beyond? A «Law and Economics» Enquiry on Jural Relations // American Journal of Economics and Sociology. 2010. Vol. 69. P. 840-866

11. Restatement of Property. § 1-10 (1936). См. также: Perry T. D. A Paradigm of Philosophy: Hohfeld on Legal Rights // American Philosophical Quarterly. 1977. № 14. P. 41-50

12. States v. General Motors Corp., 323 U.S. 373, 377-38 (1945).

13. Bogart D. B., Makdisi J. Inside Property Law: What Matters and Why. P. 1-4.

14. Mayland v. Flitner, 28 P.3d 838, 848 (Woy.2001)

15. Menell P. S., Dwyer J. P. Reunifying Property // St. Louis University Law Journal. 2002. Vol. 46. № 3. P. 599

16. Sherwin E. Two- and Three-Dimensional Property Rights // Arizona State Law Journal. 1997. Vol. 29. P. 1075-1076

17. КоноваловА. В. Владение и владельческая защита в гражданском праве. СПб., 2004. С. 148

18. Радченко С. Д. Злоупотребление правом в гражданском праве России. М., 2010. С. 110-112

19. Boomer v. Atlantic Cement Co., 309 N.Y.S.2d 312 (N.Y. 1970)

20. Estancias Dallas Corp. v. Schultz, 500 S.W.2d 217 (Tex. Ct. Civ. App. 1973)

21. Spur Indus., Inc. v. Del E. Webb Dev. Co., 495 P.2d 700 (Ariz. 1972)

22. Penland v. Redwood Sanitary Sewer Service Dist., 965 P.2d 433 (Or. Ct. App. 1998)

23. Parchomovsky G., Stein A. Reconceptualizing Trespass // Northwestern University Law Review. 2009. Vol. 103. P. 1823.

24. Adams v. Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Co., 602 N.W.2d 215 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999).

25. Brockman v. Barton Brands, LTD., 2009 U.S. Dist. (3:06CV-332-H) (W.D. Ky. Nov. 25, 2009).

26. Stevenson v. E. F. Dupont de Nemours, 327 F.3d 400 (5th Cr. 2003); Gill v. LDI, 19 F. Supp. 2d 1188 (W.D. Wash. 1998); Hoery v. United States, 64 P.3d 214 (Colo. 2003)

27. Whitesell v. Houlton, 2 Hawaii App. 365, 632 P.2d 1077 (1981)

28. Doskow E., Guillen L. Neighbor Law: Fences, Trees, Boundaries and Noise. Berkeley: Nolo Law, 2014. 424 P

29. T & E Indus. v. Safety Light Corp., 587 A.2d 1249 (N.J. 1991)

30. State v. Ventron Corp., 468 A.2d 150 (N.J. 1983)

31. Lew v. Superior Court, 25 Cal. Rptr. 2d 42 (Ct. App. 1993); Kellner v. Capilini, 516 N.Y.S.2d 827 (Civ.Ct.1986).

32. Безбах В.В., Пучинский В. К. Основы российского гражданского права. М., 1995. С. 59-60.

33. Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U.S. 164, 176 (1979)

34. Hodel v. Irving, 481 U.S. 704, 716, 107, S.Ct. 2076, 2083, 95 L.Ed.2d 668 (1987)

35. Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419, 435, 102 S.Ct. 3164, 3176, 73 L.Ed. 2d 868 (1982)

36. Hall v. City of Santa Barbara, 833 F.2d 1270, 1277 (9th Cir. 1986)

37. Callies D. L., Breemer J. D. The Right to Exclude Other from Private Property: A Fundamental Constitutional Right // Washington University Journal of Law & Policy. 2000. № 3. P. 39

38. BalganeshS. Demystifying the Right to Exclude: Of Property, Inviolability, and Automatic Injunctions // Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. 2008. Vol. 31. P. 593-597

39. Sawers B. The Right to Exclude from Unimproved Land // Temple Law Review. Vol. 83, 2011. P. 665-696

40. Blackstone W. Commentaries on the Laws of England. Book the Second: The Rights of Things. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1766. P. 2

41. Hendler v. United States, 952 F.2d 1364, 1374-75 (Fed. Cir. 1991).

42. Stoebuck W. B., Whitman D. A. Op. cit. P. 411-412. См. также: Edwards v. Sims, 232 Ky. 791, 24 S.W.2d 619 (1929); Marengo Cave Co. v. Ross, 212 Ind. 624, 10 N.E.2d 917 (1937).

43. The Restatement (Second) of Torts. § 167-215 (1965)

44. Частноправовое регулирование имущественного оборота в разносистемных правопорядках / под ред. В.В. Безбаха, В.П. Серегина, Т. П. Данько. М., 2009. С. 97-100

45. Sigmon M. R. Hunting and Posting on Private Land in America // Duke Law Journal. 2004. Vol. 54. P. 549-550

46. Calabresi G., Melamed A. D. Property Rules, Liability Rules, and Inalienability: One View of the Cathedral // Harvard Law Review. 1972. Vol. 85. P. 1089-1094.

47. Ayres I. Protecting Property with Puts // Valparaiso University Law Review. 1988. Vol. 32. P. 793-795.

48. Keystone Bituminous Coal Association v. DeBenedictis, 480 U.S. 470 (1987)

49. The Restatement (Second) of Torts. § 826 (1979).

50. Singer J. W. Property Law: Rules, Policies, and Practices. P. 272-273.

51. Alexander G.S. Commodity and Property: Competing Visions of Property in American Legal Thought, 1776- 1970. - Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997.

52. Arnold C.A. The Reconstitution of Property: Property as a Web of Interests // Harvard Environmental Law Review. - 2002. - Vol. 26. - № 2.

53. Ayres I. Protecting Property with Puts // Valparaiso University Law Review. - 1988. - Vol. 32.

54. Peters v. Archambault, 278 N.E.2d 729 (Mass. 1972); Goulding v. Cook, 661 N.E.2d 1322 (Mass. 1996).

55. Hardy v. Burroughs, 232 N.W. 200 (Mich. 1930)

56. Madrid v. Spears, 250 F.2d 51 (10 Cir. 1957)

57. Singer J. W. Entitlement: The Paradoxes of Property. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000. P. 56-94

58. Balganesh S. Demystifying the Right to Exclude: Of Property, Inviolability, and Automatic Injunctions // Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. - 2008. - Vol. 31.

59. Blackstone W. Commentaries on the Laws of England. Book the Second: The Rights of Things. - Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1766.

60. Bogart D.B., Makdisi J. Inside Property Law: What Matters and Why. - N. Y: Aspen Publishers, 2009.

61. Calabresi G., Melamed A.D. Property Rules, Liability Rules, and Inalienability: One View of the Cathedral // Harvard Law Review. - 1972. - Vol. 85.

62. Callies D.L., Breemer J.D. The Right to Exclude Other from Private Property: A Fundamental Constitutional Right // Washington University Journal of Law & Policy. - 2000. - № 3.

63. Claeys E. R. Property 101: Is Property a Thing or a Bundle? // Seattle University Law Review. - 2009. - Vol. 32. - № 3.

64. Cole D.H., Grossman P.Z. The Meaning of Property Rights: Law versus Economics? // Land Economics. - 2002. - Vol. 78. - № 3.

65. Demsetz H. Toward a Theory of Property Rights // American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings. - 1967. - № 57.

66. Doskow E., Guillen L. Neighbor Law: Fences, Trees, Boundaries and Noise. - Berkeley: Nolo Law, 2014.

67. Hohfeld W.N. Fundamental Legal Conceptions. - New Haven: Yale University Press, 1923.

68. Kocourek A. The Hohfeld System of Fundamental Legal Concepts // Illinois Law Review. - 1920. - № 15.

69. Menell P.S., Dwyer J.P. Reunifying Property // St. Louis University Law Journal. - 2002. - Vol. 46. - № 3.

70. Mossoff A. What Is Property? Putting the Pieces Back Together // Arizona Law Reviw. - 2003. - Vol. 45.

71. Parchomovsky G., Stein A. Reconceptualizing Trespass // Northwestern University Law Review. - 2009. - Vol. 103.

72. Perry T.D. A Paradigm of Philosophy: Hohfeld on Legal Rights // American Philosophical Quarterly. - 1977. - № 14.

73. Posner R.A. Economic Analysis of Law. - Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1972.

74. Sawers B. The Right to Exclude from Unimproved Land // Temple Law Review - 2011. - Vol. 83.

75. Sherwin E. Two- and Three-Dimensional Property Rights // Arizona State Law Journal. - 1997. - Vol. 29.

76. Sigmon M.R. Hunting and Posting on Private Land in America // Duke Law Journal. - 2004. - Vol. 54.

77. Singer J.W. Entitlement: The Paradoxes of Property. - New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000.

78. Singer J.W. Property Law: Rules, Policies, and Practices. - N. Y.: Aspen Publishers, 2006.

79. Singer J.W. The Legal Rights Debate in Analytical Jurisprudence from Bentham to Hohfeld // Wisconsin Law Review. - 1982.

80. Sprankling J.G. Understanding Property Law. - Newark: LexisNexis, 2008.

81. Stoebuck W.B., Whitman D.A. The Law of Property. - St. Paul: West Group, 2002.

82. Vatiero M. From W.N. Hohfeld to J.R. Commons, and Beyond? A «Law and Economics» Enquiry on Jural Relations // American Journal of Economics and Sociology. - 2010. - Vol. 69.

83. Waldron J. What Is Private Property? // Oxford Journal of Legal Studies. - 1985. - № 5.

84. Шкредов В.П. Метод исследования собственности в «Капитале» К. Маркса. М., 1973. С. 59, 256

85. Братусь С.Н. О соотношении социалистической собственности и права оперативного управления // Советское государство и право. 1986. № 3. С. 21

86. Posner R. A. Economic Analysis of Law. Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1972. P. 10-13

87. Cole D. H., Grossman P. Z. The Meaning of Property Rights: Law versus Economics? // Land Economics. 2002. Vol. 78. № 3. P. 319-325

88. Alexander G. S. Commodity and Property: Competing Visions of Property in American Legal Thought, 1776- 1970. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997. P. 21-60, 91-96, 243-248, 305-359

89. Demsetz H. Toward a Theory of Property Rights // American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings. 1967. № 57. P. 347