Subdividing Ownership Rights

Eric R. Claeys

doi:10.1017/9781108951395.017

11 - Subdividing Ownership Rights

from Part III - Property Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 17 April 2025

Eric R. Claeys

Show author details

Eric R. Claeys: Affiliation:
George Mason University, Virginia

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Ownership entitles owners to assign away some lesser property rights and retain other such rights. This chapter studies the cases for and against these lesser rights, called in this chapter “component” rights. Component rights may and should be limited when they help owners and the likely assignees of component rights use the resources more productively. The rights may and should be limited when they interfere with the clarity of property rights and when they interfere with opportunities of people who are not assignees to have sufficient access to resources. Property’s productive use requirement also justifies correlative doctrines between people who hold component rights in the same resource. This chapter studies leases, servitudes, security interests, present possessory estates, and future interests. To study limits on component rights, this chapter studies formalities requirements, standard terms of art for different component rights, the numerus clausus principle, the Rule Against Perpetuities, and the doctrine terminating servitudes for changed conditions. To study correlative rights, this chapter studies the doctrine of ameliorative waste.

Keywords

lease easement covenant mortgage lien present possessory estate future interest numerus clausus ameliorative waste

Type: Chapter
Information: Natural Property Rights , pp. 201 - 218

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108951395.017 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2025

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Alexander, Gregory S. 2009. “The Social-Obligation Norm in American Property Law,” Cornell Law Review 94 (4): 745–819.Google Scholar

Alexander, Gregory S. 2012. “Governance Property,” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 160 (7): 1853–87.Google Scholar

American Jurisprudence (Second). 2023. St. Paul, MN: West Group.Google Scholar

American Law Institute. 1936–44. Restatement (First) of Property. St. Paul, MN: American Law Institute Publishers.Google Scholar

American Law Institute. 2000. Restatement (Third) of Property. St. Paul, MN: American Law Institute Publishers.Google Scholar

Arruñada, Benito. 2012. Institutional Foundations of Impersonal Exchange: Theory and Policy of Contractual Registries. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Barros, Benjamin D. 2009. “Toward a Model Law of Estates and Future Interests,” Washington and Lee Law Review 66 (3): 3–72.Google Scholar

Bruce, Jon W. & Ely, James W. Jr. 2020. The Law of Easements & Licenses in Land. West Publishing Group.Google Scholar

Claeys, Eric R. 2019. “Property, Concepts, and Functions,” Boston College Law Review 60 (1): 1–72.Google Scholar

Epstein, Richard A. 1985. “Why Restrain Alienation?” Columbia Law Review 85 (5): 970–90.Google Scholar

Epstein, Richard A. 1986. “Past and Future: The Temporal Dimension in the Law of Property,” Washington University Law Quarterly 64 (3): 667–772.Google Scholar

Fraley, Jill M. 2017. “A New History of Waste Law: How a Misunderstood Doctrine Shaped Ideas about the Transformation of Law,” Marquette Law Review 100 (3): 861–921.Google Scholar

Gray, John Chipman. 1942. The Rule Against Perpetuities, 4th ed. Boston, MA: Little, Brown & Company.Google Scholar

Honoré, A.M. 1961. “Ownership,” in Oxford Essays in Jurisprudence, Guest, A.G. ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 107–47.Google Scholar

Horwitz, Morton J. 1977. The Transformation of American Law, 1780–1860. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Kades, Eric. 2019. “Of Piketty and Perpetuities: Dynastic Wealth in the Twenty-First Century (and Beyond),” Boston College Law Review 60 (1): 146–215.Google Scholar

Kaplow, Louis. 1992. “Rules versus Standards: An Economic Analysis,” Duke Law Journal 42 (3): 557–629.CrossRef Google Scholar

Leach, W. Barton. 1938. “Perpetuities in a Nutshell,” Harvard Law Review 51 (4): 638–71.CrossRef Google Scholar

Lovett, John A. 2007. “Doctrines of Waste in a Landscape of Waste.” Missouri Law Review 72 (4): 1209–57.Google Scholar

Merrill, Thomas W. 2011. “Melms v. Pabst Brewing Co. and the Doctrine of Waste in American Property Law,” Marquette Law Review 94 (4): 1054–94.Google Scholar

Merrill, Thomas W. 2020. “The Economics of Leasing,” Journal of Legal Analysis 12: 221–72.Google Scholar

Merrill, Thomas W. & Smith, Henry E.. 2000. “Optimal Standardization in the Law of Property: The Numerus Clausus Principle,” Yale Law Journal 110 (1): 1–70.Google Scholar

Merrill, Thomas W. & Smith, Henry E.. 2007. “The Morality of Property,” William and Mary Law Review 48 (5): 1849–95.Google Scholar

Merrill, Thomas W. & Smith, Henry E.. 2010. The Oxford Introductions to U.S. Law: Property. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Merrill, Thomas W., Smith, Henry E. & Brady, Maureen E.. 2022. Property: Principles and Policies, 4th ed. New York: Wolters Kluwer.Google Scholar

Merryman, John Henry. 1952. “Waste,” in American Law of Property: A Treatise on the Law of Property in the United States, Casner, A. James ed. Boston, MA: Little, Brown, v. 5, part 20, pp. 71–123.Google Scholar

Posner, Richard A. 2011. Economic Analysis of Law, 8th ed. New York: Aspen Publishers.Google Scholar

Purdy, Jedediah. 2006. “The American Transformation of Waste Doctrine: A Pluralist Interpretation.” Cornell Law Review 91 (3): 653–93.Google Scholar

Restatement. See entries for “American Law Institute.”Google Scholar

Richardson, Sally Brown. 2017. “Reframing Ameliorative Waste,” American Journal of Comparative Law 65 (2): 335–92.CrossRef Google Scholar

Rudden, Bernard. 1987. “Economic Theory v. Property Law: The Numerus Clausus Problem,” in Oxford Essays in Jurisprudence: Third Series, Eekelaar, John and Bell, John eds. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 239–63.Google Scholar

Shoked, Nadav. 2014. “The Duty to Maintain,” Duke Law Journal 64 (3): 437–513.Google Scholar

Singer, Joseph William. 2014. Property. 4th ed. New York: Wolters Kluwer.Google Scholar

Sprankling, John G. 1996. “The Anti-Wilderness Bias in American Property Law,” University of Chicago Law Review 63 (2): 519–90.CrossRef Google Scholar

Stoebuck, William B. and Whitman, Dale A.. 2000. The Law of Property. 3rd ed. St. Paul, MN: West Academic Publishing.Google Scholar

Thomas, David A. 1999. “Anglo-American Land Law: Diverging Developments from a Shared History,” Real Property, Probate and Trust Journal 34 (2): 295–361.Google Scholar

Thomas, David A. 2019. Thompson on Real Property, Thomas Editions. New York: LexisNexis.Google Scholar

Wolf, Michael Allan ed. 1949/2023. Powell on Real Property. New York: LexisNexis, Matthew Bender.Google Scholar

Zabritski, Melinda. 2022. “State of the Automobile Market Q2 2022,” Experian (August 2022), https://www.experian.com/content/dam/noindex/na/us/automotive/finance-trends/2022/q2-2022-state-auto-finance-market.pdf (last accessed June 28, 2023).Google Scholar