answer

1. Arthur

Arthur may take Blackacre by conveyance, or alternatively, on an adverse possession theory.

Orin conveyed Blackacre to Arthur "from and after" his death. The conveyance was in writing, was signed by Orin, identified the grantor and grantee, and described the land. Because the grant was conditioned on Orin's death, Orin had a life estate and Aruthur owned a vested remainder. However, the issue is whether the deed was properly delivered.

Delivery requires that there be an objective manifestation of the grantor's intent that the instrument take immediate effect. Here Orin delivered a box containing the deed to Arthur, with instructions to open the box and extract the deed upon Orin's death. Because Orin did not retain control over the deed, his act of giving the box to Arthur with instructions was sufficient to constitute delivery of the deed. The fact that Arthur's key did not open the box is of no consequence, since delivery was completed when the box was given to Arthur.

Thus, Arthur takes Blackacre by conveyance in fee upon Orin's death.

Arthur may alternatively take Blackacre on an adverse possession theory. here, State X has an adverse possession statute providing a ten-year period for actions for injury to real property to be brought. In order to be adverse, possession must be hostile, continuous, open and notorious.

Arthur's possession was continuous, over a twelve-year period. It could be argued that Orin's act of cutting and selling the timber from Blackacre three years before his death was an act of possession which interrupted Arthur's possesion of the land. However, because Orin's act did not interrupt Arthur's home, which was known to Orin, and only affected ten of the 160 acres, Arthur will prevail on this issue.

Arthur's possession of the land was open and notorious, since he built a house on the land and did not attempt to hide his infrequent occupation of the land. However, it could be argued that because the land was heavily wooded, Arthur's possession was not open or visible. Again, because Orin knew of Arthur's use of the land, this argument would fail.

However, Arthur's possession was not hostile, since he used the property with Orin's consent and was told to "treat Blackare as his own and use it as he wished." Arthur cannot successfully argue that his anger at Orin's act of cutting down the timber made his possession of the land "hostile," because he did not protest or make his objection known to Orin. Even if Arthur's possession is characterized as "hostile," due to his objection to Orin's acts, such hostile possession only lasted three years, seven years short of the required statutory period of ten years.

Thus, Arthur cannot take Blackacre on an adverse possession theory.

2. Bart

Bart's interest under Orin's will is to "all of the real property which I own at my death...." Because Arthur takes Blackacre as stated above, Bart takes nothing if Orin owns no other real property at his death.

3. Charles

Charles takes a lien on Blackacre. Under the State X statute, a judgmnt creditor, such as Charles, takes as a bona fide purchaser if the conveyance is not required. This is a pure notice statute, which favors a judgment creditor where the interest was not recorded. Here, Arthur's interest in Blackacre was never recorded until after Orin's death, and Charles obtained and recorded a judgment against Orin one year before Orin died. Thus, Charles had no notice of Arthur's interest and may obtain a lien on Blackacre for the amount of the outstanding judgment.

If however, Arthur takes on an adverse possession theory, Charles takes nothing, because the recording statutes do not apply to an adverse possessor.

Constitutional Law

a. Constitutional Challenge re: Ordinance

What Power is being exercised? State Power

Supremacy Clause Violation? Does ordinance conflict with Federal Power? Ordinance affects commerce, which is relegated to Congress, but not conflicting federal statute exists, thus no preemption.

State regulation of commerce? State may regulate those activities which are purely local and do not impose an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce, but cannot discriminate against commerce, unless for the purpose of promoting health and safety concerns or if the state is a market participant.

The Supreme Court has held that states cannot forbid deposit of out-of-state garbage.

Are There any Limitations on that Power?

State action limitation: Law-making by municipality is a public function, as is waste disposal.

Constitutional Limitations:

Equal Protection: Discriminates against waste from other non-city residents and out of state residents. (1) What standard applies? (2) Since no fundamental rights involved then rational basis test applies.

Privileges and Immunities Clause: One state cannot arbitrarily discriminate against the citizen of another state. But corporations are not citizens under this clause.

Contracts Clause: Prevents state destruction of all contracts rights relating to existing contracts. A private contract can be modified if the law: (1) serves an important, legitimate state interest; (2) is necessary to achieve that interest; and (3) reasonably impairs the contract appropriate to the public purpose asserted.

b. NAWT's Standing to Challenge Ordinance

What Power is being exercised? Judicial Power

Standing? Organization has standing if: (1) injury in fact to members; (2) injury is related to the organizational purpose, (3) individual member's participation in lawsuit is not required by organization.

The first issue is what power is being exercised. Because City is a municipality acting to regulate deposits of waste disposal of foreign states, its action constitutes an exercise of state power in the area of interstate commerce, which is ordinarily relegated to Congress. However, because no conflicting federal statute exists, City's ordinance is not pre-empted as a matter of law.

State may regulate those activities which are purely local and do not impose an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce, but cannot discriminate against commerce, unless for the purpose of promoting health and safety concerns or if the state is a market participant.

The disposal of waste is an activity which is "purely local," since municipalities usually handle waste disposal, and no national waste disposal services or program exist. The ordinance does not impose an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce, since presumably the other states and cities within State X can find alternative sites to deposit their garbage. However, the rate differential does discriminate against out-of-state competition in favoring local interest. The Supreme Court has specifically held that states cannot forbid deposit of out-of-state garbage. Thus, the rate structure is unconstitutional and violates the Commerce Clause.