Memorandum of Mr Jones and His Business - Case Study Example

This Memorandum outlines the issues that arise in the case scenario of Mr. Jones and his business, where the existence of an easement has arisen as an issue. The Court with relevant jurisdiction is identified and possible defenses suggested. The negotiation of an out of court settlement is suggested as the best alternative. Memorandum Issues raised in Mr. Jones’ case: The following are the important aspects pertaining to the client’s situation. Firstly, both the City and the adjacent property owner may have grounds to sue Mr. Jones’ business for unauthorized interference with the existing utility easement. The appropriate legal forum for any dispute would be the District Court with general jurisdiction of the local area where the development is taking place. In the event legal action is initiated against Mr. Jones, there is a possibility to arrive at a settlement, through Mr. Jones acknowledging the existence of the easement, bit relying upon recent measures introduced into the law to ease the punitive aspects associated with the enforcement of an easement. These issues are further detailed below. Since the adjacent property owner is a citizen of Switzerland, the possibility arises of the case being filed by that property owner based upon the criterion of diversity of citizenship. This is applicable in the case of litigation between citizens of the United States and another country (www.Uscourts.gov). But in this instance, it appears that despite the adjacent property owner being a citizen of Switzerland, it is the State court system that will exercise jurisdiction as opposed to the federal courts because (a) the case may not involve more than $75,000 in potential damages and (b) state courts generally deal with real estate issues, such as that which has arisen in this case. The issues raised in this case, namely, the encroachment of an easement, cannot be categorized as falling exclusively within the federal domain, such as bankruptcy or disputes between states, for example. Rather the real estate issues raised in this case would more appropriately fall within the jurisdiction of the State Courts. On this basis, it appears likely that the Court which would have the appropriate jurisdiction to try this case would be the U.S. District Court which has general jurisdiction, in the State where Mr. Jones’ business is developing its properties. This would constitute the trial Court which would have original jurisdiction to try the dispute between Mr. Jones’ business and the adjacent property owner, because the matter which has to be dealt with is also not a criminal one but rather, involves a civil issue (www.uscourts.gov). Where the dispute with the City is concerned however, there is not even a possibility of applying any jurisdiction of the federal courts. Although one of the parties is the city, a dispute between the city and a business operating within the same State would fall within the province of the State courts. The most appropriate forum to start proceedings would be the District Court of the relevant State, also for the reasons cited earlier, especially since in this instance, the question of ensuring justice to a foreign citizen doesn’t arise, hence the jurisdiction of the federal courts does not arise. Moreover, State Courts also have jurisdiction in matters involving municipal and zoning ordinances and the preservation of the protection accorded to a utility easement would also fall within this general category. Although there are State Courts with limited jurisdiction in certain matters, for example, probate courts, traffic courts and family courts, these do not deal with the issues raised in this case, which can only be handled by a trial court that has general jurisdiction rather than limited jurisdiction. While these courts may hear both civil and criminal cases, this case can be classified as a civil one. There is a partial criminal element involved, because the city is threatening to sue Mr. Jones’ business for fraud, but since in the United States, courts are not separated into civil and criminal courts, the District Court of the local area where Mr. Jones’ business is developing the properties would be the appropriate forum to deal with both the disputes, i.e, with the city and the adjacent property owner. The significance of a utility easement was underlined in the case of Marcus Cable Associates L.P. d/b/a Charter Communications, Inc v Krohn1 where the Supreme Court rejected the right to an easement on grounds that it was a private easement, but indicated that the position would have been different had it been a utility easement. The Court applied Section 181.102 of the Texas Utilities Code, which mandates the preservation of a utility easement and the right of cable companies to install lines on the utility easement. In this case, the Court held that the easement involved was a private easement and did not grant any rights to cable companies to install cable lines. But in Mr. Jones’ case, the disputed easement in question is a utility easement. This is somewhat different from a private easement, because the city will be granted the right to use the easement and the protection provided to it cannot be easily overturned. Another issue that arises in this case is whether Section 4.8(3) of the Restatement (Third) of Servitudes can be applied in this case. Bell and Parchomovsky (2002) have discussed the classic pliability rule, whereby the original entitlement protection mechanism that provides the baseline protection for an existing easement is changed through a triggering mechanism that alters the protection from property to the liability rule. This raises the possibility of whether Mr. Jones can rely upon the more flexible provisions of Section 4.8(3) (French, 2003), to deflect the punitive measures that may be levied upon him by the Courts for encroachment on a utility easement. The best course of action to adopt in this instance appears to be for our firm to approach the city and the adjacent property owner on behalf of Mr. Jones and his business, in order to arrive at a compromise. This compromise would retain the utility easement for the use of the city and the adjacent property owner and it appears likely that some settlement amount may also need to be paid. Mr. Jones also has the option to file a suit in the District Court himself, against the party from whom he originally purchased the land, for failing to inform him about the existence of the utility easement and any obligations associated with it. Our law firm could assist Mr Jones in preparing his complaint and filing it with the District Clerk at the District Court. In the event that either the city or the adjacent owner file a suit in Court against Mr. Jones, there may be a need to respond to such legal action and our law firm may be able to assist Mr. Jones and his business in this regard. In the event either of these parties files a case in the District Court, the first step involved would be for our firm to frame a response to the complaint, and file this response in the Court. Grounds of defense that could be indicated in this response could include (a) Mr. Jones’ lack of awareness about the existence of the utility covenant and the fact that the land covered by the easement was not specifically a part of the land that he was developing (b) the flexibility offered by the provisions of Section 4.8(3) of the Restatement (Third) of Servitudes, applying a less rigid rule in the enforcement of an easement. The District Clerk would have allotted the case a Docket number, which will indicate the position of the case in the general queue of cases waiting to be heard in the Court. Hence after the response is filed, both parties may have to wait for the assigned date to arrive, when arguments are to take place. Prior to this date, our law firm can assist Mr. Jones by drawing up a list of witnesses, including expert witnesses to arrange a defense. The plaintiffs would also provide their list of witnesses and arrangements can be made for their deposition. But since the issue involved in this case involves the application of easement law, the likelihood of many witnesses appears to be a remote one. This pre trial stage is also the stage where our firm could also approach the lawyers of the other parties to try and negotiate an out of court settlement on Mr Jones’ behalf. This offers the best solution for resolution of the case, because it would be difficult for Mr. Jones to avoid acknowledging the utility easement and the right of passage and use I provides to other parties. While it is possible that the Court may apply the more flexible criteria available under Section 4.8(3) mentioned above, this would only reduce the punitive measures the Court may apply against Mr. Jones in the matter of the easement. Mr. Jones does not have a strong case in this regard, hence a settlement appears to offer the best alternative. It also appears likely that in the dispute with the adjacent property owner also, Mr. Jones does not have a strong case. In the event the District Court does not render a positive judgment for Mr. Jones, he will have the option to appeal the decision at the Court of Appeals in the state where the land is located and further on at the Supreme Court, all of which would involve considerable time and expense for the client. The best option appears to be an out of court settlement of the disputes. References * Bell, Abraham and Gideon Parchomovsky, 2002. “Pliability Rules”, 101, Michigan Law Review, 1, 8-11, cited in: Lovett, John A, 2005. “A bend in the road: Easement relocation and pliability in the new Restatement (Third) of property: Servitudes”, 38, Connecticut Law Review, 1. * “The jurisdiction of the Federal Courts”, Retrieved October 11, 2008 from: http://www.uscourts.gov/understand03/content_4_0.html * French, Susan F, 2003. “Relocating easements: Restatement (third) servitudes, Section 4.8(3)”, Real Property, Probate and Estate Journal, Spring 2003. Retrieved October 11, 2008 from: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3714/is_/ai_n9181373 * Understanding Federal and State Courts. Retrieved October 11, 2008 from: http://www.uscourts.gov/outreach/resources/fedstate_lessonplan.htm Read More