Adverse Possession Is 9/10ths of the Law

Transcript

This transcript was generated automatically and may contain errors — the audio is the record.

0:00:00 Clip: Oh, no associate of this firm has ever failed the bar exam. No kidding.

0:00:08 Clip: I just know that you were going to kick that bar's butt out of here, you know? Come in here with a skull full of mush and you leave thinking like a lawyer.

0:00:31 Clip: My staff has flunked the bar exams six times.

0:00:36 Clip: You graduated from law school six years ago. What have you been doing since? Studying for the bar.

0:00:48 Thomas: Welcome to opening arguments this thomas takes the bar exam thursday t4be maybe t4b I before E except T for B, C, I don't know. Thomas, that over there via satellite phone, via military technology that podcast grade phone technology is Lydia Smith. How are you doing?

0:00:54 Lydia: T4BE, you leveled up. Undisclosed location. I'm doing well. I wonder if like, there are going to be any context clues in the background of my call where like our savvy listeners are going to figure it out. No, you don't think so?

0:01:24 Thomas: See the algorithms these days, there's absolutely nothing in the background of your audio. Oh, yeah. It's pretty. Yeah. Yeah, it's good and bad. Says good. But also as an audio engineer, it usually means it like carves out some of your voice, which isn't good. But, you know, this It's Wednesday. People, if you've never listened to this show, you are really confused right now. I imagine this is it's it's Thursday now. This used to be on Wednesday. It was Thursday. Date, that's when each and every week I tackle a bar exam question. You do too, audience. See how well you do. Follow along.

0:01:52 Lydia: Well, I was like, I do not.

0:01:53 Thomas: No, you don't.

0:01:54 Lydia: Don't include me in that.

0:01:54 Thomas: You're not allowed to. You can't get within 30 feet of that's what the judge said. You are not allowed ever since that one incident. So we don't talk about that.

0:02:03 Lydia: I'm too good at it. No. I would fail miserably.

0:02:08 Thomas: We get on bar exam expert, Heather Veronini to give us the answer to last week's question and pose a new question. I almost always get it wrong lately. So that's a spoilers. I pretty much always get It wrong, but maybe this time will be different. We'll have to find out. Lydia is, was a little vacation, but kind enough to call in. That, And I mean, I said, get your ass on the phone or you're fired.

0:02:27 Thomas: I don't care that you're in the middle of a vacation. It's not even, negotiable.

0:02:31 Lydia: Don't get a day off.

0:02:32 Thomas: Yeah, no, My words were something like, you work for me.

0:02:35 Lydia: Yeah, that sounds right.

0:02:37 Thomas: You don't tell the boss what to do. No, it was, hey, we still want to do the shout outs because it's so fun. You consider that part of vacation, you interaction.

0:02:37 Lydia: That's how I remember it. Yeah I I do it's the best.

0:02:48 Thomas: Yeah, it's the best. So Lydia, as always, is here for the intro and then we'll come back for the patron shout outs that we do each and every week. Thanking the amazing people at patreon.com/law. Let's see. Gavel, gavel hot off the presses. I will say I'm sure if if you don't know me by now, then you'll never, ever know gavel gavel at all. Those of you who haven't checked it out, maybe you're you know, you're not interested in the case or something. I will Say there's one that came out recently. It is related to the Blake Lively thing, of course. But it's actually it's a pretty legalistic one. There's a very, very interesting tactic that Blake Lively's lawyers took that was I mean, we're still learning more about it, but it only was revealed recently where source of a certain subpoena and all this, the source of certain texts. We who's fantastic. She's a lawyer in exactly the place, the jurisdiction that we need expertise from in that. So check that out. Again, I know there are some people who aren't in that case. For one, I think you should be, not because it's celebrities, but because it has a

0:02:56 Lydia: I'll be here. MJ is really really interesting. And like every single day, I feel like there's another case or like we got like a motion to intervene on the docket, um, from, well, you know what I mean though?

0:03:56 Thomas: How are we going to to respond to that shit

0:03:58 Lydia: No, it's from, from someone in Canada because yeah, there's, there'S just so much going on, but I think like what we're releasing with this case is like, it's not just celebrity versus celebrity, we're a lot about the legal process. And we're talking about various jurisdictions and California law versus New York law and when one should apply when your employer is based in a different vicinity

0:04:00 Thomas: I'll intervene yeah a sexual harassment crashes on the border of two states where do you bury the survivors that kind of thing uh would be fun if they threw in a few riddles like that just like for fun you know like like Yeah, exactly.

0:04:28 Lydia: Yes, classic dark question. The was the doctor yeah

0:04:40 Thomas: Like, it's not enough to know the law. You also can't be a bigot. You need to. But they should do. The mom was the lawyer, though. It should be that like. Yeah, no, check that out. It's really fun. Gavel gavel is great. And like I said, this latest one with Mj. Morley is is interesting legal strategy thing, you Know, and it's it's really cool even to those who haven't checked out the full I think it probably stands alone I mean there you might be a little bit you know lost here and there but we we our best to set it all up so check that one out all right enough about that um got to stop taking time from your vacation so I'm gonna get on over with heather veronini bar exam prep expert to over last week's bar question and get a new one uh so I guess lydia we'll see you for the patron shout shout outs. So excited.

0:04:49 Lydia: Yes yes you're right yeah I think so yeah see you shortly

0:05:23 Thomas: Right. We'll just stay on hold for about, it should be about eight to 12 hours. It should be done. And then I can get on over to that. We record an order. We do it. We do in the order.

0:05:29 Lydia: That's no problem absolutely yes

0:05:36 Thomas: Heather Varanini, how are you doing today?

0:05:38 Heather: Doing great. I am coming to you from a boat. Are you? Where are you at?

0:05:42 Thomas: Oh, well, I was stomping through a puddle the other day and I tripped over a large underwater pipe and it just flooded the whole state with oil. I feel like they should put those things further under the water is my would be my preference.

0:05:48 Heather: Well, I agree. I'm with you on there.

0:05:58 Thomas: Remind us what this nonsense is about.

0:06:01 Heather: Well, we had a tanker sailing on the Ohio River who ran into a large underwater pipe and the pipe burst and then sent millions of gallons of toxic sludge into the water. And so the city of Louisville is suing the ship in federal court. And we're trying to figure out whether or not the federal court has jurisdiction over the issue. Is that A, yes, because the case has a maritime nexus? B, yes because the case involves interstate commerce? C, no because Louisville is claiming damage to its riverbank? Is it D, no, because the accident did not occur at sea?

0:06:33 Thomas: Can you believe this ship? What kind of bullshit question is this?

0:06:40 Heather: Listen, I don't know. You were thinking it was either between constitutional law or civil procedure in your right to kind of go back and forth between those in the sense that, which I'll talk about in a a minute. There's a reason why that might've seemed confusing in the beginning, but you were correct to land on federal civil procedure.

0:06:58 Thomas: Okay. Wow. I was actually a little worried about that.

0:07:00 Heather: And the question asked if the federal court has jurisdiction over the matter, which is a typical tip off to the fact that it's asking about subject matter jurisdiction. So we're trying to figure out whether the court has power to hear the subject of the case. That's where we're at. And you ended up talking about kind of like, oh, there's this thing, this amount of controversy, diversity, and then also kind of federal question, that's exactly where you want your mind to go. The court thinking of and how can they can hear it in the court? So as a reminder, again, two types of subject matter jurisdiction and the court has to have one, right? And that's diversity, which is what you talked about, meaning it has to meet the amount in controversy and there has to be diversity between the parties.

0:07:37 Thomas: Don't tell the Trump administration that. They'll get rid of the whole thing. What? What is this about diversity jurisdiction? That's DEI. Get rid of it. There's no more diversity jurisdiction.

0:07:45 Heather: None of that. There's also federal question, which I'll talk about. Federal question is when the plaintiff's complaint arises under federal law.

0:07:53 Thomas: I kind of said that.

0:07:54 Heather: You did. And so your mind was right to go exactly there. And I think sometimes too, why this kind of seems like a constitutional law question is because the face of the complaint must show that a right or interest was founded on federal law and article two, section two of the Constitution provides that the federal judicial power shall extend to cases, quote, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States and treaties made or shall be made under their authority. So I think it's really common to have that thought about constitutional law. This is where that place where there's a nexus between constitutional law and federal civil procedure. Eliminated B almost right away, this one that it says, because it involves interstate commerce. Because you were thinking that interstate commerce is really talking more about whether or not Congress can pass a law. Did I understand that correctly?

0:08:38 Thomas: Mm-hmm.

0:08:38 Heather: And you were right. That's exactly why this question is wrong. So this is really a constitutional law question and thinking about whether ou not Congress has the power to pass a lot. That' not what this question's asking about. So good job eliminating B. also eliminated C, because Louisville's claiming damage to its riverbank. Your right to eliminate this one as well. This is another wrong answer because whether or not a party sustained damage is irrelevant to the question of whether or not the court has jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction over

0:08:39 Thomas: All right. Oh, is that what it was going for? I really could not even understand what the question was on that or what the like premise of that answer was all

0:09:06 Heather: The issue. I mean, I could like kind of think of a reason why. I mean, if I was to really kind of stretch and guess, this might be another constitutional law answer about about trying to get a case into court, but I feel like I'd be stretching.

0:09:23 Thomas: So it's like law words but not really which fair I mean I feel like they should always have one that's like that okay

0:09:29 Heather: And so you're right to eliminate B and C. So B and C are out, which leaves us with A and D. So we're really talking about this maritime issue. And you were right to start think about whether or not this is going to hinge on idea of sort if it's about where per se, but this idea of maritime and the location, right? Little bit. And I'll explain that. Some the cases that the federal courts have original jurisdiction over or exclusive jurisdiction over are ones that involve admiralty and maritime. You're probably wondering, well, what does that mean exactly? That involves cases where, well I should be clear, admiralcy and maritime law tends to generally govern laws that have to do with navigation and shipping. It extends to any waters navigable within the United States for interstate or foreign

0:09:48 Thomas: Yep damn sound good liking my chances well

0:10:19 Heather: What this means is that it's not necessarily tied to the state per se, but if there are navigable waters waters that a ship is involved in moving on.

0:10:29 Thomas: They didn't navigate them very well so I would argue that nah man I don't know.

0:10:31 Heather: And that's when they're in court. I think part of the reason this question is so challenging the reason that you hit on, which is maritime must be only related to the sea. Now we're talking about a river in the middle of the country, right? Way that this rule works is navigable waters within the the United States. So what I learned with this question was that the Ohio is a very big river and it's navigable. There's a lot of shipping that occurs on it. I'm a Californian. I've not been to the Ohio. I didn't know that. So that's something that I learned. So as it turns out that the answer no, because this accident did not occur at sea. Unfortunately, I'm sorry, right that's the wrong answer yeah yeah um again this is a uh is like a big navigable river like the mississippi something like that happens inside the um inside the country

0:11:10 Thomas: Burned again. Yeah. Yeah. Think if A had said anything about Navigable, I might have gotten there. Have gotten that.

0:11:22 Heather: But the maritime uh sounds very it feels very ocean-y to me also yeah and that's how we get to our answer choice being a um again because federal courts have original jurisdiction over were Admiralty and Maritime cases? Yeah, that's a good question. I researched a little bit of the answer and I got some conflicting answers, but what I could generally find was that there used to be a distinction in courts in England, but I'm seeing a little but generally, I'm seeing some places where there's some distinction, but also seeing a bit of, well, they're kind of interchangeable. For the purposes of the bar exam, they can be interchangeable, yeah. Yeah.

0:11:38 Thomas: Are Admiralty and Maritime the same thing, or are they two different things?

0:12:02 Thomas: Sure. Next time when I get it wrong because of that.

0:12:05 Heather: No, you're never going to forget it.

0:12:07 Thomas: Yeah. I don't know. But, yeah. Ah, brutal. Man, I am just... My score is tanking like the tanker that ran over an underwater pipe. Yeah. I'm down to 56.72. Not good. Chances, still thriving, 83.58.

0:12:25 Heather: Great.

0:12:26 Thomas: I mean, it would be if it were real, if it was anything that mattered. Heather, it'd be great. But yeah, we'll both agree that it's awesome. Super cool. These last two, boy, I really was almost there. And I, uh, I almost went with a, and then I was just like, what is a maritime nexus and what would determine that? But I didn't.

0:12:46 Heather: Navigated to the wrong answer. I'm sorry.

0:12:47 Thomas: I was set. Yep. The answer was unnavigable. Not navigate this question. Brutal, brutal question. Heather's really, really making the point here. Making, making your point clear. No, it's good. Good. I at excited to see what people's answers were. So let's go to the interwebs and see if folks did a little better, if some folks avoided that underwater pipe of failure, as I did not. Right. Time to look on the internet for our big winners. Such good responses this week, including someone taking up my question about and logic and all that. But we'll get to it. Let's start with Blue Sky. Answers on Blue Sky, and that's, of course, OpenArgs. Just search OpenArg, and then you got a quote skeet, a question. Question. I think I'll go with Seligman .dev on blue sky who says I'm going to go with a, since a tanker smashes into pipe and unleashes chemical doom onto a historic riverfront. Sounds like your your average Tuesday in maritime law.

0:13:48 Thomas: Love it so much. Yep, you nailed it. I mean, I guess I overthought it. That's a great answer. Why don't we now go to Reddit? Who's our big winner over there?

0:13:57 Heather: Mikey malloy and part of the reason I picked this answer is because mikey is studying for the bar exam so I just want to give you a big shout out and a lot of support from all of us over here because it's a you're doing a tough thing this summer I says my instinct is that the answer is yes because the federal government has jurisdiction over navigable waterways what's tricky here is that there's probably concurrent state jurisdiction so answer or choice C, which essentially says no, because their state jurisdiction is giving us the wrong rationale. Seems like a good answer at first, because interstate commerce is a common hook for exercise of federal power, but in and of itself isn't the basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction. That requires diversity or a federal question. The Constitution specifically grants federal courts power over cases in admiralty, and since this occurred in a navigable waterway, D is wrong, and I'm going with A. I just want to say first off, that's a really great breakdown and a good way to think through the question. You're on the right track. And Mikey goes on to say, as a side Note, when I was working at my state's Supreme Court during law school, I saw a maritime case being argued and kept humming, you're a crook, Captain Hook to myself and desperately hoped no one noticed.

0:15:04 Thomas: Oh, yes. So glad for the folks who recognized my title. Stuff. Congrats. And now I got to give the shout out to Scalper on Reddit who Scalper tried to answer my question question from the other week, and I think it'll be fastest to just read. Requested a mathematical logician, which I am, though that's a bit beyond the scope of what's being asked. But regardless, there are two questions wrapped up in what Thomas was wondering about, which are best to tackle separately. First, on the example case Thomas was reasoning through, the example given was, Thomas goes to the store every Thursday except when it's raining. Did Thomas go go to the store last Thursday, and yes, because it wasn't raining. This reads as a bad answer because, as Thomas notes, we read the because as the reason Thomas went to the store. If as the reason we know that Thomas went to the store, as in the reason yes is our answer, then it is a good answer, even if confusingly phrased. A great way to put it. I should have put it that way. It's sort go to the store because it was raining, but that's how we know he went to the story. And now, but now is where I've got to read this little paragraph. And I think I disagree. Let's see. My interpretation of the T3Bs I've listened to is that because clauses and answers are supposed to answer the question, why do we know that this answer is correct? Suppose we had the following question on the bar. Thomas goes to the grocery store every Thursday, except when it's raining. On Thursday, the 5th, it wasn't raining. Did Thomas go to the grocery store on Thursday the 5th? A, yes, because it wasn't raining. And B, yes because he wanted groceries. Would answer A. is so interesting to me, Scalper, because I precisely think you've identified everything. You've laid it out better than I could. And yet I'm virtually certain the bar answer is B on that. To get your thoughts on this so badly, Heather, but I swear so many of the the answers that can seem tricky are like the plain language ones. Like or a no answer just as a restatement kind of of what's happening. Like, a landowner or, you know, it'd be something general like that. And I feel like, I my instinct right when I read this very good explanation was I felt the opposite. I feel the bar isn't asking you, why do we know? It's asking you why is the thing? Like it's asking you Why is the you know evidence not allowed? Or why is that whatever? What do you think? Because I actually think I disagree with that last part.

0:17:15 Heather: That's such a good question. Say this. I actually really loved, I just want to back up by saying I really loved reading this answer because like unlike you, my brain works or thinks about this a little bit differently. And that's a good question because I followed the logic of what Scalper was saying and it made sense to me. Comes to saying like, would it choose A or B for this this particular reason of why we know that this answer is correct?

0:17:36 Thomas: No, that That would be, then it would be A, 100%. It's the bar asks, why did Thomas go to the store? The difference between A, yes, because it wasn't raining or B, yes because he wanted groceries. I think the bar, my feeling from answering all these is that it tends to go with B because it wants, that's the more causal link. Like it's, it's still, because it's like, yes, Thomas needed groceries and that's why he's going to the story. And then you as the aspirational lawyer are supposed to do the work of do these exceptions get in the way or not? And if they don't get in a way, then usually it's not about like I feel like my experience has been I'm pretty sure that the answer won't be yes, because it isn't this exception or whatever. It'll just say yes, Because he needed groceries. And it's like you're supposed to Do the math of Yeah, there wasn't this Exception. There wasn't This exception Etc, Etc. So it just was the thing like like I know there have been evidence ones that there was one. It was an evidence one where it was like, well, it's like, will the testimony be allowed? I think the answer was something like, yes, because they're a witness. And, you know, it was very basic thing. It was like yes, you because, you witness and saw this or something, you know, do you remember that one? It was something that like that. So that's why I think that it doesn't. It doesn't usually tell you. And you went through every answer I think was about an exception you went Through and none of them applied. So it was just like, yes, because there is such a thing as evidence and we have it in trials. You remember that one?

0:18:58 Heather: Vaguely, but I know exactly what you're talking about when you're saying like, you're right that the bar expects you to do the work of, know exact what you mean, because that's exactly what's expected. And I think the way that it comes out in the answer choices will sometimes, like, it will be like what you'RE saying, it'll sometimes be the factual thing. Then sometimes it'll be like the question that we had for 71, where it says, because it has a maritime nexus. And that kind of leads to more of the rule a little bit and don't know if that makes any sense.

0:19:26 Thomas: Well, I think what makes it hard is I don't think we ever have this kind of question where the two things are in conflict. Don' t ever think we have like I think I gave us this example, which is a really good way of clarifying what my logical issue is. But I think what usually what happens is we have either one or the other. And then in this case, I'm trying to see if can I eliminate one that's like the that's the A type of answer, just purely on the basis that it's not directly answering the question of why Thomas went to the grocery store. It's just answering why we know Thomas might have gone to the store. So I think that's why it's kind of hard to know because we never see them. I don't think we ever see these answers in conflict. It's usually one or the other. And so that's why it's a little hard to answer, if that makes sense. I can't think of any time where we have both those kinds of answers.

0:20:10 Heather: A good point. And maybe we'll just keep on the lookout for any, I dunno, but I really, I really love this answer choice So especially from someone who does think in logic, and I'll be honest, I'm always curious to know the exact way in which the NCBE, which is National Conference of Bar Examiner, how they create and work through questions in a more detailed kind of way.

0:20:13 Thomas: We'll keep like it. Really Really interesting. Know. We like interview them or something? Can you find somebody who, or is it top secret? Do they have to keep, you know, is

0:20:32 Heather: Would listen. Some of it's proprietary. They've done some short articles online that talk about how they go through like rounds and rounds with questions and that sort of thing. I don't know to the extent, I can't remember, I should say, to the extent to which they used this detailed logical process. Listen, I would love if that was the case.

0:20:52 Thomas: Let me Hey, legit writers out there. No, but thank you so much, Scalper. I love, you've clarified it so well. There's a little bit more in that answer if people want to check it out on Reddit talks more about some other interesting logical stuff. My only point of contention is I actually, I feel like it's been the other way. So I'll be curious to hear if you have any follow -up thoughts, Scaliper. And as Heather says, I think we should maybe keep an eye on this going forward. It's really interesting to me and perhaps one to two other human beings on planet Earth. So, that's why it's such good podcasting. No, always paranoid when I get... Because I love these things and I'm like, does anyone else care about this? But no, at least Scalper and me and Heather is pretending to.

0:21:31 Thomas: No, Okay, so now I've got to go over to Patreon to reveal our big winner. Patreon .com slash law, we've got some good ones. Oh, we've got another really good clarification that I wanted to run by you if you didn't happen to see it. Nico White says, for what it's worth, I think I understand answer C. And that was the one that was no, because Louisville is claiming damage to its riverbank. And I was just kind of like, eh, and I feel like we didn't have a solid reason of why that even mattered. Nico White said, I don't know, I'm not sure. I don' know. I think it's trying to draw a distinction between river bank and river water, which makes sense because a big river like the Ohio goes through a lot of states and the fate of the water will affect lots of places. Federal jurisdiction has to govern there because otherwise you could get things like an oil spill happening in one state, but the contaminated water affecting other states that might be left without good recourse or a natural third party to sort it out. I think that kind of makes sense as to what, do you think that's what the answer was going for? It's about like the

0:22:28 Thomas: River bank versus the river water maybe yeah

0:22:30 Heather: Not at all, which is so interesting to hear someone walk through that because my first instinct was that this had to do with trying to get the examinee to go down the wrong topic altogether. So to me, this kind of signals a constitutional law issue as opposed to that. Because there's an issue about getting your case in a court a on constitutional law side in which you're kind of thinking about that. So it's interesting to hear someone kind at it from a different angle.

0:22:52 Thomas: Hard to know for sure like what the fake out they were trying to do was you know and that might depend on what your background knowledge is and um I will say that I think that does seem kind of plausible where it's like yeah that's the river bank you the riverfront is like literally on the land of the state versus it's not like out in the water somewhere and I just didn't think about that cat being it. So I don't know. I guess we don't know. More pondering the motives of the question that I wish we could just get them in here and ask them. But I thought that was interesting. Got this. Honestly this might be my favorite Roan how to pronounce this Roan Cattow -T -T T -O -U -W. Don't Catow. Hopefully I'm somewhere in the ballpark of correct on that, Speaking oh of pronunciation, when Thomas and Heather reveal the answer to this, which I think is A, they should also issue a correction for their pronunciation of Louisville. And to that, I say, you're right. It is Louisville, I'm so sorry. It is Louisville. That's how it should be pronounced.

0:23:46 Thomas: Apology. No, Louisville. No, I think what Roan is getting at is it's probably, like, that's what they say in the sound of whatever the fuck fuck that is. That's why they just skip all of the sounds that are anything that humans make. And it becomes just like growl. It's just like, and I, in rebellion against that, I think we should go Louisville -y. We should pronounce every letter and then some that aren't there.

0:24:08 Heather: Is is that we just add in

0:24:12 Thomas: Yeah. It's so funny. It always comes up around like, you basketball, you when they're talking about Lul and they're like, one of the people on the panel will be saying like, yeah, Lul has a whatever. And the other people are like, Yeah, Louisville. If they're not from there, they're Like Louisville, I'll go, I'll go with you partway, but I can't do whatever the hell that is that they do there where they're like, well, like that's not a word. I'm sorry. I don't know what that's supposed to be.

0:24:35 Thomas: But anyway, Ron's definitely right. And I'm definitely wrong. I was just actually, to be fair, Ron didn't say what the correct pronunciation is. They just got to say, we have to issue a correction for the pronunciation, how we did it. So

0:24:44 Heather: So it's the correction to what you believe that it is yeah it's listen it's up to your interpretation I

0:24:46 Thomas: Exactly. So who knows? Maybe Ron is wrong as well. Yeah. I so that I will give give the award to Roan and Nico White for, you trying to explain what C was doing there, which I think was good insight. So anyway, so many great answers. That was a lot of fun, a particularly good week of answers and answers to other things that we didn't even necessarily know we were getting answers to. Love it. Thank you so much for playing along, everyone. And now I've got to find a way to answer a question right. Right. Take a break and we'll get to question 72.

0:25:20 Thomas: Laugh. It's so funny how bad I'm doing. Heather's so devious. No. episode is brought to you by Notion. I know you're probably hearing a ton about AI pretty much all the time now, and that can be really confusing. It's imagine if you haven't gotten into it at all, it's hard to know where to go, what to use, what's going to be helpful, what not. Well, let AI, because if you're anything like me, and I know a lot of listeners are a whole lot of work that involves research, notes, documents, project management, anything like that, Notion AI is fantastic at saving you time and kind of consolidating your workflow in ways that just were not possible easily before. What Notion does is it combines your notes, your documents, your projects, all that into one space that's simple and beautifully designed. And you can leverage the power of AI right inside Notion across all your notes and docs without jumping between your work and a separate AI powered tool. A big problem right now because you gotta like upload the documents and then it feels like the AI forgets them right away. All that, Notion AI is the way to go. It's the one place to connect teams, tools and knowledge so you're empowered to do your most meaningful work. Fully integrated Notion AI helps you work faster, write better, and think bigger, doing tasks that normally take you hours and just seconds. Notian is great and you don't have to just take my word for it. It's used by över half of fortune 500 companies. Teams that use Notion send less email, cancel more meetings. That's my favorite thing, canceling meetings. Nothing better than it. The only good meeting I've ever seen is a canceled meeting. So try Notion for free when you go to notion .com slash opening. That is all lowercase letters. Notion .com slash opening to try the

0:27:00 Thomas: When And you use our link, you're supporting our show. Notion .com slash opening. Right, Heather, let's have, if you can stop laughing and how bad I'm going, let let's ask question 72, uh,

0:27:14 Heather: Owned a large piece of land next to her her neighbor, Nancy. There was never a clearly marked boundary line between the two properties.

0:27:21 Thomas: Mark your boundary lines, everyone. And then I don't have to answer this question.

0:27:28 Heather: 30 years ago, Lily decided to plant a beautiful flower garden on part of the land she believed belonged to her. In actuality, the land belonged to Nancy. The time Lily initially planted the garden, she continued to take care of it by tending to the garden on a weekly basis. Years ago Nancy was convicted and imprisoned for insider trading. Recently died and her her executor filed suit to eject Lily in quiet title. Statute of limitations for adverse possession in the jurisdiction is 21 years. Of the following is the best answer regarding Lily's claim to the land where she planted her flower garden? Lily cannot claim title by adverse possession because planting a flower garden is not sufficient for actual use. Lily cannot acquire title to theland because Nancy was imprisoned. Lily can not acquire title because because she has committed ameliorative waste or D Lily acquired title by adverse possession. Yeah.

0:28:23 Thomas: Okay. I love this. Well, I think it's real property. Part seems real easy. After that, not so much. Adverse possession. I thought I always throws me off because it sounds like a different thing than it is to me or something. Like it doesn't sound quite right. I guess it's, is it the the squatters thing. I think, I guess that's the squatter's thing. The squatters rights. Think I adverse is actually thing .I do remember that. It is kind kind of weird. It's like if someone uses your land, if they build a little like house on your land and you don't notice for some length of time, which, it's like, well, I mean, the fact that you didn't notice für 10, 20, whatever years it is, means maybe you weren't using it and maybe you didn' t need it that much. And then that can be squatter's rights. And then you get it. That is a real thing. I forget most of the details, except that I know it's a a real thing now is planting a beautiful flower garden does that qualify that's interesting she takes care of it she tends to the garden on a weekly basis now is that different though than like living someplace because all the squatters thing I feel like you got to live there um it makes sense that that would be like you know okay well we're going to prioritize someone who needs to live somewhere versus someone who has land they forgot about and aren't even been using for however many years. But when it's like a flower garden, could I set up a business on someone's land if they don't notice for a certain amount of time? You know, like actually, I've never thought about that. What constitutes that? And is that the thing we're talking about or is squatter's rights not adverse possession? I don't, I think that's the same. Can't remember. Okay. This is going to be interesting to reason through. There was never a clearly marked boundary line that's a that's another one that's interesting and that actually seems like a kind of a different question um I think I I remember from the old timey days that that property gets interesting when the boundary line on on on like paper is not actually as important as if there's a real physical thing like a stream or or whatever, you know, something like a like feature of the actual land that is just like considered the property line. I remember back in the day, that being a tricky thing that that actually might be more important than like a line drawn on some piece of paper somewhere that no one really remembers. So that could be an interesting different component if there's no clearly marked boundary line versus some sort of squatting thing where it's like, well, I use this person's property long enough that it's mine. I feel like that's kind of maybe two different issues unless they just blend into the same thing here. I feel that would change maybe your answer if it was like, no, this has just been the functional boundary because she says she believed it belonged to her. So it's like she's using the wrong boundary and then it gets used used long enough to become the real boundary kind of. Oh, so much going on here. Can't wait to see how I get this one wrong 18 different ways, but it's interesting. She thought, let's get the key facts. She years ago, she plants a beautiful garden. She thought it was her part of the land. Was never a clearly marked boundary line between the two properties. She tends it weekly. I think that those are pretty important facts. In actuality, I guess we'll assume based on like the on the, you piece of paper somewhere, the land belonged to Nancy. It says five years ago, Nancy was convicted and imprisoned for insider trading. Recently died in her executor filed suit to eject Lily and quiet title. The statute of limitations for adverse possession in the jurisdiction is 21 years. Now that, that is all kinds of confusing to me because it's the squatters thing, I think like the natural way, the way my brain wants to interpret that is if you squat somewhere for 21 years, you win. The statute of limitations for for adverse possession. Don't know why that sounds different to me than that. The statute of limitations. Okay. Maybe that is what it is because if they've. Yeah. So like when they are trespassing essentially and like possessing your land, first time is when it happens and then you can only do something about it for 21 years. The statute of limitation. So, OK, so it is it functionally that maybe. So, okay. And considering it was 30 years ago, feels like Lily's going to own this. Well, which of the following is the best answer regarding Lily's claim to the land where she planted her flower garden? Lily cannot claim title by adverse possession because planting a flower garden is not not sufficient for actual use. That's, that be an actual use, actual use I that seems like something, it seems like the might want you to actually be living there, you know, like in order to possess it, kind of like I talked about at the beginning merely planting a flower garden sufficient? I is a very attractive answer answer because I feel like even with our neighbors, like there's some like bushes that are kind of on, on, seems like it's on our side of the line, but then said it was their side and they're like, I feel Like there's going to be a lot of little stuff like that where, and there's gonna be overlap of things like, you bushes, trees, whatever, where just taking care of that, like life or whatever, maybe, wouldn't be sufficient to like actually own the land. Happen a lot um and also okay and also thinking through that more when it comes to the spirit of this squatters rights thing which is I the way I understood it way back when I first learned this was someone who you a little tent or a little hut or needs to live somewhere their ability to live on your land is more important than land you didn't know you had and didn't notice. This is something that I think it makes sense that we wouldn't really notice or care about. Like if it was like a property line and, oh, there's some flowers that are kind of overlap. Like it would be understandable that you wouldn't be policing that in that same way if it's your land, if makes sense. So I feel like A is a very attractive Interactive answer to me. B, Lily cannot acquire title to the land because Nancy was imprisoned. That is so interesting. I love this one because first I was like, what in the world? But then I was, like, well, wait a minute. It would make sense that there should be an exception for people who are imprisoned. Like, if you own land and you're in prison, wouldn't it be a problem. It would just be a free -for -all of, like... Well, that person can't find us on their land, so go take over the land. It actually kind of makes sense that that would be, like a carve -out. Like, OK, well, if they're in prison, you can't just squatters rights, their whole everything. That does make sense. However, I mean, if you do the math, 30 years ago is when it started and five years ago was when she was in prison. So I think given that the statute of limitation is 21 years, I think she would have had to do something about it before she was imprisoned. So I DON'T I ultimately DON'T think it's B for that reason. But it is interesting. At first I thought it was nonsense, but make sense that that would be an exception. So I'm going to say not be. See, Lily cannot acquire title because she has committed ameliorative waste. The hell? Ameliorated waste. Ameljorative is usually like, you know, you're making something slightly better. You're amelorating something, you're fixing it a little bit. You're making up for something sort of. Don' t know what that is. I can' t imagine that' s the answer. It at all. I'm going to say not C because I just don't, doesn't sound like anything that makes sense, but who knows? Maybe this is just a super technical thing and I'll get it wrong. And finally, D, Lily acquired title by adverse possession. Okay, I think pretty clearly it's between A and D. think the key is going to be, is planting a flower garden sufficient for actual use or not? And if it is, I feel like she's got it because it's been 30 years. Prison thing didn't matter. I think if a flower Garden is enough that she tends weekly, then we're good. If not, then it's A. I'm between A and D. got to say, I think I'm going with A. I think this isn't enough for the actual use that would be adverse possession. I think feel like the main counter example would be like, well, if someone has put a lot of effort into something and it happens to straddle borderline or or I guess you'd even be over across the boundary line and they didn't know it and would be a little rough to be like well that's mine now or I'm destroying the flower garden that you've tended for weeks for you know that does make me reconsider potentially even another way if people were trying to exploit squatters rights, which I'm sure happens. Sense that the law would make it such that you can't just build like a tiny little hut for a mouse that's hidden. And then it's like, well, you didn't notice it for X years. So now I own this land. You know, like it makes sense that there needs to be a threshold of something that you're doing there, like use that you are actual use, I guess might be needs to Be a threshold where, you know, I feel like it's got to be something noticeable and important and a flower garden. Boy, that feels close. Like obviously you're not going to think a, well a-tended flower garden just appeared out of nowhere. Hmm. I'm I'm, second guessing myself. I really think between A and D, think I'm going to stick with A. I think that's not quite enough, but it's, boy it's close.

0:36:45 Thomas: So And I can't wait to find out the answer next week. Right. Well, if you'd like to play along, go to Blue Sky, find OpenArgs, quote Skeet the question, and with your answer. Then also go to reddit.com/r/OpenArgs. And And there you get to, you know, have your answer tracked. You get to interact a little more. Finally, the most important shout outs happen on patreon.com where the best people are. So you so much to everyone who plays along. Excited to see what everyone's answers are this time. Right, Heather. Probably bested me again, but been fun. I I appreciate it. I'm looking forward to hearing the answer to this one.

0:37:15 Heather: Well, I'm thanks always so excited to hear how you think through these questions. So I feel like I'm the winner here.

0:37:22 Thomas: Try to not take that as it sounds like the only good thing was hearing my thought process and not what my answer was, but I won't take it that way. I'm just kidding. We'll next week. Episode is brought to you by HIMSS. For men, dealing with ED can be uncomfortable, which is why HIMSS provides access to a comfortable solution with an all-online process and personalized treatment options. There are conversations with a doctor that, they're just uncomfortable. It's easier if you don't have to do it in person. That's why I recommend HIMSS so much. Provides access to a range of doctor-trusted ED treatments like chewable tablets, Viagra and Cialis, and their generics, for up to 95% less. The process, most importantly, is 100% online, so there's no need for uncomfortable doctor's visits. Just fill out an intake form on their site, and determine the right treatment option. If prescribed, your medication ships directly to you for free. No insurance is needed, and one low price covers everything from treatments to ongoing care. Hundreds of thousands of trusted subscribers, can help you find the ED option that works for you. So start your free online visit today at HIMS.com/opening. That's H-I-M-S.com/opening for your personalized ED treatment options. .com/reopening. The featured products include compounded products which are not approved nor verified for safety, effectiveness, or quality by the FDA. Required. See See websitefordetailsrestrictionsandimportantsafetyinformation. Price varies. Price varies on product, and subscription plan.

0:38:57 Clip: Thank you for being, say we started from the bottom, now we're here, girl.

0:39:06 Thomas: One thing left to do. And that's to thank our patrons, our amazing folks at patreon.com/law who make this happen. They make the show. They are literally the reason we're here. They're literally the reasons Lydia is not allowed to have a vacation and has to call in to work. How are you doing?

0:39:20 Lydia: True it's am doing well you know this is worth it though this patrons are worth it what

0:39:24 Thomas: We do patron shout outs each and every week for the top patrons, the Hall of Famers. We also thank any new patrons who've joined the fold. Usually just knock that out real quick. So new patrons at patreon.com/law are Olivia Komosinski. Oh my God, we've hit the big time finally our own social media person has pledged to our show that's boy that's a level of success I never dreamed I'd have that

0:39:49 Lydia: My god yeah that's a big deal that is a big deal dang welcome Olivia

0:39:52 Thomas: A get yeah she's before she was like I you know I've been doing social media but I don't listen that shit that's terrible and then she's like you know lately she's Like you know it's gotten better it's got I think I'll check it out

0:39:58 Lydia: She's gonna write it off as a business expense yeah I think I can throw some money behind this now

0:40:08 Thomas: Thank you to Olivia thank you to Recluce I feel like that one came up before and it was confusing to me then and confusing to me now Recluce Nick FTI and Jessie Campbell thank you so much new patrons hope you enjoy the goodies and the uh the shout outs and the no ads most importantly now it's time for the big show we've got to thank our top patrons our hall of famers our our all-time greats at patreon.com/law. These are the folks that pledge at the $5 level and above for at least a month. And special shout out each week. I have forgotten which one you're doing because I sent you both because I forgot which one you'redoing then as well.

0:40:18 Lydia: Welcome. I'm going to start us. I'm going to kick us off.

0:40:50 Thomas: As I knew, as a totally new was going to start us off. So why don't you start us out?

0:40:55 Lydia: All right. Thank you to Vetinari for America Order and Progress Forever. I guess it's veterinary. That's how it's spelled. And it's not veterinarian veteran

0:41:06 Thomas: It's not any of that. It seems like it's like is it like a Latin thing or something like that and something like that. Then I didn't even I don't know.

0:41:11 Lydia: Could be veterinary veterinary do

0:41:15 Thomas: Well, go. Thank you.

0:41:17 Lydia: I have to say it like I'm like cardinal voting on the pope un unremarkable Casey Kahn terminally online line. Donna Treadway, mother of inheritance. Zoran Mamdani for NYC mayor. I feel like that's got to be happening.

0:41:36 Thomas: Long is that going on? Yeah. Like when?

0:41:38 Lydia: Don't know.

0:41:40 Thomas: Long do you have a mayoral election there? Well, I guess it's and we're not even because the whole thing is the primary, isn't it? Right. Or maybe not. I can't remember. Is that because like it'S all Democrats.

0:41:47 Lydia: I think so. I mean, like that's usually how

0:41:49 Thomas: So it'S yeah.

0:41:49 Lydia: It works, right? It's like usually June is the primary and yeah.

0:41:52 Thomas: So it's. I don't know what's happening over there just win already can you tell me wake me up when he won or slash probably lost but I hope his I hopes are on wins oh my god call us anytime

0:41:58 Lydia: Zoron, call us when you've won. That's true. Trans kids. I Don't Want to Body Shame, but Stephen Miller looks looks like he drinks unicorn blood. I mean, yeah, he absolutely would. I

0:42:10 Thomas: Yeah he would look when your wife leaves you for checks musk that's oh my God I can't think of a greater

0:42:19 Lydia: I know. I like, don't even want to go there because like, I don't want to assume, but like, it feels like that's happening. It feels like that's happening

0:42:21 Thomas: Insult yeah yeah nobody wins nobody wins yeah it's It's not like I can take any pleasure in like, ha ha, the whole thing's just, oh wait, we did, oh yeah, yeah, I think it's like Ghostbusters where all the evil people just coalesce, you know? I think they're just attracted to one another in a way that's more spiritual than anything.

0:42:33 Lydia: Like we covered her before too like she's the worst also yeah we talked about how she was just like all about power and stuff and like man yeah anyway yeah yeah I'm adam cyanitis disappointed in all the capitulating to fascism. Circuit attorney reluctantly changing her font. Sex and gender are different things. Apprentice of adventure. Probably a real person. Yeah, you probably are. I hope you are. Still rooting for the hamburgers to deliver more timely justice than the current system. Unfrozen caveman lawyer. Nick Fish. Gavelhead. Dang, someone just claimed, and someone claimed OG status.

0:43:16 Thomas: Gavelheads, woo, sound off, gavelheads. That's

0:43:21 Lydia: Like that's a, that's a big deal. That's a big deal.

0:43:22 Thomas: That person must go back to she's flipping the calendar last year, an entire calendar year ago, I think. Maybe. Maybe. I don't remember.

0:43:27 Lydia: 21 episodes ago. Negative phenomenon. Abolish religion, achieve world peace. You got to fight for your right to ex parte. Oh, you don't agree with that? Abolished religion, achievable peace.

0:43:42 Thomas: Mean, well, I agree. I

0:43:43 Lydia: It might get us closer.

0:43:43 Thomas: Agree with that as an agenda, like first item of all's religion, second item, then go on to achieve world peace. It definitely wouldn't hurt. I'll It wouldn't hurts. But, you know, you'll know they'll find some other stupid thing to argue. Like, you know, it's just, you know, they'll find some way to divide. They will. Everyone will.

0:43:59 Lydia: Got to fight for your right to ex parte. I'm going to say it again because I know we circled back to the other one. Jay Sank, cavalry, vehicular man's laughter is out of battery, still, oh, poor guy, upside down smiley face. I see you, gavel head. I see it.

0:44:15 Thomas: That's an original gavelhead as well. Yeah.

0:44:16 Lydia: I see, I see. Even a blind squirrel can find these chunks. That's good.

0:44:23 Thomas: Think that happened last time and it's still as funny this time.

0:44:25 Lydia: It's still good.

0:44:26 Thomas: That's also gavel head. Love it. That could be, I guess that could mean, you could be honestly, that could be gavel, gavel where there's a book or series inquiries only really that

0:44:28 Lydia: That's also a gavel head. It could be, but the chunk talk, I feel like primarily happens on gavel gavel. Our strategy is across the network.

0:44:41 Thomas: Let's be honest with each each other we a lot of chunks we're blowing chunks through all the shows

0:44:45 Lydia: We're real chunky. Yeah, we're real chunky look

0:44:48 Thomas: Is the only show that's not chunk based this is not a chunk based economy this show I

0:44:52 Lydia: I finally changed my name for real legally and Thomas Freeman okay your turn pick it up oh

0:45:01 Thomas: Can't not hear the last part of that one as you the munchkin land thing legally like I just I feel like there should be some way that I don't know how the syllables go of that song

0:45:08 Lydia: Yeah but got to verify it legally to see to see if she if she is morally ethically spiritually physically positively absolutely undeniably unreliably dead

0:45:12 Thomas: I changed my name for real legally yeah anyway I'm hanging up thank you too

0:45:25 Lydia: I feel like that is primo content for these top patrons. They're going to be like, wow. I am like, I am moved beyond words for

0:45:31 Thomas: That's true it lyrics were great the munchkin voice could use a little more munch not gonna lie there's not much yeah get like was

0:45:40 Lydia: Going to say it's a lot more munchkiny than my Jordan Peterson impression that I tried.

0:45:45 Thomas: Jordan peterson -y yeah yeah. We didn't even shout that out. Now. I mean, if you're interested in Jordan Peterson debating some atheists and it going really badly, check out serious inquiries only. It was a fun, it was a fine episode. It was two episodes.

0:45:55 Lydia: Was fun.

0:45:56 Thomas: It's really fun. Yeah.

0:45:56 Lydia: Two -parter, two -parters, yeah.

0:45:58 Thomas: Boy, that guy never, never fails, never failed to be that guy. Right. Thank you to Cajun killer. Why do I do it? I, I'm so white that I can't not accidentally incidentally, whitenize even.

0:46:08 Lydia: Don't know. I don't why you're trying to, like, jeez. You can't even just read the words in front of you.

0:46:17 Thomas: It's just unconscious. I can't. It is so terrible. Cajun killer, ET, fraud fish. He hates everything. Chris Simpson, love the extra episodes. I the Democrats fecklessness is my fetish, baby. Gavelhead Chuck. It still says chucking. And I feel like we put this person on notice. So we're going to say it's chucking, you know it's a legal term yeah we

0:46:37 Lydia: All did. Is the second warning. This This is the second warning to you, patron.

0:46:42 Thomas: Will take legal action no our patrons our can do whatever they want that was like a notice just in case of a typo that's us

0:46:47 Lydia: That's true. Case it was a typo. Yeah. Well, maybe it's not a typos. So then you got it. You got to like dig deep and commit to the name. So I'd like you to say it again, but like with conviction.

0:46:51 Thomas: They can yeah that's that's what I was saying away gavelhead chucking

0:47:00 Lydia: All right. There you go.

0:47:00 Thomas: Away it's got to be chunking

0:47:02 Lydia: Much better.

0:47:02 Thomas: I think it's I think this is a killer cajun killer all over again It's chugging. Mark Schultz, the Cincinnati Kid, Bob Blah Blah's Law Podcast. Philly Basement Bar is back open and isn't taking the shit lying down. Genuinely, one of my, like, that was like an emotional lift was when Philly Basement bar, like changed their name to being like after the election. It was like, oh, okay. Well, Philly basement bar is back at it. What's our excuse? You know, it was

0:47:26 Lydia: If they're not lying down, we're not laying down. Um, are you

0:47:29 Thomas: Genuinely had a little bit of feeling when that name change happened. I was like that's awesome. Them. Thomas Smith president, American Honky Tonk Bar Association. That one goes back a hundred years. I never knew what it meant. Still don't know what it means, but I love it.

0:47:41 Lydia: The, okay. So I have a question because I've been wondering this from the beginning. Are you being elected president or are you being selected president of the American honky -tonk bar association?

0:47:52 Thomas: Oh, that's a great question. Elect me president. And then they're saying, are they talking to the American Honk Tonk bar association or all the, yeah.

0:47:58 Lydia: Like are you, are they, or the American honky tonk bar association endorsed you for president?

0:48:03 Thomas: Or are they also just throwing out like that's their other name? Like maybe, maybe their first name was American Honkytonk Bar association. And dann they added elect Thomas Smith present and then they passed And their name has never changed since then in like eight years or something. But either way, we love whoever that is. Thank you so much.

0:48:07 Lydia: It could be. Do. We do. You're the best or

0:48:22 Thomas: Someday I will be president of the American Honky Tonk Party. I don't know. Balticate Philip

0:48:26 Lydia: President of United States. Those are your two options.

0:48:27 Thomas: Kaiser I'm like the pole on a pride flag I'm straight and there for support that was great I love that Lan a string of unpronounceable characters d 'oeuvres in the court before we report Malaika Chandler Malcolm the Dragon the Precious Variant Milo Meadsong is fighting petty tyrants Ron to the dork dot com Big Easy Blasphemy Chris Waltrip Fred R. Grotheus, ClassicLibtard, and Mitchell, our top patron to the stars. Mitchell, May, May Mitchell reign.

0:48:36 Lydia: I love Love that. Nice. American Honky Tonk Bar Association. Maybe we elect Mitchell president.

0:49:04 Thomas: There can only be one president of the American Honky Tonk Bar Association. Don't take this from me. It's the one thing I have. Please, please. It's all I've got.

0:49:11 Lydia: Well, I don't think you're president yet. You have been running for eight years.

0:49:13 Thomas: But I've Got a Really Good Campaign Going. Like, it's, can't deny that. The longevity of my campaign. Right that's amazing thanks so much hun for calling in that was still a lot of fun even 10 000 miles away in outer space I don't know yeah you will never know no secret thanks

0:49:17 Lydia: And longevity. Yeah. Or down the street, you will never know. No one will ever know where I was for this episode of Opening Arguments.

0:49:38 Thomas: So much to heather and thanks most of all to the the patrons again for making it happen we'll see you for rapid response friday I'm excited we'll see you then awesome

0:49:45 Clip: This podcast is a production of Opening Arguments Media, LLC, All Rights Reserved. It is produced and edited by Thomas Smith, who also provided the fabulous intro and outro music used with permission.

0:50:02 Thomas: Just be like, yes, because he's a person who's like, I'm trying to think of an example. It'd be and Ameliorated waste.

0:50:12 Lydia: The chunk talk, I morally ethically spiritually physically positively absolutely undeniably unreliably dead okay Okay.

0:50:16 Thomas: Anyway I'm hanging up thank

0:50:21 Lydia: You can continue.

0:50:23 Thomas: You like the pole on a pride flag I'm straight and there for support that I have always said longevity. I've never said, there's an internet mean that was like, people say longevity and I've always been like, no, you can't borrow the G for another G.

0:50:37 Lydia: Wait, wait. Hmm. Longevity. No, I think I say longevity.

0:50:42 Thomas: I say longevity. Always have long, maybe like longevity, but not like longevity. Like, like that's yeah. Anyway.

0:50:50 Lydia: I don't make us pause like that either.

0:50:52 Thomas: Long is your jevity. Yeah.

0:50:55 Lydia: Longevity, longevity, longevity.

0:50:57 Thomas: Longevity. And then every time, ever since I thought about it, I was like, yeah, it's like, now I think of a lawn for some reason. Yeah it's, you know, got longevity.

0:51:04 Lydia: It is weird. I, that is, that must be a word we do not use very much in our day -to -day lives. Cause I feel like I would have potentially noticed that, that