Also known as: immobilia · immobilium · immobilize · immobilized · immobilizing · immobilization · immovables · immovable property
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
Property that cannot be moved from place to place. It encompasses land and any interests or things legally regarded as part of the land.
Liam, general manager of Harvest Ridge Cooperative, executed and recorded a deed conveying a strip of the co-op's farm acreage to PrairieGrow Agribusiness to satisfy his personal gambling debt. The transfer was unauthorized by the board. Because the acreage constitutes immobilis, the conveyance satisfies the elements of theft by unlawful transfer of immovable property of another.
Southern Stores negotiated a ground lease for a shopping center parcel located in State B. When it later sought to assign the leasehold without consent, Birch Retail invoked State B statutes limiting transfers. The leasehold interest is immobilis, so choice-of-law analysis focuses on the state with the most significant relationship to the thing and the parties.
Noon Solar acquired perpetual easements across ranchland in State W through an agreement negotiated in State D. Valerie later purchased the ranch and challenged the easements under State W alienability rules. Because the easements burden immobilis, the factors in section 6 are evaluated to identify the state of most significant relationship to the land and the parties.
Nova Garage took a mortgage on dealership land in State B to secure a floorplan loan governed by State A law. Black Motor held an earlier mortgage on the same parcel. The land is immobilis, so the reference is to the law of the situs state, including its choice-of-law rules, to reach the same result a court of that state would reach.
Mr. Feenstra unilaterally executed a mortgage on the couple's jointly owned home without Mrs. Feenstra's consent. The home is immobilis. Mrs. Feenstra challenged the statutory scheme allowing one spouse to encumber the community immovable without the other's joinder.
In 1974, Joan Feenstra filed a criminal complaint against her husband Harold Feenstra charging him with molesting their minor daughter. While incarcerated on that charge, Harold retained attorney Karl Kirchberg to represent him and signed a $3,000 promissory note for legal services. To secure the note, Harold executed a mortgage on the couple's jointly owned home without informing his wife or obtaining her consent, relying on former Article 2404 of the Louisiana Civil Code. After Joan dropped the charge, Harold obtained a legal separation and moved out of state. Joan first learned of the mortgage in 1976 when Kirchberg threatened foreclosure unless she paid the outstanding amount on the note. Upon her refusal to pay, Kirchberg obtained an order of executory process directing the local sheriff to seize and sell the home. Kirchberg filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana seeking a declaratory judgment that he was not liable under the Truth in Lending Act for nondisclosures regarding the mortgage. In her answer, Joan asserted counterclaims including one challenging the constitutionality of the statutory scheme allowing her husband to execute the mortgage unilaterally. The State of Louisiana and its Governor were joined as third-party defendants on the constitutional counterclaim. The District Court granted the State's motion for summary judgment on the constitutional counterclaim. While Joan's appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit was pending, the Louisiana Legislature revised its community property laws to grant spouses equal control over the disposition of such property, with the changes effective January 1, 1980. The Court of Appeals held that Article 2404 violated the Equal Protection Clause but limited its decision to prospective application. Only Kirchberg appealed to the Supreme Court, which noted probable jurisdiction.
View casePolice searched a car for evidence after arresting its occupants. The car is movable property rather than immobilis, so different jurisdictional and search rules apply than those governing interests in land.
During the night of May 20, 1963, two armed men robbed a Gulf service station in North Braddock, Pennsylvania. They took currency from the cash register and directed attendant Stephen Kovacich to place coins into his right-hand glove, which they then seized. Two teenagers who had seen a blue compact station wagon circling the block observed the same vehicle speed away from a nearby parking lot. They reported to arriving police that four men were inside, one wearing a green sweater. Kovacich separately described one robber wearing a green sweater and the other a trench coat. Police broadcast the description of the car and robbers. Within an hour officers stopped a light blue compact station wagon matching the description about two miles from the station. Petitioner was among the four occupants. He wore a green sweater and a trench coat lay in the car. The men were arrested and the vehicle was driven to the police station. During a thorough search of the car at the station, officers found two .38-caliber revolvers concealed under the dashboard, one loaded with dumdum bullets, the right-hand glove containing small change, and cards bearing the name of Raymond Havicon. Havicon was the attendant at a Boron service station robbed at gunpoint on May 13, 1963. The day after the arrest, police executed a warrant-authorized search of petitioner's home and seized .38-caliber ammunition, including dumdum bullets matching those in one of the revolvers. Petitioner was indicted separately for the May 13 and May 20 robberies. His first trial ended in a mistrial. At the second trial both Kovacich and Havicon identified him as one of the robbers. The items taken from the station wagon were introduced, and the ammunition from his home was also admitted. Petitioner received consecutive sentences of four to eight years for the May 13 robbery and two to seven years for the May 20 robbery. Petitioner did not appeal. In 1965 he filed a state habeas corpus petition that was denied after an evidentiary hearing. The denial was affirmed on appeal. He then sought federal habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. The district court denied the petition without a hearing on the basis of the state record. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the denial, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View caseNo. The offense is complete upon an unauthorized transfer of title or an interest in the immovable property when done with purpose to benefit oneself or another not entitled to it. Recording a deed that conveys the land or grants an easement satisfies the transfer element.
Supporting sources
The interests of the parties in immobilis are determined by the law of the state with the most significant relationship to the thing and the parties under the factors in section 6. For immovables the reference is ordinarily to the law of the situs, including its choice-of-law rules.
Supporting sources
Parties enter property transactions with forethought and often consult counsel. They expect specific legal consequences to follow from a given transaction. Absent strong countervailing considerations, those expectations should not be disappointed.
Supporting sources
Yes. An easement is a nonpossessory interest in land. Granting a perpetual easement therefore constitutes a transfer of an interest in immobilis that can support theft liability when done unlawfully and with the requisite purpose.
Supporting sources
…itself in need of shipping whilst ships flying the flags of nations overrun by Hitler, as well as belligerent merchantmen, were immobilized in American harbors where they had taken refuge, President Roosevelt did not assume that it was in his power to seize such foreign vessels to make up our own deficit. He informed Congress:…