DOC

Property Summary

By Alvin Harrison,2014-07-10 19:15
7 views 0
Property Summary ...

    Chapter 1 Concepts of Property in Law ...................................................................................................................... 4 Victoria Park Racing and Recreation Grounds Co. Ltd v Taylor 1937, Australia ................................................. 5

    Pettkus v Becker 1980 .............................................................................................................................................. 5 International News Service v Associated Press US 1918 ....................................................................................... 6

    Chapter 2 The Concept of Possession .......................................................................................................................... 6 US Supreme Court Mitchell v U.S............................................................................................................................ 8 Tee-Hit-Ton ............................................................................................................................................................. 8 The nature of the thing being possessed ..................................................................................................................... 8 Pierson v Poste ......................................................................................................................................................... 8 Armory v Delamory .................................................................................................................................................. 8 Parker v British Airways (Court of Appeal, 1992) .................................................................................................... 9 Joint finding .............................................................................................................................................................. 10 Keron v Cashman................................................................................................................................................... 10 Edmonds v Ronella ................................................................................................................................................ 10 Bird v Fort Frances ............................................................................................................................................... 10 Buckley v Gross (English decision) ........................................................................................................................ 11 Irving v National Provincial Bank (English Court of Appeal 1961) ...................................................................... 11 Clark v Maloney ..................................................................................................................................................... 11 R v Christie ............................................................................................................................................................ 11 Moffat v Kazanza ................................................................................................................................................... 12 AG of Canada v Brock ........................................................................................................................................... 12 Law of finders and treasure trove ............................................................................................................................ 12 Extinguishment of the Rights of the True Owner .................................................................................................... 12 Possession in relation to land .................................................................................................................................... 12 Asher v Whitlock .................................................................................................................................................... 13 Perry v Clissold (1907) ........................................................................................................................................... 13 Mabo v Queensland ............................................................................................................................................... 13 McPhail v Persons Unknown ................................................................................................................................. 13 City of New York v Utsey........................................................................................................................................ 14 Statute of limitations in relation to land ................................................................................................................... 14 Piper v Stevenson ................................................................................................................................................... 14 St. Clair Beach Estates v MacDonald .................................................................................................................... 14 Lutz v Kawa ........................................................................................................................................................... 15 Possessory claims among co-owners ......................................................................................................................... 15 MacLean v Reid ..................................................................................................................................................... 15 Spectrum Investments ............................................................................................................................................ 15 Giouroukos v Cadillac Fairview............................................................................................................................. 16 Keefer v Arillotta .................................................................................................................................................... 16 Meridian Investments v How ................................................................................................................................. 16 Beaudoin v Aubin (from the Bucknall article) ....................................................................................................... 16 Wood v Gateway ..................................................................................................................................................... 16 Pye v Graham (2003 House of Lords) .................................................................................................................... 17 Chapter 3 Fundamental Principles Governing Property Interests in Land ............................................................. 17

    The Doctrine of Tenure ............................................................................................................................................. 17 Incidents of tenure .................................................................................................................................................... 18 The Statute of Quia Emptores (1290) ....................................................................................................................... 19 The Doctrine of Estates ............................................................................................................................................. 19 Life Estate .............................................................................................................................................................. 19 Fee simple .............................................................................................................................................................. 20 Fee tail ................................................................................................................................................................... 20 Who could hold land ................................................................................................................................................. 20 Conveyancing and Law of Property Act ................................................................................................................. 21 Qualified estates ........................................................................................................................................................ 21 Void Conditions ..................................................................................................................................................... 22 Re Essex County Roman Catholic Separate School Board and Antaya ................................................................. 22

    1

    Re Tuck’s Settlement ............................................................................................................................................. 23 Re Down ................................................................................................................................................................ 23 Life Estates ................................................................................................................................................................ 23 Re Waters ............................................................................................................................................................... 23 Re McColgan ......................................................................................................................................................... 24 Life estates and successive interests in land ............................................................................................................. 24 The Rule in Shelley’s Case ........................................................................................................................................ 24 Re Rynard .............................................................................................................................................................. 25 Present and future interests ...................................................................................................................................... 25 Future interests at common law ............................................................................................................................... 26 Vested and contingent remainders ........................................................................................................................... 26 The Common Law Remainder Rules ....................................................................................................................... 27 The Rules ................................................................................................................................................................... 27 No remainders after a fee simple ........................................................................................................................... 27 No springing freeholds ........................................................................................................................................... 27 Timely vesting ........................................................................................................................................................ 27 No shifting freeholds .............................................................................................................................................. 28 Equitable estates........................................................................................................................................................ 28 The Use and Remainder Rules.................................................................................................................................. 29 Rule 1 ..................................................................................................................................................................... 29 Rule 2 ..................................................................................................................................................................... 29 Rule 3 ..................................................................................................................................................................... 30 Rule 4 ..................................................................................................................................................................... 30 The Statute of Uses .................................................................................................................................................... 30 Rule in Purefoy v Rogers .......................................................................................................................................... 31 The Statute of Uses and Testamentary Dispositions ................................................................................................ 31 Way to use the Statute of Uses to get around the legal remainder rules ................................................................. 32 Rule 1 ..................................................................................................................................................................... 32 Rule 2 ..................................................................................................................................................................... 32 Rule 3 ..................................................................................................................................................................... 32 Future interests under wills ...................................................................................................................................... 32 The Modern Trust ..................................................................................................................................................... 32 Rule Against Perpetuities.......................................................................................................................................... 33 Rule against Perpetuities ....................................................................................................................................... 33 Issues with the rule ................................................................................................................................................ 33 Statutory reform of rule against perpetuities .......................................................................................................... 34 Re Gaite’s Will Trusts (1949) ................................................................................................................................. 34 Re Frost (1889) ...................................................................................................................................................... 34 Chapter 7 Concurrent Interests in Property ............................................................................................................. 34 Types of Concurrent Interests .................................................................................................................................. 35 Joint tenancy.......................................................................................................................................................... 35 Tenants in common................................................................................................................................................ 35 Co-parcenary ......................................................................................................................................................... 35 Tenancy by entireties ............................................................................................................................................. 35 McEwen v Ewers and Ferguson ............................................................................................................................ 36 Severance of a joint tenancy ..................................................................................................................................... 36 Aboriginal ...................................................................................................................................................................... 36 R v Sparrow ............................................................................................................................................................ 37 Van der Peet........................................................................................................................................................... 38 Gladstone ............................................................................................................................................................... 38 Marshall................................................................................................................................................................. 38 Mikisew Cree 2005 .............................................................................................................................................. 39 Delgamuukw .......................................................................................................................................................... 39 Marshall and Bernard ........................................................................................................................................... 40

    2

3

    Chapter 1 Concepts of Property in Law

? What is property law about?

    o Rights, rights to things, things may be intangible or tangible ? intangible = IP

    ? Property involves ownership generally in some cases less than ownership will be okay

    ? Property rights are legal rights

    ? One such right is the right to possession

    o Preclude others from taking something

    ? Law of property involves a relationship between people and things

    ? More importantly it involves relationships between people

    ? If you lose something the law will not help you find it

    ? The law will enforce your rights if you know where it is

    ? In common law systems property rights are held by persons

    ? Who can have property rights in common law

    o Any entity that has legal personality

    o People (natural persons)

    o Artificial person corporations

    ? Because only persons can have property rights a group of persons cannot have them they are not a legal

    person

    ? Clubs and associations that are not incorporated for example appoint someone to hold the property for them

    ? In common law systems animals cannot have property rights

    ? Minors can own property but there are some restrictions on their ability to transfer property

    ? Property rights in rem are rights against the whole world

    ? In contrast contract rights are in personam rights related to a specific person not the whole world ? Can have contracts in relation to things that are property rights

    ? Whenever land is sold there is a gap in time ? between agreement and transfer ? Contracts may involve a transfer of rights but it may not occur at the same time

    ? Property still belongs to the vendor until the actual transfer occurs

    ? But sometimes contracts will be enforced by the courts so after the deal is struck the seller usually cannot back

    out

    ? This is seen in cases of housing and other unique goods

    ? In real estate the purchaser gets an equitable interest in the property when the deal is struck

    ? A major issue with property rights is proof ? proof of ownership ? Possession leads to a presumption of ownership must be property capable of possession ? The common law of property goes further than that

    o Protects possession for its own sake

    o Possession gives someone a right against everyone else

    o If remain in possession for 10 years you get title in Ontario

    o Also cannot claim possession for a third party

    ? In squatting statute extinguishes rights to land and creates a new right of possession vested in the squatter

    ? If someone owns something what does that mean

    o In law may mean that one has a bundle of rights

    o Entitled to the use and enjoyment of the land

    ? But it is not unlimited

    ? Limited by the rights of others and such things as zoning laws etc.

    o Entitled to the right to derive income from the property

    ? Can lease or rent the property

    ? Give up some rights during the term of the lease

    o Right to alienate the land

    ? To sell or transfer it to another

    o Right of inheritance

    ? Convey property upon death ? if it is an inheritable property right ? Some interests in land are only life interests

    ? Property law is a social construct

    ? The different rights under ownership are not exclusive

    4

? There can be public rights that impact possession

    ? Aboriginal title to land cannot be alienated

    ? In some aboriginal cultures they may be inalienable

    ? Personal property vs. Real property

    o Real property land and anything attached to it with some degree of permanence

    o Personal property everything else

    ? Real property may be corporeal or incorporeal tangible or intangible

    ? Incorporeal rights are such things as easements right of way over another‟s land

    ? Profits a prendre right to go on someone else‟s land and take something from it

    ? Personal property can also be corporeal or incorporeal

    ? Choses in action can only recover something through legal action

    ? Property right is an enforceable interest

    ? Once something is detached from the land it is no longer real property becomes personal property

Victoria Park Racing and Recreation Grounds Co. Ltd v Taylor 1937, Australia

    ? Many grounds upon which he attempted to establish claim

    ? Nuisance

    o Two kinds of nuisance

    ? Public nuisance interference with or harm to public in general

    ? Private nuisance interfere with the use and enjoyment of land

    o Nuisance is a tort action not the same as trespass which is interference with possession

    o Problem with nuisance for plaintiff is that the actions of the defendant did not interfere with his use or

    enjoyment of his property just made it less profitable

    o “Categories of nuisance are never closed” – must be substantial interference majority found none

    ? Rich and Evett dissented

    o There is no all inclusive definition of nuisance

    o Defendants use of its land was not a natural use of its land

    o Would have upheld that there was a nuisance here

    o Defendants actions made the track less profitable

    ? Differences between majority and minority

    o Majority for nuisance must interfere with use and enjoyment

    o Minority it did interfere made it less profitable

    o Second major difference was that the dissenters found the defendants use of his property was

    unnatural

    o Dissenters seemed to look more at the purpose and effect of his actions

    o Municipal authority is delegated from the province

    ? Plaintiff also contended that he had a right to privacy

    o Majority rejected this no common law authority for privacy

    o Had the remedy of self help build a higher fence

    o Minority it is not just interference with privacy since if something prevents the use and enjoyment

    of land then there is an interference with privacy and a nuisance

    ? Plaintiff also contended that he spent money to create a spectacle

    o This spectacle then became his property

    o Majority rejected this by saying that it was difficult to view a spectacle as being owned

? Common law system is about judge made law

    ? In Victoria the judges of the majority were unwilling to extend that law

    ? Today the debate focuses on judicial activism but that is what the common law is all about

    ? Every issue that goes to appeal involves some uncertainty about what the law truly is or means

    ? In Victoria the information being transmitted was not confidential information

    ? In Canada there may be an opportunity to proceed in this type of case on the basis of unjust enrichment

Pettkus v Becker 1980

    ? He accumulated property while she paid the bills

    o There elements

    5

    ? Person receives a benefit

    ? Other party suffered a corresponding loss

    ? No juristic reason (legal explanation) for this to occur

International News Service v Associated Press US 1918

    ? As with Victoria the case is about the limits of property rights

    ? Has to do with whether there can be property rights in news

    ? Appellant had been denied access to certain countries in order to cover the war

    ? Used respondents news in their own papers

    ? USSC held that when two businesses are in competition as these two were there is a principle of fair business

    practice

    o It is wrong to take the news from the other and incorporate it into your own paper

    ? Justice Pitney

    o Also relied on the argument that there can be property in news

    ? Content cannot be copyrighted

    ? Can copyright the written word

    ? Would not be a copyright violation to write report based on news in another paper

    ? But would be quasi-property right that was interfered with

    ? Quasi-property right was only good against competing news services

    ? Gain this quasi-property right through the process of gathering news and expending money ? Property is “in rem” ? right is good against all others ? Brandeis dissent

    o Emphasized that an essential element of legal private property is the right to exclude others

    o But in this case there is no right to exclude others

    o Also questions the use of copyright ? should be for artistic creations etc.

    ? Majority decision protects private property right of news service

    ? Brandeis protects rights of the public to information

    o Brandeis is famous for introducing briefs in Canada factums that incorporate policy arguments

    when he was a lawyer

Chapter 2 The Concept of Possession

? Concept of possession

    o What is the relationship between possession and ownership

    o Ownership involves a right to property

    o Personal property involves absolute ownership

    o Only Crown can own land absolutely

    o Can divide possession from ownership

    o Possession can be either rightful or wrongful

    o When two people assert ownership of land the dispute is over who has better title to the land

    o Possession in fact involves actual possession of the thing

    o There is also a mental element to possession ? intention to possess the thing

    ? Possession in fact does not depend on a legal distinction

    ? Possession in law is possession in fact that is recognized by the legal system

    o There are exceptions

    ? Most important is employee employer relationship

    ? Possession in fact can be with an employee but possession in law is with employer

    o Possession in law does not mean it is lawful possession

    ? E.g. if someone steals something and possesses it then they have possession in law that is

    wrongful

    ? Possession is single and exclusive

    o Two people cannot have possession at the same time

    o In cases of co-ownership there is a single shared possession

    o Possession, once acquired, is assumed to continue until you give up possession

    ? E.g. car in parking lot ? you have not given up possession of it

    6

? Ownership is presumed from possession in law

    o Subject to rebuttal of ownership

    ? Most property is acquired by a transfer from someone else ? sale, gift, transfer etc.

    ? But every property right has an origin

    o Should be able to find out who had the original property right

    o For land it is easier to trace the title back than for other things

    ? In England the basis of land ownership is that the Crown owns all of the land

    ? Comes from the feudal system

    o All land rights derived from Crown grant

    ? In British colonies

    o In Australia and others it was deemed that the land was terra nulliis vacant land

    o In Canada this was not the case

    ? Recognized aboriginal title to land

    ? In Canada it is theoretically possible to trace land rights back to the original Crown grants

    ? In common law systems the main way that property rights arise is through possession

    ? The first to take possession becomes the owner of the thing

    ? When a statute of limitations extinguishes the right of an owner in adverse possession cases a new right is

    created in the name of the adverse possessor

    o It is not a transfer of rights

    ? Other property rights can be created by making new things

    ? Can sometimes involve the use of things that were previously owned

    ? Also applies to domestic animals if a cow gives birth the owner of the cow owns the calf ? Why is it a rule that the first to take possession becomes the owner

    o Difficult question

    o One explanation is based on Locke‟s labour theory – mixing labour with a thing makes you the owner

    ? But assumes that one owns one‟s labour

    ? Also issue of how much labour is involved in producing something

    ? Also why should the taking of possession give one the right of ownership forever

    o Another theory is the contract theory

    ? People generally agree with the assumption that when one takes possession they own that

    thing

    ? Is an agreement between people

    ? Ownership gives one person freedom and limits the freedom of everyone else

    ? Distinction between saying that there is private property and justifying it on a political, moral or economic

    basis

    ? Justification for having these property rights protected by legal system is not a legal question and is based on

    social, political, and cultural orders and interests.

    ? From a legal perspective: what amounts to taking of possession, that is, what is necessary for the thing to be

    taken so those rights arise, both in terms of land and objects or things

    ? Choses in action: recover through court action: shares, stocks, bonds the paper itself is not

    in the thing itself, which can be possessed, but value is in something else.

    ? Choses in possession: recover through retaking ? How can one take possession of land in order to attain rights?

    ? In Common law, land was rarely, originally unowned

    o However, if land is unowned in the common law, land can become owed by way of occupancy. This

    requires:

    ? Must have intent to be in occupation: do something the „owner‟ would do on the land,

    something natural to occupation per se.

    ? Actual physical occupation

    ? In Canada, this has been addressed only through Aboriginal Land Claims:

    ? Marshall / Bernard (2005) (unowned land and original title)

    ? what kind of occupation is necessary to determine aboriginal title (original title) at the

    time of colonial intrusion?

    ? This case answer the questions: common law recognizing original title at time of

    European arrival

    7

    o Land is already owned but someone else acquires rights to it through Adverse Posession

    ? Statutory limitations on real property ownership

    ? What does B have to do in order to gain possession (exclude A) of the owned land.

    ? Possession follows title

    ? Onus on B to show rebuttal of this possession.

    ? It is not usually squatting but rather a matter of adjacent property owners and ill-

    defined or encroached boundaries.

    o Initial possession of B is „wrongful‟ but it is with justification that such rules

    exist.

    o B has rights against the world at the moment of possession that are superior

    to everyone else except the titleholder .

    ? Groups, as tenants in common (together as legal personality), can adversely possess.

    ? Productive use of otherwise „empty‟ land.

    o With adverse possession, what does A (owner) have to do to get the possession back before limitation

    ends?

    ? In old common law “ a mere re entry was enough”

    ? Under statute, in Ontario, A will have to do more than common law„re entry‟ to reacquire

    possession.

    ? Requires dispossession, that is, A must assert possession but this is much easier to

    establish than B hold out the statutory limitation.

    th? Ex. of 14 century example of sufficient „mere entry‟ – climbing through window.

US Supreme Court Mitchell v U.S.

    ? Indian occupation had to be considered with reference to their life and habits of usage and this is a sufficient

    as the cleared fields of the whites. Thus, hunting ground would be within possession

Tee-Hit-Ton

    ? Indian group in Alaska, Aboriginal title to land is not property right that is protected by the Constitution,

    rather a political decision by Congress to take or not.

    o Highly criticized

    o Reverse situation in Canada

    o recent Canadian case Delgamuuk 1997.

    ? Affording constitutional protection to aboriginal title, based on treaty. Whereas, general

    property rights in Canada not constitutionally protected.

The nature of the thing being possessed

    Pierson v Poste

    ? Facts: D was hunting a fox when an „interloper‟ appeared, killed the fox and ran off with the carcass.

    ? Result: The interloper was awarded with the property right

    ? Comments:

    ? Pursuit of an animal is insufficient to establish property rights; such rights can be obtained only by wounding/

    capturing or killing the animal

    ? Dissent would have asked hunters to see what the custom in this situation should have been. CL does

    recognize local customs.

    o A whale was harpooned and escaped in Swift v. Gifford. Another person caught the whale and the

    court recognized the custom (i.e. first person to harpoon the whale receives property rights)

Armory v Delamory

    ? Chimney sweep found jewellery, takes to pawn shop, does not want to sell for low price, but is not given back

    the stone.

    ? Chimney sweep sues in trover and involves conversion

    o Wrongful interference with persons property rights in respect to possession.

    o The boy gives for appraisal (not wrongful) but upon refusal to give back (conversion to appraisers

    own use) it becomes wrongful

    8

o Person received possession from someone else, that person can not deny the giving person‟s previous

    possession, especially in the case of the sweeper who did not intent to give away rights.

    ? At time, damages were only available, not get it back.

    o Boy succeeded, was entitled to highest value of the stone.

    o Boy‟s rights came from his possession.

    ? Finder‟s rights in rem, are good against most with exceptions

    o Owner has better rights

    o If in the employment of someone, then employer might have better rights.

    Parker v British Airways (Court of Appeal, 1992)

    ? Facts: Plaintiff found gold bracelet at airport, handed it to an official and asked for the bracelet to be returned

    to him if not claimed by the owner. Owner never claimed it and it was not returned, but sold it and kept the

    proceeds.

    ? Result: Court finds for the plaintiff and awards him damages.

    o The rights and obligations of the finder are as follows:

    ? The finder of a chattel acquires no rights over it unless: a) it has been abandoned or lost, or b)

    he takes it into his care and control [not entirely true as a thief does acquire some rights in

    civil law that arise from possession].

    ? Abandonment requires a clear intention to give up his rights. The first possessor after

    abandonment has taken place will become an owner. Note that there are exceptions

    to this, such as the abandonment of dangerous items.

    ? The finder of a chattel acquires very limited rights over it if he takes it into his care and

    control with dishonest intent or in the course of trespassing.

    ? Dishonest intent can consist of someone finding something and immediately

    converting it to their own use, without making an attempt to find the owner

    ? Trespassers automatically have a less right as a wrongdoer cannot profit from

    wrongdoing

    ? A finder of chattel, while not acquiring any absolute property or ownership in the chattel,

    acquires a right to keep it against all but the true owner

    ? Reaffirmation of Armory v. Delamirie

    ? Any servant or agent who finds a chattel in the course of his employment or agency… does so

    on behalf of his employer or principal who acquires a finder‟s rights to t the exclusion of

    those of the actual finder.

    ? A person having a finder‟s rights has an obligation to take such measures as in all the

    circumstances are reasonable to acquaint the true owner of the finding and present

    whereabouts of the chattel and to care for it in the meantime.

    ? Cost v. benefits analysis

    o The rights of the occupier are as follows:

    ? An occupier of land has rights superior to those of a finder over chattels in or attached to that

    land and an occupier of a building has similar rights in respect of chattels attached to that

    building, whether in either case the occupier is aware of the presence of the chattel.

    ? Occupier has a better right for items attached to the land and the building because

    such items are viewed as part of the land the occupier is in possession of.

    ? Note entering to detach an item means that trespass has occurred!

    ? An occupier of a building has rights superior to those of a finder over chattels upon or in, but

    not attached to, that building only if (before the chattel is found), he has manifested an

    intention to exercise control over the building and the things which may be upon it or in it.

    ? The case turned upon this point. The D failed to manifest the intention to exercise

    control in the area in which the bracelet was found. Court discusses instances where

    this might be demonstrated such as the existence of a bank vault.

    ? An occupier that does the above is under an obligation to take such reasonable measures to

    ensure that lost chattels are found and, upon being found, to acquaint the true owner of the

    finding and to care for the chattels in the meanwhile.

    ? An occupier of a chattel (i.e. ship, car etc.) is to be treated as if he were the occupier of a

    building for the purposes of the foregoing rules.

    9

    ? Noted that the D did not own the area of the airport in which the transaction occurred.

    In this case, it is likely that D is a lessee and in the case of finder v. lessee whose

    rights are superior?

    o For example, the lessee is precluded from carrying out activities that will

    diminish the land with respect to the owner. A lessee can take some things

    from the land but not others.

    ? From Parker

    ? There is a common law dealing with finding but the court is not bound by it

    ? Court has the right and duty to extend and adapt the common law in light of established principles and current

    needs of the community

    ? Common law has ready made solutions for every problem

    o Is just a theory, a fiction

    o Asserts that the common law just discovers the answers to problems

    ? Supposedly judges rely on the community to aid in creating judicial rules

    ? Another reason is that judges are uncomfortable with making up laws and therefore assert that they are just

    discovering them

    ? A further reason is to prevent retroactive application of the laws

    o If a law is undiscovered then no one can be expected to abide by it

    o To get around retroactivity judges say that they discover laws that already existed an then how can the

    law be retroactive if it already exists

Joint finding

    Keron v Cashman

    ? Kids find a stocking with money in it

    ? One of them found it and they all began playing with it and then the money came out

    ? There was no intention on behalf of the first to possess the money

    ? Intention only arose later when they realized that there was money in the stocking

    ? Court divided it up between them only fair way of doing things

Edmonds v Ronella

    ? Boys found an envelope with money in it

    ? A girl came along and together they took it to her house

    ? Police came and gave her a receipt as the finder

    ? Court found possession occurred when they left the parking lot together and therefore they shared possession

    of the money

    ? What if she had taken the money from them?

    o For boys to take possession they must have the money and the intention to possess it

    o If they did not have the intention to possess it they would not have a case

    o But most likely the court would find a way for the boys to win because what she had done was wrong

? Do these cases violate the rule that possession is a single and exclusive thing

    o In these cases there is only a single possession but it is shared

    o Could have shared possession of a single object ? one would need to pay the other for their share or

    sell it and split the proceeds

Bird v Fort Frances

    ? Boy found money in a can under a billiard hall

    ? Brought it home to mother who hid it in the couch

    ? He was spending some and police became suspicious of him and asked him where he got it

    ? He told them, mother gave over cash, police handed it over to the city, put in trust, could not find true owner,

    boy sues for it back

    ? Court said that there are only three ways he could have gotten possession

    o True finding ? no trespass, had an intention to return it etc.

    o His taking of the money was wrongful taking

    ? Probably a trespasser who could not claim anything found on another‟s property

    10

Report this document

For any questions or suggestions please email
cust-service@docsford.com