Developing Effective Study Groups

Collaborative Learning

The Purposes of a Study Group Are:

To clarify informationTo apply legal knowledge and

reasoning to factual situationsTo test understanding through

discussion and debate within the group.

To practice writing exam questions.

To give and receive feedback on practice exam answers.

The Purpose of a Study Group Is NOT:

To do the kind of internal review and processing that is best done independently

To assign an outline to one member of the group for each class.

To avoid work by talking about it rather than doing it!

How to Form a Study Group

Seek 2 or 3 others Clarify goals about study groups activities Clarify time commitments Choose members on the basis of common

goals and commitment to those goals.

Do NOT form study groups primarily on the basis of friendship, similarity of thinking, or political conviction.

All forms of diversity benefit the whole study group

Guidelines for Forming Study Groups:

Rotate leadership Role of leader is to involve all participants in

discussion Set purpose and goals for the group.

What types of activities does the group find most helpful?

What do we expect the group to accomplish? At the end of each meeting set an

agenda for the next meeting to help members focus and prepare

Timing Issues

Establish set meeting times and expectations.

Stick to a set time schedule. Make ending times clear. Schedule follow-up meetings, but

don’t exceed time limits.

Natural Learning Cycles:Input – Process - Output

Input: Gather information by:

Reading, listening, discussing, reviewing

Process (Internal): Contexting, organizing, and

storing information for future use

Output (External): Apply to new situations

Plan, talk, write Feedback/Revisions

Internal Processing

Output:Expression

Input:ReadingListening

Practice Problem: Mary’s Garden

Mary and Peter are neighbors. After Mary first bought her house, she discovered that her property lacked a sufficiently sunny space for the vegetable garden and greenhouse she wanted. However just across the property line, on Pete’s property there was a sunny space that was covered in weeds and perennially ignored by Peter. While Peter was on vacation in August 1987, Mary weeded and tilled a 20 foot by 20 foot area and put some plants in. When Pete returned, he noticed the encroachment and wasn’t pleased. However he didn’t want to cause ill will and so pretended not to notice. Almost immediately thereafter, Mary began to store her gardening supplies (a wheelbarrow, some shovels and rakes, pots and bags of mulch and fertilizer) next to the garden so that soon she was regularly using a strip of property that was 20 feet by 60 feet. Two years passed.

Emboldened by her success with the garden, Mary decided to put in a small greenhouse adjacent to the 20' by 60' area, also on Pete’s land. She waited until Pete was out of town for the holidays in December 1989, and then had a builder friend come and help her to lay a foundation and construct a greenhouse. The construction took five days and cost Mary $1,600. Pete was very disturbed to find the structure on his return and confronted Mary, saying “You know that’s my property you put your garden and greenhouse on. And yes, I do mind.” Mary was somewhat surprised and replied that she was sorry but she thought Pete didn’t really mind or that he would have said something sooner. Pete simply replied “Well, I do mind.” Unsure about what else to do, he left it at that and avoided Mary for the next several weeks. Mary avoided going in the garden and greenhouse for several weeks.

After a few weeks, Mary approached Pete and suggested that perhaps they could reach some understanding since the greenhouse was already there and the soil in the garden was now very well built up. Mary suggested that they could both end up better off if Mary continued her cultivation in the garden and greenhouse. She offered to share the vegetables and flowers from her garden with Pete as well as sharing the greenhouse. Pete muttered something about his property rights but neither objected nor assented. Mary returned to cultivating her garden and began planting seeds for spring in the greenhouse. Pete in fact only ventured into the greenhouse or garden once or twice and never mentioned the subject again.

In November 1993, Pete contracted to sell his house to Sonia. Sonia did not have a survey done and was unaware of the encroachment until after the closing in January 1994. When Sonia met Mary that same month, she explained that she had learned that the greenhouse was on her property and she expected Mary to respect the boundary between their lots.

Analyze Sonia’s and Mary’s rights, noting the arguments that could be raised on each of their behalfs. The jurisdiction in which the property is located applies a six year statute of limitations to actions to recover real property and interprets adversity/hostility to require intentional trespass.

Make a study group:

Please count off! 1 2 3 4 5 . . .

Using the Call of the Question and Relevant Rule to Guide Analysis

An A AnswerMary may have a claim to title of the 20 x 60 strip of land under either of

two doctrines: adverse possession or improving trespasser. She may also try to argue for rights to the greenhouse, or at least to compensation for the cost of constructing it, but only under the latter theory because six years have not yet elapsed from the time of the occupation of that space.

The basis for Marys adverse possession claim is that she openly, notoriously, exclusively, and adversely possessed the 20x60 strip of land for the statutory period (6 years) from late 1987 until late 1993. The main issues raised are whether her use was “adverse” and whether it was “exclusive.”

Mary would argue that her possession was “hostile” in that she intentionally trespassed B she knew it was Pete’s land and she willfully occupied it meaning to make it her own. Mary will argue that Pete’s comments (“Well I do mind”) when he confronted her confirmed her understanding that she was on the property without Pete’s permission. Sonia will argue that the use should be deemed permissive and not hostile. Sonia will point to the fact that Mary told Pete in their first conversation that she had thought he wouldnt mind her use (indicating she thought her entry was with permission). Even if the initial entry is viewed as hostile, Sonia will argue that the compromise Mary proposed showed that she knew her rights were subordinate to Pete’s ownership rights, not in conflict with them. (This could be argued by Mary to prove just the opposite conclusion). Sonia will argue that at least after Pete’s acceptance of her compromise, Mary’s use should be viewed as permissive, thereby interrupting the continuity of the adverse possession before 6 years had passed.

Some of the same facts could be argued as relevant to the issue of the exclusivity of Mary’s possession. Mary would characterize her use as exclusive. Sonia would argue that Mary’s offer to share the use of the use of the property and Pete’s one or two ventures onto the property should suffice to interrupt the exclusivity of the occupation. This is a close question.

On the question of the greenhouse, Mary will argue that Pete stood by and failed to complain about her use of the land and she relied on his silence to her detriment. To prevent unjust enrichment, she should be compensated. Hers is a weak argument. She took a knowing risk by building on property that was not hers. Unlike the Somervilles in Somerville v. Jacobs, she was not innocent of the error. Her knowledge of the property lines, and her undertaking the construction while Pete was away prove her intent to encroach. Therefore it is unlikely it would order Sonia to convey the land with the greenhouse to Mary in exchange for payment for the land.

Agenda Choices

Focus in meeting – Make conscious choices: One subject or more than one each meeting Stick to set subject or jump to course that provides

current confusion Type of Focus

Oral discussion Writing problems

Remember that you get good at skills you practice and the exam is a written exercise!

Try individually writing answers to a hypo and then trading answers.

Construct a group answer pulling the best from each answer.

Creating hypos is an excellent exercise for groups and for individuals to bring to the group.

Take turns explaining and questioning

Tasks Change Over the Semester

Beginning groups commonly clarify class notes, and quickly move to applying what they are learning to test their understanding.

Don’t put off planning and writing practice problems

Easier to understand material by using concrete examples Try to create hypos in your group – then vary the facts

and see if or how that changes your analysis Organize materials individually, but:

Test your organizing by using your system in writing answers to hypos

Trade answers, read, critique, discuss, and improve Before exams groups often meet frequently to do

practice questions.

Study Groups

Try them!