29. Questions

Question 1

X wrote in his will that he will give his estate ‘to Y’. How long can Y possess X’s estate?

Answer 1

Indefinite duration

• Present estate (Y as holder)
• Fee simple absolute (no restraints)

Question 2

X wrote in his will that he will give his estate ‘to Y and his heirs’. X now wants to sell it to his manager. What can X do?

Answer 2

Fee simple absolute

- Must transfer to Y (no restraints)

Question 3

X wrote that he will give his estate ‘to Y for as long as he runs his own company’. How long can Y possess X’s estate?

Answer 3

Potentially infinite duration

• Defeasible fee (terminates upon specified event)
• Y can possess X’s estate until Y no longer runs his own company

Question 4

X wrote that he will give his estate ‘to Y while he runs his own company’. Y wants to sell his estate to his friend, but Y’s son claims he is entitled to it. X decided to sell his estate to Z, but X’s son claims he is entitled to it. Meanwhile, X claims he is entitled to it when Y stops running his company, but Y argues such provision is not included. What can X do?

Answer 4

Fee simple determinable (termination ‘for as long as’)

X’s options

• Sell to Z
• Devise to X’s son (by will)
• If Y no longer runs own company => Estate reverts back to X (possibility of reverter) (NO need for express provision)

Y’s options

• Sell to Friend
• Devise to Y’s son (by will)

Question 5

X wrote that he will give his estate ‘to Y provided that Y does not sell goods on the estate’. X claims he is entitled to it if Y sells goods, but Y argues such provision is not included. What can Y do?

Answer 5

Fee simple subject to condition subsequent (termination ‘provided that’)

• X has NOT expressly reserved right of entry
• If Y sells goods on the estate => Estate may become covenant (prevent sale of goods on estate) OR fee simple absolute to Y

Question 6

X wrote that he will give his estate ‘to Y provided that Y does not sell goods on the estate. In the event that goods are sold on the estate, X and his heirs may enter and terminate the estate hereby conveyed’. After X gave his estate to Y, X wrote an express agreement stating he forfeits his right of entry. Y started selling goods on the estate. X claimed he should have the estate back, even though he did not do anything. What can Y do?

Answer 6

Fee simple subject to condition subsequent (termination ‘provided that’)

• X has expressly reserved right of entry
• X has waived his right of entry (forfeiture by express agreement) (X’s inaction NOT relevant)
• If Y sells goods on the estate => Estate remains with Y (NOT revert back to X)

Question 7

X wrote that he will give his estate ‘to Y provided that Y does not sell goods on the estate. In the event that goods are sold on the estate, X and his heirs may enter and terminate the estate hereby conveyed’. X decided to sell his right of entry to Z, but X’s son claims he is entitled to it. What can X and Y do?

Answer 7

Fee simple subject to condition subsequent (termination ‘provided that’)

• X has expressly reserved right of entry
• X cannot sell right of entry to Z (NO conveyance allowed)
• X can descend right of entry to X’s son (descend allowed)

Question 8

X wrote that he will give his estate ‘to Y for as long as Y does not sell goods on the estate. In the event that goods are sold on the estate, X and his heirs may enter and terminate the estate hereby conveyed’. What type of estate is this?

Answer 8

Fee simple subject to condition subsequent (right of entry)

- Policy disfavours automatic forfeiture of estates (Fee simple determinable - ‘As long as’)

Question 9

X wrote that he will give his estate ‘to Y provided that Y does not sell goods on the estate. Otherwise the estate will go to Z’. X claims he is entitled to it if Y sells goods, but Y argues he is entitled to it because such provision is not included. What can Y do?

Answer 9

Fee simple subject to executory interest (termination ‘provided that’ and to TP)

• X has NOT expressly reserved right of entry
• If Y sells goods on the estate => Estate will automatically pass to Z (executory interest)

Question 10

X wrote in his will that he will give his estate ‘to Y for the life of X’s son’. How long can Y possess X’s estate?

Answer 10

Life of X’s son

• Present estate (Y as life tenant/holder)
• Life estate pur autre view indefeasible (life of X’s son)

Question 11

X wrote in his will that he will give his estate ‘to Y for life’. Y wants to sell it to Z, but Y’s son claims he can inherit the estate if X dies. What can Y do?

Answer 11

Life estate

• Sell to Y’s manager
• Devise (by will)
• Descend to Y’s son (by NO will)

Question 12

X wrote in his will that he will give his estate ‘to Y for the life of X’s son, but in no event for more than 10 years’. How long can Y possess X’s estate?

Answer 12

Less than 10 years (defeasible life estate)

• Present estate (Y as life tenant/holder)
• Estate for years (no longer than 10 years)

Question 13

X wrote in his will that he will give his estate ‘to Y for life’. How long can Y possess X’s estate?

Answer 13

Life of Y

• Present estate (Y as life tenant/holder)
• Life estate indefeasible (life of Y)

Question 14

X wrote in his will that he will give his estate ‘to Y for the life of X’s son’. Y died first. Who takes X’s estate?

Answer 14

Life estate pur autre vie (for X’s son’s life)

• Estate can go to ‘Special occupant’ (if named by X)
• Estate can go to Y’s named heirs (devisable if Y has will)
• Estate can go to Y’s heirs (descendible if Y has NO will)

Question 15

X wrote in his will that he will give his estate ‘to Y for the life of X’s son, then to Z’. Y set fire to the shed on the estate. What are Z’s rights?

Answer 15

Life estate pur autre vie

• Sue Y for damages to shed
• Enjoin Y burning shed

Question 16

X wrote in his will that he will give his estate ‘to Y for life’. Y failed to pay usual taxes. X paid instead. What are X’s rights?

Answer 16

Life estate

- Claim reimbursement (taxes) from Y for performing Y’s obligations (taxes)

Question 17

X wrote in his will that he will give his estate ‘to Y for life’. Y was taking some water out of X’s pond, which was required to keep the pond clean. Is Y liable to X?

Answer 17

NOT liable

• Life estate
• Y’s duty not to commit voluntary waste (not consume water)
• Exception: Y can consume water if necessary for maintenance (keep pond clean)

Question 18

X wrote in his will that he will give his estate ‘to Y for life, then to Z’. Y was mining some gold in X’s land having realised X was in the middle of doing so before giving the land to Y. Y also decided to mine for some silver thinking it would be okay as well. Is Y liable to Z?

Answer 18

Liable to X (silver, NOT gold)

• Life estate
• Y’s duty not to commit voluntary waste (mining)
• Exception: Y can mine if already open (for that use only) (Open mines doctrine)
• Y can mine for gold (already open), but NOT for silver (NOT open)

Question 19

X wrote in his will that he will give his estate ‘to Y for life, then to Z’. B had a mortgage on the land after X previously borrowed $10,000. Y failed to pay the interest on the mortgage. Z now claims Y to pay the $10,000 and interest. Is Y liable to Z?

Answer 19

Liable to Z (interest, NOT principal)

• Life estate
• Permissive waste (mortgage)
• Y is life tenant => Y must pay interest
• Z is remainderman => Z must pay principal

Question 20

X wrote in his will that he will give his estate ‘to Y for life, then to Z’. Z told Y to add some monuments to the estate because the real estate market was improving and a new opportunity came up for Z. Y refused to do so. Is Y liable to Z?

Answer 20

Not liable to Z

• Life estate
• Y’s duty not to commit permissive waste (preserve estate in reasonable state of repair)
• Exception: Y does NOT have to make permanent improvements even if he thinks it is wise to do so (monument installation for investment)

Question 21

X wrote in his will that he will give his estate ‘to Y for life, then to Z’. Y’s neighbour tried to steal from Y’s house and broke his bedroom wall. Is Y liable to Z?

Answer 21

Not liable to Z (modern view)

• Life estate
• Y’s duty not to commit permissive waste (preserve estate in reasonable state of repair)
• Exception: Y is NOT liable for third party damages (tort) (modern view)
• May be liable (common law)

Question 22

X wrote in his will that he will give his estate ‘to Y for life, then to Z’. The property is old but still manages to produce consistent rental income. Y decides to tear the property down and replace it with a commercial building, which will certainly bring greater income. Z does not want Y to do this. Is Y liable to Z?

Answer 22

Liable to Z

• Life estate
• Y’s duty not to commit ameliorative waste (not change use of land that economically benefits land)
• Y could demolish property because it will not diminish future interest’s market value (increases rental income)
• BUT Z objected + such substantial change to neighbourhood conditions will not deprive property in its current form of reasonable productivity (consistent rental income)

Question 23

X wrote in his will that he will give his estate ‘to Y for life, then to Z’. The property is old and lacks rental income. Y rented the property to his friend. His friend decides to replace the property with new refurbishments, which increase the value of the property by 10%. Is Y’s friend liable to Z?

Answer 23

Liable to Z

• Life estate
• Y’s friend’s duty not to commit ameliorative waste (not change use of land that economically benefits land)
• Y’s friend could NOT demolish property even though it will not diminish future interest’s market value (Lease tenants remain liable regardless)

Question 24

X wrote in his will that he will give his estate ‘to Y for life, then to Z’. Y considers asking the court to sell parts of the land because it has almost no present value. The court orders sale and Y receives the proceeds. Is Y liable to Z?

Answer 24

Liable to Z

• Life estate
• Y’s duty not to commit ameliorative waste (not change use of land that economically benefits land)
• Y can order judicial partition sale (land has NO value)
• Y must place proceeds in trust + can receive income from trust

Question 25

X conveys land ‘to Y for life, and on Y’s death to Z in fee simple as long as Z survives Y’. Z dies first. X claims he is entitled to the land, but Y refuses to give it back because X did not expressly state this. Who takes X’s land?

Answer 25

X - Life estate determinable (X => Y => Z) (possibility of reverter) - Y has present interest - Z has future interest (contingent remainder) (only passes to Z if Z survives Y) - X has future (reversionary) interest (X conveyed estate of lesser duration to Y than duration of possibly reverting estate) (possibility of reverter) (only passes to X if Z does NOT survive Y) (NO need to be expressly stated) - Z did NOT survive Y => X takes land (automatic reversion)

Question 26

X conveys land ‘to Y for life, and on Y’s death X and his heirs may enter and terminate the estate hereby conveyed’. Y dies. Who takes X’s land?

Answer 26

X and X's heirs (if he exercises his right of entry) - Life estate subject to condition subsequent (right of entry) - Y has present interest - X has future interest

Question 27

X conveys land ‘to Y for the life of X's son’. X dies without a will. Y fails to pay necessary taxes on the land. Some burglars enter the land and damage the windows. Who is liable?

Answer 27

Y is liable (permissive waste) - Life estate pur autre vie (for life of X's son) - X has future (reversionary) interest (reverts to X after X's son dies) - X died first without will (X descended his reversionary interest to his heirs) - X's heirs can sue Y (permissive waste - failure to pay necessary taxes) Burglars are liable (tort) - Life estate pur autre vie (for life of X's son) - X has future (reversionary) interest (reverts to X after X's son dies) - X died first without will (X descended his reversionary interest to his heirs) - X's heirs can sue burglars in tort (TP wrongdoers)

Question 28

X conveys land ‘to Y but if Y gets employed, X can re-enter the land and terminate the estate’. X decided to sell his right of entry to Z. Y decides to mine some gold on the land. Can Z sue Y?

Answer 28

No - Fee simple subject to condition subsequent (but if...) (right of entry) - X can NOT sell right of entry (Z has NO interest) - Voluntary waste (mining) is allowed on defeasible fee (NOT life estate) (Y is NOT liable)

Question 29

X conveys land ‘to Y while Y is working in a bakery’. Z claims he is entitled to the land because the conveyance violates the Rule Against Perpetuities. Is Z entitled to the land?

Answer 29

No - Fee simple determinable (while...) - X has future (reversionary) interest (possibility of reverter) - Reversionary interest is vested (NOT subject to RAP)

Question 30

X conveys land ‘to Y for life’. Y dies. Z claims he should be entitled to the land, despite not expressly provided in the conveyance. X claims he should be entitled. Who is entitled to the land?

Answer 30

X - Life estate (for Y's life) - X has future (reversionary) interest (possibility of reverter) (no need to be expressly stated) - Z has NO remainder (must be expressly stated) - If Y dies => Land automatically reverts back to X

Question 31

On Monday, X conveyed his land ‘to Y for life’. On Wednesday, X conveyed ‘all of my right, title and interest in the land to Z’. Who is entitled to the land?

Answer 31

Y - Life estate (for Y's life) - Z has reversionary interest (X transferred (conveyed) reversionary interest to Z) - Z has NO remainder (NOT same disposition as preceding estate - Dispositions on Monday + Wednedsay)

Question 32

X conveys land ‘to Y, then to Z’. Y now has possession of the land. Is Z also entitled to the land?

Answer 32

No - Fee simple (X to Y) - NO remainders allowed in fee simple (indefinite duration, remainders cannot cut short preceding estate without a time gap)

Question 33

X conveyed land ‘to Y for life, then to X’s first-born son’. X gave birth to his daughter, Z, then to his son, B. Are X’s children entitled to the land?

Answer 33

B - Life estate - B has indefeasibly vested remainder (ascertained first-born son) - Z has no interest

Question 34

X conveyed land ‘to Y for life, then to Z’. Z died first. Who is entitled to the land?

Answer 34

- Life estate - Z had indefeasibly vested remainder (ascertained, NO condition precedent) - Remainder may pass to Z's devisees (by will) - Remainder may pass to Z's heirs (by NO will)

Question 35

X conveyed land ‘to Y for life, and on Y’s death to his children in equal shares.’ Y died without any children. Who is entitled to the land?

Answer 35

X - Y had life estate - Y's children had contingent remainder (NOT ascertained) - Y died with NO children (NO vested remainder subject to open) - X has reversionary interest (possibility of reverter)

Question 36

X conveyed land ‘to Y for life, and on Y’s death to his children in equal shares.’ Y has two children. Who is entitled to the land?

Answer 36

- Y has life estate | - Y's children have vested remainder subject to open (partial investment) (tenants in common - equal shares)

Question 37

X conveyed land ‘to Y for life, and on Y’s death to X’s children in equal shares.’ X has two children, B and C. B dies. X dies. Who is entitled to the land?

Answer 37

- Class closed (X died) - X's children's vested remainder subject to open became indefeasibly vested remainder (ascertainable persons) (BUT Y still holds life estate until she dies) - If Y dies => 50% goes to B's devisees/heirs + 50% goes to C

Question 38

X conveyed land ‘to Y for life, and on Y’s death to X’s children in equal shares.’ X has two children, B and C. What interests do X’s born and unborn children have?

Answer 38

``` Born children (B, C) - Vested remainder subject to open (possessory upon naturally termination of X's life) ``` Unborn children - Executory interest (NOT possessory upon natural termination of X's life)

Question 39

X conveyed land ‘to Y for life, then to Z, but if Z is not survived by an issue, then to B and his heirs’. What interests do the parties have in the land?

Answer 39

- Y has life estate - Z has vested remainder subject to condition subsequent (but if) - B has executory interest

Question 40

X conveyed land ‘to Y for life, then to Z for life.’ What interests do the parties have in the land?

Answer 40

- Y has life estate - Z has vested remainder subject to condition subsequent (Z loses interest if he dies before Y) - X has reversionary interest (NO TP included)

Question 41

X conveyed land ‘to Y for life, then to Z if he marries B’. Z married B. What interest does Z have in the land?

Answer 41

- Y has life estate - Z had contingent remainder (Condition precedent - Z must marry B) - Z married B, Y is still alive (NO longer condition precedent) - Z now has indefeasibly vested remainder (NO condition precedent) (becomes possessory upon Y's death)

Question 42

X conveyed land ‘to Y for life, then to Z if he survives Y’. Z died. What interest do the parties have in the land?

Answer 42

- Y has life estate - Z had contingent remainder (Condition precedent - Z must survive Y) - Z died before Y, Y is still alive (NO longer condition precedent) - X has reversionary interest (becomes possessory upon Y's death)

Question 43

X conveyed land ‘to Y for life, then to Z’s children’. What interest do Z’s children have in the land?

Answer 43

- Y has life estate | - Z's children have contingent remainder (NOT ascertained/born) until ascertainable (vested remainder subject to open)

Question 44

X conveyed land ‘to Y for life, then to Z’s children’. Z dies. What interest do any of the parties have in the land?

Answer 44

- Y has life estate - Z's children had contingent remainder (NOT ascertained/born, condition precedent is to survive Z) - Z died => Z's children NO longer ascertainable - X has reversionary interest (becomes possessory upon Y's death)

Question 45

X conveyed land ‘to Y for life, then to Z when he turns 21’. Y died. Is Z entitled to the land?

Answer 45

Yes - Z had contingent remainder (condition precedent: Z must turn 21) - Y died => Z's contingent remainder became shifting executory interest - X's reversionary interest became possessory (Y's interest passed to X) - If Z turns 21 => X's interest will pass to Z

Question 46

X conveyed land ‘to Y for life, then to Z if he has children’. X purchased Y’s life estate. Is Z still entitled to the land?

Answer 46

No - Z had contingent remainder (condition precedent: Z must have children) - X had reversionary interest - X acquired reversionary interest (future) + Y's life estate (present) - Z's contingent remainder merged with X's interest => Remainder is destroyed - X has fee simple

Question 47

X conveyed land ‘to Y for life, then to Z for life, then to Z’s heirs’. Do Z’s heirs have a contingent remainder?

Answer 47

Modern view: Yes - Z has life estate - Z's heirs have contingent remainder Common law: No - Rule in Shelley's Case - Z has life estate + contingent remainder => Merges into fee simple (Y => Z) - Z's heirs have NO contingent remainder

Question 48

X conveyed land ‘to Y for life, then to X’s heirs’. X’s will provided that X’s cousins will take his land. Who is entitled to X’s land?

Answer 48

Doctrine of Worthier Title - X's cousins (on the basis that X's heirs have no contingent remainder under Doctrine + X had reversionary interest + X's cousins were devisees under X's will) - X's heirs (on the basis that X intended to create contingent remainder in X's heirs by fulfilling burden of proof)

Question 49

X conveyed land ‘to Y for life, then to Z for life, but if Z gets married before he dies, in that event to B and his heirs’. What interest does B have in the land?

Answer 49

Shifting executory interest | - Divests Z's interest (cuts short Z's preceding estate)

Question 50

X conveyed land ‘to Y when and if Y marries Z’. What interest does X and Y have in the land?

Answer 50

X: Fee simple subject to executory interest Y: Springing executory interest - If Y marries Z => Y's executory interest divests X's estate

Question 51

X conveyed land ‘to Y for life, and one year after Y’s death to Z’. What interest does X, Y and Z have in the land?

Answer 51

X: Reversionary interest - Y's estate reverts back to X (if Z dies before Y, and Y dies) Y: Life estate Z: Springing executory interest - Z's executory interest springs out of X's reversionary interest (1 year after Y's death and Z is alive) - Time gap in possession (1 year) (NOT pass to Z after natural termination of Y's estate)

Question 52

X conveys land ‘to Y, then to Z’. Y now has possession of the land. Does Z have an executory interest in the land?

Answer 52

No - Fee simple (to Y) - No executory interests allowed in fee simples

Question 53

X conveyed land ‘to Y if Y marries Z’. Z claims this violates Rule against Perpetuities. Does this violate RAP?

Answer 53

Yes - Fee simple subject to executory interest (springing) - Executory interests are subject to RAP

Question 54

X conveyed land ‘to Y, but if Y dies and his children are married, to Z’. Y claims this violates Rule against Perpetuities. Does this violate RAP?

Answer 54

Yes - Fee simple subject to executory interest (shifting) - Executory interests are subject to RAP - Executory interest is destroyed - X has fee simple absolute

Question 55

X conveyed land ‘to Y for life, then to Z, but if Z dies without any issues, then to B’. Z died without any issues and left a will leaving his estate to Z’s spouse. Who takes the land?

Answer 55

B (on Y's death) - Y has life estate - Z has vested remainder subject to condition subsequent - B has shifting executory interest - Z's survival was conditional to taking Y's estate - Z's conveyance > Z's will (Z cannot devise/descend estate)

Question 56

X conveyed land ‘to Y for life, then to Z if he survives'. Z's bank wants to take Z's estate for failure to pay back his loans. Z dies. Who takes the land? What if Y died before Z?

Answer 56

X (reversionary interest) - Y has life estate - Z had contingent remainder - Z's survival over Y was conditional to taking Y's estate - Z died => NO contingent remainder => Z's bank has NO vested interest - X will take Y's estate after Y dies (reverter) Z's bank (vested creditor - if Y died before Z) - Y died + Z survives => Z's bank has vested interest - Z's estate can transfer to Z's bank

Question 57

X and Y agreed that X will enjoy his use on Blackacre and Y will be able to possess Blackacre but not use it under a contract. Both parties subsequently wrote in another document that they will have the right of survivorship entitling them to the other’s share if one party dies. X died. Will Y be entitled to X’s share?

Answer 57

No - Tenancy in common - Different interests + Different instruments - No right of survivorship (X died => X's interest passes by intestacy, NOT to Y)

Question 58

X, Y and Z entered an agreement as joint tenants with right of survivorship. X decided to divide his own share to himself. Y died. Who gets Y’s share?

Answer 58

Z - Joint tenancy - X involuntarily partitioned his share (NO consent from Y and Z) => Severance => X is now tenant in common - Y and Z remain joint tenants - Y died => Z takes Y's share as joint tenant (right of survivorship)

Question 59

X, Y and Z entered an agreement as joint tenants with right of survivorship. X’s creditors obtained a judgment lien on X’s share. Y died. X’s creditors later managed to find a buyer (B) during the foreclosure sale. Who gets Y’s share?

Answer 59

Z - Joint tenancy - Judgment lien before foreclosure => B is tenant in common, Y and Z are joint tenants - Y died => Z gets Y's share (right of survivorship) - If Y died after foreclosure => B, Y and Z would be tenants in common (severance) => Y's heirs would get Y's share (intestacy)

Question 60

X, Y and Z entered an agreement as joint tenants with right of survivorship. X mortgaged his interest to Lender, who records. Y died. X defaulted and Lender found Buyer during the foreclosure sale. Who gets Y’s share?

Answer 60

Z (most states) - Joint tenancy - Lien theory (most states) - X's mortgage before foreclosure => Severs X's share only (Y + Z remain joint tenants) - Y died => Z takes Y's share (right of survivorship) - X's mortgage after foreclosure => Severance (X, Y and Z become tenants in common) - Y died => Y's heirs take Y's share (by will/intestacy) Y's heirs (few states) - Joint tenancy - Title theory (few states) - X's mortgage => Severance (X, Y and Z become tenants in common) - Y died => Y's heirs take Y's share (by will/intestacy)

Question 61

X, Y and Z entered an agreement as joint tenants with right of survivorship. X leased his interest to his brother. X died. Who gets X’s share?

Answer 61

X's heirs (some states) - Joint tenancy - X's lease severs joint tenancy => Tenants in common (some states) - X died => X's heirs take X's share (by will/intestacy) Y and Z (some states) - Joint tenancy - X's lease does NOT sever joint tenancy (suspends tenancy until end of lease) (some states) - X died => Y and Z take X's share equally (right of survivorship)

Question 62

X, Y and Z entered an agreement as joint tenants with right of survivorship. X decided to sell his interest to Buyer. Y died. Who gets Y’s share?

Answer 62

Y's heirs - Joint tenancy - Single JT conveyance (X) => Severs joint tenancy (X, Y and Z as tenants in common) - Buyer has equitable interest => Tenants' contract becomes mere contract to receive purchase price - Y died => Y's heirs take Y's share (by will/intestacy) - Buyer is entitled to deed from Y's estate + Buyer becomes tenant in common with X and Z

Question 63

X, Y and Z entered an agreement as joint tenants with right of survivorship. All of them decided to sell their interests to Buyer. Y died. Who gets Y’s share?

Answer 63

X and Z (common law) - Joint tenancy - ALL JTs conveyance => NO severance (common law) (X, Y and Z remain joint tenants) - Y died => X and Z take Y's share (right of survivorship) Y's heirs (other courts) - Joint tenancy - ALL JTs conveyance => Severance (other courts) (X, Y and Z become tenants in common) - Buyer has equitable interest => Tenants' contract becomes mere contract to receive purchase price - Y died => Y's heirs take Y's share (by will/intestacy) - Buyer is entitled to deed from Y's estate

Question 64

X, Y and Z entered an agreement as joint tenants with right of survivorship. X wrote in his will that his property should pass to his children. X died. Who gets X’s share?

Answer 64

Y and Z - Joint tenancy - X's will can NOT sever joint tenancy (X's rights disappeared at X's death) - X died => Y and Z take X's share equally (right of survivorship)

Question 65

X, Y and Z entered an agreement as joint tenants with right of survivorship. X was convicted of murdering Y. Who gets Y’s share?

Answer 65

Y's heirs (some states) - Joint tenancy - X murdered Y => Severance - Y died => Y's heirs take Y's share (by will/intestacy) Y's beneficiary (some states) - Joint tenancy - X murdered Y => NO severance - Y died => Constructive trust is imposed on Y's share (Appointed beneficiary enjoys income on Y's share)

Question 66

X and Y were married and purchased a house in joint names. X later agreed to sell his share to an investor. Y died. Who is entitled to Y’s share?

Answer 66

X - Tenancy by the entirety - NO involuntary partition allowed => NO severance - Y died => X takes Y's share (right of survivorship)

Question 67

X and Y were married and lived in a house in joint names. A few years later, X and Y agreed to divorce. Y died. Who is entitled to Y’s share?

Answer 67

Y's heirs - Tenancy by the entirety - Divorce => Severance (X and Y become Tenants in common) - Y died => Y's heirs take Y's share (by will/intestacy)

Question 68

X and Y were married and lived in a house in joint names. Both of them sold their estate to an investor as directed by X alone. Y died. Who is entitled to Y’s share?

Answer 68

X - Tenancy by the entirety - NO involuntary partition allowed (only X consented to sale) => NO severance - Y died => X takes Y's share (right of survivorship)

Question 69

X and Y were married and lived in a house in joint names. X’s bank requested X to pay his mortgage. Y died. Who is entitled to Y’s share?

Answer 69

X - Tenancy by the entirety - NO single creditor execution allowed (must be joint) => NO severance - Y died => X takes Y's share (right of survivorship)

Question 70

X and Y entered an agreement as joint tenants with right of survivorship allowing Y to have all of the possession and X to have majority. X died. Will Y be entitled to X’s share?

Answer 70

No - Tenancy in common (X is NOT entitled to whole of possession) - X died => X's heirs will take X's share (by will/intestacy)

Question 71

X and Y entered an agreement as joint tenants. X decided to give half his share to his brother and wrote in his will that his other share will go to his children. X died. Who will be entitled to X’s share?

Answer 71

- Tenancy in common (NO right of survivorship) - X's share => Transferred to X's brother (inter vivos transfer) - X's share => Transferred to X's children (testamentary)

Question 72

X, Y and Z entered an agreement as joint tenants with right of survivorship. X was kicked out by Y and Z. X tried to sue Y and Z, but they claim the property is theirs alone. Who is entitled to the property?

Answer 72

X, Y and Z - NO co-tenant has exclusive possession - X was ousted (kicked out) => X can bring possessory action

Question 73

X, Y and Z entered an agreement as joint tenants with right of survivorship. X was using the property as he asked Y and Z to leave. X rented his share out to his college friend. X also dug some soil from the garden, which still maintained the value of the property. Are Y and Z entitled to any rents or profits from X?

Answer 73

X (in possession) Y and Z (out of possession) Yes - X's rent from his college friend (X ousted Y and Z out, even though X derived rent from his own use of property) NOT - Profit derived from exploiting garden (NOT reduce value)

Question 74

X, Y and Z entered an agreement as joint tenants with right of survivorship. X mortgaged his interest to Lender, who records. X died. Lender found Buyer during the foreclosure sale of X’s interest. Who gets X’s share?

Answer 74

Y and Z (most states) - Joint tenancy - X's mortgage before foreclosure => NO severance (X, Y and Z remain joint tenants) (lien theory) (most states) - X died => Y and Z take X's share (right of survivorship) Buyer (few states) - Joint tenancy - X's mortgage => Severance (X, Y and Z become tenants in common) (title theory) (few states) - X died => Buyer takes X's share (tenant in common)

Question 75

X and Y owned land as joint tenants. X insisted on dividing the land into 3 lots, 2 for himself and one for Y. Y thought such a division would be unfair and instead requested they sell the land and divide the proceeds amongst themselves. X asks the court for an order. How should the court make an order?

Answer 75

By sale + division of proceeds | - Partition in kind => NOT fair + reasonable

Question 76

X leased his apartment to Y for 7 days, but if Y parties in the apartment, he must surrender and give it back to X. What type of tenancy is this?

Answer 76

Tenancy for years - Fixed duration - 7 days - Condition subsequent (but if)

Question 77

X leased his apartment to Y for 1 year. After 1 year, X told Y to leave. Y complained that X did not give him notice. Did X properly evict Y?

Answer 77

Yes - Tenancy for years - Lease >= 1 year (NO writing required) (SOF) - Lease expired after 1 year - Termination: No notice required

Question 78

In January, X leased his apartment to Y for 10 months. The lease included that Y pay his rent on the 1st of every month and Y does not create burns on the walls. Y failed to pay on the 1st of March and Y accidentally created a fire leaving marks on the walls. X told Y to leave immediately. Did X properly evict Y?

Answer 78

Y's breach of covenants: No - Tenancy for years (10 months) - X did NOT reserve right of entry - Y set fire to walls - X can NOT terminate tenancy Y's failure to pay rent: Yes - Tenancy for years (10 months) - NO right of entry required - Y failed to pay rent timely - X can terminate tenancy

Question 79

X leased his apartment to Y for 2 years. After 2 months, Y suddenly chose to give up his lease. X accepted. Did X properly evict Y?

Answer 79

No - Tenancy for years (2 years) - Y surrendered - NO writing included (lease > 1 year) (SOF) => NO termination allowed

Question 80

X leased his house to Y at $15,000 annual rent, to be paid on the 1st of every month. After the lease ended, X proposed to renew the lease on the same terms and duration. What tenancy will Y have?

Answer 80

Periodic tenancy - Year-to-year - Implied (annual rent payable monthly)

Question 81

X leased his house to Y for 1 year. After the lease ended, Y continued to live in the house. X decided to create a new tenancy for Y, but Y refuses because there was never an agreement to do so. Is Y bound to a new tenancy?

Answer 81

Periodic tenancy - Tenancy for years - Lease expired => Y held over lease - X can bind Y to new periodic tenancy (operation of law - NO agreement required)

Question 82

In January, X leased his house to Y with rent to be paid on the 1st of every month. On the 1st of March, X told Y to leave his house. Is Y required to leave?

Answer 82

No - Periodic tenancy (month-to-month) - NO notice of termination (NOT written + delivered)

Question 83

In January, X leased his house to Y with rent to be paid on the 1st of every month. On the 28th of February, X sent a written letter to Y requesting him to leave on the 14th March. Is Y required to leave?

Answer 83

No - Periodic tenancy (month-to-month) - 1 month's notice required - X gave written notice 2 weeks in advance => NO termination

Question 84

In January, X leased his house to Y at $15,000 annual rent. On the 30th of February, X sent a written letter to Y requesting him to leave next month. Is Y required to leave?

Answer 84

Yes (modern view) - Periodic tenancy (year-to-year) - 1 month's notice required (modern view) - X gave written notice 1 month in advance => Termination No (common law) - Periodic tenancy (year-to-year) - 6 month's notice required (common law) - X gave written notice 1 month in advance => NO termination

Question 85

X leased his house to Y with rent to be paid every month, which could be terminated by Y at any time. X believed he could terminate the lease. X asked Y to leave with 3 weeks’ notice. Is Y required to leave?

Answer 85

No - Periodic tenancy (month-to-month) - NOT tenancy at will (X had NO express right to terminate, Y's right to terminate does NOT imply X's right) - X was required to give 1 months' notice - X gave 3 weeks' notice => NO termination

Question 86

X leased his house to Y with rent to be paid every month, which could be terminated by X at any time. X tried to assign the tenancy to his friend. Y also tried to assign his right to his father. Is Y required to leave?

Answer 86

Yes - Tenancy at will (Landlord's express right to terminate => Implies Tenant's express right to terminate) - X's assignment => NO termination - Y's assignment (attempted) => Termination

Question 87

In January, X orally leased his house to Y for 14 months. After March of the following year, Y continued to stay in the house for another month. X told Y to leave immediately. Is Y required to leave?

Answer 87

No - NOT tenancy for years (NO writing for lease > 1 year) (SOF) - NO tenancy at sufferance

Question 88

In January, X leased his house to Y for 6 months. After July, Y continued to stay in the house for another month. X told Y to leave immediately. Is Y required to leave?

Answer 88

Yes - Tenancy for years (no writing for lease < 1 year) (SOF) - Y stayed for 1 month after end of lease => Tenancy at sufferance - NO notice required for termination - Y is liable for rent (1 month)

Question 89

X leased his building to Y for running a restaurant for one year, with rent to be paid on an annual basis. After one year, Y continued to run the business. X thought about finding a new tenant or keeping Y. What are X’s options?

Answer 89

Evict Y (NO notice) - Commercial tenancy for years (1 year) - Hold-over doctrine (Y stayed after tenancy expired) Bind Y to new periodic tenancy - Commercial tenancy for years (1 year) - Hold-over doctrine (Y stayed after tenancy expired) - Year-to-year (1 year lease)

Question 90

X leased his building to Y for running a restaurant for six months, with rent to be paid monthly. After six months, Y continued to run the business. X thought about finding a new tenant or keeping Y. What are X’s options?

Answer 90

Evict Y (NO notice) - Commercial tenancy for years (6 months) - Hold-over doctrine (Y stayed after tenancy expired) Bind Y to new periodic tenancy - Commercial tenancy for years (6 months) - Hold-over doctrine (Y stayed after tenancy expired) - Month-to-month (rent paid monthly)

Question 91

X leased his house to Y for 2 months, rent to be paid every week. After 2 months, Y continued living in the house. X thought about finding a new tenant or keeping Y. What are X’s options?

Answer 91

Evict Y (NO notice) - Residential tenancy for years (2 months) - Hold-over doctrine (Y stayed after tenancy expired) Bind Y to new periodic tenancy - Residential tenancy for years (2 months) - Hold-over doctrine (Y stayed after tenancy expired) - Week-to-week (rent paid weekly)

Question 92

X leased his house to Y in writing for 2 years, rent to be paid every month. After 2 years, Y continued living in the house. X thought about finding a new tenant or keeping Y. What are X’s options?

Answer 92

Evict Y (NO notice) - Residential tenancy for years (2 years) - Hold-over doctrine (Y stayed after tenancy expired) Bind Y to new periodic tenancy - Residential tenancy for years (2 years) - Hold-over doctrine (Y stayed after tenancy expired) - Month-to-month (assumed in residential tenancies)

Question 93

X leased his house to Y for 6 months, $100 rent to be paid every month. After 6 months, Y continued living in the house. X decided to renew his tenancy at $200 rent per month, but Y refused. How much is Y liable to pay?

Answer 93

$100 pcm - Tenancy for years (6 months) - Hold-over - X told Y his new rent AFTER tenancy expired => Y NOT bound to new rent - Y's refusal NOT relevant

Question 94

X leased his house to Y for 6 months, $100 rent to be paid every month. On the last day before the tenancy expired, X suggested to Y he pay $200 rent per month going forward. Y refused and continued living in the house. How much is Y liable to pay?

Answer 94

$200 pcm - Tenancy for years (6 months) - Hold-over - X told Y his new rent BEFORE tenancy expired => Y bound to new rent - Y's refusal NOT relevant

Question 95

X leased his house to Y for 1 year. After 1 year, X requested Y to leave and he claims back his house. Does X have an interest?

Answer 95

X: Future (reversionary) interest Y: Present interest

Question 96

X leased his apartment to Y for 5 years in writing. Y noticed the carpet was slightly torn. X requested Y to repair the carpet and pay the cost of the repair. Is Y required to do so?

Answer 96

No - Tenant must not commit permissive waste - Tenant is not liable for wear + tear (only ordinary repair) - Tenant is not liable for cost of repair (only damage)

Question 97

X leased his apartment to Y for 5 years in writing. The bedroom suddenly caught fire from the neighbour’s barbeque. X requested Y to repair the walls of the bedroom. Is Y required to do so?

Answer 97

No - Neither X nor Y at fault - Y not liable to repair - Y can terminate lease (majority view)

Question 98

X leased his restaurant to Y for 5 years in writing. After a few months, X came by and noticed the kitchen walls were completely burnt by an accidental fire caused by a customer. X requested Y to rebuild the walls. Y refused, but X showed him their contract stating Y is required to maintain the walls. Is Y required to do so?

Answer 98

No - Commercial lease - Tenant's covenant to repair is NOT enforced - Tenant is generally NOT liable to 're-build' due to third party damages - Lease did NOT expressly provide to 're-build' (lease provided to 'maintain')

Question 99

X leased his house to Y for 5 years in writing. After a few months, X came by and noticed the kitchen walls were completely burnt. X requested Y to rebuild the walls and pay for the damages. Is Y required to do so?

Answer 99

Pay for damages (NOT rebuild walls) - Residential lease - Landlord must repair - Tenant is liable for damages only

Question 100

X leased his house to Y for 6 months. During that time, Y was cooking meth in the kitchen for sale. Y tried to sell to X, but X refused. What are X’s options?

Answer 100

Y's illegal purpose (cooking meth) - Damages (nuisance to neighbours, police arrest) - Injunctive relief (prevent meth cooking) - Terminate lease

Question 101

X leased his house to Y for 6 months. Y paid 1 month’s deposit to X. X did not bother paying interest on the deposit. At the end of the lease, X refused to give back the deposit. What are Y’s rights?

Answer 101

Claim statutory/punitive damages Claim unpaid interest on deposit

Question 102

X leased his house to Y for 6 months. Y continued to pay monthly rent. One day, X gave Y one month’s advance notice to vacate the premises due to unforeseen events. X requested Y to pay rent, but Y refused to do so. Is Y required to pay rent?

Answer 102

1 month's rent - X terminated lease early - Y is required to pay proportionate amount (1 month) of agreed rent

Question 103

X leased his house to Y for 2 years. Y continued to pay monthly rent. One day, Y told X he wants to leave the house for good. X requested Y to pay rent because he is not allowed to leave, but Y refused to do so. Is Y required to pay rent?

Answer 103

Yes - Lease > 1 year: Writing required (SOF) - Y's surrender was not in writing - NO surrender => Y's duty to pay rent is NOT terminated

Question 104

X leased his house to Y for 6 months. For the last two months, Y failed to pay rent. Y continued parking his car in the garage. What are X’s rights?

Answer 104

Sue Y for two months' rent due Evict Y Assert lien on Y's car

Question 105

X leased his house to Y for six months at $500 rent per month. After three months, Y decided to vacate the premises without reason and left the kitchen in a bad state. X decided to rent the house to another person for $400 rent per month. What are X and Y’s liabilities?

Answer 105

1) Y's unjustifiable abandonment - Without reason 2) Majority view - X must mitigate damages (kitchen) + repossess house - X accept as surrender => Y is liable for $1,500 ($500 x 3 = $1,500; accrued rent before abandonment) - X NOT accept as surrender + X re-letted house => Y is liable for $600 (($500 x 6 = $3,000; balance) LESS ($400 x 6 = $2,400; re-letted rent)) 2) Minority view - X NOT required to mitigate damages (kitchen) - Y liable to pay accrued rent after abandonment

Question 106

X leased his house to Y for six months at $500 rent per month. After three months, Y decided to vacate the premises without reason and left the kitchen in a bad state. X decided not to rent the house to another person. The house was marketed at $400 rent per month. What are X and Y’s liabilities?

Answer 106

1) Y's unjustifiable abandonment - Without reason 2) Majority view - X must mitigate damages (kitchen) + repossess house - X accepts as surrender => Y is liable for $1,500 + damages ($500 x 3; accrued rent) - X NOT accept as surrender => Y is NOT liable (X can make profit of $600 (($500 x 6 = $3,000) LESS ($400 x 6 = $2,400)) 2) Minority view - X NOT required to mitigate damages (kitchen) - Y liable to pay $1,500 ($500 x 3; accrued rent)

Question 107

X leased his house to Y for one year, with rent to be paid on an annual basis. After one year, Y continued to live in the house. X already found a new tenant, Z, but Y refused to leave. What are Z’s rights?

Answer 107

Sue X for breach of duty to deliver actual possession of house from beginning of term (majority view) - X failed to kick out Y (hold-over tenant, stayed in house after expiration of previous lease)

Question 108

X borrowed a loan from Bank a few months ago. X leased his house to Y for 2 years in writing. Bank came back and foreclosed on X’s loan for failure to pay back in time. After 1 year, Bank took control of the house and told Y to move out. Bank also told Y to pay rent for the final year. Is Y liable to pay rent? Must Y leave?

Answer 108

Y must leave; NOT liable to pay rent - Implied covenant of quiet enjoyment - Bank's actual eviction of Y (from entire premises) => Bank (Y's mortgagee) breached covenant => Y must leave (mandatory eviction) - Y's duty to pay rent terminated

Question 109

X borrowed a loan from Bank a few months ago. X leased his house to Y for 2 years in writing. Bank came back and foreclosed on X’s loan for failure to pay back in time. After 1 year, Bank told Y not to use the garage anymore. Is Y liable to pay rent?

Answer 109

Yes (reasonable value) - Implied covenant of quiet enjoyment - Bank's partial eviction of Y (from kitchen) => Bank (Y's mortgagee) breached covenant - Y's duty to pay rent limited to reasonable value

Question 110

X leased his house to Y for 2 years in writing. After 1 year, X told Y not to use the garage anymore. Is Y still liable to pay rent?

Answer 110

No - Implied covenant of quiet enjoyment - X's partial eviction of Y (from kitchen) => X breached covenant - Y's duty to pay rent terminated

Question 111

X leased his house to Y for 2 years in writing. After 1 year, X entered the house and accidentally broke the thermal heater. Y could not use the heating system for months and asked X whether he could fix it within a few weeks’ time. X failed to do so. Y couldn’t take it anymore and decided to leave the house. What are Y’s rights?

Answer 111

Sue for damages + Terminate lease (stop paying rent) - Implied covenant of quiet enjoyment - X's constructive eviction of Y (loss of heat => House unsuitable for occupancy) => X breached covenant - X's breach substantially deprived Y's use of house (loss of heat) - Y gave reasonable notice to repair - Y vacated house

Question 112

X leased his retail store to Y for 1 year. Y was not pleased with the lighting conditions. What are Y’s rights under any implied warranties?

Answer 112

Nothing - Commercial lease (retail store) - NO implied warranty of habitability (only residential lease)

Question 113

X leased his house to Y for 1 year. Y was not pleased with the cleaning system. Must Y vacate the house under an implied warranty?

Answer 113

Y must NOT vacate the house (Y may vacate the house) - Implied warranty of habitability (Residential) - Y could move out + terminate lease (NOT mandatory to move out) - Y could reduce rent to fair rental value - Y could repair cleaning system + offset cost vs future rent - Y could remain in possession + sue X for damages

Question 114

X leased his house to Y for 1 year. As soon as Y entered the house, he noticed there were cracks in the ceiling. During Y’s lease, he also noticed the pipes leaking in his basement. Y sued X for breaching his duty of reasonable care. X admitted he knew of the cracks beforehand but denied knowing about the leaking. Is X liable?

Answer 114

Landlord's tortious liability (defects) - General duty of reasonable care - X is tortiously liable for ceiling cracks (X knew of defects before Y took possession) - X is NOT tortiously liable for leaking pipes (X had NO notice of defects after Y took possession)

Question 115

X leased his house to Y for 1 year. Y entered the house and realised the locks were not properly installed. A month later, a group of thieves entered Y’s house but realised he was inside. They smashed the windows open as they escaped. Y asked X to repair. Is X liable?

Answer 115

Landlord's tortious liability (security) - General duty of reasonable care - X is tortiously liable for failing to maintain ordinary security measures (installing locks) - X is tortiously liable for third party criminal injuries (smashing windows open)

Question 116

X discussed about renting his flat to Y. Y knew that the flat had termites in the bedroom, but did nothing about it. Y decided to rent the flat. Y suffered bites from the termites and sued X for not telling him about them before entering the lease. Is X liable?

Answer 116

No - X knew about termites (latent defects); Y could have discovered termites by reasonable inspection - X failed to disclose BUT X is NOT tortiously liable for Y's injuries

Question 117

X discussed about renting his flat to Y. X knew that the bathroom pipes were about to explode as the material had not been replaced for a few years, but did nothing about it. Y decided to rent the flat. Y’s friend came round and used the bathroom when the pipes suddenly exploded. Y sued X for not telling him about them before entering the lease. Is X liable?

Answer 117

Yes (common law) - X knew about the weak pipes (latent defects); Y could NOT have discovered weak pipes by reasonable inspection - X failed to disclose => X is tortiously liable for Y's friend's injuries

Question 118

X leased his house to Y for 1 year. During that time, Y cut his leg on the stairs as he stepped on it realising it was not stable and it created a hole. Y sued X for not telling him about this before entering the lease. Is X liable?

Answer 118

Yes (common law) - X could have reasonably discovered dangerous conditions in unstable stairs (common area) => Y should have maintained with reasonable care - X is tortiously liable for Y's injuries from dangerous conditions

Question 119

X leased his house to Y, a celebrity footballer, for 1 year. During that time, Y advertised online the house as he wanted to show people the luxury bar inside the house. One day, a group of friends came to the house to see the bar, but suffered an electric shock as they tried to charge their phone into the plug sockets which were wirey. Y sued X for their injuries arguing that X failed to repair the sockets before entering the lease. X admits he knew they were faulty but refuses to pay for their injuries. Is X liable for lack of public use?

Answer 119

No (public use) | - X had NO reason to know Y would admit to public to show luxury bar (private residence)

Question 120

X leased his house to Y for 3 months. Y appreciated it was already installed with furniture, but Y was angry after the roof suddenly collapsed on him. Y sued X. X argued he had no idea the roof would suddenly fall like that. Is X liable?

Answer 120

Yes (common law) - Short-term (3 months) - Fully furnished - X is tortiously liable for all injuries from roof collapse (even though X was not aware)

Question 121

X leased his hotel to Y for 1 month. Y was pleased that his customers were satisfied the hotel had plenty of furniture included. But one day, a customer claimed the gas was leaking inside. Y sued X. X argued he could never have known about the gas leak. Is X liable?

Answer 121

Yes - Short-term (3 months), fully furnished, NOT residence (commercial hotel) - Latent defects: gas leak NOT discoverable by Y => X may be liable for customer's injuries

Question 122

X leased his house to Y for 3 months. One day, X decided to repair the bathroom door without being obligated to do so. X tightened the screw of the door, but left it slightly untightened in case Y wanted to unscrew it later with ease. The door appeared to be slightly wobbly, but okay for the most part. Y entered the bathroom and the door fell on him hitting his head. Is X liable?

Answer 122

Yes (Common law) - X had NO covenant to repair - X did NOT give off deceptive appearance of safety (door looked okay for most part) - X negligently repaired door (slightly untightened screw) - X is liable for Y's injuries

Question 123

X leased his property to Y for 10 years. After one month, Y transferred his interest to Z for the rest of lease period. However, Y included his right to retake the premises after nine years. Is this allowed?

Answer 123

Yes - Sub-lease - Y partially transferred his interest to Z - Y reserved his right of reentry (retained some interest)

Question 124

X leased his property to Y for 10 years. After one month, Y transferred his interest to Z for the rest of lease period. Y included in their agreement that he reserves his right to reenter and reclaim the premises if Z fails to pay due rent to X. Z failed to pay the due rents and Y decided to cancel their lease. Is this allowed?

Answer 124

Yes - Assignment (complete transfer of Y's interest) - Assignment has same conditions as original lease + Y's right to reenter (which is allowed) - Z failed to pay rent => Y may terminate lease

Question 125

X leased his property to Y for 1 year. Their agreement stated Y shall not interfere with the electronic transmission cables located within the neighbourhood, which shall run with other leases. After one month, Y transferred his interest to Z for the remainder of the lease. Z realised the internet was not working. Z went outside and checked the electronic transmission cables. Z accidentally cut the power out. X received complaints from neighbours that they ran out of electricity. X sued Z for breach of the covenant in Y’s agreement. Is Z liable?

Answer 125

No - NO privity of estate (X + Z) - Covenant not to interfere with cables: NOT touch + concern X's property => Covenant does NOT run with land - Z did NOT breach covenant running with land => Z is not liable

Question 126

X leased his property to Y for 1 year with rent payable at $500 per month. They agreed that rent payment shall run with the lease. After 6 months, Y transferred his interest to Z and did not bother paying his rent to X. For the last 6 months, Z also failed to pay rent to X. X claims Z should pay both his and Y’s due rent. Is Z liable to pay rent?

Answer 126

$3,000 - Y assigned his interest to Z - Z failed to pay 6 months' rent: $3,000 ($500 x 6) - Z is liable for rent due from assignment to end of lease (6 months) (privity of estate)

Question 127

X leased his property to Y for 1 year with rent payable at $500 per month. They agreed that rent payment shall run with the lease. After 6 months, Y transferred his interest to Z. After 3 months, Z transferred his interest to B and promised X he will pay B’s rent. B failed to pay the rent for the remainder of the lease. Is B liable to pay rent?

Answer 127

No - Y assigned his interest to Z - Z re-assigned his interest to B - Z promised to X (Landlord) Z will pay B's rent => Creates privity of contract (X as Landlord + Z as Tenant) - Z is liable to pay B's rent as Tenant = $500 (one month)

Question 128

X leased his property to Y for 1 year with rent payable at $500 per month. They agreed that rent payment shall run with the lease. After 6 months, Y transferred his interest to Z. After 3 months, Z transferred his interest to B and promised Y he will pay B’s rent. B failed to pay the rent for the remainder of the lease. Is B liable to pay rent?

Answer 128

No - Y assigned his interest to Z - Z re-assigned his interest to B - Z promised to Y (Tenant) Z will pay B's rent => X became TP beneficiary to contract between Y + Z - Z is liable to pay B's rent for X (TP beneficiary) = $500 (1 month)

Question 129

X leased his property to Y for 1 year with rent payable at $500 per month. They agreed that rent payment shall run with the lease. After 6 months, Y transferred his interest to Z and did not bother paying his rent to X. For the last 6 months, Z also failed to pay rent to X and ran away. X claims Y should pay both his and Z’s due rent. Is Y liable to pay rent?

Answer 129

$6,000 - Y failed to pay rent: $3,000 ($500 x 6 months) - Y is liable to X for rent from start of contract to assignment (privity of contract/estate) - Y assigned his interest to Z (destroyed privity of estate) - Z failed to pay rent + disappeared: $3,000 ($500 x 6 months) - Y promised to pay rent to X (privity of contract) - Y is liable to X for Z's rent from assignment to disappearance (privity of contract)

Question 130

X leased his property to Y for 1 year with rent payable at $500 per month. They agreed that rent payment shall run with the lease. After 6 months, Y transferred his interest to Z and retained his right to retake the premises if Z were to fail in paying rent due. For the last 5 months, Z paid rent to X. Y wishes to kick Z out because he paid X instead of Y. Z refuses to leave as he paid X anyway. Should Z leave?

Answer 130

Yes - Sub-lease (right to retake premises; partial transfer) - Z must directly pay rent to Y (Tenant), NOT X (Landlord) - Z paid X, instead of Y - Z breached sublease

Question 131

X leased his property to Y for 1 year with rent payable at $500 per month. They agreed that the tenant must pay rent on time and continue to maintain the roofs every month. There was no mention of termination of the lease in such circumstances. After 6 months, Y transferred his interest to Z and retained his right to retake the premises if Z were to fail in paying rent due. Z told Y ‘I’ll take the blame for whatever was necessary’. Z ignored looking after the roofs and forgot to pay rent to Y for the first two months. Can X terminate the lease?

Answer 131

No - Sub-lease (right to retake: Y's part transfer of interest) - Z did NOT breach covenant to maintain roofs + covenant to pay rent (NOT run with land); X + Z have no privity - Z did NOT assume covenants expressly (impliedly - 'I'll take the blame') => X can NOT terminate sublease - X did not state in lease option to terminate for breach of lease (X is NOT TP beneficiary) => X can NOT breach original lease => X can NOT automatically terminate sublease

Question 132

X leased his house to Y for 1 year with rent payable at $500 per month. Y stated he will be responsible for any repairs required. After 6 months, Y transferred his interest to Z and retained his right to retake the premises if Z were to fail in paying rent due. The house suddenly started leaking and Z asked Y to fix the pipes. Y refused to do so. Can Z sue Y?

Answer 132

No - Sub-lease - X breached covenant to repair in original lease (NOT sub-lease) (covenants do NOT run with land in subleases) - Z can only enforce covenants in sublease vs Y

Question 133

X leased his hotel to Y for 1 year with rent payable at $500 per month. X promised in their lease he will carry out any necessary repairs. After 6 months, Y transferred his interest to Z and retained his right to retake the premises if Z were to fail in paying rent due. The house suddenly started leaking and Z asked Y to fix the pipes. Y told Z to ask X instead. Z asked X to fix the pipes under an implied warranty. X refused to do so. Can Z sue X?

Answer 133

No - Sub-lease - X breached covenant to repair in original lease (NOT sub-lease) (covenants do NOT run with land in sub-leases) (NO privity of estate) => X is NOT liable to repair - NO implied warranty of habitability (commercial lease - hotel) => X is NOT liable to repair

Question 134

X leased his house to Y for 1 year with rent payable at $500 per month. X wrote in their lease that Y cannot assign his rights to anyone. After 6 months, Y transferred his interest to Z and retained his right to retake the premises if Z were to fail in paying rent due. X visited the house and noticed Z was living there. X told Z to get out. Must Z leave?

Answer 134

Yes - Restriction vs assignment - Y sub-leased interest to Z => Violated restriction in original lease (privity of contract/estate)

Question 135

X leased his house to Y for 1 year with rent payable at $500 per month. X wrote in their lease that Y cannot sub-lease his rights to anyone. After 6 months, Y transferred his interest to Z and retained his right to retake the premises if Z were to fail in paying rent due. X visited the house and noticed Z was living there. X told Z to get out. Must Z leave?

Answer 135

Yes - Restriction vs sub-lease => Restricts sub-lease (NOT assignment) - Y sub-leased interest to Z => Y breached covenant - X can terminate lease (voidable) - X can sue Y for any damages

Question 136

X leased his house to Y for 1 year with rent payable at $500 per month. X wrote in their lease that Y cannot assign his rights to anyone. After 6 months, Y transferred his interest to Z. Towards the end of the lease, Z sent a cheque for 6 months’ rent to X. X did not know who Z was, but decided to accept the cheque anyway. X then visited the house and noticed Z was there. X sued Y. Is Y liable to X?

Answer 136

Yes - Y's assignment to Z - Y breached restrictive covenant vs assignment - X did NOT waive covenant - X did not object to accepting rent, but X did NOT know of assignment

Question 137

X leased his house to Y for 1 year with rent payable at $500 per month. After 6 months, Y was about to transfer his interest to Z, but X did not consent because X has a phobia of other people making his property dirtier other than the tenant himself. Can Y assign his rights to Z?

Answer 137

Yes (most states) - X can withhold consent to assignment No (few states) - X can withhold consent to assignment ONLY reasonably - Phobia of others making property dirtier: NOT reasonable

Question 138

X leased his house to Y for 1 year. After 6 months, X told Z, his best friend, he can have ownership rights over the house instead, without telling Y. Y refused to pay rent to Z because he never told him and it was not formally made. Is Y liable to Z?

Answer 138

No - Y's consent not required - X did not make ordinary deed => NO assignment by X (Landlord)

Question 139

X leased his house to Y for 1 year. After 6 months, X transferred his interest to Z, without telling Y. Y continued paying rent to X until Z called Y and asked to pay him instead. Is Y liable to Z?

Answer 139

No - Landlord (X)'s assignment to Z (new landlord) - Y had no reasonable evidence of assignment (NO attornment) - Y NOT obliged to pay rent to Z

Question 140

X leased his house to Y for 1 year. The lease provided that X must fix the heating system when necessary. After 6 months, X transferred his interest to Z. The heating system kept breaking and Y could not sleep without the heat on during the winter. Y asked Z to fix the system, but Z refused. Who can Y sue?

Answer 140

X + Z - Landlord (X)'s assignment to Z (new landlord) - Covenant to fix heating system ran with land (intent + touch and concern land) - Z breached covenant => Z is liable - X is liable for Z's breach

Question 141

X agreed to sell his house to Y. Before signing the contract, Y was given the house in possession. X included in the contract that Y may not sell his interest in the house to anyone else. Y tried to convey his interest to Z, but X argued this is not allowed. Can Y convey his interest?

Answer 141

No - Y has equitable interest in house (possession) - Restraint on alienation are void ONLY towards legal interests - X has disabling restraint on Y's equitable interest (valid) => Prevents Y from transferring

Question 142

X conveyed his house to Y stating that Y cannot transfer to anyone at all, otherwise Y must give up his house to X. Y wanted to transfer his house to Z, but X refused. Can Y convey his interest?

Answer 142

Yes - Fee simple - Total restraint (forfeiture restraint) - Void

Question 143

X conveyed his house to Y stating that Y cannot transfer to any of his siblings while Y is working. Y wanted to transfer his house to his brother, but X refused. Can Y convey his interest?

Answer 143

Yes - Fee simple - Partial restraint (disabling restraint) - Void

Question 144

X conveyed his house to Y stating that Y cannot transfer to Hispanics without X’s consent. Y wanted to transfer his house to his Hispanic friend, but X refused. Can Y convey his interest?

Answer 144

Yes - Fee simple - Discriminatory restraint (vs Hispanics) - Void (14A, Fair Housing Act)

Question 145

X conveyed his house to Y for life stating that Y cannot transfer to anyone without X’s consent. Y wanted to transfer his house to his brother without telling X. Can Y convey his interest?

Answer 145

No - Life estate - Promissory restraint (total) - Valid

Question 146

X conveyed his house to Y for life, then to Z. X stated that neither Y nor Z can transfer to anyone, otherwise they must give up the house to X. Y wanted to transfer his house to his brother, but X refused. Z wanted to transfer the house to his brother, but X refused. Can Y or Z convey their interests?

Answer 146

Y: No - Life estate - Forfeiture restraint (total) - Valid Z: Yes - Vested remainder - Forfeiture restraint (total) - Void

Question 147

X owned a 3-unit apartment building and a four-family dwelling building. X put out advertisements to rent his flats disallowing any gays or lesbians. Is this allowed?

Answer 147

3-unit apartment building: No - Owner-occupied building < 4 units (Fair Housing Act does NOT apply) - Gender discrimination (Civil Rights Act does NOT apply, 14A does NOT apply to private citizens) 4-family dwelling building: Yes - Owner-occupied building > 3 family dwellings (Fair Housing Act applies)

Question 148

X owned a private snooker club and a mosque. One night, a gay black man came round asking if the club was for rent. X told him that ‘definitely not mate’. X personally did not like gay people. The black man then went to a mosque, where he was also denied access because of his race rather than gender. Is this allowed?

Answer 148

Private club: Yes - NOT dwelling (Fair Housing Act does NOT apply) - Gender discrimination (Civil Rights Act does NOT apply) Mosque: No - NOT dwelling (Fair Housing Act does NOT apply) - Race discrimination (Civil Rights Act applies)

Question 149

X owned House A and House B. X sold House A to Y. X covenanted that Y must not erect fences on House B. Can Y erect fences?

Answer 149

No - Burden runs with land (X => Y) - Negative covenant (NOT erect fences) - Burden touches + concerns X's land (House B)

Question 150

X owned House A and House B. X sold House A to Y. X covenanted that Y must not drive within a radius of one mile of House B. Can Y drive within such radius?

Answer 150

No - Burden runs with land (X => Y) - Negative covenant (NOT drive) - Burden touch + concern X's land (House B)

Question 151

X owned House A and House B. X sold House A to Y. X covenanted that Y must keep House B’s garden in good repair. Must Y repair?

Answer 151

Yes - Burden runs with land (X => Y) - Affirmative covenant (repair) - Burden touches + concerns X's land (House B)

Question 152

X owned a residential subdivision. X sold one of his lots to Y. X covenanted that Y must pay an annual fee to the homeowners’ association for maintaining the common ways. Must Y pay?

Answer 152

Yes - Burden runs with land (X => Y) - Affirmative covenant (payment => maintenance) - Burden touches + concerns X's land (subdivision)

Question 153

X and Y are neighbouring landowners. X promises Y that X’s land ‘will never be used for purposes other than residential’. Is this valid?

Answer 153

No - Burden NOT run with land (X => Y) - NO horizontal privity (X + Y; neighbours) - X did NOT purchase for value

Question 154

X owned Blackacre. Y held an easement over the land. X promised Y to keep the right of way free of snow. Is this valid?

Answer 154

Yes - Burden runs with land (X => Y) - Horizontal privity (X + Y; Easement holder)

Question 155

X owned Blackacre and Whiteacre in fee simple. X sold Whiteacre to Y and covenanted that Y must maintain the bridge between Blackacre and Whiteacre. Y then sold Blackacre to Z for life, retaining a reversionary interest for himself. Y told Z to maintain the bridge, but Z refused. Must Z maintain?

Answer 155

No - Burden does NOT run with land (X => Z) - NO vertical privity (Z has life estate; X has reversionary interest, which X can take back after Z's death; Z does NOT have entire durational interest that X did)

Question 156

X owned House A and House B. X told Y he can have House A, as long as he does not erect fences on House B. Can Y erect fences?

Answer 156

Yes - Burden does NOT run with land (X => Y) - Covenant NOT in writing (oral)

Question 157

X owned House A and House B. X sold House A to Y, writing that fences cannot be erected on House B as ‘this covenant shall run with the land’. Can Y erect fences?

Answer 157

No - Burden runs with land (X => Y) - X intended covenant to run with land (‘this covenant shall run with the land’)

Question 158

X owned House A and House B and recorded his deeds. X gave House A to Y. One day, X came round and told Y to maintain the gardens as X always did. Must Y maintain?

Answer 158

No - Burden NOT run with land - NO notice (NOT BFP - NOT for value; gift)

Question 159

X owned House A and House B with no recorded deeds. X sold House A to Y. The next day, X came round and told Y to maintain the gardens as X always did. Y could not tell the gardens were ever maintained. Must Y maintain?

Answer 159

No - Burden NOT run with land - NO notice (NO notice at time of purchase; Only after purchase)

Question 160

X owned House A. X covenanted with his neighbour, Y, who owned House B, that ‘X and his assigns will keep House A in good repair’. Y sells his house to Z. Must X continue to repair House A?

Answer 160

Yes - Z receives benefit from X - Y transfers house to Z - Benefit runs with land (NO horizontal privity required between X + Y) => Equitable servitude - X must continue to repair House A => Benefit to Z (increase value of Z's house)

Question 161

X owned House A. X covenanted with his neighbour, Y, who owned House B, that ‘X and his assigns will keep House A in good repair’. Y sells his house to Z. X also sells his house to B. Must B continue to repair House A?

Answer 161

Yes Z receives benefit from X - Y transfers house to Z - Y's benefit runs with land (NO horizontal privity required between X + Y) - X must continue to repair House A => Benefit to Z (increase value of Z's house) Z receives benefit from B - X transfers house to B - X's burden runs run with land (equitable servitude - no horizontal privity between X + Y) (assigns to keep in good repair) - B required to repair House A

Question 162

X owned Blackacre and covenanted with Y, a supermarket operator owning no adjacent land, to erect and maintain on Blackacre a billboard advertising Y’s supermarkets. Y decided to sell his business to Z. Must X erect for Z?

Answer 162

No | - X's burden will NOT touch and concern Z's land (business, NOT actual land) => NO benefit runs to Z

Question 163

X owned House A and House B. X sold House A to Y and covenanted that ‘Y must maintain the road between House A and B’. Y recorded the deed. Y sold the house to Z. Z failed to maintain. What can X do?

Answer 163

Enforce Y's burden vs Z - Burden runs with land - Vertical privity (X + Z) (Z has fee simple) - Horizontal privity (contract) - Z is NOT BFP Sue for damages from Z

Question 164

X owned House A and House B. X sold House A to Y and covenanted that ‘Y must maintain the road between House A and B’. Y recorded the deed. Y sold the house to Z telling him there’s no need to maintain at all. The government decided to take over X’s house. Z did not maintain. What can the government do?

Answer 164

NO termination of covenant - Condemnation of benefitted estate (House A), NOT burden estate (House B) - Release NOT written (oral) Enforce Y's burden vs Z - Burden runs with land - Vertical privity (X + Z) (Z has fee simple) - Horizontal privity (contract) - Z is NOT BFP (record notice, for value) Sue for damages from Z

Question 165

X owned House A and House B. X sold House A to Y and covenanted that ‘Y must maintain the road between House A and B’. Y recorded the deed. Y sold the house to Z. Z also decided to buy X’s house. Must Z maintain?

Answer 165

No | - Merger of benefitted estate (House A) + burdened estate (House B) => Termination of covenant

Question 166

X and Y are neighbouring landowners. X told Y that he promises that X’s land ‘will never be used for purposes other than residential’. Is this valid?

Answer 166

No - Burden does NOT run with land - NO privity => NO covenant - NO writing => NO equitable servitude

Question 167

X owned a plat filled with residential lots (1 to 50) filled with vegetable farms. X told buyers of lots 1 to 45 that all the lots must be filled with vegetable farms. The next day, X sold lot 46 to Y. Y did not do anything with the lot. One of the buyers shouted at Y for not filling the lot with vegetable farms like everyone else. Must Y do so?

Answer 167

No - Affirmative covenant (fill with vegetable farms) - Common scheme implied (oral representations) - Only applies to negative covenants, NOT affirmative covenants - Burden does NOT run with land

Question 168

X owned a plat filled with residential lots (1 to 50). X told buyers of lots 1 to 45 that all the lots must not be used for commercial purposes. The next day, X sold lot 46 to Y. Y decided to build a radio station. One of the buyers shouted at Y and told him to stop. Must Y stop?

Answer 168

Yes - Negative servitude (NOT use for commercial purposes) ('Reciprocal negative servitudes' applies) - Common scheme implied (oral representations) - Notice (inquiry - Lots visibly not used for commercial purposes) - X can claim injunction to stop Y building radio station - Burden runs with land

Question 169

X owned a plat filled with residential lots (1 to 50). X sold lots 1 to 45. The next day, X told the buyers that all the lots must not be used for commercial purposes. One of the buyers, Y, decided to build a radio station. X then sold lot 46 to Z. Z wanted to build a restaurant. Must Y and Z stop?

Answer 169

Y must NOT stop - Negative servitude (NOT use for commercial purposes) - Common scheme implied (oral representations) - Scheme arose NOT at time of sale to Y (after sale) => Y is NOT subject to equitable servitude - Burden does NOT run with land Z must stop - Negative servitude (NOT use for commercial purposes) - Common scheme implied (oral representations) - Scheme arose after sale (after sale) to Z => Z is subject to equitable servitude - X can claim injunction to stop Z building restaurant - Burden runs with land

Question 170

X and Y are neighbouring landowners. Y wrote to X that X must make way for the school children as there is a school near by the neighbourhood, just like all the other neighbours are doing. X did not record his deed to the house. X then sold his house to Z without informing him of the restriction. Must Z do so?

Answer 170

Yes - NO horizontal privity (X + Y) - Writing, Intent, Touch + concern land - Notice (inquiry - other neighbours cleared way) - Z is subject to equitable servitude - X can claim injunction to make Z clear way - Burden runs with land

Question 171

X and Y are neighbouring landowners. Y promised X in person that Y will maintain Y’s own house. Y decided to sell his house to Z. Must Z maintain under this covenant?

Answer 171

No - NO privity (X + Y) - Y's promise to maintain Y's house => Increases value of X's house => Benefit to X - Y transferred interest to Z - Burden does NOT run with land to Z

Question 172

X and Y were neighbours. X wrote to Y that ‘Y must maintain the road between their houses’. Y recorded the deed. Y sold his house to Z and wrote that Z is not required to maintain the road. X later discovered Z did not bother, and told him to do so. Must Z maintain?

Answer 172

Yes - NO covenant (NO privity) - Equitable servitude => Burden runs with land - Written release NOT by benefitted estate (but by Y, burdened estate) => NO termination of ES

Question 173

X owned a plat filled with residential lots (1 to 50). X sold lots 1 to 45 and told the buyers that all the lots must not be used for commercial purposes. One of the buyers, Y, decided to build a radio station. By that point, three of the other lots had accounting firms and banks built on it. Must Y stop?

Answer 173

Yes - Equitable servitude (not use for commercial purposes) - NO significant change in neighbourhood (only 3/45 lots used for commercial purposes) => NOT prevent ES

Question 174

X owned a plat filled with residential lots (1 to 50). X sold lots 1 to 45 and told the buyers that all the lots must not be used for commercial purposes. After a few months, X erected signs on the lots advertising the opening of banks in the future. One of the buyers, Y, decided to follow suit and open an accounting firm. Must Y stop?

Answer 174

No - Equitable servitude (not use for commercial purposes) - Estoppel (reasonable person would believe ES terminated based on X's sign erecting for commercial purposes) => Prevents ES (equitable defence)

Question 175

X owned a plat filled with residential lots (1 to 50). X sold lots 1 to 45 and told the buyers that all the lots must not be used for commercial purposes. After a few months, one of the buyers, Y, decided to open an accounting firm. X began to use the firm’s services. Another buyer, Z, decided to open a car washing garage. Must Z stop?

Answer 175

No - Equitable servitude (not use for commercial purposes) - Acquiescence (X accepted Y's violation => Prevents ES (equitable defence) => Other burdened parties (Z) are not subject to ES

Question 176

X owned a plat filled with residential lots (1 to 50). X sold lots 1 to 45 and told the buyers that all the lots must not be used to sell farm products. One day, X decided to construct a barn to look after people’s cattle. One of the buyers, Y, subsequently decided to sell cow milk to customers. Must Y stop?

Answer 176

Yes - Equitable servitude (not sell farm products) - NO unclean hands (X provided services, not similar to sale of goods) => NOT prevent ES

Question 177

X owned Blackacre and Whiteacre in fee simple. X sold Whiteacre to Y and covenanted that Y must maintain the bridge between Blackacre and Whiteacre. Y then sold Blackacre to Z. Z failed to maintain the bridge and X did nothing about it. Must Z maintain?

Answer 177

Yes - Privity - Notice - Z is subject to restrictive covenant - Burden runs with land - Acquiescence (X accepted Z's violation of covenant) (equitable defence) => NOT terminate covenant (only ES)

Question 178

X owned an apartment in a 10-unit building, each under ownership. The building was being purchased by the government. Several owners complained they should receive equal money for the stairway and corridor. X believes he is entitled to at least 10% under his original deed. How much should X be entitled to?

Answer 178

At least 10% | - Condominium: Each owner owns undivided interest in exterior + common areas (stairway, corridor)

Question 179

X owned an apartment in a 10-unit building, each under ownership. X defaulted on his mortgage and the lender wanted to recover amounts from the other owners. Is this allowed?

Answer 179

No | - Condominium: Each owner is liable for own mortgage

Question 180

X owned an apartment in a 10-unit building, each under ownership. X leased his apartment to Y. All the owners went to a meeting, excluding Y. They voted to elect the next Board for the Homeowners’ Association. They further paid regular fees to the Association. After a few months, one of the members complained that the Board failed to fix the front gate, the broken stairway and the heating systems in the members’ apartments. He also complained that X did not contribute to the regular fees. X requested Y to pay. Who is liable for what?

Answer 180

X is liable (front gate, stairway) - X is owner of apartment => HOA member - X is required to elect Board + pay regular maintenance feees - Board is required to maintain common elements (front gate, stairway), NOT interior elements (heating system) Y is NOT liable - Y is tenant, NOT owner of apartment => NOT HOA member

Question 181

X lived in the East district of State A and wanted to construct a mosque. The state government issued a letter stating X is prevented from constructing any buildings related to Islamic religion in the East district by law. The government also decided to replace the building with a church instead with no money returned to X. Is this allowed?

Answer 181

No - Zoning: Religion discrimination (1A violation) - Zoning: Taking w/o compensation (5A violation)

Question 182

X built and operated a restaurant. X decided he wanted to replace it with an off-licence store. He checked with the zoning ordinance which included a hierarchy of uses including family dwellings, condominiums, fast food chains and small stores. Is X allowed to replace?

Answer 182

No - Cumulative zoning ordinance - X can only use land for stated purpose/higher use (condo/dwelling)

Question 183

X built and operated a restaurant. X decided he wanted to remove the restaurant logo. He checked with the zoning ordinance which required that X must continue to use the land for commercial purposes. Is X allowed to remove the logo?

Answer 183

Yes - Non-cumulative zoning ordinance - X can remove logo as long as he uses it for commercial purposes (conform with NCZO)

Question 184

X built and operated a restaurant. X decided he wanted to replace it with a shopping mall. He checked with the zoning ordinance which included a hierarchy of uses including family dwellings, condominiums, fast food chains and small stores. X believed that use of the shopping mall will encourage more business activities and consumer spending, and he would suffer reputation and profit losses otherwise. Can X replace?

Answer 184

No - Variance (shopping mall v fast food chain/houses) - NOT reasonably related to public welfare (consumer spending) - NOT unique hardship (reputation/profit losses)

Question 185

X built and operated a restaurant. X realised that his deed required X to use the land only for non-commercial purposes. X wanted to replace it with a condominium. A nearby tenant complained to X that the zoning ordinance required X to continue using the land for commercial purposes. Can X replace?

Answer 185

Yes - Covenant (non-commercial) > Ordinance (commercial) - Government can only enforce ordinance (NOT landowner)

Question 186

X was the owner of a house. One day, X decided to install some heating pipes in the wall. X later found a buyer, but X wanted to take his heating pipes to his new home because he never intended to keep them there. Buyer argued the heating pipes were already installed and not removable. Can X remove?

Answer 186

No - Common ownership (X owns pipes + house) - X's objective intent (reasonable person would consider pipes as fixture) (X's intent not relevant) - Nature of pipes (important to providing heat to house) - Manner of attachment (substantial installation to walls) - Damage (substantial installation to walls)

Question 187

X was the owner of a house. One day, X paid to have a carpet fitted into the house at its exact length. X later found a buyer, but X wanted to take the carpet. Buyer argued the carpet is specifically designed for the house and not removable. Can X remove?

Answer 187

No - Common ownership (X owns carpet + house) - Constructive annexation: Uniquely adapted

Question 188

X invited his friend, Y, over for a few days. Y was happy to install some solar panels onto the roof to preserve energy for X’s house. However, Y realised he needed to make some money and decided to remove the panels. X complained that the panels were already attached and would leave non-removable holes in the roof. Can Y remove?

Answer 188

No - Divided ownership (X owns house; Y owns panels) - Landlord-Licensee - NO agreement re fixtures (No accession) - Removal would cause substantial damage (non-removable holes)

Question 189

X rented his house to Y for a five-year term. Y installed an air filter in the bathroom. Two months before the end of the lease, Y wanted to take the filter out and put it in his own house. Can Y remove?

Answer 189

Yes - Divided ownership (X owns house; Y owns filter) - Landlord-Tenant - NO agreement re fixtures (No accession) - Y can remove before end of lease - Y must pay repair costs

Question 190

X decided to go on vacation for a few months and left his apartment for a while. Y heard about X’s plans and decided to move in. After 10 years, X came back and told Y to get out. Y wanted to take the drinking bar he installed. X argued it was now his since it improved the apartment’s value by 5%. Y complained it cost him $20,000 to construct. The statute of limitations requires adverse possessors to have ten years or more. Can Y remove?

Answer 190

No - Divided ownership (X owns house; Y owns filter) - Trespasser (10 years) - Y is NOT good faith trespasser (knowledge of X's vacation plans) - Y could have recovered value of improvement (5%) - Y could NOT have recovered construction cost ($20,000)

Question 191

X owned a garden. Y was constructing a house in the neighbourhood. He realised the neighbourhood needed to replace its electricity cables. Y approached X and asked whether he could remove the current cables for replacement. X argued no. Y decided to replace them anyway. Is Y allowed to do so?

Answer 191

No - Negative easement (NO right to use cables) - Unlawful trespass

Question 192

X owned a house. Y owned a house. X and Y agreed in writing that Y would allow X to cross over his garden to access the motorway by creating a pathway. Y then sold his house to Z who was not told about the pathway at the time. Must Z continue to allow X to cross over?

Answer 192

Yes - Easement appurtenant (X has dominant estate; Y has servient estate) - Y transferred to Z => Burden runs with land - Z is NOT BFP (inquiry notice of pathway - observable)

Question 193

X owned a house. Y owned a house. X continued to cross over his garden to access a nearby park by creating a pathway, believing it was necessary to do so. X then sold his house to Z. Y thought it would be okay to remove the pathway because Z’s deed did not mention about it. Z refused. Must Y continue to allow Z to cross over?

Answer 193

No - No easement appurtenant (X has dominant estate; Y has servient estate; BUT no special purpose in accessing nearby park) - X transferred to Z => Benefit would have run with land (no need to mention pathway in deed)

Question 194

X owned a house. Y came round to ask whether Y could walk across X’s garden to get to work because the construction works are blocking the way. X refused because Y’s house is not in the neighbourhood. Must X allow Y to walk over?

Answer 194

Yes | - Easement in gross (Y must use walkway for personal purpose without ownership of adjacent land; X has servient estate)

Question 195

X owned a house. Y came round to ask whether Y’s friends could walk across X’s garden to access a nearby park. X refused because Y’s friends’ houses will not benefit. Must X allow Y's friends to walk over?

Answer 195

No | - Easement in gross (Y is NOT using walkway for personal purpose, but for Y's friends; X has servient estate)

Question 196

X owned a house. Y came round to ask whether Y could place a map giving directions to his company in front of X’s house. X agreed. Y then sold his land to Z, who replaced the company with his own dwelling. Must X continue to allow the map use?

Answer 196

No - Easement in gross (Y must use walkway for commercial purpose without ownership of adjacent land; X has servient estate) - Y transferred interest to Z NOT for commercial purpose (dwelling) - NO transfer of easement

Question 197

X owned a house. Y continued to cross his garden from time to time. After 10 years, X told Y to stop using it. The statutory period for adverse possession is 10 years. Must Y stop?

Answer 197

No - Easement by prescription - Continuous (10 years, no need for constant use 'from time to time')

Question 198

X owned a house. Y needed to install pipes underground for use of gas in his house next door. After 10 years, X told Y to remove the pipes and it was not his fault he could not realise the pipes were underground. The statutory period for adverse possession is 10 years. Must Y stop?

Answer 198

No - Easement by prescription - Open + notorious (pipes were discoverable by inspection, despite being underground)

Question 199

X owned a house. Y thought X was not using his garden, so Y decided to install solar panels for energy preservation. After 10 years, X told Y to remove the panels. Y refused because X also used them. The statutory period for adverse possession is 10 years. Must Y remove?

Answer 199

No - Easement by prescription - Adverse (Owner's shared use NOT relevant)

Question 200

One day, Y decided to install solar panels in a quiet park for energy preservation. After 10 years, the state government wrote to Y asking him to remove the panels. Y refused as he continued to use it and the government never complained until now. The statutory period for adverse possession is 10 years. Must Y remove?

Answer 200

Yes - NO easement by prescription - NOT applicable to public lands (park)

Question 201

X owned a house. Y thought X was not using his garden, so Y prevented anyone from using the garden by placing barriers around it. After 10 years, X told Y to remove the barriers. The statutory period for adverse possession is 10 years. Must Y remove?

Answer 201

Yes - NO easement by prescription - NOT applicable to negative easements (NOT use garden)

Question 202

X owned a house. X gave Y the right to cross from Y’s house across X’s garden to the main roads because the other roads were blocked off by construction. X later sold his house to Z. Must Y stop crossing over?

Answer 202

No - Easement appurtenant - X transferred to Z - Easement by necessity (Y needs to access main road)

Question 203

X owned a house and Y owned a house. X gave Y the right to cross X’s garden for ease of access to a public park. X later sold his house to Z. Z decided to change the pathway in the garden to access a post office. Must Y stop crossing over?

Answer 203

No - Easement appurtenant - X transferred to Z - Y had quasi-easement (existed before transfer) - Z can NOT interfere with Y's quasi-easement

Question 204

X owned a house and Y owned a plot of land adjacent to X’s. X gave Y the right to cross X’s garden for ease of access to a public park. Y decided to split his land into 50 lots and sold some of them to buyers. One of the buyers, Z, wanted to use the existing right of way. Y refused to allow Z doing so because it would interfere with Y cleaning his garden during the weekends. Must Z stop crossing over?

Answer 204

Yes - Easement appurtenant - X subdivided lots => Z - Z's use would 'substantially' interfere with Y's use (prevent gardening during weekends when many people would cross to go the park for leisure) => NO easement

Question 205

X owned a house. X met with Y in person. X agreed to give Y the right to cross X’s garden for ease of access to a public park for the next ten months. X later sold his house to Z. Must Y stop crossing?

Answer 205

No - Easement = 1 year - NO writing including easement required (SOF) => Easement by express grant

Question 206

X owned a house and Y owned a house. X agreed to give Y the right to cross X’s garden for ease of access to a public park for the next few years. The agreement was written down, including Y’s signature and details of both parties and the house. X later sold his house to Z. Must Y stop crossing over as an easement?

Answer 206

Yes | - X's signature (servient tenement holder) NOT included in writing => NO easement by express grant

Question 207

X owned a house. X agreed in writing to give Y the right to cross from Y’s house over X’s garden for ease of access to a public park for the next few years. Y later sold his house to Z, expressly reserving both parties the right to continue crossing over. Must Y stop crossing over?

Answer 207

Yes - Easement appurtenant - Y transferred to Z - Y did NOT exclusively reserve right to use garden (Y + Z) => NO easement by express reservation => VOID

Question 208

X owned a house. X agreed in writing to give Y the right to cross from Y’s house over X’s garden for ease of access to a public park for the next few years. For the next few years, Y did not use the right of way. X decided to grow flowers over it and spent lot of money in doing so. Can Y still use the right of way?

Answer 208

No - Easement termination by estoppel - Y's conduct (Y did not use right of way) - X reasonably relied on Y's conduct (Y did not use right of way for few years) - X changed his position (X invested money in adding flowers)

Question 209

X owned a house. X gave Y the right to cross from Y’s house across X’s garden to the main roads because the other roads were blocked off by construction. X then heard the construction will end at some point in the next few months. X immediately told Y to stop using it. Must Y stop crossing over?

Answer 209

Yes (In few months' time) - Easement by necessity (Y needs to access main road) - Easement terminates 'as soon as necessity ends' (after construction work removed) - Necessity NOT expired yet

Question 210

X owned a house. X gave Y the right to cross from Y’s house across X’s pavement. X was not happy with the pavement structure, so he hired some construction workers to remove it. Must Y stop crossing over? What if the construction workers removed it without X's consent?

Answer 210

No - Voluntary destruction (by X) - Easement NOT terminated Otherwise without X's consent => Yes - Involuntary destruction (by construction workers)

Question 211

X owned a house. X gave Y the right to cross from Y’s house across X’s garden. One month, a heavy rainfall swept across X’s garden. X’s house flooded, but Y still thought it was okay to cross over. Must Y stop crossing over?

Answer 211

Yes - Involuntary destruction (by heavy rainfall) - Easement terminated

Question 212

X owned a house. X gave Y the right to cross from Y’s house across X’s garden. The government then decided to take over Y’s house. Must the government stop crossing over?

Answer 212

No - Condemnation of dominant estate (Y's house) - Easement NOT terminated

Question 213

X owned a house. X gave Y the right to cross from Y’s house across X’s garden. Y later sold his right to Z. After a few days, Y later wrote to X that the right of way should be removed. Must Z stop crossing over?

Answer 213

No - Written release by dominant holder (Y) - NOT concurrent with Y's conveyance (after a few days) - Easement NOT terminated

Question 214

X owned a house. X gave Y the right to cross from Y’s house across X’s garden. Y later sold his right to Z. Z decided to a build a fence on his house that was blocking the right of way. The fence was still removable. Must Y stop crossing over?

Answer 214

No - NO abandonment (NOT permanent; Fence is removeable) - Easement NOT terminated

Question 215

X owned a house. X gave Y the right to cross from Y’s house across X’s garden. After two decades, X realised Y had stopped using the right of way from a long time ago. Must Y stop crossing over?

Answer 215

No - NO abandonment (mere non-use for long period NOT enough) - Easement NOT terminated

Question 216

X’s father gave to X his house for life. X’s father also gave Y another house. X gave Y the right to cross from Y’s house across X’s garden. Shortly after, Y purchased X’s house. After a few years, X purchased his house again. Was Y required to stop crossing over?

Answer 216

No - NO merger (Y's dominant estate (fee simple) has longer duration than X's servient estate (life estate) => Easement NOT terminated - NO revival (even though X + Y's estates separated again) (easement never terminated)

Question 217

X owned a house. X gave Y the right to cross from Y’s house across X’s garden. X sold his house to Z. Z decided to install solar panels in his garden for energy preservation. After 10 years, Y told Z to remove the panels because it was interfering with his right of way. The statutory period for adverse possession is 10 years. Must Z remove?

Answer 217

No - Prescription of X's servient tenement (Z's panels interfered with Y's right of way => Would indicate to public that right of way is gone) => Y's easement terminated

Question 218

X owned a house. X gave Y the right to cross from Y’s house across X’s garden. After a while, Y decided to drive his motorbike across the garden leaving wheel marks. Can X remove the right of way?

Answer 218

No - Misuse (motorbike wheel marks) => Easement NOT terminated - Injunction more appropriate (X can stop Y driving)

Question 219

X owned a house. X gave Y the right to cross from Y’s house across X’s garden to get to a park. Y decided to jog across X’s garden every hour of every day for exercise. Can X remove the right of way?

Answer 219

No - Overuse (every hour of every day) => Easement NOT terminated - Injunction more appropriate (X can stop Y jogging every hour)

Question 220

X owned a house. X gave Y the right to cross from Y’s house across X’s garden. After a while, X and Y used the right of way but left the grass in a mess. Who should fix the garden?

Answer 220

Court will apportion repair costs | - BOTH X + Y used easement

Question 221

X owned a house. X met with Y in person. X agreed to give Y the right to cross X’s garden for ease of access to a public park for the next two years. X later sold his house to Z. Must Y stop crossing over?

Answer 221

No - NOT easement by express grant (NOT in writing for easement > 1 year) - Licence may be formed instead

Question 222

X owned a house. X met with Y in person. X agreed to give Y the right to excavate a drainage ditch connected to Y’s house for the next few years. Y incurs some money but he commits most of his time to excavation. X sold his house to Z. Z told Y to get out. Must Y stop excavating?

Answer 222

No - NOT easement by express grant (NOT in writing for easement > 1 year) - Licence - Estoppel theory - Y spent substantial labour in excavation by relying on licence => Z estopped from terminating licence

Question 223

X owned a farm. X met with Y in person. X told Y he can come onto his farm to remove some hay for the next few years. X sold his farm to Z. Can Z stop Y from removing hay?

Answer 223

No - Licence coupled with interest (removal of chattel 'hay') - NOT revocable - Y to enter at reasonable times

Question 224

X’s father conveyed a farm to X ‘for life, and then to X’s son’. X’s son came round to check if X is digging up mud for sale. Can X stop X's son from doing so?

Answer 224

No - Licence coupled with interest (X's son is future remainderman w/ indefeasibly vested remainder; right to inspect X not committing waste) - NOT revocable licence - X's son to enter at reasonable times

Question 225

X owned a farm. X met with Y in person. X told Y he can walk across his farm for the next few years. After a few years, X suddenly told Y to stop. Y refused unless X would pay him for damages. Must X pay?

Answer 225

No - Licence terminated at X's will - Licence NOT covered by SOF => NO compensation

Question 226

X owned a farm. X met with Y in person. X told Y he can walk across his farm. Y offered to sell his right of way to Z. X told Y to stop using the right of way, but Y argued he did not even sell it yet. Must Y stop?

Answer 226

Yes - Y 'attempted' to transfer licence to Z => Licence terminated (by operation of law) - Y not selling licence yet not relevant

Question 227

X owned a house. Y owned an adjacent acre of land. X and Y agreed in writing that Y would allow X to sit and fish in Y’s pond. Y then decided to divide his land into 30 lots and sold all of them to buyers. Can the buyers each fish in Y’s pond?

Answer 227

No - Profit appurtenant - Y's land subdivided - Burden will overly increase on X (30 buyers fishing from X's pond) - Profit right will NOT attach to each Buyer

Question 228

X owned a house. X and Y agreed in writing that Y could cut some wood from X’s back forest, along with X’s other timber cutting friends. Y wanted to give his right to Z. Can Z cut from X’s forest?

Answer 228

No - Profit in gross - Profit NOT exclusive to Y (X's friends can cut wood too) => NOT transferrable

Question 229

X owned a house. X gave Y the right to dig some soil from X’s garden. After a while, Y started digging for other minerals like gold and spent more time in X’s garden. Can X remove Y’s right?

Answer 229

Yes - Profit in gross - Misuse (digging for gold instead of soil) => Profit terminated

Question 230

X agreed to sell his house to Y. Their contract stated that X will sell his estate. X signed the contract. Is this valid?

Answer 230

No - In writing => Statute of Frauds applies - NOT signed by party to be charged (Y) - NO description of X + Y, X's house, and purchase price - NO land sale contract

Question 231

X met with Y and they agreed to sell his house to Y. In the meantime, Y looked after house by cleaning its rooms. Y has yet to pay the purchase price. One day, Y decided to cancel the contract, but X requested Y to pay up based on their agreement. What is Y liable for?

Answer 231

NOT purchase price/damages - NO writing => SoF does NOT apply - Y only had possession of house - Y made NO substantial improvements (only cleaning rooms) - Y did NOT pay part of purchase price - NO land sale contract - NO specific performance allowed

Question 232

X agreed to sell his house to Y. Y’s will provides that his spouse shall take his real property. Before closing, Y died. Y’s spouse claims she is now entitled to ownership of the house. Is this true?

Answer 232

No - X's house is real property - Y signed contract => Equitable title (possession) passed to Y - Legal title (possession) remained with X (X held legal title in trust for Y as security, until Y paid purchase price) - Legal title follows possession - X is still entitled to ownership of house, NOT Y

Question 233

X agreed to sell his house to Y and Y was looking after the house in the meantime until he paid. One day, X came round and tripped over something in the kitchen, causing a fire that burnt the house down. Who should bear responsibility?

Answer 233

X - Y has equitable title - X was at fault => X holds risk of loss (equitable conversion)

Question 234

X agreed to sell his house to Y and Y was looking after the house in the meantime until he paid. One day, a thunderstorm struck the house which burnt it down. X told Y to pay up because X has no insurance. Y refused. Is Y liable and for how much?

Answer 234

Yes (purchase price) - Y has equitable title - Neither X/Y was at fault - X has NO insurance - Y holds risk of loss (equitable conversion) (most states) - X holds risk of loss (X holds title) (Uniform Vendor and Purchaser Risk Act) (some states)

Question 235

X agreed to sell his house to Y and Y was looking after the house in the meantime until he paid. One day, a thunderstorm struck the house causing a fire, which burnt it down. X told Y to pay up, although X had sufficient insurance to cover the losses. Y refused. Is Y liable and for how much?

Answer 235

Yes (purchase price LESS X's insurance cost) - Y has equitable title - Neither X/Y was at fault - X has insurance to cover casualty => X should credit Y by removing insurance cost vs Y's purchase price - Y holds risk of loss by paying purchase price LESS X's insurance cost (equitable conversion) (most states) - X holds risk of loss (X holds title) (Uniform Vendor and Purchaser Risk Act) (some states)

Question 236

X agreed to sell his house to Y. Y’s will provides that his children shall take his personal property and his spouse shall take his real property. Before closing, Y died. X demands that Y’s children pay him the purchase price immediately. Y’s spouse requested X to hand over his title to the house as well. What are the parties’ rights here?

Answer 236

Y's children - Y's personal property (proceeds) => Y's children (now) - Y's children should pay proceeds at closing (NOT before) Y's spouse - Y's real property (X's house) => Y's spouse (at closing) - X should convey legal title to Y's spouse at closing (NOT before)

Question 237

X agreed to sell his house to Y. X’s will provides that his spouse shall take his real property. Before closing, X died. Y demands that X’s spouse pass over her ownership of the house to Y immediately. Must X’s spouse do so?

Answer 237

No - X (Seller) died before closing - X's house is real property - X's legal title passes to X's devisee (X's spouse) - X's legal title passes to Y at closing (NOT before closing)

Question 238

X agreed to sell his house to Y. Y later found out Z has been in adverse possession of the house. Y wishes to cancel the contract because title to the house will not be marketable unless X can cure the defect before closing. X refuses because their contract never stated his title would be marketable. Can Y cancel the contract?

Answer 238

No - Adverse possession (defect in chain of title) => NOT marketable title - Marketable title is implied (NO need to be expressly stated) - X has opportunity to cure defect before closing => Y can NOT cancel yet - Title must be marketable at closing (NOT before) - X must have ability to provide marketable title (NOT possess now)

Question 239

X agreed to sell his house to Y. Y later found out Z has been in adverse possession of the house. Y wishes to cancel the contract because X does not have marketable title right now. Can Y cancel the contract?

Answer 239

No - Adverse possession => NOT marketable title - X must 'provide' marketable title at closing (NOT possess) - X could cure defect before closing and then provide marketable title

Question 240

X agreed to sell his house to Y. Y later found out Z has been in adverse possession of the house. Y wishes to cancel the contract because X cannot give marketable title right now. Can Y cancel the contract?

Answer 240

No - Adverse possession => NOT marketable title - X must provide marketable title 'at closing' (NOT before closing) - X could cure defect before closing and then provide marketable title

Question 241

X agreed to sell his house to Y. Their contract stated the house is two-bedroom. Y checked the chain of deeds and realised the last deed said the house is one-bedroom. Y asked X to cure this problem because the title to the house is currently unmarketable. Is this true?

Answer 241

Yes - Defect in record chain of title (variation in description of house: one-bedroom vs two-bedroom) - Title is NOT marketable right now

Question 242

X agreed to sell his house to Y. Y checked the chain of deeds and realised the last deed was executed in X’s name while he was still a secondary school student. Y wanted to cancel the contract because the title to the house is currently unmarketable. Is this true?

Answer 242

Yes - Defect in record chain of title (X lacked capacity when he signed previous deed - underage) - Title is NOT marketable right now

Question 243

X agreed to sell his house to Y. Y stayed in the house when he realised Z was occupying the shed in X’s garden. Z told Y he has been living there for more than 10 years because he thought X no longer used the shed. The statute of limitations requires 10 years possession for adverse possession. Y wanted to cancel the contract because title would not be marketable unless X did something about it. Is this true?

Answer 243

Yes - Defect in record chain of title (Z had adverse possession over the shed) - Title is NOT marketable right now

Question 244

X agreed to sell his house to Y. After a few days, Y was sitting in the house and decided to use a small blow-up swimming pool to relax in the garden. A neighbour told Y to remove the pool because he knows the garden was not allowed to be used for anything that would make it wet. Y called X and told him he will cancel the contract because title is unmarketable here. Is this true?

Answer 244

Yes - Encumbrance (restrictive covenant - NOT make garden wet) - Title is NOT marketable right now

Question 245

X agreed to sell his house to Y. After a few days, Y noticed that the neighbour’s apple tree was slightly hovering over X’s garden. Y also saw one or two apples fall onto the garden. Y called X and told him he will cancel the contract because title is unmarketable here. Is this true?

Answer 245

No - NO encumbrance (Encroachment NOT significant - 1-2 apples) - Title is marketable

Question 246

X agreed to sell his house to Y. After a few days, Y realised that there was a utility line laying across the back garden. Y called X and told him he will cancel the contract because title is unmarketable here. X argued the line has no effect on the house’s value. Y argues that it still makes title unmarketable. Is this true?

Answer 246

No - NO encumbrance (easement 'utility line' was known/visible to Y, even if easement does not reduce land value) - Title is marketable

Question 247

X agreed to sell his house to Y for $499,999. After a few days, Y was approached by Z who stated that X owes him $450,000 debt that has now risen to $500,000 due to interest for borrowing a mortgage off Z a few months ago. Z claimed he will foreclose on the house otherwise. Y called X and told him he will cancel the contract because title is unmarketable here. X told Y to wait as X can pay off the full debt after X sells the house. Can Y cancel the contract?

Answer 247

Yes - Encumbrance (purchase price ($499,999) can NOT satisfy mortgage ($500,000) before closing; purchase price can NOT be used to satisfy mortgage after closing) - Title is NOT marketable - NO need to notify X re mortgage (X can unilaterally satisfy mortgage anyway)

Question 248

X agreed to sell his house to Y. Y decided to convert the living room into a nursery for kids. Y then received a call from the government telling him to stop as the zoning ordinance prohibits use of dwellings for nursery use. Y told X he wants to cancel the deal because the zoning ordinance makes title unmarketable. Is this true?

Answer 248

No - NO zoning ordinance restriction (NOT existing before Y took possession) - Title is marketable

Question 249

X agreed to sell his house to Y. After a few days, Y was told by his neighbour ‘you know there’s still some restriction over mowing the garden because it causes nuisance to everyone around here’. What can Y do?

Answer 249

Notify X within reasonable time to remove covenant If X fails to remove covenant => Y's remedies; - Sue X for damages from not being able to mow garden - Rescind contract - Pay for house at lesser cost (abatement) (specific performance) - Quiet title (prevent others suing Y for lack of title) (some states)

Question 250

X agreed to sell his house to Y. The contract stated X will clean the garage. After a few days, Y was told by his neighbour ‘you know there’s still some restriction over mowing the garden because it causes nuisance to everyone around here’. Y also noticed the garage was dirty. Y told X about it and X said he will get rid of this restriction and clean the garage. Eventually, he did and Y purchased the house. Y realised the restriction still existed and the garage was still dirty. Can Y sue X?

Answer 250

Yes: Garage cleaning - Express promise in deed - Merger of contract + deed NOT relevant No: Garden restriction - Restrictive covenant cured => Marketable title - Merger of contract + deed => X NO longer liable for implied covenant of marketable title

Question 251

X agreed to sell his house to Y on 1 August. Y paid the purchase price on 31 July, but heard no response from X. The following year, X emailed Y and was willing to sell the house again. X argued it was too late since Y should have known that ‘time was of the essence’ and the closing date was binding by law. Is X correct? What are X’s options?

Answer 251

Closing date - NOT binding by law - Binding by equity Time NOT of the essence - NOT specifically stated, NO notice, NO intent based on circumstances Y failed to tender performance 'within reasonable time' - X can sue for damages 'incidental losses' (additional mortgage interest, taxes incurred) - X can cancel contract (breach of contract)

Question 252

X agreed to sell his house to Y on 1 August. On 1 August, Y sent his cheque including the purchase price to X. However, X never responded. Y wants to sue for breach of contract. X claims the closing date is automatically extended. Who is correct?

Answer 252

Neither - NO breach just because both parties' performances were not concurrent - NO automatic extension (Y already paid)

Question 253

X agreed to sell his house to Y. Y stayed in the house when he realised Z was occupying the shed in X’s garden. Z told Y he has been living there for more than 10 years because he thought X no longer used the shed. The statute of limitations requires 10 years possession for adverse possession. Y wanted to cancel the contract because title would not be marketable unless X did something about it. X failed to get rid of Z. Is Y still required to pay for the house?

Answer 253

No - Defect (adverse possession) - Y notified X to cure defect => X failed => Contract is rescinded => Y's performance is excused

Question 254

X agreed to sell one of his units to Y after X’s apartment building was constructed and subdivided. Once it was constructed, Y moved in. However, Y noticed the staircase was not robust. Y complained to X, who argued that it must be the builder’s fault. Can Y sue builder?

Answer 254

Yes - Defect on property (staircase) - Y can sue Builder for negligence - Y's lack of privity NOT relevant

Question 255

X agreed to sell his hotel to Y after it is constructed. The construction was so busy that Y could not look at the hotel before buying it. After construction, Y operated the hotel. One of his customers complained that the ceiling was leaking. Can Y sue X?

Answer 255

No - NO implied warranty of fitness/quality - Newly constructed, but NOT dwelling (hotel - commercial) - Y's lack of opportunity to inspect is NOT relevant - X is NOT responsible for ceiling leaking => Y is responsible

Question 256

X agreed to sell his house to Y. Y complained that X told him the house would provide heating up to 40 degrees, but it overheated up to 60 degrees. X did not know this would be so important to Y. Can Y sue X?

Answer 256

Yes - Existing building - Misrepresentation/Fraud - X knew he made statement to Y - Y relied on statement - Heating system would affect house's value

Question 257

X agreed to sell his house to Y. Y later realised a large hole was covered up by sellotape. X admitted he did this because he could not find any other solution. Can Y sue X?

Answer 257

Yes - Existing building - Active concealment (Y concealed the defects)

Question 258

X agreed to sell his house to Y. Y was mowing the garden when he discovered there were termites harvesting. X claims their contract has a liability disclaimer for any damages caused to the garden. Can Y sue X?

Answer 258

No - Existing building - X did NOT fail to disclose (X could have discovered termites by reasonable inspection) - X's liability disclaimer would NOT work anyway (NOT specific enough)

Question 259

X agreed to sell his house to Y for $500,00. Y was mowing the garden when he discovered there were termites harvesting underground. This brought the value of the house down to $400,000. Y also incurred $10,000 to move his goods to the house. Y wishes to sue X. How much may Y recover?

Answer 259

Damages ($110,000) - X breached contract (fail to disclose defect - termites) - X is entitled to damages (contract price LESS market value at time of breach) ($500,000 - $400,000 = $100,000) - X is entitled to (incidental costs) ($10,000)

Question 260

Y needed to purchase a house as quickly as possible, without considering its uniqueness. X agreed to sell his house to Y for $500,00. Y was mowing the garden when he discovered there were termites harvesting underground. Y suffered $10,000 to remove the termites. However, Y wants to claim specific performance. Must X convey the house?

Answer 260

No - Defect => Y waived - NO specific performance (NOT unique land)

Question 261

X agreed to sell his house to Y for $500,00. Y gave X a deposit of $50,000 beforehand. Y was mowing the garden when he accidentally destroyed the electricity cables. Y had to pay $2,000 to fix this. Y insisted the deposit was not reasonable. Is Y correct?

Answer 261

Yes - Y gave deposit ($50,000) to X - Liquidated damages NOT available (LDs worth $50,000 NOT reasonable in light of X's anticipated $2,000 damages)

Question 262

X hired an agent, Z, to look for a buyer for X’s house. Z found Y who was willing to pay. During negotiations, Z came across a newspaper stating that the government was interested in constructing a school in X’s neighbourhood. Z called Y to tell him the neighbourhood will be noisy due to school kids walking around. Y told X to make the walls more soundproof, but X refused. Should X make the walls more soundproof?

Answer 262

No | - Z had NO duty to disclose to Y (NO actual knowledge of school construction)

Question 263

X hired an agent, Z, to look for a buyer for X’s house. Z found Y who was willing to pay. During negotiations, Y revealed he was bankrupt and could no longer pay. The deal was cancelled. Z came to X for his commission pay regardless. Must X pay?

Answer 263

No - Contract failed NOT due to Seller's fault (Y's fault) - X NOT required to pay commission to Z

Question 264

X hired an agent, Z, to look for a buyer for X’s house. X included Z on an exclusive listing agreement. Eventually, X found a buyer himself and sold the house. Z came to X for his commission pay regardless. Must X pay?

Answer 264

Yes - X entered exclusive listing agreement (not list other agents) - X found buyer => X required to pay commission to Z regardless

Question 265

X agreed to sell his house to Y. After a few days, Y noticed that the neighbour’s tree was slightly hovering over X’s garden. X was able to remove this through his insurance policy. Y then sold his house to another buyer, Z. Z argues the title is not marketable because of the previous apple tree. Y asked X’s insurance provider to help him. Should X’s insurance provider help Y?

Answer 265

No - Landowners' (X's) policy => Protects X + any mortgage lenders only - NOT protect X's subsequent purchasers (Y)

Question 266

X agreed to sell his house to Y. After a few days, Y noticed that the neighbour’s tree was slightly hovering over X’s garden. X was unable to help on this because he was dealing with a loan obligation problem with his bank, Z. However, Z was happy to cover the problem through its own insurance policy. Y then sold his house to another buyer, B. B argues the title is not marketable because of the previous apple tree. Z assigned his interest to C. C asked Z whether his insurance policy can protect against B’s claims. Should Z’s insurance provider help C?

Answer 266

Yes | - Mortgage Lender's (Z's) policy => Protects Z + X + Z's subsequent assignees (C)

Question 267

X offered to sell his house to Y including an option in the contract that allowed Y to purchase from 1 January to 1 March. On 1 February, Y decided to purchase from X. Must X sell to Y?

Answer 267

No | - Option with NO consideration => NO option to purchase (despite triggering option during option period)

Question 268

X offered to sell his house to Y including a right of first refusal which X paid $100 to Y. Later during the month, Y decided to purchase from X. Must X sell to Y?

Answer 268

No - Right of first refusal with consideration - X did NOT agree to sell first => Y can NOT exercise right of first refusal

Question 269

X offered to sell his house to Y including a right of first refusal which X paid $100 to Y. Later during the month, X decided to sell to Y, but Y then walked away from the offer. X found another buyer, but Y came back saying he wants to buy the house again. Must X sell to Y?

Answer 269

No - Right of first refusal with consideration - X agreed to sell first - Y did NOT exercise right of first refusal => X was allowed to sell to other buyers

Question 270

X agreed to sell his house to Y. After negotiating the contract, X prepared a written deed and signed it. Y refuses to go through with the deal because his signature was not included. Is the deed valid?

Answer 270

Yes - Deed formed - Grantee's signature (Y) NOT required (SOF) - Grantor's signature (X) included

Question 271

X agreed to sell his house to Y. After negotiating the contract, X was preparing the deed. X met with Y in person and agreed on the description of the land and their personal information. Is this valid?

Answer 271

No - NO deed formed - NOT in writing (SOF)

Question 272

X agreed to sell one of his houses to Y. After negotiating the contract, X prepared a written deed and signed it. The deed included that ‘X’s main property will be sold in the manner as previously agreed in the contract’. Is the deed valid?

Answer 272

No (void) - NO deed formed - Parties' description NOT reasonable => Courts will presume deed delivering party will include parties' names - Land description NOT unambiguous => VOID

Question 273

X agreed to sell one of his houses to Y. After negotiating the contract, X prepared a written deed and signed it. Y refuses to go through because he never paid X for agreeing the deed. Is the deed valid?

Answer 273

Yes - Deed formed - NO consideration required

Question 274

X agreed to give one of his houses to Y during his lifetime. Y accepted the house. Later on, X demanded Y to return the house because he never signed a deed. Must Y give the house back?

Answer 274

No - Inter vivos gift (NO consideration required; gift during X's lifetime) - Donor's intent (X); Delivery; Acceptance - NO deed required

Question 275

X agreed to sell his house to Y. X signed a deed including their names and the house. X left the deed in his drawer and passed away. Y demands the keys to the house be delivered to him. Is Y entitled to the house?

Answer 275

No - Defective deed - Void - NOT delivered

Question 276

X agreed to sell his house to Y’s lawyer, who acted on behalf of Y. X signed a deed including their names and the house. Y suddenly passed away. Y’s will provided that Y’s son be entitled to Y’s real property. X decided it would be okay to give the deed to Y’s lawyer instead. Y’s son demands the keys to the house be delivered to him. Is Y’s son entitled to the house?

Answer 276

No - Defective deed - Void - NOT issued to existing grantee (Y is dead; Y's lawyer is NOT grantee)

Question 277

X agreed to sell his house to Y. X signed a deed and sent it to Y. Y later realised the deed is actually a fake. Y sued X. During trial, the court ruled the deed must be ruled out. Y argues he never knew it was a fake. Should Y be entitled to the house?

Answer 277

No - Defective deed - Void - Forgery - Y as BFP is NOT relevant

Question 278

X agreed to give his house to Y. X signed a deed and sent it to Y. Y later realised the deed included a lower purchase price than originally agreed. Y sued X. During trial, the court ruled that X made a reasonable mistake in the purchase price, but the deed should be ruled out. Y argues he never knew of the mistake. Should Y be entitled to the house?

Answer 278

No - Defective deed - Voidable - Mistake - Y is NOT BFP (gift)

Question 279

X agreed to sell his house to Y. X was involved in a car accident and suffered head concussions. X needed to stay in hospital for a few months. However, X did not want to lose his buyer before it was too late. X told Y to get over to the hospital and accept the deed immediately or X will hurt Y. Y knew he could not buy a cheaper house and so accepted the deed although he was aware of X’s recent accident. Later, Y sued X. During trial, the court ruled that the deed should be ruled out. Y argues he was still willing to pay for the house. Should Y be entitled to the house?

Answer 279

No - Defective deed - Voidable - Capacity/Duress - Y is NOT BFP (Y knew of X's lack of capacity)

Question 280

X agreed to sell his house to Y by signing a deed and delivering to Y. X told Y he was actually insolvent. X’s bank later came to Y telling him they want to cancel the deed because Y was in fact insolvent. Should Y be entitled to the house?

Answer 280

No - Defective deed - Voidable - Fraud in the inducement - Y is NOT BFP (notice of fraud) - X's creditors (Bank) can set aside deed

Question 281

X agreed to sell his house to Y. At closing, X’s bank called X at the last minute and warned about his loan’s principal and interest, as well as the closing costs. What are X’s options?

Answer 281

Cancel loan - Closing disclosure NOT submitted at least 3 business days before closing Damages

Question 282

X agreed to sell his house to Y. X was aware of a previous roof leak that still remains and was never repaired because it eventually stopped leaking. At closing, X did not bother telling Y about the leak. After Y bought the house, the roof eventually leaked. Can Y sue X?

Answer 282

Yes - X had to give notification of defects to Y at closing - Notification must include X's actual knowledge of 'potential' defects (roof leak), even if NOT actual - Y can sue for damages from leak after closing

Question 283

X agreed to sell his house to Y. X was aware that the soil in other people’s houses was contaminated by a gas leak in X’s house. At closing, X warned Y about the gas leak and they both negotiated an environmental report. After closing, Y’s kitchen was setting off fumes harming several trees in a park nearby. The authority reported Y, and Y wanted to sue X for not warning him about this. Can Y sue X?

Answer 283

No - Environmental report already signed - Environmental report only guaranteed environmental concerns in the report (Gas leak => Soil contamination); NOT fumes

Question 284

X agreed to sell one of his houses to Y. After negotiating the contract, X prepared a written deed and signed it. The deed included that X would give the deed to Y ‘for safekeeping’. Y later requests X to cancel the deed. Can Y cancel the deed?

Answer 284

Yes - NO present intent to transfer (for safekeeping) - NO effective delivery of deed

Question 285

X agreed to sell one of his houses to Y. After negotiating the contract, X prepared a written deed and signed it. X forgot to give the deed to Y and left it in his drawer. Y claims the house should still be given to him since X signed it. Is this valid?

Answer 285

No | - NO delivery (NOT manual - left in drawer)

Question 286

X agreed to sell one of his houses to Y. After negotiating the contract, X prepared a written deed and signed it. X was in a rush. Instead of giving it to Y, X decided to notarise the deed. Y claims the house should still be given to him since X notarised it. Is this valid?

Answer 286

No | - NO delivery (Notarisation BUT NO recordation)

Question 287

X agreed to sell one of his houses to Y. After negotiating the contract, X prepared a written deed and signed it. X sent the deed to Y, who accepted it. The next day, X changed his mind and requested the deed be given back. Y refused since X already signed it. What can X do?

Answer 287

Draft new deed | - Original deed NOT cancellable/returnable

Question 288

X agreed to sell one of his houses to Y. After negotiating the contract, X prepared a written deed and signed it. The next day, X forgot to deliver to the deed to Y. But X told Y ‘I’ve signed the deed. The house is all yours’. Is Y entitled to the house?

Answer 288

Yes - Deed formed - Deed NOT delivered - Parol evidence after closing can be used to prove X's intent to deliver ('the house is all yours') => Deed was delivered + accepted

Question 289

X agreed to sell one of his houses to Y. After negotiating the contract, X prepared a written deed and signed it. The next day, X delivered to the deed to Y, but then told Y ‘the house is yours once you clear off the current mortgage on this house, yeah?’. Y refuses to pay off the mortgage. Is Y entitled to the house?

Answer 289

Yes - Deed formed - Deed delivered - Parol evidence after closing can NOT be used to prove conditional delivery (Y to pay mortgage)

Question 290

X agreed to sell one of his houses to Y. X prepared his deed and gave it to his lawyer, telling him to give to Y. X’s lawyer delivers the deed to Y, who accepts. Is Y entitled to the house?

Answer 290

Yes - Deed formed - Deed given to TP (X's lawyer) + NO conditions + instructions (present intent to transfer to Y) - X's lawyer delivered deed to Y => Deed delivered

Question 291

X agreed to sell one of his houses to Y. X prepared his deed and gave it to his lawyer for the time being. Y claims the house should be his since X already prepared the deed. Is Y entitled to the house?

Answer 291

No - Deed formed - Deed given to TP (X's lawyer) + NO conditions + NO instructions (courts presume X gave to his lawyer as mere agent who may have power to recall the deed) - X's lawyer did NOT deliver deed to Y => NO delivery

Question 292

X agreed to sell one of his houses to Y. X prepared his deed and gave it to his lawyer. X told his lawyer to give the deed to Y ‘when Y pays off the mortgage’. Y refuses to pay and wants the house immediately as X’s statement was not included in the deed. Is Y entitled to the house?

Answer 292

No - Deed formed - Deed given to TP (X's lawyer) + conditional + commercial - Parol evidence (X's statement) can be used to prove conditional delivery (pay off mortgage) - Deed NOT delivered

Question 293

X agreed to sell one of his houses to Y. X prepared his deed and gave it to his lawyer. X told his lawyer to give the deed to Y ‘when Y pays off the mortgage’. A day later, X decides to cancel the deed. Y claims the contract is still enforceable so X must deliver the deed once Y pays off the mortgage. Is Y entitled to the house?

Answer 293

Not yet (after condition fulfilment) - Deed formed - Deed given to TP (X's lawyer) + conditional + commercial - X's lawyer wants to revoke BEFORE condition fulfilled BUT contract is enforceable => NOT revocable

Question 294

X agreed to sell one of his houses to Y. X prepared his deed and left it with his escrow account. X instructed escrow to give the deed to Y ‘when Y pays off the mortgage’. A day later, Y claimed he paid off the mortgage and asked X’s escrow to hand over the deed. Is Y entitled to the house?

Answer 294

Yes - Deed formed - Deed given to TP (escrow) + conditional + commercial - Y paid off mortgage (conditional fulfilled) => Escrow rightfully delivered deed to Y

Question 295

On 1 January, X agreed to sell one of his houses to Y on 1 May. X was later diagnosed with brain cancer. X was unable to focus but was willing to draw up the deed. On 1 April, X gave the deed to his escrow agent to give to Y. On 1 May, Y accepted the deed. On 1 December, Y complained that the house had defects existing since X signed the deed. The statute of limitations for commencing lawsuits required that Y had title to property at least seven months in advance. Can Y sue X?

Answer 295

Yes - Deed formed - Deed given to TP (1 April) - TP gave deed to Y (1 May) - SoL: Y must have had title +7 months - Relation back doctrine applies: X was incompetent (not focus) => Y's title receipt 'relates back' to deed deposit in escrow (1 April), NOT 1 May - Y had title for 8 months (1 April - 1 December) => Meets SoL exception

Question 296

X agreed to give his house to Y. X prepared his deed and gave it to his lawyer. X told his lawyer to give the deed to Y ‘when X dies’. A day later, X decides to cancel the deed because the contract was never enforceable in the first place. Y requests X deliver the house immediately. Is Y entitled to the house?

Answer 296

Not yet (after condition fulfilment) - Deed formed - Deed given to TP (X's lawyer) + conditional + donative - X wants to revoke because contract is not enforceable - X can NOT revoke (condition requires X's death)

Question 297

On 1 January, X agreed to sell one of his houses to Y on 1 May. On 1 April, X gave the deed to his escrow agent to give to Y. On 1 May, Y accepted the deed. However, one of X’s creditors was unaware of Y’s transaction, and he demanded the house because X defaulted and they foreclosed on it on 15 April before Y received the deed. Who is entitled to the house?

Answer 297

Foreclosing buyer - Deed formed - Deed given to TP (X's lawyer) => X's lawyer gave deed to Y - Relation back doctrine: Y's acceptance would relate back to date of delivery to X's lawyer (1 April) - BUT relation back doctrine can NOT apply because it would defeat X's creditor's claim as BFP (no notice of Y's transaction) - Y's acceptance does NOT relate back (dated 1 May); X's creditors' foreclosure was dated 15 April before Y's acceptance

Question 298

X agreed to sell his house to Y. X drew up a general warranty deed and delivered it to Y, who accepted. A few months later, X came round and realised Y dug up some mud in the garden. X complained that there was a restrictive covenant prohibiting Y from doing so. Y argued that it was never included in the deed, so it was not imposed on Y. Can Y sue X?

Answer 298

No - General warranty deed - Only includes covenants of title (NOT real covenants such as restrictive covenants) - Y is BFP => Covenant NOT effective

Question 299

X agreed to sell his house to Y. X drew up a general warranty deed including the covenant of seisin and delivered it to Y. Y refused because X had title to the house, but it was possessed by someone else until X drew up the deed. Can X deliver the deed?

Answer 299

Yes - General warranty deed - Covenant of seisin: X had BOTH title + possession at time of conveyance (even though X did not have possession until then) => X did NOT breach covenant

Question 300

X agreed to sell his owned house to Y. X drew up a general warranty deed including the covenant of the right to convey and delivered it to Y. Y refused because X did not demonstrate any power to sell his house. Can X deliver the deed?

Answer 300

Yes - General warranty deed - Covenant of right to convey: X had title to house at time of conveyance, in which X has power to convey => X did NOT breach covenant

Question 301

X agreed to sell his house to Y. X drew up a general warranty deed without any covenants and delivered it to Y. Y realised that there was a utility line laying across the back garden. Y called X and complained that he breached one of the covenants in the deed. Is this true?

Answer 301

No - General warranty deed - Covenant against encumbrances: Visible encumbrance (easement - utility line) - BUT covenant NOT implied => X did NOT breach covenant

Question 302

X agreed to sell his house to Y. X drew up a general warranty deed including the covenant against encumbrances and delivered it to Y. At that moment, Y was approached by Z who stated that X owes him $500,000 for borrowing a mortgage off Z a few months ago. Z claimed he will foreclose on the house otherwise. Y called X and complained that he breached one of the covenants in the deed. Y wanted to sue X. Years later, Y sold his house to B. B found out about the mortgage and also wanted to sue X. What are X’s liabilities?

Answer 302

Yes - General warranty deed - Covenant against encumbrances: Invisible encumbrance (mortgage) at time of conveyance => X breached covenant - Y can sue X - B can NOT sue X (covenants of title NOT applicable to buyer's successors)

Question 303

X agreed to sell his house to Y. X drew up a general warranty deed including the covenant of quiet enjoyment and delivered it to Y. After a few days, Y was approached by X’s bank who claimed he had obtained title to the house because X defaulted. It turns out X’s bank tried to obtain title by fraud. Y wishes to sue X for breach of a covenant in the deed. Y later sold his house to B, who also wants to sue X. Is this allowed?

Answer 303

No - General warranty deed - Future covenant => Y + B (successor) - Covenant of quiet enjoyment only applies if X's bank had lawful claim vs title (X's bank did NOT) => X did NOT breach covenant

Question 304

X agreed to sell his house to Y, which was leased out to Z. X drew up a general warranty deed including the covenant of quiet enjoyment and delivered it to Y. After a few days, Y was approached by Z who claims he still has possession of the house. Y wishes to sue X for breach of a covenant in the deed. Is this true?

Answer 304

No - General warranty deed - Covenant of quiet enjoyment only applies if X's bank had lawful claim vs title (not against possession) => X did NOT breach covenant

Question 305

X agreed to sell his house to Y for $100,000. X drew up a general warranty deed including all covenants of title and delivered it to Y. After a few days, Y was approached by X’s bank who claimed had obtained title to the house because X defaulted and X’s bank was able to foreclose on the house. Y wishes to sue X for breach of a covenant in the deed. Y then sold his house to Z for $90,000. Z found out about X’s bank’s title claim and also sued X. Can Y and Z sue X? For how much?

Answer 305

Yes - General warranty deed - Covenant of warranty: X's bank had lawful claim vs title => X breached covenant - Y can sue X for $100,000 - Z can sue X (future covenant breach => applies to remote grantees) - Z can sue X for $100,000 (most consideration paid, to X) (most states) OR Y for $90,000 (original consideration from last grantee Y) (other states)

Question 306

X agreed to sell his house to Y. X drew up a general warranty deed including all covenants of title and delivered it to Y. After a few days, Z told Y he will sue Y for $100,000 because Z held title to the house and X was lying. Z’s current buyer also wants to sue Y for $100,000. Y complained to X that he should do something because X lied about having good title. What must X do?

Answer 306

Pay Y $100,000 (Z's lawsuit) - General warranty deed - Covenant of warranty: X to defend Y vs TP claims of title by compensating Y for losses sustained by TP's claims (NOT TP's successor's claim) - X is liable for $100,000 to Z - X is NOT liable for $100,000 to Z's buyer - Y is liable for $100,000 to Z's buyer

Question 307

X agreed to sell his house to Y. X drew up a special warranty deed and delivered it to Y. Y decided to sue X because Y found out that X had already sold the house to another buyer at the time. X argued that he never made such a promise in the deed. Can Y sue X?

Answer 307

Yes - Special warranty deed - Covenant not to convey to others: X sold to another buyer instead of Y => X breached covenant - X never making such a promise NOT relevant (NO need to be express) (implied)

Question 308

X agreed to sell his house to Y. X drew up a special warranty deed and delivered it to Y. Y realised that there was a utility line laying across the back garden. Y called X and complained that he breached one of the covenants in the deed. X responded that it was actually laid down by the previous owner. Can Y sue X’s previous owner?

Answer 308

No - Special warranty deed - Covenant against encumbrances by Seller: Previous owner created easement => X did NOT breach covenant - Y can NOT sue X's predecessors (only X)

Question 309

X agreed to sell his house to Y. X drew up a quitclaim deed including warranties against third party claims of title and delivered it to Y. After a few days, Y was approached by X’s bank who claimed had obtained title to the house because X defaulted and X’s bank was able to foreclose on the house. Y wishes to sue X for breach of a covenant in the deed. Is this true?

Answer 309

No | - No quitclaim deed (should not include any covenants; such deed releases Seller's interests)

Question 310

X agreed to sell his house to Y. X drew up a quitclaim deed and delivered it to Y. After a few days, Y realised that an old man was living in X’s shed. X confirmed the old man had adverse possession. Y wishes to sue X for breach of the deed. Is this true?

Answer 310

Not breach of deed - Quitclaim deed (releases X's interests to Y) - Y can NOT sue for breach of implied covenant of marketability (included in contract BUT merged with deed after closing => Covenant is extinguished)

Question 311

X agreed to sell his house to Y. X drew up a quitclaim deed and delivered it to Y. X then told Y he does not actually have title to the house. X was willing to obtain title from the actual owner, Z. X then decided to sell to another buyer, B who knew that X did not have title beforehand. Is Y still entitled to the house?

Answer 311

No - X did not possess title at time of conveyance - Quitclaim deed (X released his interests to Y => Y has NO claim of title vs X) => NO estoppel by deed (X NOT estopped from denying having title)

Question 312

X agreed to sell his house to Y. X drew up a special warranty deed and delivered it to Y. Y recorded the deed. X then told Y he does not actually have title to the house. X was willing to obtain title from the actual owner, Z. However, X found another buyer, B, who would buy at a higher price. Y argued he should be entitled to the house as originally agreed. Is Y entitled to the house?

Answer 312

Yes - X did not possess title at time of conveyance - Special warranty deed => Estoppel by deed applies (X estopped from denying having title) - B is NOT BFP (Y recorded her deed, B could have discovered Y's deed under Grantor-Grantee index) - Title will pass to Y when X obtained title from Z - Y can accept title OR sue X for breach of covenant of title

Question 313

X agreed to sell his house to Y. X drew up a special warranty deed and delivered it to Y. Y moved into the house, but then immediately left it vacant to stay with his girlfriend. X then told Y he does not actually have title to the house. X was willing to obtain title from the actual owner, Z. However, X found another buyer, B, who would buy at a higher price. Y argued he should be entitled to the house as originally agreed. Is Y entitled to the house?

Answer 313

No - X did not possess title at time of conveyance - Special warranty deed => Estoppel by deed applies (X estopped from denying having title) - B is BFP (B had NO inquiry notice of Y's deed - Y lived in house very temporarily) - Title will pass to B when X obtained title from Z - Y can NOT sue B

Question 314

X agreed to sell his house to Y on 1 August. Y never recorded. On 5 August, X decided to sell his house to Z. Z recorded his deed and was not aware of Y’s transaction. On 8 August, Y finally recorded his deed. The state’s statute reads 'No conveyance or mortgage of an interest in land is valid against any subsequent purchaser for value, without notice thereof, unless it is recorded'. Who takes X’s house? What remedies are available?

Answer 314

Z - Notice statute (for value without notice thereof + unless it is recorded) - First buyer (Y) failed to record - Second buyer (Z) is BFP (NO notice because Y failed to record) + for value) - Z's recording NOT relevant - Z > Y Remedies (Z) 1) Y can sue X for breach of contract 2) Y must deliver deed to Z

Question 315

X agreed to sell his house to Y on 1 August. Y recorded. On 5 August, X decided to sell his house to Z. Z was not aware of Y’s transaction and also recorded. The state’s statute reads 'No conveyance or mortgage of an interest in land is valid against any subsequent purchaser for value, without notice thereof, unless it is recorded'. Who takes X’s house?

Answer 315

Y - Notice statute (for value without notice thereof + unless it is recorded) - First buyer (Y) recorded first - Y > Z

Question 316

X agreed to sell his house to Y on 1 August. Y failed to record. On 5 August, X decided to sell his house to Z as he realised Y failed to record his deed. The state’s statute reads 'No conveyance or mortgage of an interest in land is valid against any subsequent purchaser for value, without notice thereof, unless it is recorded'. Who takes X’s house?

Answer 316

Y - Notice statute (for value without notice thereof + unless it is recorded) - Second buyer (Z) had notice of Y's deed - Y > Z (common law: first in time prevails)

Question 317

X agreed to sell his house to Y on 1 August. Y never recorded. On 5 August, X decided to sell his house to Z who was not aware of Y’s transaction. Z also failed to record. On 8 August, X agreed to sell the house to B, who was not aware of both transactions and failed to record. The state’s statute reads 'No conveyance or mortgage of an interest in land is valid against any subsequent purchaser for value, without notice thereof, unless it is recorded'. Who takes X’s house?

Answer 317

B - Notice statute (for value without notice thereof + unless it is recorded) - First buyer (Y) failed to record - Second buyer (Z) had no notice (BFP) - Z > Y - Second buyer (Z) failed to record - Third buyer (B) had no notice (BFP) - B > Z

Question 318

X agreed to sell his house to Y on 1 August. Y failed to record. On 5 August, X decided to sell his house to Z as he realised Y failed to record his deed. Z then records his deed. The state’s statute reads 'No conveyance or mortgage of an interest in land is valid against any subsequent purchaser for value, without notice thereof, whose conveyance is first recorded'. Who takes X’s house?

Answer 318

Y - Race-Notice statute (for value without notice thereof + whose conveyance is first recorded) - First buyer (Y) failed to record - Second buyer (Z) had notice (NOT BFP) - Y > Z (common law: first in time prevails)

Question 319

X agreed to sell his house to Y on 1 August. Y failed to record. On 5 August, X decided to sell his house to Z. Z failed to record. On 8 August, Y recorded. The state’s statute reads 'No conveyance or mortgage of an interest in land is valid against any subsequent purchaser for value, without notice thereof, whose conveyance is first recorded'. Who takes X’s house? What remedies are available?

Answer 319

Y - Race-Notice statute (for value without notice thereof + whose conveyance is first recorded) - First buyer (Y) recorded first - Y > Z Remedies 1) Y must pay remainder of contract price to Z 2) Z must deliver deed to Y

Question 320

X agreed to sell his house to Y on 1 August. Y failed to record. On 5 August, X decided to sell his house to Z who knew of Y’s transaction. Z recorded. On 8 August, Y recorded. The state’s statute reads 'No conveyance or mortgage of an interest in land is valid against any subsequent purchaser whose conveyance is first recorded'. Who takes X’s house?

Answer 320

Z - Race statute (whose conveyance is first recorded) - First buyer (Y) failed to record first - Second buyer (Z) recorded first (notice NOT relevant) - Z > Y

Question 321

X agreed to sell his house to Y on 1 August. Y failed to record. On 5 August, X executed a mortgage to Bank who was unaware of Y’s deal. Bank recorded. The state’s statute reads 'No conveyance or mortgage of an interest in land is valid against any subsequent purchaser for value, without notice thereof, whose conveyance is first recorded'. Who takes X’s house?

Answer 321

Bank - Race-Notice statute (for value without notice thereof + whose conveyance is first recorded) - Bank is BFP (mortgagee) + NO notice - Y has title to house subject to Bank's mortgage

Question 322

X agreed to sell his house to Y on 1 August. Y failed to record. On 5 August, X died and his only son bought his real property and recorded his deed. The state’s statute reads 'No conveyance or mortgage of an interest in land is valid against any subsequent purchaser for value, without notice thereof, whose conveyance is first recorded'. Who takes X’s house?

Answer 322

X's son - Race-Notice statute (for value without notice thereof + whose conveyance is first recorded) - First buyer (Y) failed to record - X's son (heir) took the house 'for value' + recorded => Protected by Race-Notice statute - X's son > Y

Question 323

X agreed to sell his house to Y on 1 August. Y failed to record. On 5 August, X died and his only son inherited his real property. X’s son then sold the house to Z, who was not aware of Y’s transaction and Z recorded. The state’s statute reads 'No conveyance or mortgage of an interest in land is valid against any subsequent purchaser for value, without notice thereof, whose conveyance is first recorded'. Who takes X’s house?

Answer 323

Z - Race-Notice statute (for value without notice thereof + whose conveyance is first recorded) - First buyer (Y) failed to record - X's son (heir) did NOT take the house 'for value' - Second buyer (Z) had NO notice + purchased for value - Z > Y

Question 324

X agreed to sell his house to Y on 1 August. Y failed to record. On 5 August, Z was able to obtain a judgment against X for failure to pay an existing debt. The state’s statute reads 'No conveyance or mortgage of an interest in land is valid against any subsequent purchaser for value, without notice thereof, whose conveyance is first recorded'. Who takes X’s house?

Answer 324

Y - Z is judgment creditor => NOT protected by Race-Notice statute - Y > Z

Question 325

X agreed to sell his house to Y on 1 August. Y failed to record. On 5 August, X sold his house to Z who was aware of Y’s deed. Z then sold the house to B as he told B about Y’s deed. The state’s statute reads 'No conveyance or mortgage of an interest in land is valid against any subsequent purchaser for value, without notice thereof, whose conveyance is first recorded'. Who takes X’s house?

Answer 325

Y - First buyer (Y) fails to record - Second buyer (Z) is NOT BFP (notice of Y's deed) => Second buyer's successor (B) is NOT protected by Shelter Rule - Y > B (common law: first in time to prevail)

Question 326

X agreed to sell his house to Y on 1 August. Y failed to record. On 5 August, X sold his house to Z who was not aware of Y’s deed and recorded. Z died and B took over the house, although he was aware of Y’s deed. The state’s statute reads 'No conveyance or mortgage of an interest in land is valid against any subsequent purchaser for value, without notice thereof, whose conveyance is first recorded'. Who takes X’s house?

Answer 326

B - First buyer (Y) fails to record - Second buyer (Z) is BFP (NO notice of Y's deed) => Second buyer's successor (B) is protected by Shelter Rule (even though B has notice of Y's deed) - B taking house with NO value NOT relevant - B > Y

Question 327

X agreed to sell his house to Y on 1 August. Y failed to record. On 5 August, X sold his house to Z who heard from one of X’s neighbours that X tried to sell to Y. The state’s statute reads 'No conveyance or mortgage of an interest in land is valid against any subsequent purchaser for value, without notice thereof, whose conveyance is first recorded'. Who takes X’s house?

Answer 327

Y - First buyer (Y) failed to record - Second buyer (Z) had actual notice (word of mouth) => NOT BFP - Y > Z

Question 328

X agreed to sell his house to Y on 1 August. X conveyed a quitclaim deed to Y. On 5 August, X sold his house to Z who was unaware of Y’s conveyance. The state’s statute reads 'No conveyance or mortgage of an interest in land is valid against any subsequent purchaser for value, without notice thereof, whose conveyance is first recorded'. Who takes X’s house?

Answer 328

Z (most states) - First buyer (Y) failed to record - Second buyer (Z) had NO inquiry notice (quitclaim deed does NOT put Z on inquiry notice (most states)) => BFP - Z > Y Y (few states) - First buyer (Y) failed to record - Second buyer (Z) had inquiry notice (quitclaim deed does put Z on inquiry notice (few states)) = NOT BFP - Y > Z

Question 329

X granted an easement to A without recording it. X then sold his house to Y who recorded the deed which stated the house is ‘subject to an easement’. Y then sold the house to Z, who was not told about the easement. Is Z subject to the easement?

Answer 329

Yes - First buyer (Y) recorded in his deed 'subject to easement' => Second buyer (Z) had inquiry notice (could have searched Y's deed) => NOT BFP - Z is subject to easement - A > Z

Question 330

X sold his house to Y who did not record his deed. Y was not present at the house for most of the time. Sometimes, Y called a few window cleaners to clean the windows, as required under an existing covenant in the deed. X secretly sold his house to Z, who did not record his deed. Z had no notice of Y’s conveyance. Who owns X’s house?

Answer 330

Y - First buyer (Y) failed to record - Second buyer (Z) could have made inquiry notice re Y's possession (window cleaners would not clean house until it was possessed by someone) => NOT BFP - Y > Z

Question 331

X sold his house to Y, who did not record. Y then sold his house to Z, who did record. X decided to sell his house to B who heard about Y selling the house to Z before, but never recorded it. Who owns X’s house?

Answer 331

X - X-Y deed was NOT recorded - Y-Z deed was NOT part of chain of title linking to X's ownership (wild deed) - B had record notice of Y-Z deed => NOT BFP => B is NOT entitled to house - Z had inquiry notice of X-A deed (could have demanded viewing of A's title documents in A's unrecorded deed) => Z is NOT entitled to house

Question 332

X sold his house to Y, even though X did not have title to the house as of yet. X then managed to obtain title from O. X decided to sell the house to Z. Y claims the house is his because O-X deed could now be searched in the grantor-grantee index. Who owns X’s house?

Answer 332

Z (majority view) - X-Y deed was NOT part of chain of title (Y did NOT possess title at the time) - Z had NO notice of O-X deed => Z should NOT be burdened to search O-X deed in grantor-grantee index (before X-Y deed) Y (minority view) - Y was entitled to title once X obtained title from O (estoppel by deed) - X is estopped from denying title to Y - X has nothing to convey to Z

Question 333

X sold his house to Y and delivered the deed to Y. Y was yet to pay X the purchase price, but recorded the deed in case other buyers may claim priority over the house. X then sold the house to Z, who paid for the deed and was not aware of Y’s transaction. Who owns X’s house?

Answer 333

Z - Y did NOT give consideration to X => NOT BFP - Y's recording deed is NOT relevant - Z gave consideration to X => BFP - Z > Y

Question 334

X sold his house to Y. Y failed to record. X’s bank approached X and asked when he will pay his debt to the Bank. X told the Bank they can have a mortgage on his house instead for the time being. Who owns X’s house?

Answer 334

Y - Bank did NOT give consideration to X (mortgage as security for debt is NOT consideration) => NOT BFP - Y > Bank

Question 335

X borrowed a loan from his bank, Z. X gave a deed of trust to Z’s lawyer, Y. X then defaults on his loan. What can Z do?

Answer 335

Instruct Y to foreclose on X's debt | - Deed of trust

Question 336

X wanted to buy Y’s house. They agreed that X pay 10% instalments every month to Y, while X lives in the house. X failed to pay and Y requests X to hand over the house because he never had any title. Is this true?

Answer 336

No | - X had equitable title (NOT legal title, only available after X pays off full purchase price)

Question 337

X borrowed a mortgage from his bank, Y. Y wanted to transfer the mortgage to Z, but not the note because Y reserved his rights to it. Z claims he should be entitled to the note as well. Is Z entitled to the note?

Answer 337

Yes (some states) - Note automatically transfers with mortgage Yes (some states) - Lender's (Y) transfer of mortgage w/o note - Y reserved rights to note - Z can file equitable action to compel Y to transfer note No (some states) - Note may be seen as 'principal evidence' of debt

Question 338

X borrowed a mortgage from his bank, Y. X was overdue on his repayment obligations. Thus Y wanted to transfer the note to Z, but not the mortgage. The note was written as payable to Z, the bearer, in the amount of $10,000. Y delivered the note to X, who signed it. Y also delivered the note to Z, who freely accepted with knowledge that the note was overdue. Later, X refused to pay Z because Y never transferred the mortgage to him by a separate document. Is Z entitled to the mortgage payments?

Answer 338

No - Lender (Y) wants to transfer note w/o mortgage - Note can be transferred by separate assignment document OR by endorsement + signature (as long as Transferee is Holder in Due Course, Art 3 UCC) - Note was written as payable to named payee (Z) for fixed sum ($10,000) - Z did NOT pay value - Z did NOT accept in good faith (Z was aware of X's overdue on loan) - Z is NOT Holder in Due Course => NO endorsement of note without mortgage allowed

Question 339

X borrowed a mortgage from his bank, Y. Y wanted to transfer the note to Z by a separate document of assignment. X had no idea about Y’s transfer, and so X paid the remainder to Y. Z requested that X pay him immediately. Must X do so?

Answer 339

No - Note is NOT negotiable - X's payment to Y will count (until X has notice of Y's transfer)

Question 340

X borrowed a mortgage from his bank, Y. X sold his mortgage to Z, who signed an assumption agreement. Y wants the mortgage to be paid back soon. Y is considering changing the obligations of the mortgage. Should Y change it? If not, who must Y sue?

Answer 340

No - Z signed assumption agreement - Z is primarily liable; X is secondarily liable (surety) - Y can sue EITHER X or Z (NOT Z then X, NOT BOTH) - If Y changes obligation => X is discharged from liability

Question 341

X borrowed a mortgage from his bank, Y. X sold his mortgage to Z without signing an assumption agreement. Y wants the mortgage to be paid back soon. Z expects X to pay anyway even if Z does not pay. Is Z not required to pay?

Answer 341

No - Z did NOT sign assumption agreement => Z takes subject to mortgage - X is primarily liable - BUT if Z fails to pay + Y forecloses => Z's investment in land is wiped out

Question 342

X gave his bank, Y, a mortgage over his house as security for his debt. Y held equitable title over the house under the lien theory. However, Y decided to purchase X’s legal title over the house. Is X still required to pay the debt?

Answer 342

No | - Y merged legal + equitable interests => Discharged X's obligation

Question 343

X owed debt to Y. X decided to give a mortgage to Y on his house as security. Y wanted to live in the house. The state follows the lien theory. Can Y live in the house until foreclosure?

Answer 343

No - Lien theory: Lender can NOT demand possession (holder of security only) - Debtor holds legal title until foreclosure

Question 344

X owed debt to Y. X decided to give a mortgage to Y on his house as security. Y wanted to live in the house. The state follows the title theory. Can Y live in the house until foreclosure?

Answer 344

Yes (any time) | - Title theory: Lender can demand possession any time (holder of legal title until foreclosure)

Question 345

X owed debt to Y. X decided to give a mortgage to Y on his house as security. Y wanted to live in the house. The state follows the intermediate theory. Can Y live in the house?

Answer 345

Yes (after X defaulted) - Intermediate theory: Lender can demand possession after X defaults - Debtor holds legal title until default

Question 346

X owed debt to Y. X decided to give a mortgage to Y on his house as security. X defaulted on his loan and Y realised that foreclosure on the house would not be enough to satisfy the loan. X has not changed the value of the house during his time. Y asked the court to appoint a receiver to receive rent on the property instead. Is this allowed?

Answer 346

No | - NO waste occurring (X NOT decrease/increase value)

Question 347

X borrowed $100,000 from Y. X decided to give a mortgage to Y on his house as security. X defaulted on his loan but was willing to repay Y the $40,000 due. Y was willing to foreclose instead. How much must X pay?

Answer 347

$40,000 - Redemption in equity (before foreclosure) - NO acceleration clause - X only has to pay amount due ($40,000)

Question 348

X borrowed $100,000 from Y. X decided to give a mortgage to Y on his house as security including an acceleration clause. X defaulted on his loan but was willing to repay Y the $40,000 due. Y was willing to foreclose instead. How much must X pay?

Answer 348

$100,000 - Redemption in equity (before foreclosure) - Acceleration clause - X has to pay full amount due ($100,000)

Question 349

X borrowed $100,000 from Y. X decided to give a mortgage to Y on his house as security, which included X’s right to redeem before foreclosure. X told Y he will not use such a right. However, X later defaulted on his loan but wanted to redeem the house. Y refused as X already waived his right. Can X redeem?

Answer 349

Yes | - NO waiver (clogging) of right to redeem in equity allowed

Question 350

X borrowed $100,000 from Y with a mortgage on his house. X then borrowed $100,000 from Z under the same conditions. X was unable to pay Y in time. Y wanted to foreclose, but Z insists on keeping X’s house. What can Z do?

Answer 350

Pay Y's loan - Y is senior; Z is junior - Z can pay Y's loan before foreclosue => Z can redeem X's house

Question 351

X borrowed $100,000 from Y with a mortgage on his house. Y recorded. X then borrowed $100,000 from Z under the same conditions. Z recorded. X later borrowed another $100,000 from B with the mortgage and B was aware of Y’s mortgage. B recorded. X went into default and so Z wanted to foreclose including Y and B. The state’s statute reads 'No conveyance or mortgage of an interest in land is valid against any subsequent purchaser for value, without notice thereof, whose conveyance is first recorded'. Who is entitled to the proceeds?

Answer 351

Z + B - Race-Notice statute - Z is foreclosing party => Z is entitled to proceeds - B is junior (NOT BFP - Notice of Y's transaction) => B is necessary party (included in foreclosure) => B is wiped out by foreclosure => B is entitled to proceeds - Y is senior (recorded first) => Buyer takes X's house subject to Y's loan

Question 352

X borrowed $100,000 from Y with a mortgage on his house. Y recorded. X then borrowed $100,000 from Z under the same conditions. Z recorded. Y approached Z and agreed to subordinate his priority to Z. X went into default and so Z wanted to foreclose including Y. The state’s statute reads 'No conveyance or mortgage of an interest in land is valid against any subsequent purchaser for value, without notice thereof, whose conveyance is first recorded'. Who is entitled to the proceeds?

Answer 352

Y + Z - Z is foreclosing party => Z is entitled to proceeds - Y is junior (subordinated priority to Z) => Y is wiped out by foreclosure => Y is entitled to proceeds - Buyer is NOT subject to Y's loan

Question 353

Y obtained a judgment lien against X for failure to pay Y’s loan. X then borrowed $100,000 from Z to purchase a house from Z with Z securing a mortgage on it. X then borrowed $50,000 from B who was aware of the previous transactions. B recorded. X further borrowed $50,000 from C to pay for the house with a mortgage on it. X went into default and Z wanted to foreclose including all the creditors. The state’s statute reads 'No conveyance or mortgage of an interest in land is valid against any subsequent purchaser for value, without notice thereof, whose conveyance is first recorded'. Who is entitled to the proceeds?

Answer 353

Y + Z - Race-Notice statute - Z is PMM + foreclosing party => Z is entitled to proceeds - Y is lien creditor BEFORE X obtained title to house => Z > Y => Y is junior => Y is entitled to proceeds - B is NOT BFP creditor (actual notice of transactions), although he obtained mortgage AFTER X obtained title to house => B > Z => B is senior => B is NOT entitled to proceeds (Buyer is subject to B's loan) - C is NOT BFP creditor (NOT record), although he obtained mortgage AFTER X obtained title to house => C > Z => C is senior => C is NOT entitled to proceeds (Buyer is subject to C's loan)

Question 354

X borrowed $100,000 from Y with a mortgage on his house. Y recorded. X then borrowed $100,000 from Z under the same conditions. Z recorded. Y wanted to change its loan payments to X. X went into default and so Y wanted to foreclose including Z. The state’s statute reads 'No conveyance or mortgage of an interest in land is valid against any subsequent purchaser for value, without notice thereof, whose conveyance is first recorded'. Who is entitled to the proceeds?

Answer 354

Y - Y is foreclosing party => Y is entitled to proceeds - Y is senior + Z is junior BUT Y modified obligations => Z > Y => Z is senior => Z is NOT entitled to proceeds (Buyer is subject to Z's mortgage)

Question 355

X borrowed $100,000 from Y with a mortgage on his house and future optional advances available. Y recorded. X then borrowed $100,000 from Z under the same conditions. Z recorded. X later borrowed $50,000 from B with a mortgage as well. B recorded. Y decided to loan another $100,00 to X without informing the creditors. X went into default and so Z wanted to foreclose including Y and B. The state’s statute reads 'No conveyance or mortgage of an interest in land is valid against any subsequent purchaser for value, without notice thereof, whose conveyance is first recorded'. Who is entitled to the proceeds?

Answer 355

Z, B - Z is foreclosing party => Z is entitled to proceeds - B is junior => B is entitled to proceeds - Y is senior + Y made future optional advance with NO notice to B => Y is senior => Y is NOT entitled to proceeds (Buyer takes house subject to Y's mortgage for BOTH £100,000 first loan + $100,000 future advance loan)

Question 356

X borrowed $100,000 from Y with a mortgage on his house. Y recorded. X then borrowed $100,000 from Z under the same conditions. Z recorded. X later borrowed $50,000 from B to pay off Y’s loan. B recorded. X went into default and so Y wanted to foreclose including all the creditors. The state’s statute reads 'No conveyance or mortgage of an interest in land is valid against any subsequent purchaser for value, without notice thereof, whose conveyance is first recorded'. Who is entitled to the proceeds?

Answer 356

Y + Z - Race-Notice Statute - Y is first senior (recorded first) - Z is second senior (recorded second) - B was junior to Y + Z BUT B's mortgage was used to subrogate (pay off) Y's loan => B takes priority over existing senior creditor (Y) => B > Y + Z - Y is foreclosing creditor + included in foreclosure => Y is entitled to proceeds - Z is junior + included in foreclosure => Z is entitled to proceeds (wiped out by foreclosure as necessary party) - B is senior => Buyer takes house subject to B's mortgage

Question 357

X borrowed $100,000 from Y with a mortgage on his house. X then borrowed $100,000 from Z under the same conditions. X was unable to pay Y in time. Y foreclosed on the mortgage by finding a buyer for $250,000. X wanted to keep the property nonetheless. What can X do?

Answer 357

Statutory redemption - X can redeem 6 months to 1 year after foreclosure (half states ONLY) - X must pay $250,000 to Buyer (NOT $200,000) => X can redeem house

Question 358

X used Y’s shed in his garden for 5 years. X would go in and out from time to time (every few days or so) to perform religious rituals. The state’s statute requires 5 years in possession for adverse possession. Y told X to leave, but X refused because he continued to use the shed for the statutory period. Did X have adverse possession?

Answer 358

No | - NOT continuous possession (intermittent + usual owner would NOT normally use shed for religious rituals)

Question 359

X was living in Y’s house for 5 years. X decided to move out to his friend’s house and Z saw this as an opportunity to move into Y’s house instead. Y lived there for 5 years as well. The state’s statute requires 10 years in possession for adverse possession. Did Z have adverse possession?

Answer 359

No | - NOT continuous possession (NO tacking because X + Z had NO privity - X abandoned house)

Question 360

X was living in Y’s house for 5 years. X passed away and X’s son was entitled to X’s real property by will. X’s administrator assumed Y’s house belonged to X. Thus X’s son moved into Y’s house and lived there for 5 years. The state’s statute requires 10 years in possession for adverse possession. Did X’s son have adverse possession?

Answer 360

Yes - Continous possession (Privity between X + X's son (devisee), Tacking of X's possession (5 years) + X's son's possession (5 years) = 10 years)

Question 361

X kept working out by bringing gym equipment to Y’s bedroom for 5 years. The state’s statute requires 5 years in possession for adverse possession. Did X have adverse possession?

Answer 361

No | - NOT open + notorious possession ('usual' owner would not use weights in bedroom to acquire ownership)

Question 362

X installed sewer lines underneath Y’s garden and used them for 5 years. The state’s statute requires 5 years in possession for adverse possession. Did X have adverse possession?

Answer 362

No - NOT open + notorious possession (X's sewer lines would NOT be sufficiently apparent to put Y on notice of X's trespass)

Question 363

X installed solar panels on Y’s front porch for 5 years. Y owned a mansion. Y realised X did so, and told X to leave and remove the panels. X refused as he showed a document that would give him title to the mansion. The state’s statute requires 5 years in possession for adverse possession. Did X have adverse possession of the mansion?

Answer 363

No - NOT actual entry (front porch is NOT reasonably proportionate to X's mansion, even though Y had colour of title) => NO constructive possession

Question 364

X went to fish in Y’s garden for 5 years. Others passing by assumed the garden was available for fishing, so they also used it too. Y used it himself as well but Y told them to leave, but X claims he has adverse possession. The state’s statute requires 5 years in possession for adverse possession. Did X have adverse possession of the garden?

Answer 364

No - NOT exclusive possession (shared with Owner (Y) + public) - X has easement (NO exclusivity required)

Question 365

X lived with his friend, Z. X went to fish in Y’s garden for 5 years. Z came along and fished together as well. Y told them to leave, but X claims he has adverse possession. The state’s statute requires 5 years in possession for adverse possession. Did X have adverse possession of the garden?

Answer 365

Yes | - Exclusive possession (shared with Z) => X + Z own garden as tenants in common

Question 366

X and Y were neighbours. X used Y’s garden to fish in his lake for 5 years. He thought that the garden was his as Y told him he could use it. The state’s statute requires 5 years in possession for adverse possession. Did X have adverse possession?

Answer 366

No - NO hostile possession (X had Y's consent) - X's state of mind (mistaken belief) is NOT relevant

Question 367

X and Y were neighbours. Y told X he could use Y’s garden to fish in his lake for 2 years. After 2 years, X continued to use the garden for fishing for another 5 years. The state’s statute requires 5 years in possession for adverse possession. Did X have adverse possession?

Answer 367

No - NO hostile possession (X had licence to use garden for 2 years; X did NOT clearly notify Y his hostile use after licence ended)

Question 368

X and Y owned a house together. Y had lived with his parents for 5 years, while X lived in the house. The state’s statute requires 5 years in possession for adverse possession. Did X have adverse possession?

Answer 368

No - NO hostile possession (X + Y were co-tenants; Y did NOT oust (explicitly declare his exclusive dominionship by adverse possession to) X

Question 369

X went to fish in a lake in a public park for 5 years. The state’s statute requires 5 years in possession for adverse possession. Did X have adverse possession of the lake?

Answer 369

No | - NO AP allowed over Government-owned land

Question 370

X who was ten years old got given a house by his father. X never lived in the house as he stayed with his grandparents. Y decided to live in the house for the next 5 years. X was now 15. X came to the house and told Y to leave. The statute of limitations requires ejections to commence 3 years after the house is adversely possessed. The state’s statute requires 5 years in possession for adverse possession. Did Y have adverse possession of the house?

Answer 370

No - X was disabled (minor, 15) BEFORE Y took possession - SoL began to run after he turned 18 - SoL NOT expired => X can eject Y

Question 371

X got given a house by his father. Y decided to use X’s shed. X was then imprisoned. After 5 years, Y kept using the shed. X was released and told Y to leave. The statute of limitations requires ejections to commence 4 years after the house is adversely possessed. The state’s statute requires 5 years in possession for adverse possession. Did Y have adverse possession of the shed?

Answer 371

Yes - X was disabled (imprisoned) AFTER Y took possession - SoL began to run after Y took possession - SoL expired after 4 years since Y took possession => X was released after 5 years => X can NOT eject Y - Title => Y

Question 372

X gave his house to Y for life, then to Z. B lived in Y’s house for the next 5 years. Y then died and Z took over. Z told B to get out. The statute of limitations requires ejections to commence within 5 years after the house is adversely possessed. Did B have adverse possession of the shed?

Answer 372

No - SoL began to run after Z took possession (future remainderman) - Z had no cause of action until Y died - Z can eject B

Question 373

X and Y were neighbours. X used Y’s garden to fish in his lake for 5 years. The lake had a restrictive covenant on it prohibiting anyone from fishing in it. The state’s statute requires 5 years in possession for adverse possession. Is X subject to the restrictive covenant? What if X did not fish?

Answer 373

No - X violated restrictive covenant => X is NOT subject to covenant - If X did not fish => X will be subject to covenant

Question 374

X provided in his will that whichever of his houses suits Y best will go to Y at X’s death. One of X’s houses in New York was sold to an investor. X died. Was that house adeemed?

Answer 374

No - Conveyance by will - NOT specific bequest (whichever of his houses suits best) => House NOT adeemed

Question 375

X provided in his will that his Blackacre house will go to Y when X dies. X then sold Blackacre to Z. Was Blackacre adeemed?

Answer 375

Yes (minority view) - Conveyance by will - Equitable conversion doctrine: Y's entitlement to real property (Blackacre) is adeemed; Y is entitled to nothing No (majority view) - Conveyance by will - UPC + Most states: Y is entitled to personal property instead (sale proceeds)

Question 376

X provided in his will that his Blackacre house will go to Y when X dies. X was suffering from Parkinson’s disease at the time. X hired a legal representative to sell Blackacre to Z. Was Blackacre adeemed?

Answer 376

No (majority view) - Conveyance by will - X is incompetent => Y is entitled to personal property instead (sale proceeds)

Question 377

X provided in his will that his Blackacre house will go to Y when X dies. Suddenly, a rainstorm destroyed Blackacre and no casualty insurance proceeds were sold to X. X died and the proceeds were available. Was Blackacre adeemed?

Answer 377

No - Conveyance by will - Destruction of house before X's death - Casualty insurance proceeds available after X's death => Y is entitled to proceeds

Question 378

X provided in his will that his Blackacre house will go to Y when X dies. At the time, Y realised that there was a mortgage on the house yet to be paid off. X died with no residuary estate. Is Y subject to the mortgage?

Answer 378

Yes - Conveyance by will - Most states: NO express provision in will for mortgage payoff => Y is subject to mortgage - Common law/some states: X's residuary estate could have been used to pay off mortgage, but X has NO residuary estate => Y is subject to mortgage

Question 379

X provided in his will that his Blackacre house will go to his grandson, Y, when X dies. The will provided that the Anti-Lapse Statute will not apply. Y suddenly died, leaving behind his two daughters. Who is entitled to the house?

Answer 379

X's heirs (by intestacy) - Conveyance by will - Y died before X - Anti-Lapse Statute: Y is X's descendant => House would have passed to Y's issues (both daughters) - Will has contrary provision to ALS => House is VOID - Common law: Y died before X => House is VOID

Question 380

X provided in his will that his Blackacre house will go to his children when X dies. At the time, X had one son and two daughters. X’s son suddenly died, leaving behind his two sons. One of his sons also died. Who is entitled to the house?*

Answer 380

X's son's son (living) - Conveyance by will (class gift) - X's son died before X - Anti-Lapse Statute: X's son's son is X's descendant => House will be divided into 3 parts - X's son's son (living) will take 1/3 share, X's daughters will each take 1/3 share - X's son's son (deceased) will NOT take share

Question 381

X conveyed land ‘to Y for life, then to the last survivor of Y’s children, then to Z in fee simple.’ Y has a son. Is this valid?

Answer 381

Yes - RAP - Y has present estate - Y's son is measuring life - Y's son has vested remainder subject to open (in favour of Y's other children) => Class will close because Y's son will certainly take after Y dies (Rule of Convenience) - Y's unborn children have contingent remanders that are valid because they will vest at their birth during Y's lifetime - Z has indefeasibly vested remainder (from time of its creation)

Question 382

X conveyed land ‘to Y for life, then to Z, but if Z is not survived by an issue, then to B and his heirs’. Is this valid?

Answer 382

Yes - RAP - Y has present estate - Z is measuring life - Z has vested remainder subject to condition subsequent - B has shifting executory interest - If Z dies during Y's lifetime with no surviving issues => B's interest will become indefeasibly vested remainder (interest passes to B after Y's lifetime) - If Z dies after Y's lifetime with no surviving issues => B has present estate

Question 383

X conveyed land ‘to Y for life, and on her death to such of her children as attain the age of 35’. Is this valid?

Answer 383

No - RAP - Y has present estate - Y is measuring life - Y's child has contingent remainder - Y may die with no children/child below 14 years of age => Will not certainly reach 35 within 21 years - Such events 'might' occur => Violates RAP

Question 384

X conveyed land ‘to Y for life, and on her death to such of her children as attain the age of 35’. Is this valid under the Wait and See approach?

Answer 384

Depends - Wait and see doctrine: Determine if Y's child does reach 35 at the end of perpetuities period - If Y dies + Y's child reaches 35 after 21 years => Y's child takes interest - If Y dies + Y's child does NOT reach 35 after 21 years => Y's child does NOT take interest

Question 385

X’s will devises his residuary estate ‘to such of my nephews and nieces as attain the age of 21’. X currently has two nephews and one niece. X’s parents are dead. Is this valid?

Answer 385

Yes - RAP - X has present estate - X's parents are dead => X will 'certainly' not have more brothers/sisters after X's death - X's two nephews and niece will certainly reach age 21 within 21 years after X's death (Rule of Convenience)

Question 386

X’s will devises his residuary estate ‘to Cancer research so long as the premises are used for Cancer research purposes. Otherwise, to Children’s hospital’. Is this valid?

Answer 386

Yes - Charity-Charity - RAP NOT applicable

Question 387

X’s will devises his residuary estate ‘to Cancer research so long as the premises are used for Cancer research purposes. Otherwise, to Y and his heirs’. Is this valid?

Answer 387

No - Charity-Private individual - RAP applicable - Cancer research has vested remainder subject to condition subsequent - Y has shifting executory interest - NOT certain if Y will be alive within 21 years after Cancer research stops using premises for its purposes

Question 388

X conveyed land ‘to Y while he completes his degree’. Is this valid under RAP?

Answer 388

Yes - Y has present estate (fee simple determinable) - X has possibility of reverter => NOT subject to RAP

Question 389

X conveys land ‘to Y for life, and on Y’s death X and his heirs may enter and terminate the estate hereby conveyed’. Is this valid under RAP?

Answer 389

Yes - Y has present estate (fee simple subject to condition subsequent) - X has right of entry => NOT subject to RAP

Question 390

X conveyed land ‘to Y so long as it is used for farming purposes. Otherwise to Z’. Is this valid?

Answer 390

No - RAP - Y has present estate (fee simple subject to executory interest) - Z has shifting executory interest => 'May' take land (NOT will) (may not be used for farming purposes beyond 21-year period) => Violates RAP => Void - Y now has fee simple determinable (so long as - condition NOT stricken) - X has possibility of reverter

Question 391

X conveyed land ‘to Y. But if Y uses it for farming purposes. Then to Z’. Is this valid?

Answer 391

Yes - RAP - Y has present estate (fee simple subject to executory interest) - Z has shifting executory interest => Will NOT take land if Y dies and never uses it for farming purposes before 21-year period => NOT violate RAP

Question 392

X conveyed land ‘to Y, then to Y’s widow for life, then to Y’s issue’. Is this valid?

Answer 392

No - RAP - Y has present estate (fee simple) - Y's widow NOT determinable (Y 'may' (NOT will) have spouse at time interest was created) => Violates RAP => Void - Y's issue's interest also void

Question 393

X conveyed land ‘to Y for life, then to the last survivor of Y’s children, then to Y’s grandchildren.’ Y has a son. Is this valid?

Answer 393

No - RAP - Y's children have vested remainder subject to open in life estate - Y's grandchildren have vested remainder subject to open in fee => Every class member will NOT be ascertained until Y's last child dies, who could be born afterwards, and after Y's children + grandchildren die, this child may have more children => NOT certain to take interest => Violates RAP => Void

Question 394

X conveyed land ‘to Y for life, then to Y’s grandchildren.’ Y has a son. Is this valid?

Answer 394

No - RAP - Y's grandchildren have vested remainder subject to open in fee simple - Class will NOT close after Y's death (measuring life - preceding estate) => Y's son may have more children after 21-year period (Rule of Convenience)

Question 395

X’s will devised his estate ‘to the Richardson hospital for medical purposes’. X’s executor is not sure if this is achievable. Can this meet Rule against Perpetuities?

Answer 395

Yes - Outright bequest to charity (general purpose) - Cy Pres doctrine: Court can reform general purposes to meet 21-year period

Question 396

X conveyed land ‘to Y for life, and on her death to such of her children as attain the age of 35’. Y just gave birth to her son. Is this valid under USRAP?

Answer 396

Yes - USRAP: Perpetuities period is 90 years - Y's son will reach 35 within 90 years (35 years)

Question 397

X provided in his will that his estate will go ‘to X’s grandchildren when they attain age 21’. Is this valid?

Answer 397

No - RAP - X's will: Perpetuities period runs from X's death - X can more grandchildren (through X's children) => Current grandchildren may reach age 21 within 21 years

Question 398

X created a trust giving his estate to his trustee to give ‘to X’s grandchildren when they attain age 21’. Is this valid?

Answer 398

No - RAP - X's trust: Perpetuities period runs from creation of trust - X can have more children until X's death => X's child could have more children => X's new grandchildren could reach age 21 beyond 21-year period => Violates RAP => Void

Question 399

X conveys ‘to Y and his heirs an option to purchase Blackacre’. Is this valid? (Option)

Answer 399

No - RAP - Option 'may' be exercised by Y's heirs (future tenant) long after Y's death => Violates RAP => Void

Question 400

X conveys ‘to Y an option to purchase Blackacre’. Is this valid?

Answer 400

Yes - RAP - Option will/will not be exercised by Y (current tenant) after Y's death => NOT violate RAP

Question 401

X conveyed land ‘to Y for life, and on her death to such of her children when they get married'. Y's son, B, is already married. Y's daughter, D, is not married. Is this valid under RAP?

Answer 401

No - RAP - B has vested remainder subject to open (already married, class subject to open) - B already married => B will take after Y dies (measuring life - Y) => Satisfies RAP - D has contingent remainder (NOT married) - D is NOT married => D 'may' take within/after 21 years after Y dies => Violates RAP - D's violation of RAP => Conveyance as a whole violates RAP, despite B's satisfaction (All or Nothing rule) - Y has life estate determinable (X has possibility of reverter after Y's death)

Question 402

X wanted to buy Y’s house. They agreed that X pay 10% instalments every month to Y, while X lives in the house. X failed to pay and Y requests X to hand over the house because he never had title. Is this true?

Answer 402

Yes - Instalment land contract - X defaulted => Y has legal title (until X pays full purchase price)

Question 403

X wanted to buy Y’s house. They agreed that X pay 10% instalments every month to Y, while X lives in the house. The agreement included a forfeiture clause. X failed to pay. What are Y’s options?

Answer 403

Instalment land contract - Forfeiture clause included - Cancel contract/Retain monies/Retake house

Question 404

X borrowed a loan from Y. Y obtained an absolute deed over X’s house with no indication as security. X later defaulted. Can Y foreclose?

Answer 404

No - Absolute deed - NO evidence of security purpose => NOT deemed as 'equitable' mortgage

Question 405

X borrowed a mortgage from his bank, Y. The mortgage contained a due-on-sale clause. X sold his mortgage to Z. Y wants the mortgage to be paid back soon. Must X pay?

Answer 405

Yes - Debtor's transfer of mortgage - Due on sale clause - X did NOT get Y's consent - Y can demand full payment of mortgage

Question 406

X gave his bank, Y, a mortgage over his house as security for his debt. Y wanted to foreclose on the mortgage. X thinks the procedure will be complicated. What other option does X have?

Answer 406

Deed in lieu - X can give deed in lieu of foreclosure to Y - Discharges X from mortgage liability

Question 407

Testator devised his home “to my son for life, then to my son’s children and their heirs.” Testator’s son, a 70-year-old widower, had one unmarried adult son and one unmarried adult daughter. What interests do T's son's children have?

Answer 407

Vested remainder subject to open - Vested (ascertained) - Subject to open (Son is widower, could have more children, class NOT closed)

Question 408

A mother, who was the owner in fee simple of Blackacre, validly executed and conveyed the land to her daughter via a quitclaim deed. Her daughter paid no consideration and failed to record the deed. Six months later, the mother asked the daughter to rip up the deed and stated that she instead wished to keep the land. The daughter voluntarily destroyed the deed. One week later, the mother and the daughter were killed in an accident. They both died intestate. The heirs of mother and the heirs of the daughter both claim title to Blackacre. Who has title to Blackacre?

Answer 408

Daughter's heirs - Delivery of deed + Acceptance => Title passed to Daughter - NO consideration required for deeds - NO recording required for deeds (only vs other purchasers) - NO destruction of deed (too late)

Question 409

A sister and brother own property as joint tenants. A victim of a car accident has a judgment against the sister after a court found she was negligent in causing a car accident which injured the victim. The victim properly filed the judgment and has a lien on the sister’s real property. The statute in the jurisdiction states: “Any judgment properly filed shall, for ten years from the date of filing, be a lien on the real property then owned or subsequently acquired by any person against whom the judgment is rendered.” Before the victim took any additional action, the sister died. Will Brother be subject to the judgment?

Answer 409

No | - Victim did NOT foreclose before Sister's death => NO severance

Question 410

O, owner of Blackacre, wanted to get rid of his land, Blackacre, and move somewhere warmer, but still wants to preserve the landscaping of the beautiful property. O drew up a deed of conveyance to her daughter, A. The deed stated the following: “To A, for so long as she does not remove any of the trees or flowers, and if she does then I have the right to reenter.” A gladly accepted the deed and managed O’s property nicely for a few years, but soon decided she didn’t like the large oak tree in the front yard. She decided to have it removed. At the moment the tree was removed, what interests did O and A have in Blackacre, respectively?

Answer 410

O: Right of entry - O yet to exercise right (NO fee simple) A: Fee simple subject to condition subsequent - FSD + FSSCS language used => Courts would presume FSSCS - O yet to exercise right => A's estate NOT terminated

Question 411

A landlord commercially leased his building to a woman who intended to open an ice cream shop. The woman installed an extensive amount of equipment in the building, which was permitted by the lease agreement, and she began making ice cream. She stored her ice cream in a freezer. However, the building’s cooling system broke and her ice cream all melted. She asked the landlord to fix the cooling system, but he refused. She had to temporarily close her store while searching for a mechanic to fix the cooling system. While the building was unusable for the purpose of storing ice cream, the woman remained on the premises to work on new marketing projects. Angry at the landlord for not fixing the cooling system, which has still not been fixed, the woman refused to make the next rent payment. The landlord began eviction proceedings, and in response, the woman sued the landlord for breach. Did Woman surrender?

Answer 411

No | - Woman did NOT vacate

Question 412

A landlord commercially leased his building to a woman who intended to open an ice cream shop. The woman installed an extensive amount of equipment in the building, which was permitted by the lease agreement, and she began making ice cream. She stored her ice cream in a freezer. However, the building’s cooling system broke and her ice cream all melted. She asked the landlord to fix the cooling system, but he refused. She had to temporarily close her store while searching for a mechanic to fix the cooling system. While the building was unusable for the purpose of storing ice cream, the woman remained on the premises to work on new marketing projects. Angry at the landlord for not fixing the cooling system, which has still not been fixed, the woman refused to make the next rent payment. The landlord began eviction proceedings, and in response, the woman sued the landlord for breach. Did Landlord breach the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment?

Answer 412

No - Landlord failed to make premises usable (cooling system broke => substantially deprived Woman's use of building for ice cream making) - Woman gave notice + reasonable time to repair (asked for Landlord to fix) - BUT Woman did NOT vacate premises!

Question 413

M owns Blackacre, which is located in a jurisdiction with a notice recording act. M first took out a mortgage from X who immediately recorded its interest. A week later, he took out a mortgage from Y, who did not immediately record. M then took out a mortgage from Z who was not aware of Y's deed, but aware of X's deed. Z never recorded its mortgage, but two days later Y recorded. M eventually defaulted on a payment to Z, who began foreclosure proceedings. At that time, there was $50,000 remaining on each of the mortgages. At the foreclosure sale, an investor bought Blackacre for $75,000. Assume all parties were properly joined. Who is entitled to the proceeds? Is Man or Investor liable for any deficiencies to whom?

Answer 413

Y + Z entitled to proceeds - Notice statute - X is senior (first to record) - Z is first junior (BFP with NO notice of Y's deed) - Y is first buyer after X => Last junior (NO record) - Z is foreclosing creditor => Investor pays off Z first ($50,000) => Investor has $25,000 ($75,000 - $50,000) - Y is necessary party included (junior) => Investor pays off $25,000 to Y => Y has remainder $25,000 ($50,000 - $25,000) - Y can sue Man for deficiency - X is senior => Investor takes subject to X's loan