Property wrong answers, workshop Flashcards
(13 cards)
An elderly grandfather who wanted to ensure that his property would remain in the family after his death included the following clause in his will: “I give my house in the city to my son, but if he ever tries to sell it while he is alive, I want it taken away from him and given to my grandson.” The grandfather’s will was properly executed.
When the grandfather later died, what interests did the son and grandson take in the property?
A The son took a fee simple. The son took a fee simple.
B The grandson took a fee simple.The grandson took a fee simple.
C The son took a fee simple subject to an executory interest, and the grandson took an executory interest.The son took a fee simple subject to an executory interest, and the grandson took an executory interest.
D The son took a fee simple determinable, and the grandson took a contingent remainder.
A The son took a fee simple. The son took a fee simple.
a restraint on alienation. **
The son received a fee simple in the property. The grandfather attempted to give his son a fee simple, but placed a restraint on alienation. Direct restraints on alienation of a fee simple are void. The grant is simply read as if it had been “O to A in fee simple.” The grandson gets nothing. Thus, (A) is correct.
(B) is incorrect because the grandson could not have gotten a fee simple in this devise even if there had not been the problem of restraints on alienation. He would, even by the terms of the will, take only if the son tried to sell the property. (C) is incorrect because of the rule prohibiting restraints on alienation of a fee simple. Absent the rule on restraints, these would be the interests taken by the son and grandson. (D) is incorrect because the form of the language does not support a fee simple determinable in the son (no “so long as” type of language), and the grandson could not have a remainder because a remainder can never follow a fee simple.
The owner of land conveyed it “to my best friend, and upon her death to my daughter.” The best friend took possession of the land and lived there for four years. She then conveyed “my interest in the land” to her longtime neighbor. Since the neighbor took up residence on the land, he has been sent two county property tax bills, which he has refused to pay. The county is now threatening to force a sale of the property to satisfy the tax lien. The daughter filed an appropriate suit, asking the court to evict the neighbor from the land and to compel him to pay the taxes for his period of occupancy.
How should the court rule?
A The neighbor has a life estate in the land and he must pay the taxes on the property.The neighbor has a life estate in the land and he must pay the taxes on the property.
B The neighbor has a life estate in the land for the period of the friend’s life and the neighbor does not have to pay the taxes on the property because taxes are the responsibility of the holder of the future interest.The neighbor has a life estate in the land for the period of the friend’s life and the neighbor does not have to pay the taxes on the property because taxes are the responsibility of the holder of the future interest.
C The neighbor has a life estate in the land for the period of the friend’s life and the neighbor must pay the taxes on the property.
D The daughter owns the land, because the friend could not convey her interest to her neighbor since the daughter held the future interest.
C The neighbor has a life estate in the land for the period of the friend’s life and the neighbor must pay the taxes on the property.
The neighbor has a life estate for the life of the friend and must pay taxes. When the best friend transferred her life estate to the neighbor, he took an estate that will terminate when the best friend dies. That is all that the best friend owned and all that she could convey. In addition, the rule is that the life tenant is responsible for paying taxes on the property (had there been a mortgage, the life tenant would have had to pay the interest on the mortgage but not the principal). (A) is incorrect. While it is true that the neighbor had a life estate and he does have to pay taxes, this is not a full answer because it does not recognize that his life estate is not an ordinary one; it is one measured by the best friend’s life, not his own. (B) is incorrect. The neighbor does have a life estate measured by the best friend’s life, but he must pay the taxes. Taxes are not a responsibility of the holder of the future interest, but are an obligation of the life tenant. (D) is incorrect. A life tenant can transfer the life estate to anyone, and the holder of the future interest has no say in the matter. Of course, if the new tenant abuses the property, the holder of the future interest has the ability to sue to stop waste, but cannot stop the transfer itself.
A landowner properly executed a warranty deed conveying her land to an animal shelter “so long as the premises are used for animal shelter purposes.” The animal shelter promptly and properly recorded the deed. A few years later, the landowner died intestate, with her husband as her only heir. The following year, the husband conveyed by means of a quitclaim deed “all of my interest” in the animal shelter land to his daughter from a previous marriage. The daughter promptly and properly recorded the deed. Last month, the animal shelter closed due to lack of funding. A domestic violence shelter wishes to use the land and petitions the court to allow it to take the animal shelter’s place.
If there is no applicable statute, the court should hold that title to the land is in which party?
Responses
A The daughter, because the land is no longer used for animal shelter purposes.
B The husband, because the interest he holds in the land is not transferable inter vivos.The husband, because the interest he holds in the land is not transferable inter vivos.
C The animal shelter, because no party has taken action to terminate its interest in the land.The animal shelter, because no party has taken action to terminate its interest in the land. - no
D The domestic violence shelter, because the court will likely apply cy pres.
A The daughter, because the land is no longer used for animal shelter purposes.
this is a fee simple determinable, which means an estate that automatically terminates on the happening of a stated event and goes back to the grantor.
The interest that is left in a grantor who conveys a fee simple determinable is a possibility of reverter, which in almost all jurisdictions is transferable, devisable, and descendible. Here, the animal shelter has a fee simple that is subject to automatic termination if the land is no longer used for animal shelter purposes. The landowner’s possibility of reverter descended on her death to her husband, who subsequently transferred it by inter vivos conveyance to his daughter. Thus, when the land ceased to be used for animal shelter purposes, it automatically reverted to the daughter
Owen owned Blackacre in fee simple. He executed a will leaving the property to his sister, Sarah, for life, with remainder to the children of his niece, Norah. At the time of the execution of the will, Norah had one daughter, Donna. The next year, Norah had a son, Sam. A year later, Owen died. Shortly after Owen’s death, Donna died in a plane crash, leaving all of her estate to her husband, Harold. One year after Owen’s death, Norah had another daughter, Debbi. Shortly thereafter, Sarah, Owen’s sister, died. Sixteen months after that, Norah had a second son, Sid.
Now who owns Blackacre?
Responses
A Harold, Sam, Debbi, and Sid in equal shares.
B Harold and Sam in equal shares.
C Sam, Debbi, and Sid in equal shares.
D Harold, Sam, and Debbi in equal shares.
D Harold, Sam, and Debbi in equal shares
Why is Sid left out? Because of the class closing rule: Whenever any member of the class is entitled to a distribution, the class closes and the distribution is made then. Any later arrivals to the class lose out entirely. Because Sam, Harold, and Debbi are eligible for a distribution the moment the life tenant (Sarah) dies, they take, and Sid, not yet born, loses out.
Exam Tip: For questions like this, when it is almost impossible to remember the many births, it is helpful to make a short diagram:
Before Owen’s (the testator’s) death:
First daughter Donna born
First son Sam born
After Owen’s death, but before the death of the life tenant (his sister Sarah):
Donna dies, gift passes to her husband Harold
Second daughter Debbi born
After the death of Sarah (the life tenant):
Second son Sid born
Nothing that happens after the life tenant’s death matters, so Harold, Sam, and Debbi take.
An uncle who owned a large tract of wooded land in fee simple had always opened his land to hunters from the local hunting club, and had often expressed the wish that they be permitted to continue to use it after he died. On his 75th birthday, he conveyed the land to his niece and nephew, who were members of the hunting club. The deed was a general warranty deed conveying the property in fee simple absolute. A few days later, the niece had a serious dispute with the nephew and the other members of the hunting club, and she quit the club. The uncle then executed a written agreement with the nephew stating that the conveyance of the land to the niece and nephew was in trust for the benefit of the local hunting club for a period of 10 years, with the niece and nephew as trustees, and then to the niece and nephew in fee simple. Several months later, the uncle died. When the next hunting season drew near, the nephew told the niece that members of the hunting club were once again planning to hunt on the property. The niece threatened to have anyone hunting on the property other than the nephew arrested for trespassing. The nephew brought an action for appropriate legal or equitable relief to establish his rights and the rights of the hunting club.
What, if any, relief should the court provide?
Partition the land into two separate tracts so that the nephew may permit the hunting club to use his half
A court will presume that the devise to the niece and nephew gave them a tenancy in common. Hence, each of them has the right to possess all portions of the property; neither of them has the right to exclusive possession of any part. However, any tenant in common has a right to judicial partition of the property, either in kind or by sale and division of the proceeds. When co-tenants are squabbling and cannot come to any agreement, the remedy of partition terminates the co-tenancy and divides the common property. Since the niece and nephew cannot agree on the use of the land by members of the hunting club, the court will probably partition the property.
A husband and wife held land as joint tenants with right of survivorship. On the marriage of their daughter, the husband and wife conveyed a 10% interest to her. Two years later, the husband and wife conveyed another 10% interest to the daughter’s spouse.
Which of the following best describes how the land is now owned?
The husband and wife hold an 80% interest as joint tenants, and the daughter and her spouse each hold a 10% interest as tenants in common.
Husband and wife by conveying together, do not sever their JT.
A tenant entered into a two-year apartment lease with a landlord on July 1. Rent was specified in the lease to be $850 per month, payable on the first of each month.
On June 15, near the end of the two-year term, the landlord asked the tenant if he wanted to renew the lease for an additional term. The tenant said he would like to think about it, and the landlord agreed, but added that the rent for the new lease would be $975 per month. The landlord heard nothing from the tenant. On July 10, the landlord found that the tenant was still in the apartment and told him that he was imposing a new tenancy on the tenant for the period allowed by the law under these circumstances.
What tenancy can be imposed, and at what rent
The landlord can impose a new periodic tenancy of month-to-month and the rent will be $975 per month.
When a tenant wrongfully holds over after the expiration of a lease, the landlord has two choices: either treat the tenant as a trespasser and sue for damages and possession or impose a new periodic tenancy on the hold-over tenant. If the landlord chooses, as this landlord has done here, to impose the new periodic tenancy, most courts in residential situations would impose a month-to-month tenancy. While the rent (as well as other terms) of the new tenancy will generally be the same as the old tenancy, there is an exception when the landlord has told the tenant of a future higher rent and that notification came before the expiration of the old lease. In that event, the landlord can impose the higher rent in the new periodic tenancy. Exam Tip: The facts in this type of question may vary-be sure that the landlord told the tenant of the higher rent before the expiration of the old lease; otherwise, the old, lower rent applies. Because the landlord told the tenant that the tenant could stay on at $975 and this occurred on June 15, prior to the expiration of the two-year lease, then if the tenant held over and the landlord elected to hold the tenant to a new periodic tenancy, it would be at the higher rent.
The owner of a house purchased a new home but decided to keep his old residence for a few months until the real estate market improved. He rented it to a tenant with the understanding that the tenant might have to move out in a few months if the house was sold. The tenant paid the owner the agreed rent of $100 per week every Friday.
During the next few months, the owner’s business suffered serious setbacks so he decided to sell his new home and move back into his old one. He informed the tenant that he would have to vacate the old home, but the tenant refused to vacate and tendered the $100 rental payment the following Friday, which the owner refused to accept.
The owner immediately filed suit to eject the tenant. The jurisdiction requires that a statutory written notice be served on any tenant whose term is for less than month-to-month or is not for a fixed term at least three days prior to commencement of eviction proceedings. No written notice of any kind was given to the tenant.
How should the owner characterize the tenant to gain immediate possession of his home?
Responses
A As a tenant from month to month.As a tenant from month to month.
B As a tenant from week to week.As a tenant from week to week.
C As a licensee.
D As a trespasser ab initio.
C As a licensee.
A woman owned two adjacent parcels. The east parcel fronts on a poor unpaved public road, while the west parcel fronts on a major highway. Fifteen years ago, the woman conveyed the east parcel to her son “together with a right-of-way 25 feet wide over the north side of the west parcel to the highway.” At that time, the east parcel was improved with a 10-unit motel.
Ten years ago, the woman died. Her will devised the west parcel “to my son for life, remainder to my daughter.”
Five years ago, the son executed a deed purporting to convey the east and west parcels to his friend in fee simple. The friend then enlarged the motel to 12 units.
Six months ago, the son died and the daughter took possession of the west parcel. She brought an appropriate action to enjoin the friend from using the right-of-way.
Who should prevail?
Responses
A The daughter, because merger extinguished the easement.The daughter, because merger extinguished the easement.
B The daughter, because the friend has overburdened the easement.The daughter, because the friend has overburdened the easement.
C The friend, because he has an easement by necessity.The friend, because he has an easement by necessity.
D The friend, because he has the easement granted by the woman to her son.
D The friend, because he has the easement granted by the woman to her son.
merger is wrong answer.
for there to be a merger which will extinguish an easement, the duration of the servient estate must be equal to or longer than the duration of the dominant estate (and therefore the easement). In this case, the son owned the east parcel in fee simple but owned only a life estate in the servient estate, the west parcel. Therefore, because the duration of the servient estate was shorter, there was no merger of the two estates and the easement was not extinguished by the son’s partial ownership of the servient estate. The friend likewise never owned the west parcel in fee simple because all that was owned by the son, his grantor, was a life estate in the west parcel. (
A woman who owned a parcel of land had direct access to the main road by an unpaved driveway. However, she decided that it would be more convenient to use a paved driveway on an adjoining parcel, so she began doing so. The man who owned the adjoining parcel also used the driveway, but he did not discover that the woman was using the driveway until two years later. At that time, he wrote a letter to the woman protesting the use of the driveway, but the woman continued to use the road. After she had used the road for a total of 20 years, she filed an action for declaratory judgment, claiming a prescriptive right to use the driveway on the west parcel. The time limit necessary to obtain an easement by prescription in this jurisdiction is 20 years.
Which of the following is the most accurate statement with regard to the woman’s use of the driveway now?
Responses
A The woman could not acquire a prescriptive easement in the west parcel because her original use was wholly trespassory and without any claim of right.
B The prescriptive period began to run when the woman first began using the driveway because the woman was in open and notorious possession, despite the fact that the man did not know of it.
C The prescriptive period began to run when the woman first began using the driveway despite the fact that, at that time, she was sharing her use with the man.
D The prescriptive period did not begin to run until two years after the woman began using the driveway, at the time her use of the driveway was contested.
this is about prescriptive EASEMENTS. not possesion. There is no requirement of exclusive use for the woman to obtain an easement by prescription. Exclusivity is only required in cases of adverse possession. Adverse possession is not at issue here because the woman has not “possessed” any part of the west parcel, and does not require title to continue her use of the property, which is all she seeks
Continuous
open and Notorious
Hostile
C The prescriptive period began to run when the woman first began using the driveway despite the fact that, at that time, she was sharing her use with the man.
A buyer purchased a tract home in a new development, putting up 10% of the purchase price as a down payment and financing the rest through a mortgage with a bank. After four years, the buyer put her house on the market, continuing to make all mortgage payments promptly. The buyer eventually sold the house to a third party, who took subject to the mortgage. After the third party took possession, the bank received no further mortgage payments from either the buyer or the third party.
In most states, which of the following best describes the remedy or remedies available to the bank?
Responses
A The bank may foreclose on the land, but may not sue either the buyer or the third party on the underlying debt.The bank may foreclose on the land, but may not sue either the buyer or the third party on the underlying debt.
B The bank may foreclose on the land, or it may sue the buyer on the underlying debt.
C The bank may foreclose on the land, or it may sue the third party on the underlying debt.The bank may foreclose on the land, or it may sue the third party on the underlying debt.
D The bank may foreclose on the land, or it may elect to sue either the buyer or the third party on the underlying debt.
B The bank may foreclose on the land, or it may sue the buyer on the underlying debt.
In the majority of jurisdictions, when a mortgagor transfers title to another, and the transferee takes “subject to” the mortgage, that means that the transferee will not be liable to the mortgagee on the promise underlying the mortgage. So the third party cannot be sued on the debt. But the mortgage follows the property and if the transferee does not make the payments, the mortgagee may foreclose on the mortgage. In any event, the mortgagor, the buyer, remains liable on the mortgage after the transfer and she can be sued on the debt. If the facts showed that the third party had “assumed” the mortgage, rather than merely taking “subject to” it, then he could have been sued on the debt
A father gave his daughter marketable title to a five-acre parcel of undeveloped land that adjoined 200 acres of uninhabited forest owned by a neighbor. When she visited her property with her father, he mistakenly pointed out the boundary line. She subsequently staked out the boundaries and built a log fence along what she thought was the boundary line. Approximately an acre of the neighbor’s land was inside her fence. The daughter built a cabin and lived in it for 30 years until she had to sell the property for medical reasons.
The daughter entered into a contract to sell the land. In accordance with the contract, the purchaser had a survey of the land done, which revealed the boundary discrepancy in the legal description. The purchaser contacted the neighbor, who said he knew nothing of the matter and did not consent to the daughter’s placement of the fence on his property. The purchaser then refused to proceed with the purchase. The jurisdiction in which the parcel was located had a 20-year period of occupation to satisfy the requirements of adverse possession.
If the daughter sues for specific performance of the land sale contract, will she prevail?
Responses
A Yes, because the daughter satisfied all elements required to make out adverse possession of the portion of the neighbor’s property within her fence.Yes, because the daughter satisfied all elements required to make out adverse possession of the portion of the neighbor’s property within her fence.
B Yes, because the land sale contract was unaffected by the minor discrepancy in the legal description.Yes, because the land sale contract was unaffected by the minor discrepancy in the legal description.
C No, because the daughter’s title to the land is not marketable.
D No, because the daughter’s fencing in of the neighbor’s property was not hostile, even if the neighbor had no knowledge of her actions.
C. No, because the daughter’s title to the land is not marketable.
Must take action for quiet title in court.
he daughter did satisfy all six requirements of adverse possession of the portion of the neighbor’s property. She possessed it exclusively for more than the statutory period, her possession was continuous and adverse to the rights of the true owner, and her possession was visible for all to see. But, even though she did acquire title by adverse possession, that title is not marketable until a judicial action is taken to quiet title. The law does not require purchasers to have to go to court to clearly establish title. Because the daughter had not done this, the title she contracted to convey was not, in fact, marketable. Thus, (C) is correct. (A) is incorrect because mere satisfaction of the elements of adverse possession is not enough to make title marketable; the adverse possessor must quiet title in a court action.
A landowner and her neighbor owned adjacent parcels of land. The landowner hired a contractor to install an in-ground swimming pool on her land. The day after the contractor had excavated for the pool, the neighbor’s storage shed, located on his property a few feet from the edge of the excavation, collapsed when the ground shifted. A riding tractor and patio furniture contained within the shed were damaged. The neighbor sued the landowner for damages. At trial, the neighbor established that the landowner’s project caused the subsidence and the damage to his property.
What else must the neighbor establish to prevail?
Responses
A No additional facts.
B That his land would have been damaged without the storage shed.That his land would have been damaged without the storage shed.
C That the contractor was negligent.That the contractor was negligent.
D That his land would have been damaged without the storage shed or that the contractor was negligent.
D That his land would have been damaged without the storage shed or that the contractor was negligent.
For the neighbor to prevail, he must show either that his land would have been damaged without the storage shed or that the contractor was negligent. A landowner has a right to have his land supported in its natural state by adjoining land. If, however, the land has buildings on it, an excavating adjacent landowner is strictly liable for damage to the buildings caused by the excavation only if the excavation would have caused the land to subside even in its natural state (i.e., without buildings). Even if the land would not have subsided in its natural state, the excavating landowner is liable for the damages if she was negligent. Here, the neighbor has established that the landowner’s excavation caused the damage to the neighbor’s storage shed. To prevail, the neighbor will need to show either that the subsidence would have occurred even if the land had been unimproved or that the contractor hired to excavate for the pool was negligent.
