Property Law - Multiple Choice Questions + Answers
The owner of Blackacre, a tract of land, died intestate leaving a son and daughter both of who were the owner's sole heirs. Daughter went into immediate possession of Blackacre two months after owner died, and she has since remained in possession exclusively. Over the next 15 years, daughter alone paid all of the taxes on Blackacre, built fences on Blackacre, repaired all the buildings on Blackacre and otherwise acted in ways that were actual, open and notorious, exclusive, continuous and under claim of right. Daughter's expenditure for so-called "annualized" expenses totaled $10,000. At the end of the 15-year period, Blackacre was condemned by the county in which it was located. The county has paid a condemnation award of $100,000 reflecting Blackacre's fair market value. Of this amount, $20,000 is attributable to improvements paid for by daughter. A dispute has now arisen regarding how the $100,000 condemnation award should be distributed. Which of the following best states how the $100,000 should be divided? A. $20,000 (the cost of improvements) should first be distributed to daughter and the remaining $80,000 distributed equally between daughter and son. B. $30,000 (the sum of the annualized expenses and improvements) should first be distributed to daughter and the remaining $70,000 distributed equally between daughter and son. C. $100,000 should be distributed to the daughter. D. $100,000 should be divided equally between daughter and son.
A. $20,000 (the cost of improvements) should first be distributed to daughter and the remaining $80,000 distributed equally between daughter and son.
Oscar hunts rabbits with his trained falcon, Perry. Perry was trained to swoop out of the air and grab small animals and bring them back to Oscar who would then kill them. Last Saturday, Oscar took Perry to hunt rabbits on Blackacre, a tract of land owned by Nancy. Oscar and Perry hunted on Blackacre without Nancy's permission. Last Saturday, Betty was hunting pheasant on Blackacre, also without Nancy's permission. While both Oscar and Betty were wrongfully hunting on Blackacre, Perry caught a rabbit in his talons and started flying back to Oscar. In the course of Perry's flight, Betty took a shot at Perry, thinking Perry to be a pheasant. Fortunately for Perry, Betty's shot missed but it so startled Perry that he dropped the rabbit. The rabbit landed dead at Betty's feet, having been killed by the impact. Imagine, Betty had shot a rabbit out of the sky! Oscar sues Betty to recover the possession of the dead rabbit. Under American law, who should win? A. Betty, because she was the first hunter to actually possess the dead rabbit. B. Nancy, because both Oscar and Betty were trespassers on Blackacre. C. Oscar, because Perry had captured and taken possession of the rabbit. D. Oscar and Betty as co-tenants because each of them contributed to the capture of the rabbit.
A. Betty, because she was the first hunter to actually possess the dead rabbit.
Bob was visiting a friend's home. As he was leaving the home, about 10 p.m., to go to his car, he found a ring on the first step of the porch of the home closest to the ground. When his friend told him the ring was not hers, Bob claimed it as his own. The next day Bob took the ring to a local jeweler to be cleaned. The jeweler immediately recognized the ring as belonging to Steve. When Bob returned for the ring, the jeweler refused to give it to him saying "it belongs to Steve; when he comes in next, I will give it to him." Two applicable statutes provide that (1) "a finder, other than a trespasser, is entitled to all lost property wherever found" and (2) "lost property is limited to lost property as determined under common-law principles and excludes mislaid and abandoned property." Bob immediately commenced a conversion action to recover the ring from the jeweler. Bob's friend was joined as a party-defendant in this suit. All parties agreed to try the case without a jury, as they are allowed to do under local law. For whom should the court rule? A. Bob, because he is the finder of lost property. B. The friend, because the property was mislaid and she owns the locus in quo. C. The jeweler, because he is currently in possession of the ring as Bob's bailee. D. Steve, because he is the true owner of the ring.
A. Bob, because he is the finder of lost property.
Oscar, who owns Blackacre in fee simple absolute, conveys Blackacre to "Barney and his heirs." Which of the following correctly states the title to Blackacre? A. Fee simple absolute in Barney. B. Fee simple determinable in Barney. C. Fee simple on condition subsequent in Barney. D. Fee tail in Barney.
A. Fee simple absolute in Barney.
A woman conveyed Blackacre, a tract of land, to Store and its successors and assigns so long as Blackacre was used to sell groceries. The deed further provided that if Store ceased using Blackacre to sell groceries within twenty years of the conveyance, Blackacre should pass to the woman's "Cousin and his heirs." Fifteen years after this conveyance was made, Store ceased using the premises to sell groceries. At that time, what is the state of the title? A. Fee simple absolute in Cousin because Store's estate automatically ended when it ceased selling groceries on the premises. B. Fee simple absolute in Store because woman imposed an invalid restraint on alienation on Store's interest. C. Fee simple on condition subsequent in Store, right of entry for condition broken in the woman because Cousin's interest was void and woman did not exercise the right of entry. D. Fee simple on condition subsequent in Store, shifting executory interest in Cousin because Cousin did not exercise the right of entry.
A. Fee simple absolute in Cousin because Store's estate automatically ended when it ceased selling groceries on the premises.
Landlord leased an apartment to Tenant for month-to-month at a monthly rent of $400. Four months after taking possession Tenant complained truthfully to Landlord that the apartment was uninhabitable and stopped paying rent. Landlord immediately remedied all problems and Tenant resumed paying rent. Seven months later, Tenant again truthfully complained to Landlord that the premises were uninhabitable and stopped paying rent. Again, Landlord immediately remedied all problems and Tenant resumed paying rent. Two months later, Landlord sent Tenant a notice to terminate the month-to-month tenancy along with a short note telling Tenant that, if Tenant agreed to pay rent in the amount of $650 per month, Landlord would be willing to continue renting to Tenant. Tenant refused but remained in possession of the apartment, sending Landlord a check for $400 only. Landlord immediately sued Tenant for possession for non-payment of rent. Tenant's best defense to avoid being de-possessed is that: A. Landlord acted in a retaliatory manner. B. Landlord breached the covenant of quiet enjoyment. C. Landlord breached the implied warranty of habitability twice. D. Tenant was constructively evicted.
A. Landlord acted in a retaliatory manner.
Landlord owns Blackacre in fee simple absolute. Blackacre is located in a jurisdiction that applies the common-law rules relating to tenancies. Blackacre is ideally suited as a widget manufacturing plant. It is also located in a jurisdiction that has only adopted the implied warranty of habitability and then only for residential leases. Last year Landlord leased Blackacre to Tenant for a ten-year term. The lease provided that Tenant would manufacture widgets on Blackacre. The lease is silent on which party has the obligation to make repairs. In the third year of the lease, Blackacre became unsafe for occupation due to a leaky roof that resulted in chronic flooding and electrical shortages. Tenant notified Landlord of these facts but Landlord refused to fix the problems telling Tenant: Ait's your problem, don't bother me." Within a reasonable period thereafter, Tenant vacated Blackacre. Landlord then brought an appropriate action against Tenant for rent. Who wins? A. Landlord, because no warranty of fitness for particular purpose is implied. B. Landlord, because the lease is silent regarding the making of repairs. C. Tenant, because Landlord's actions amount to an actual eviction. D. Tenant, because Landlord's actions amount to a constructive eviction.
A. Landlord, because no warranty of fitness for particular purpose is implied.
O, the owner of Blackacre in fee simple, conveyed Blackacre to A and his heirs. The O to A deed was not recorded. One year later, O conveyed Blackacre to B and his heirs. The deed was immediately and properly recorded. Blackacre is located in a state with a notice statute. Three years later, B conveyed Blackacre to C and his heirs. C never recorded. C had actual notice of the O to A deed. One year later, A sues C in ejectment. Will A win? A. No, because B was a bona fide purchaser. B. No, because C was a bona fide purchaser. C. Yes, because C never recorded. D. Yes, because A was first in time, thus first in right.
A. No, because B was a bona fide purchaser.
A man took his watch to a jeweler to be repaired. While the watch was with the jeweler, it was stolen by a thief who, in turn, took the watch to a second jeweler, who was a watch dealer to get a new watchband. The second jeweler wrongfully placed the watch in a display case and it was purchased by a woman at its fair market value, less 10%. When the thief discovered these facts, he brought an action against the woman to recover the watch. Is the thief entitled to recover the watch from the woman? A. No, because of statutory estoppel. B. No, because the watch belongs to the man. C. Yes, because as between the thief and the woman, the thief is the prior possessor. D. Yes, because statutory estoppel is inapplicable.
A. No, because of statutory estoppel.
A woman owned Blackacre, a tract of land, in fee simple absolute. Last year, the woman conveyed Blackacre to her "sister for life, remainder to such of her sister's children as attain age 21." At the time of the conveyance, the sister was living. She had one child then age 18. Three months ago, the woman died intestate leaving her sister as her only heir. Two months ago, the sister and her now 19-year-old child contracted to sell Blackacre to a man with the contract to "close" in one month. During that time, the man conducted a title search of Blackacre and discovered, in addition to the deed from the woman to the sister and her children, that the local utility company had an easement over Blackacre for visible power lines. He also discovered that the sister had previously leased the property to a tenant creating between them a valid, tenancy at will. The man believes that in light of these findings, neither the sister alone nor the sister and her child acting together can convey to him a fee simple absolute. Is he correct? A. No, because sister and child own all of the outstanding interests in Blackacre. B. No, because sister has a fee simple absolute in Blackacre. C. Yes, because both the tenancy at will and the easement make the title unmarketable. D. Yes, because the tenancy at will alone makes the title unmarketable.
A. No, because sister and child own all of the outstanding interests in Blackacre.
L leased an apartment to T for a term of three years. The lease provided that T would pay L rent of $1,000 per month. One year later, T assigned the lease to T-1 for the balance of the term. Six months after T-1 moved into the apartment, T-1 notified L that T-1 would no longer pay L rent because the apartment was no longer habitable. In fact, the apartment was not habitable. L then sued T-1 for possession for nonpayment of rent. Will L prevail? A. No, because the warranty of habitability runs with the land. B. No, because L can only sue T with whom L is in privity of contract. C. Yes, because T-1 is an assignee and in privity of estate with L. D. Yes, because the habitability defense is not available to T-1.
A. No, because the warranty of habitability runs with the land.
A woman took her ring to a local jeweler to be repaired and to be returned to her. The jeweler placed the ring in a case with other jewelry in his store and later sold the ring to a buyer for its market value. Three weeks later, the buyer lost the ring when it inadvertently fell off his finger in the shower. The ring was later found by an employee of the local water company who, as required by his employment contract, turned it over to his employer. A dispute has arisen regarding the ownership of the ring in a proceeding in which the woman, the buyer, the employee and the employer are all parties. In this proceeding, the court should decide that the ring belongs to: A. The buyer, because he purchased the ring from the jeweler. B. The employee, because he was the finder. C. The employer, because the employee had to turn over the ring to the employer. D. The woman, because she was the original owner as well as the prior possessor.
A. The buyer, because he purchased the ring from the jeweler.
A meteor fell on the land of a farmer and embedded itself into a 12' crater created when it hit the land. A passing motorist saw the meteor and immediately went upon the farmer's land and took the meteor away. Three weeks later, the motorist sold the meteor to a local museum which paid the motorist fair market value. The museum knew that the meteor had been found on the farmer's land. If the farmer brings an appropriate action against the museum to recover the meteor, who will likely prevail? A. The farmer, because as the owner of the land, he owns all that is attached to and under his land. B. The farmer, because he was the constructive finder of the meteor when it first landed on his land. C. The museum, because it paid fair market value for the property and, therefore, was a bona fide purchaser. D. The museum, because the motorist was the finder and had good title against all the world of this previously unowned thing which finder transferred to museum.
A. The farmer, because as the owner of the land, he owns all that is attached to and under his land.
Five years ago, a man conveyed Blackacre to "Betty in fee simple absolute." Four years ago, Betty devised the property to "her husband for his life, remainder to their children and their heirs." Betty and her husband had three children. Three years ago, one of the three children died bequeathing her entire estate to a friend. Last year the husband died survived by the two children, the friend to whom the deceased child had bequeathed his estate, and the man who had five years ago conveyed Blackacre to Betty. All parties die in State A. Who owns Blackacre? A. The man, because Betty died four years ago. B. The two children, because their vested remainder became possessory at the man's death and the deceased child had no devisable interest. C. The two children and the friend, because the vested remainder became possessory at the husband's death and the deceased child had a devisable interest. D. State A because the property escheats.
A. The man, because Betty died four years ago.
A man owned a watch. On his way to the hospital for heart surgery, he handed the watch to his son stating: "This watch is yours. I may never come home from the hospital." One day later the son lost the watch. It was found by a finder who failed to publish a notice on the courthouse door that he had found the watch as required by a local statute. Three weeks after the finder found the watch, it was stolen by a thief. The thief, in turn, sold the watch to a woman who knew none of the foregoing facts and paid the thief fair market value for the watch. In the meantime, the man fully recovered from his surgery. When he later discovered that the watch was in the possession of the woman, he brought an appropriate action against her to recover possession of the watch. In this action, judgment should be for: A. The man, because he is the absolute owner of the watch. B. The man, because the finder failed to publish the notice required by statute. C. The woman, because the man gave the watch to his son. D. The woman, because she paid fair market value for the watch.
A. The man, because he is the absolute owner of the watch.
Five years ago, a man conveyed Blackacre to Able, Baker and Carrie, as joint tenants with right of survivorship and not as tenants in common. Three years ago, Able conveyed by quitclaim deed all of this right, title, and interest in and to Blackacre to Doris. Last week, Baker died bequeathing all of his property by his duly probated will to Edith. Which of the following statements properly states the title to Blackacre? A. Able, Edith, and Carrie as tenants in common equally. B. Doris as a 1/3 tenant in common with Carrie as a 2/3 tenant in common. C. Doris and Carrie as tenants in common equally. D. Doris, Edith and Carrie as tenants in common equally.
B. Doris as a 1/3 tenant in common with Carrie as a 2/3 tenant in common.
Ten years ago, a woman died bequeathing Blackacre, a tract of land, she owned in fee simple absolute, to a "man and his heirs but if the man died without issue surviving him, then to a friend and her heirs." Seven years ago, the man died testate bequeathing his entire estate to his oldest son. If the man died intestate, his heirs would have been his two sons. Six years ago, the friend died leaving all of her property to her daughter for life, remainder to her daughter's children. The daughter had three children. Four years ago, the man's younger son died. He bequeathed his entire estate to his alma mater. Three years ago, the man's oldest son died in an auto accident never having married or having children. The oldest son's sole heir is a first cousin. The current state of the title to Blackacre is: A. First cousin and alma mater, as tenants in common. B. First cousin in fee simple absolute. C. Friend's daughter for life, contingent remainder in her children. D. Friend's daughter for life, vested remainder subject to open in her children.
B. First cousin in fee simple absolute.
Freida was told by her doctor that she had no more than two months to live. Upon hearing the news, Freida decided to "put her affairs in order." She immediately contacted her attorney to prepare her last will and she handed her son a pair of candlesticks saying: "Take these, I am dying, they belonged to your grandmother. It is only appropriate that you should have them." A week later she delivered a deed to her home to her son, saying to him: "I give you the home. You have always liked it." Three weeks later, Frieda signed her will leaving her entire estate to her daughter. Frieda died four days later owning other assets equal in value to the home and the candlesticks. A local bank was appointed the executor with full authority to distribute the estate. In an appropriate action to determine the title to the candlesticks and home, the court ruled that they belonged to the son. Why? A. Freida made a gift causa mortis of both the home and of the candlesticks to her son. B. Freida made a gift inter vivos of the home and a gift causa mortis of the candlesticks to her son. C. Son is entitled to the home under the doctrine of primogeniture and there was a gift causa mortis of the candlesticks. D. The will was invalid and since the son had the home and the candlesticks the local bank simply allowed him to keep the assets in lieu of other estate assets.
B. Freida made a gift inter vivos of the home and a gift causa mortis of the candlesticks to her son.
Ten years ago, a woman owned Blackacre, a tract of land located in a jurisdiction that applies the common-law scheme of estates except that the jurisdiction has repealed the Rule in Shelley's Case. In that year, she conveyed Blackacre to "Sam for life, and upon Sam's death, to her [the woman's] heirs." Nine years ago, the woman executed a quit claim deed conveying all of her rights in Blackacre to "Harry and the heirs of his body." At the time of the conveyance to Harry, he had no living descendants. The woman died last year leaving a probated will devising all of her property to "Zeb and his heirs." Had the woman died intestate, her sole heir would have been Wanda. Yesterday, Sam died. A dispute has arisen concerning the title to Blackacre. Which of the following statements concerning that title is correct? A. Harry owns Blackacre in fee simple absolute, because when the woman conveyed her reversion to him, Harry had no living descendants. B. Harry owns Blackacre in fee tail, because the woman conveyed her reversion to Harry in fee tail. C. Wanda owns Blackacre in fee simple absolute, because she takes as the woman's heir under the terms of the conveyance ten years ago. D. Zeb owns Blackacre in fee simple absolute, because he takes the woman's reversion under her probated will.
B. Harry owns Blackacre in fee tail, because the woman conveyed her reversion to Harry in fee tail.
Landlord leased an apartment to Tenant for five years at a monthly rent of $500. The lease provided that Tenant would neither assign nor sublet the apartment without Landlord's written consent. The lease also placed the repair obligation upon the Landlord. Blackacre is located in a state that does not require a landlord to mitigate damages in the event the tenant wrongfully breaches the lease. In the 10th month of the lease, Tenant truthfully told Landlord that the garbage disposal in the kitchen did not work and that garbage was accumulating in the sink. Tenant also told Landlord that if Landlord did not repair the garbage disposal within four days, Tenant would vacate the apartment. Landlord did not repair the garbage disposal. Five days later, as Tenant was in the process of vacating the apartment, Tenant found a woman willing to sublet the apartment from Tenant. Landlord, however, refused to consent to the sublease because neither the Tenant nor any other person could convince Landlord that the proposed subtenant would be able to afford the rent. Tenant, in fact, vacated the apartment and has failed to pay rent. In a subsequent and timely suit by Landlord against Tenant for unpaid rent, judgment is likely to be for: A. Landlord, because of the implied warranty of habitability. B. Landlord, because Tenant wrongfully breached the lease. C. Tenant, because Landlord breached the implied warranty of habitability. D. Tenant, because Landlord unreasonably withheld consent to the proposed sublease.
B. Landlord, because Tenant wrongfully breached the lease.
Which of the following is not an incident of free tenures under the English common law? A. Escheat. B. Military service. C. Relief. D. Wardship and marriage.
B. Military service.
Owen owned Blackacre, a tract of land, in fee simple absolute. Twenty years ago, Owen conveyed Blackacre to "Barbara and Susan and their heirs, as tenants in common and not as joint tenants." One year ago, Barbara died devising all of her property, real and personal, to Steve. Had Barbara died intestate her sole heir would have been Tom. Six months ago, Susan died devising all of her property, real and personal, to Betty. Had Susan died intestate, her sole heir would have been Zelda. What is the state of the title to Blackacre following the deaths of Barbara and Susan? A. Betty in fee simple absolute. B. Steve and Betty, as tenants in common. C. Tom and Zelda, as tenants in common. D. Zelda in fee simple absolute.
B. Steve and Betty, as tenants in common.
Landlord, the owner of Blackacre in fee simple absolute, leases it to Tenant in writing for a period of five years. Tenant takes immediate possession of Blackacre and remains in possession for the entire five-year period. At the end of the five-year period, Tenant refuses to vacate the premises notwithstanding Landlord's demand that Tenant do so. What type of an interest, if any, does Tenant have in Blackacre? A. Periodic tenancy. B. Tenancy at sufferance. C. Tenancy at will. D. Term of years.
B. Tenancy at sufferance.
A man owned a one-acre tract of land on which was located a cabin ideally suited to be used in the winter. A woman adversely possessed the cabin for eight years during the winter season. In the eighth year of her possession, a hunter started to occupy the cabin in the summer. The hunter did this after he had met the man who told the hunter about the cabin, told the hunter he never used the cabin, and told the hunter that he did not care whether the hunter used the cabin. In the ninth year, the woman brought an ejectment action against the hunter. In this action, the court will likely rule in favor of: A. The hunter, because he acquired a title by adverse possession. B. The hunter, because his possession was permissive from the man. C. The woman, because she owned the cabin by adverse possession. D. The woman, because, as between herself and the hunter, she was the prior possessor.
B. The hunter, because his possession was permissive from the man.
Twenty-five years ago, a married man purchased Blackacre, vacant land, in fee simple absolute. Blackacre is located in a jurisdiction that at all times has common-law dower. Unbeknownst to the man, twenty years ago a possessor entered Blackacre. The possessor has from then until today been in hostile, open and notorious, actual, exclusive, and continuous possession of Blackacre. The married man died last week survived by his wife of 35 years and his daughter. The governing law also provides that after setting aside any dower share, the balance of a decedent's estate passes in equal shares to his surviving issue. Title to Blackacre is in: A. The possessor, because she acquired a title to Blackacre by adverse possession. B. The possessor, because she acquired a title to Blackacre by adverse possession, but subject to the wife's dower share. C. The wife, because her cause of action to recover the possession of Blackacre did not arise until the married man died. D. The wife and daughter, because adverse possession claims cannot be asserted against married men.
B. The possessor, because she acquired a title to Blackacre by adverse possession, but subject to the wife's dower share.
A man owned Blackacre, a three-acre tract of land. Five years ago, a woman entered Blackacre and actually occupied the westerly one acre although from time to time she planted flowers on selected portions of the remaining two acres. Two years ago, the woman went to France to teach at a local University for two months. While she was in Europe, a local developer entered the two acres of Blackacre. The developer was the man's son. Neither the woman nor the developer had any claim of title to Blackacre. The developer has been in possession of the two acres continuously since he entered Blackacre and spent over $100,000 improving the two acres. A local statute provides that actions to recover the possession of real property must be brought within 10 years after the cause of action accrues. Last week the woman brought an ejectment action against the developer to recover the two acres of Blackacre. The court held for the developer. Why? A. The developer was the man's son and, thus, were in privity of estate. B. The woman's title extended only to the one acre she actually occupied. C. The developer acquired title to the two acres by adverse possession. D. The developer spent over $100,000 improving the two acres.
B. The woman's title extended only to the one acre she actually occupied.
Landlord leased Blackacre to Tenant for a term of five years at a monthly rental of $500. In the 20th month of the term, Tenant wrongfully vacated Blackacre and told Landlord that she (Tenant) would no longer pay Landlord rent. At the time Tenant vacated Blackacre, unpaid rent for the balance of the term equals $20,000. Three months later, Landlord sues Tenant for unpaid rent. At the time of the suit, Tenant has not paid the prior three months' rent. The maximum amount Landlord can recover from Tenant in this suit is: A. $0 B. $500 C. $1,500 D. $20,000
C. $1,500
John Brown and Mary Jones were penniless when they married, both for the first time. John, however, struck it rich at the dice tables and with his earnings purchased Blackacre in his name in fee simple absolute. Shortly after acquiring Blackacre, however, John Brown was shot to death in a dispute over a card game. At the time of his death, his wife Mary was pregnant with their first child, who was born seven months after his murder. In order to pay the doctor bills following the birth of their son, Mary sought to sell her interest in Blackacre. Under the English common law, what was her interest? A. A fee simple interest in all of Blackacre. B. A fee simple interest in one-third of Blackacre. C. A life estate in one-third of Blackacre. D. A life estate in all of Blackacre.
C. A life estate in one-third of Blackacre.
O conveyed Blackacre to A by a full covenant and warranty deed. A did not record. Two years later, O conveyed Blackacre to B by a quitclaim deed. B paid O full value for Blackacre and had no actual notice of the prior conveyance to A. One year later, B conveyed Blackacre by a full covenant and warranty deed to C who paid full value for Blackacre and had actual knowledge of the O to A deed. The jurisdiction has a "notice" type recording statute and a grantor-grantee index system. As between A and C, who owns Blackacre? A. A, because A was first in time; thus, first in right. B. A, because A claims under a full covenant and warranty deed. C. C, because C claims under a full covenant and warranty deed. D.C, because B was a bona fide purchaser whose interest was prior to A's interest.
C. C, because C claims under a full covenant and warranty deed.
O conveyed Blackacre to A by a full covenant and warranty deed. A, however, did not record. Two years later, A conveyed to B by a quitclaim deed. B paid A full value for Blackacre. B immediately recorded the quitclaim deed. Two years later, O conveyed Blackacre to C by a full covenant and warranty deed. C paid full value for Blackacre. C, however, had no actual notice of any impediments to title. Furthermore, C never recorded. The jurisdiction has a "notice" type recording statute and a grantor-grantee index system. As between B and C, who owns Blackacre? A. B, because B recorded before C who thus had constructive notice of the A-B deed. B. B, because O conveyed to A by a warranty deed. C. C, because C is a bona fide purchaser. D. C, because O conveyed to C by a warranty deed.
C. C, because C is a bona fide purchaser.
In the year 1620, Sam, an English lord, conveyed Blackacre, a tract of land located in England, to "Sam for life, remainder to Alan's first-born daughter and the heirs of her body, remainder to Sam's heirs." At the time of the conveyance both Alan and Sam were childless. One year later, Sam conveyed all of his rights in Blackacre to "Bob and his heirs." Two years later, Alan's daughter Andrea was born. Sixteen years later, Andrea married John and the following year they had their first child, Percival. Sam died in 1640 survived by Bob, Andrea, John, and Percival. Sam died intestate and Emily was his only heir. In 1640, which statement correctly states the title to Blackacre? A. Fee simple absolute in Bob. B. Fee simple absolute in Emily. C. Fee tail in Andrea, vested remainder in Bob. D. Fee tail in Emily, vested remainder in Bob, subject an estate of curtesy in John.
C. Fee tail in Andrea, vested remainder in Bob.
In 1350, Owner owned Blackacre, a tract of land, located in a jurisdiction applying the common-law scheme of estates, in fee simple absolute. In that year, Owner conveyed Blackacre to "Able and the male heirs of his body." In 1360, Able died survived by Owner. Able also was survived by his two children, namely his son, Baker, and his daughter, Nancy. In 1368, Owner died leaving his son, George, as his sole heir. In 1369, Baker died. Baker's sole heir was his son, Tom. Baker's sister, Nancy, also survived. The state of Blackacre's title is: A. Fee tail in George. B. Fee simple absolute in George. C. Fee tail in Tom. D. Fee tail in Nancy.
C. Fee tail in Tom.
Oscar owned Blackacre in fee simple absolute with a title that related back to the root of title. In 1990, Oscar conveyed Blackacre to Bob by a warranty deed containing promises that he (Oscar) was fully empowered to sell Blackacre to Bob and had a good title to convey to Bob. Bob did not record this deed. In 1991, Oscar conveyed Blackacre to Greta by a quitclaim deed. Greta, who had no notice of Oscar's conveyance to Bob, went into immediate possession of Blackacre and has been in actual, open, continuous, and exclusive possession of Blackacre under claim of right and color of title ever since then. In 1992, Bob recorded the Oscar-Bob deed. In 1993, Greta recorded the Oscar-Greta deed. The jurisdiction has a notice-type recording statute and a grantor-grantee index. It also has the following statute: "Actions to recover the possession of real property must be brought within ten years after the cause of action accrues." In 2005, Bob brought an ejectment action against Greta. Who will prevail? A. Bob, because he took under the warranty deed described in the facts. B. Bob, because he recorded his deed before Greta recorded her deed. C. Greta, because she has an absolute paper title. D. Greta, because she acquired a title by adverse possession.
C. Greta, because she has an absolute paper title.
A landlord leased commercial real estate to a tenant for one year at $150 per month. In the third month of the lease term, the tenant determined that the premises were too small for her purposes and notified the landlord that she was vacating the premises. After the tenant vacated the property, the landlord entered the property to prepare them for a new tenant to whom the landlord rented the property on a two-year lease at $100 a month. At the end of the first year, the landlord sued the tenant to recover the difference in rents. A. In a jurisdiction that requires the landlord to mitigate damages, the landlord should recover the difference in rent. B. In a jurisdiction that requires the landlord to mitigate damages, the landlord's entry without the tenant's consent constitutes an acceptance of the tenant's surrender and terminates the lease. C. In a jurisdiction that does not require the landlord to mitigate damages, the landlord's re-renting the premises for a two-year term automatically excuses the tenant from any further rent obligations. D. In a jurisdiction that does not require the landlord to mitigate damages, the landlord's re-renting for a different monthly rental automatically excuses the tenant from further rent obligations.
C. In a jurisdiction that does not require the landlord to mitigate damages, the landlord's re-renting the premises for a two-year term automatically excuses the tenant from any further rent obligations.
Five years ago, a man died testate devising Blackacre, a tract of land, to his "niece for life, remainder to her surviving children and their heirs." The man bequeathed the residue of his estate to a "Charity and its successors." Four years ago, the niece conveyed all of her rights in Blackacre to her "cousin for life." The cousin in turn leased Blackacre to a local grocery store for 10 years. The cousin died last week unexpectedly. Which of the following best states the title to Blackacre? A. Fee simple absolute in the Charity. B. Fee simple absolute in the niece's children. C. Niece has a life estate, her children a contingent remainder and Charity a reversion. D. Niece has a life estate, her children a contingent remainder and Charity a reversion, subject to a term of years in the grocery store.
C. Niece has a life estate, her children a contingent remainder and Charity a reversion.
Landlord, the owner of Blackacre in fee simple absolute, leases Blackacre to tenant. The lease is in writing and provides for a five-year term. The lease obligates Tenant to pay rent of $500 a month. Tenant takes immediate possession of Blackacre. The lease also contains an implied warranty of habitability. One year later, Carl, the Landlord's brother-in-law, acting without Landlord's permission or knowledge, forces Tenant to vacate Blackacre. What judicial relief, if any, may Tenant obtain against Landlord? A. Damages and a termination of the lease. B. Damages only. C. No relief. D. Termination of the lease only.
C. No relief.
Three weeks ago, a woman was shopping in a clothing store. While trying on a dress in the store, she inadvertently left her purse in the "dressing" room. In her purse was her wallet with $300 in cash. Within seconds after the woman left the "dressing" room, a salesperson found the purse on the floor of the try-on room. Without even opening the purse, the salesperson ran onto the floor of the store and seeing only one customer there asked that customer if she had been in the "dressing" room. When the customer responded "yes," the salesperson responded: "Oh, then this must be yours" and gave the purse to the customer. The customer then left the store. All of this happened in less than one and one-half minutes. Neither the customer, the purse, nor the cash can be found. The woman brought an action against the store for damages. In that action, the woman was able to prove both prior possession of the purse and cash, but she could not prove that she had an absolute title to either. The woman can recover: A. The value of the purse only, because the store had no knowledge of the contents of the purse. B. The value of the purse and cash, because the store is charged with constructive knowledge that women customers could have cash in their purse. C. Nothing, because the store's employee was not negligent when surrendering the purse to the customer. D. Nothing, because the woman failed to prove that she had an absolute title to either the purse or the cash.
C. Nothing, because the store's employee was not negligent when surrendering the purse to the customer.
Last year a testator by her duly probated will devised Blackacre, a tract of land, which testator owned in fee simple absolute as follows: "If Sara survives me, I give Blackacre to Sara and her heirs but if Sara dies without issue surviving her, then to Adam and his heirs." Testator bequeathed the balance of her estate to Charity. Blackacre is located in a jurisdiction that has abolished the fee tail estate and applies the so-called "definite failure of issue construction." Both Sara and Adam survived the testator, but Sara died suddenly the following year survived by a daughter, and by Adam. Under the terms of Sara's duly probated will, Sara bequeathed her entire estate to "Ralph and his heirs." Between the time testator died and the time Sara died, Adam had conveyed all of his rights in Blackacre to "Mandy and the heirs of her body." Which of the following best states the title to Blackacre? A. Charity in fee simple absolute. B. Mandy in fee tail. C. Ralph in fee simple absolute. D. Sara's daughter in fee simple absolute.
C. Ralph in fee simple absolute.
Landlord, the owner of Blackacre in fee simple absolute, leases Blackacre to Tenant by a written lease for a period of three months at a monthly rent of $120 payable weekly. What type of tenancy does Tenant have? A. Month-to-month tenancy. B. Tenancy at will. C. Term of years. D. Week-to-week tenancy.
C. Term of years.
Last year, a man opened a safe deposit box at a local bank which was accessed both by a key and his signature on a signature card provided by the bank when entering the safe deposit box area. The man immediately placed a diamond ring in the box which was contained in a little jewelry bag. He also placed 300 shares of stock he owned into an envelope and wrote on the outside of it: "I give this stock to Eve." Immediately below this statement, the man signed his name. Seven weeks ago, the man gave the keys to the safe deposit box to his cousin and stated: "Take these keys; everything in the box is yours." Last week the man died suddenly from an unexpected heart attack. He left a will bequeathing all of his property to his mother. A dispute has arisen concerning the ownership of the ring and the stock. Most likely: A. The ring and the stock belong to Eve as a result of a gift made when the man opened the box. B. The ring and the stock belong to the cousin as a result of a gift made when the man gave the keys to the box to the cousin. C. The ring and the stock belong to the mother because both the ring and the stock were owned by the man at the time of his death. D. The ring belongs to the mother under the man's will but the stock belongs to Eve as a result of a gift made when the man opened the box.
C. The ring and the stock belong to the mother because both the ring and the stock were owned by the man at the time of his death.
A man died leaving a probated will under which he bequeathed his entire estate to Baker and his heirs "immediately upon the probate of my will." Baker was appointed by the court as the executor of the man's estate. The man's will was probated one month after he died. Had the man died intestate, his sole heir would have been his uncle. Four months after the will was probate, a dispute arose between Baker and the uncle regarding title to Blackacre. Blackacre was a tract of land owned by the man in fee simple absolute at the time of his death and was included as an asset of his estate that he bequeathed to Baker. Blackacre is located in a jurisdiction that has abolished the fee tail estate but nonetheless requires that in a will or a deed the phrase "and his heirs" must be included in order to convey a fee simple absolute. The jurisdiction otherwise applies the common-law scheme of estates. As between Baker and the uncle, who owns Blackacre in fee simple absolute? A. Baker, because he was named as the executor of the man's estate. B. Baker, because the will bequeathed Blackacre to him. C. The uncle, because the bequest to Baker violated the rule against perpetuities. D. The uncle, because the jurisdiction has abolished the fee tail estate.
C. The uncle, because the bequest to Baker violated the rule against perpetuities.
A woman took her rhinestone-trimmed jacket to the dry cleaners. The clerk at the cleaners gave her a claim check and told her the jacket would be ready in three days. The woman put the claim check in her purse. Later that day, the woman was shopping in a store and in the process of paying for a blouse placed her purse on the counter. While the woman interacted with the store clerk to pay for the blouse, the claim check was stolen from her purse by a man who had been standing next to the woman. The man then went to the cleaners, presented the ticket to the cleaners, and took home the jacket. The man cannot be found. When the woman returned to the cleaners, she was told that her jacket had been given to the man. When she then told the cleaners truthfully that the jacket had belonged to Elvis Presley and was worth $10,000, the cleaners refuse to reimburse her for it. The woman then sued the cleaners to recover the $10,000. The court ruled for the cleaners. Why? A. The cleaners acted negligently in delivering the coat to the man who presented the cleaners with the claim check. B. The cleaners had misdelivered the coat to the man who presented the cleaners with the claim check. C. The woman acted negligently when she lost the claim check. D. The woman failed to tell the cleaners that the jacket had belonged to Elvis Presley.
C. The woman acted negligently when she lost the claim check.
A man owned two tracts of land, Lot 1 and Lot 2, which he purchased fifteen years ago. The lots were immediately adjacent to each other with Lot 1 on the west and Lot 2 on the east. Eight years ago, a woman went into possession of all of Lot 1 under a deed from the man that described all of Lot 1. Her deed was promptly and properly recorded and thus has become part of the land records. Seven years ago, a farmer went into possession of Lot 2 under an invalid (but colorable) deed from the man describing all of Lot 2 and a strip of Lot 1 some 40' wide running along the entire lot line from north to south. The farmer, however, never actually occupied any portion of this 40' strip but occupied only Lot 2. The deed to the farmer was never recorded. The woman has sued the farmer to establish her title to the 40' disputed strip. Who will prevail? A. The farmer, because the farmer can show that the man owned the disputed strip. B. The farmer, because as to the disputed strip the farmer has constructive possession. C. The woman, because she has possession of the disputed strip. D. The woman, because the farmer's deed was not recorded.
C. The woman, because she has possession of the disputed strip.
O conveyed Blackacre to A and his heirs by a full covenant and warranty deed. However, at the time of the conveyance X, not O, owned Blackacre. The deed from O to A was promptly and properly recorded. Subsequently, A conveyed Blackacre to B and his heirs by a quitclaim deed containing no warranties. B had no notice of X's interest in the land. The deed to B, however, was never recorded. Thereafter, X, the owner of Blackacre, successfully sued B in ejectment. If, following that ejectment action, B sues O for damages, will B prevail? A. No, because B never recorded the A to B deed. B. No, because B only took title under a quitclaim deed. C. Yes, because B was a remote grantee and a warranty was breached. D. Yes, because B was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice.
C. Yes, because B was a remote grantee and a warranty was breached.
Landlord leased a three-story building to Tenant for thirty years. Both parties understood that Tenant would operate a health insurance company from the building marketing policies to upwardly mobile young college graduates. The written lease, however, did not restrict Tenant to this use. The rent was $600,000 for the first five years, $900,000 for the next five years, and then escalated thereafter at the rate of 8% per year. Tenant's accountant estimated that after payment of rent and other expenses, Tenant's profit margin would be 10.5%. Eight years after the lease was signed, the federal government adopted massive changes to the health insurance system which made it unprofitable for the Tenant to continue with its insurance business. In fact, Tenant's accountant now estimates that, in light of the federal government's changes, Tenant's profit margins would be reduced from 10.5% to 4%. Because of this, Tenant has concluded that it will cease writing health insurance policies and will devote itself to more profitable lines of insurance. Furthermore, Tenant honestly believes it no longer needs a three-story building to conduct this new line of business. Tenant seeks to move to a different location. Is Tenant entitled to terminate the lease if Tenant vacates the building? A. No, because the lease was in writing and did not violate the statute of frauds. B. No, because Tenant has been constructively evicted from the building by Landlord. C. Yes, because actions of the federal government amount to commercial frustration. D. Yes, because actions of the federal government amount to superseding illegality.
C. Yes, because actions of the federal government amount to commercial frustration.
Landlord leased an apartment to Tenant for month-to-month at a monthly rental of $500 payable at the end of each month. The apartment was located in the State of Iowa. At the time the lease was signed the premises were fully habitable and $600 was the apartment's fair rental value. At the end of the tenth month, Tenant vacated the apartment and refused to pay rent for that tenth month. Tenant claimed truthfully that the premises were partially unhabitable throughout the tenth month and that for that month the apartment's fair rental value would have been $400 taking into account the fact that they were partially unhabitable. Landlord does not dispute either of these facts. For the tenth month only, the amount of rent properly owed by Tenant is: A. $600 B. $500 C. $400 D. $300
D. $300
A woman devised Blackacre under her duly probated will to her "sister for life, remainder to Baker or Carr." At the time of her death, the woman owned Blackacre in fee simple absolute. Blackacre was located in a jurisdiction applying the common-law scheme of estate excepting that the phrase "and his heirs" is not required to create a fee simple estate. Rather, a devise passes to the devisee the entire estate of the testator. Further, the common-law estate of dower applies in the jurisdiction. Baker, Carr, and the woman's sister survived the woman. If the woman had died intestate, her aunt would have been her sole heir. Baker died leaving a will under which he bequeathed all of his property to his wife. One year after Baker died, the woman's sister died. What is the current state of Blackacre's title? A. Baker's wife has a life estate in one-third of Blackacre and Carr owns a vested remainder in Blackacre. B. Baker's wife has a life estate in one-third of Blackacre and the woman's aunt owns the reversion in Blackacre. C. Baker's wife owns Blackacre in fee simple absolute. D. Carr owns Blackacre in fee simple absolute.
D. Carr owns Blackacre in fee simple absolute.
George owned Blackacre in fee simple absolute. Last year he conveyed Blackacre to "Carla and her heirs provided that no drugs are used on the premises, but if Carla used drugs on the premises, then to Alan and his heirs." Which of the following correctly states the title to Blackacre after George's conveyance? A. Fee simple absolute in Carla. B. Fee simple determinable in Carla, possibility of reverter in Alan. C. Fee simple determinable in Carla, springing executory interest in Alan. D. Fee simple subject to a condition subsequent in Carla, shifting executory interest in Alan.
D. Fee simple subject to a condition subsequent in Carla, shifting executory interest in Alan.
In 1600, the owner of Blackacre, a tract of land, the owner owned in fee simple absolute, conveyed Blackacre to "Baker and his heirs but if Baker died without issue, then to Sam and his heirs." The state of the title in Blackacre immediately following the conveyance is: A. Life estate in Baker, vested remainder in Sam. B. Fee simple on condition subsequent in Baker, shifting executory interest in Sam. C. Fee simple absolute in Sam. D. Fee tail in Baker, vested remainder in Sam.
D. Fee tail in Baker, vested remainder in Sam.
Alan owned Blackacre in fee simple absolute. Last year he conveyed Blackacre to "Carla provided that no drugs are used on the premises, but if drugs are used on the premises, then Alan may re-enter and occupy the premises." Blackacre is located in a jurisdiction that applies the common-law scheme of estates. Which of the following correctly states the title to Blackacre after Alan's conveyance? A. Fee simple absolute in Carla. B. Fee simple determinable in Carla, possibility of reverter in Alan. C. Fee simple subject to a condition subsequent in Carla, right of entry for condition broken in Alan. D. Life estate subject to a condition subsequent in Carla, right of entry for condition broken in Alan.
D. Life estate subject to a condition subsequent in Carla, right of entry for condition broken in Alan.
Landlord owned Blackacre, a tract of land, in fee simple absolute. Landlord leased Blackacre to Tenant for a term of ten years beginning on January 1, at a monthly rental of $1,000. The lease was silent on the right of the Tenant to either assign or sublet the tenancy. At the end of the first year, Tenant assigned the lease to a man who promised Tenant to pay rent only to Tenant. At the end of the third year the man assigned the lease to a woman. The woman defaulted in the payment of rent at the end of the fourth year and vacated the premises on December 31. Blackacre remained vacant for the next three months. In April, Landlord consulted her attorney and asked "for the month of April, who among Tenant, the man, and the woman would be liable for rent?" A. Man and woman. B. Tenant and man. C. Tenant only. D. Tenant and woman.
D. Tenant and woman.
Landlord leased Blackacre to Tenant for a term of years beginning on January 1, 2003 and ending on December 31, 2008. Under their lease, rent in the amount of $500 was payable monthly. On January 1, 2004, one year after the lease was signed, Tenant transferred the right to possession to Sam for a term ending December 31, 2007. Sam paid rents directly to Tenant who, in turn, paid them to Landlord. On January 1, 2005, Sam transferred the right to possession to Dolly for the balance of his term, ending on December 31, 2007. Dolly paid rents to Tenant who, in turn, paid them to Landlord. Last month, Dolly failed to pay rent to Tenant who, in turn, failed to pay them to Landlord. Landlord can recover last month's rent from: A. Dolly only. B. Tenant and Dolly. C. Tenant, Sam and Dolly. D. Tenant only.
D. Tenant only.
Ten years ago, a woman, who owned Blackacre in fee simple absolute, conveyed Blackacre to her "friend for life, remainder to her friend's heirs." The deed provided that neither friend nor her heirs could alienate their interest in Blackacre. Eight years ago, the woman conveyed all rights she had in Blackacre, if any, to a local University and its successors. Seven years ago, the woman died. Under her duly probated will, she left her entire estate to Charity and its successors. Six years ago, the friend conveyed all rights she had in Blackacre, if any, to "her son for life, remainder to the friend's heirs." Last year the friend died. Under the friend's last will, she devised all of her property to a local hospital. Had the friend died without a will, her heirs would have been her son and her daughter. The common-law scheme of estates applies unmodified in this jurisdiction except that a local statute permits the conveyance of a fee without the use of the phrase "and his heirs" or the equivalent. Based upon these facts, which of the following statements is true? A. Charity owns Blackacre in fee simple absolute because the bequest was void as an illegal restraint on alienation. B. Son and daughter have a remainder interest in Blackacre subject to the son's life estate as a result of friend's conveyance six years ago. C. Son and daughter own Blackacre as co-tenants because they are friend's heirs and are entitled to the remainder under the woman's deed signed ten years ago. D. The local hospital owns Blackacre subject to a life estate in son because it acquired friend's reversion under friend's last will.
D. The local hospital owns Blackacre subject to a life estate in son because it acquired friend's reversion under friend's last will.
Forty-one years ago, a man owned Blackacre in fee simple absolute. The title to Blackacre is determined by the common-law scheme of estates modified to exclude the fee tail estate. Forty years ago, the man conveyed Blackacre to his "daughter and her heirs but if my daughter dies without issue, to my cousin and his heirs." Thirty years ago, the daughter, by her duly probated will, bequeathed Blackacre to her "son and his heirs." Twenty years ago, Cousin died leaving her entire estate to a "charity and its successors." If cousin had died intestate, her sole heir would have been an aunt. Last year, the son died leaving no issue. Son left his entire estate to his alma mater. At the time of the son's death, the man's heir would be Harry. The current state of the title to Blackacre is? A. Cousin's aunt in fee simple absolute. B. Harry in fee simple absolute. C. The charity in fee simple absolute. D. The son's alma mater in fee simple absolute.
D. The son's alma mater in fee simple absolute.
A local statute provides that "a finder of lost property becomes the owner of such property even as against the true owner if the finder first turns over the lost property to the police and no true owner is located by the police within 6 months thereafter." Another subsection of the statute directs the police to use their "best efforts" to locate the true owner of lost property delivered to them by a finder. A woman went to a restaurant and was escorted to her table by an employee of the restaurant. The woman immediately sat down at the table and, as she began fidgeting with the napkin and silver, found a watch on a table next to the napkin container. The woman immediately inquired of the owner of the restaurant whether he owned the watch. When he said "no," the woman took the watch to the police. The police did nothing to locate the true owner. At the end of the six months, the police turned over the watch to the woman. Two months later, the true owner of the watch claimed the watch from the woman to whom the police had re-delivered the watch. When the woman refused to give back the watch to the true owner, the true owner sued the woman in conversion. If the court holds that the true owner prevails, which of the following is the most likely explanation of that opinion. A. The local statute is unconstitutional because it is an impermissible taking. B. The police failed to use "best efforts" to locate the true owner. C. The statute only applies when the property is found on "public" property. D. The watch was mislaid and the statute only applies to lost property.
D. The watch was mislaid and the statute only applies to lost property.
A woman owned Blackacre, a tract of land, in fee simple absolute. Last month, a man wrongfully entered Blackacre and captured a fox by shooting it with a dart that caused the fox to lapse into a coma. The man took the fox to Whiteacre, a tract of land, located in another county. The man put the fox into a cage. When the fox woke and began snarling, an employee of the man, fearing for his life, opened the cage and allowed the fox to escape. As the fox limped across Blueacre, a tract of land, immediately adjacent to Whiteacre, it was shot by a person who was trespassing on Blueacre. The trespasser currently has the carcass of the fox. The fox is indigenous to Blackacre, Whiteacre, and Blueacre. In a suit among (1) the woman, (2) the man who wrongfully entered Blackacre, captured the fox and took it to Whiteacre, (3) the man's employee who allowed the fox to escape, and (4) the person who trespassed upon Blueacre and now has the carcass, the court is likely to rule for: A. The employee of the man, because he had a right to release the fox and let it escape because he was frightened of the fox. B. The man who wrongfully entered Blackacre and captured the fox, because he first took possession of the fox. C. The wrongdoer who killed the fox on Blueacre, because he captured the fox after it escaped from the man who caged it. D. The woman who owned Blackacre, because the fox was wrongfully taken from Blackacre.
D. The woman who owned Blackacre, because the fox was wrongfully taken from Blackacre.
A woman owned a ring. She decided to give the ring to her boyfriend with whom she lived. She placed the ring on the nightstand before going to bed with a note reading: "When you come into bed, turn off the lights. Oh, the ring is yours. I love you, see you in the morning." The boyfriend did not get home until 3 a.m. and when he got home, he found that his girlfriend was dead. The coroner ruled she died of a massive coronary at 1 a.m. in the morning. After calling the funeral parlor, the boyfriend first discovered the note and ring. The following day he sold the ring to a man he knew for its fair market value. The man bought the ring in good faith. Subsequently the woman's estate brought an action to recover the ring from the man. In this action, who is likely to prevail? A. The man, because he was a bona fide purchaser for value. B. The man, because of the doctrine of equitable estoppel. C. The woman's estate, because the boyfriend had not accepted the gift before she died. D. The woman's estate, because she died before the ring was delivered to her boyfriend.
D. The woman's estate, because she died before the ring was delivered to her boyfriend.
Three years ago, O, the owner of Blackacre in fee simple absolute, conveyed Blackacre to B by a full covenant and warranty deed. The deed contained no exceptions to any of the deed warranties, including the warranty against encumbrances. B had no actual knowledge that O had granted a mortgage on Blackacre to a bank while he owned Blackacre. A reasonable search of the public land records would have disclosed the mortgage. Two years after B purchased Blackacre from O, the bank brought an action against B to enforce that mortgage against B who successfully defended that action by showing that O had paid off the mortgage and that, as a result of the county recorder's negligence, the satisfaction of the mortgage had not been properly indexed. B incurred $20,000 in defending this action. If B timely sues O seeking to recover the $20,000, will B succeed? A. No, because O breached no deed covenants. B. No, because the mortgage had been recorded. C. Yes, because O breached the covenant against encumbrances. D. Yes, because O breached the covenant of further assurances.
D. Yes, because O breached the covenant of further assurances.
