Property Quizzes

Who owns the property in a notice jurisdiction? Allison conveys to Bruce, who does not record at that time. Allison conveys to Carly. Carly records. Bruce records.

Carly owns the property because she was a subsequent purchaser for value who took without actual notice of the prior conveyance and Bruce had not yet recorded (so she was not on constructive notice.

O conveys to Emily for as long as the land is used as a coffee shop.

Emily has a fee simple determinable. O has a possibility of reverter.

According to the Court in Johnson v. M'Intosh, the Native Americans/original inhabitants of the land had no property rights in the land.

False. At page 56 the court states that the rights of the original inhabitants were impaired, but not entirely disregarded. They had rights of occupancy, possession, and use, but a severely constrained right to dispose of/sell the land

At divorce common law states typically require an equitable distribution of marital property, which means an equal or 50/50 division of marital property

False. Common law states do typically require an equitable distribution, but this does not mean an equal division, as noted at 356. Instead, courts consider a number of factors, such as those at page 358-59, to determine a fair division between the spouses.

An easement can only be obtained over another parcel of property if both the dominant and servient estates were once under prior ownership.

False. Only implied easements by prior use and easements by necessity require prior common ownership of the dominant and servient parcels. An express easements, easement by prescription, or easement by estoppel can be obtained over another parcel that was not under common ownership.

The court in Cheney Brothers rejects the plaintiff's claims on the ground that the plaintiff, a manufacturer of silks, could simply obtain a copyright or design patent to protest its interests.

False. The court at 149 notes that the designs may not support a design patent and that, according to the Copyright Office, they would not be eligible for protection under the Copyright Act.

The court in Mannillo v. Gorski held that the open and notorious requirement should be replaced with a requirement of actual knowledge in all instances of a claim of adverse possession

False. The court confined its holding to minor encroachments along a common boundary, see page 105 of the casebook excerpt on Blackboard.

In Boomer v. Atlantic Cement the court found that a nuisance existed and granted the traditional remedy - an injunction permanently prohibiting continued operation of the cement plant.

False. The court did find a nuisance existed, but it granted an injunction that could be vacated if the defendant paid permanent damages to the plaintiffs.

The Oregon statute governing adverse possession claims in Tieu v. Morgan requires that a party claiming property via adverse possession knows that it is not their property at the time they first take possession.

False. The statute, discussed at page 180, the court states that the relevant statute "requires the claimant to have had an honest belief of actual ownership when he or she entered into possession of the property."

Which of the following was NOT part of the court's findings in Popov v. Hayashi?

Hayashi was apart of the out of control mob engaged in violent, illegal behavior. The court specifically says that "Mr. Hayashi was not a wrongdoer. He was a victim of the same bandits that attacked Mr. Popov." Thus, the court found that Mr. Hayashi also had rights to the baseball.

Gary owns land in a state with a race-notice recording statute. The following events occur sequentially: Gary sells the land to Hannah via a deed. Gary sells the land to Jack (who has no knowledge of Gary's conveyance to Hannah) via a deed. Hannah records the deed from Gary Jack records the deed from Gary. Jack sells the land to Ken.

In a race-notice jurisdiction a subsequent party defeats a prior party only if the subsequent party takes without notice and records first. The best answer is (B). Jack records after Hannah and therefore loses to Hannah. Ken would also lose to Hannah because he is on constructive notice of her prior conveyance from Gary, which was recorded before Jack conveys to Ken. (Ken will also necessarily record after Hannah.) Gary has conveyed property to Hannah and would therefore lose to her.

Marcel Dionne lists his property for sale. He knows that there are termites in the property and that they have caused some damage to the wooden beams under the first floor, but they are not readily observable and so he decides not to tell any prospective buyers. The termite damage started with the prior owner, who did not tell Marcel, so Marcel feels no obligation to tell future owners. Phil Esposito buys the property and discovers the termites (and significant damage they have caused) six months later. Assuming Phil can prove that Marcel knew about the termites and the damage, the holding in which case or cases most clearly and directly supports his case against Marcel?

Johnson v. Davis, which deals with a seller's failure to disclose conditions of the property that are "not readily observable." McMurray instead deals with warranties in the deed and Hickey deals with the statute of frauds.

In Tulk v. Moxhay, the court relied upon which of the following facts in deciding to enforce the restriction on development in Leicester Square against the defendant (Moxhay):

Moxhay had notice of the original agreement restricting use of the Square. "the present Defendant took it with distinct knowledge of such equity existing." See also 279: "The bill charged, that, at the time when the Defendant purchased the piece of ground, and also when he took possession thereof, and also when he committed the acts complained of, he had notice of the covenant."

O conveys to Nancy for life, and then to Henry if Henry becomes a lawyer.

Nancy has a life estate. Henry has a contingent remainder in fee simple absolute. O retains reversion.

Which of these is NOT one of the four "unities" of the traditional test for the creation and continuation of a joint tenancy depended upon:

Severance.

Which of the following is not a reason why the Court concluded that the Africans on the Amistad were not the property of the Spanish claimants?

Spain had outlawed the importation of slaves from Africa

Which of the following is not a factor that influenced the court's decision in Spur v. Del Webb?

Spur had reason to know, at the time it and its predecessors located the feedlot operation, that a new residential development would be built nearby. The correct answer is C, there is no indication that Spur at the time had reason to expect a new residential development nearby. At 210 the court notes this was a public nuisance, despite, as noted on 211, being a lawful business. Then at 212 the court references the "knowing and willful encroachment."

In Ghen v. Rich, the court discussed the cases of Taber v. Jenny and Bartlett v. Budd. However, the Ghen court did not find either case to be directly on point because the Taber and Bartlett courts did not consider questions of custom; rather, each court determined that the first person who had killed and anchored the whales had acquired actual possession.

TRUE. This is what the court says in the middle of p.33 ("Both the cases cited were decided without reference to usage [custom], upon the ground that the property had been acquired by the first take by actual possession and appropriation."). However, the court goes on to note on p.34 that these cases would have probably come out the same, even if the courts had applied custom.

facts that are true for a partition by sale according to Delfino v. Vealencis

-The party seeking a partition by sale must establish that the land's physical attributes make a partition in kind impracticable or inequitable -The party seeking a partition by sale must establish that a sale would better promote the interest of owners than a partition in kind -The party seeking a partition by sale bears the burden of proof that it would better promote owners' interests

In Pierson v. Post, the court held that a person could acquire possession over a fox (i.e. title to the fox) by:

-actual bodily seizure -mortal wounding without abandoning pursuit -securing animals with nets or traps in a way that deprives them from their natural liberties

Essential elements of bailment

-delivery of possession -grant of control over the subject of the bailment -facts justifying that a reasonable person would believe a bailment had been created

Accurate statements about adverse possession?

-The adverse possessor's use must be actual, understood as similar to the use of a typical owner of a similar property -The conduct of the adverse possessor must be open and notorious. -The adverse possessor must use the property continuously for the statutory period required by the specific jurisdiction.

Accurate statements about the hostility/claim of right element as discussed by the Mannillo v. Gorski Court.

-The bad faith state of mind requirement (Maine doctrine) is premised on the idea that the adverse possessor must intentionally dispossess the true owner of their land. -Under the bad faith state of mind requirement (Maine doctrine), an honest mistake about a property boundary would not be sufficient to make a claim for adverse possession. -The bad faith state of mind requirement (Maine doctrine) has been criticized for rewarding a wrongdoer instead of an honest landowner.

accurate statements from the Howard v. Kunto case

-The jurisdiction required that the adverse possessor have a good faith belief that they owned the property. -An adverse possessor need only use the property as a true owner would. -Historically, the requirement of privity was intended to prevent successive trespassers from benefitting from their actions. -The requirement of privity, for the purposes of tacking in an adverse possession claim, should be interpreted in a way that promotes certainty as to the location of land ownership.

Which of the following is part of the courts reasoning in Jacques?

-in cases such as this landowners should be encouraged to take their own measures to remove a trespasser. -There is a broader societal interest in deterring intentional trespasses. -Punitive damages are necessary in cases like this to deter objectionable behavior.

Which of the following interests does Owen grant to Betty in this grant: to Alex for life, then to Betty if she graduates from college." Betty is ten years old and in elementary school at the time of the grant.

A contingent remainder in fee simple. This is a contingent remainder in fee simple. It is contingent because Betty must satisfy the condition precedent of graduating college in order to receive the property. She would take a fee simple as the language "to Betty" grants a fee simple.

Which of the following is not true of an action for a partition by sale, according to Delfino v. Vealencis?

A partition by sale will only be granted if all parties request it. Partition actions, by their nature, are legal actions brought by a cotenant when they cannot reach agreement with their fellow cotenants. So a partition by sale can be granted if not all parties request it, in fact that is what the trial court did in Delfino. The other three points are all true and discussed at the top of page 317.

Which of the following is not an essential element of the creation of a bailment, as discussed by the majority opinion in Allen v. Hyatt Regency-Nashville Hotel?

A written contract establishing the bailment. A bailment relationship need not be created or defined in writing. At page 217 the court discussed the concept of an "implied bailment." And the bailment in the case itself was implied.

Owner conveys to Alice and her heirs, but if the house should ever be painted red, Owner may enter and retake the property. What interests are created?

Alice has a fee simple subject to condition subsequent. Owner has a right of entry in fee simple.

Owner grants property "to Alice and her heirs." What interests and estates are created?

Alice receives a fee simple. No other interests are created.

Owner grants Blackacre "to Alice for life, then to Carl for life, then to Darnell." What interests and estates are created?

Alice receives a life estate. Carl has a remainder in a life estate. Darnell has a remainder in fee simple.

O conveys Blackacre to A, but only for so long as Blackacre is used for school purposes, then to B. Which of the following best describes B's interest?

B has an executory interest in fee simple.

Which of the following provides the fullest statement of the legal question in Johnson v. M'Intosh?

Could the native Americans convey a title in the land that can be legally recognized by courts of the United States?

In Hickey v. Green the Hickeys gave Green a deposit check, which satisfied the Statute of Frauds, creating a contract between the Hickeys and Green.

False, While the check constituted a writing, it did not contain all of the essential terms required: (1) the payee line was blank, creating uncertainty about the identity of the seller; (2) the purchase price was not listed; and (3) the property description was too vague.

In most jurisdictions, simply not using an easement will be sufficient to establish abandonment of the easement.

False, as stated at the bottom of 680, most jurisdictions "agree that mere nonuse of an easement is not abandonment" and instead require in addition an intent to abandon the easement or "a purpose inconsistent with its future existence."

n Schwab v. Timmons, at the time when the McCormicks and the Schwabs originally acquired their parcels, they were landlocked, that is they did not have access to a road.

False, the court states at page 227: "Not only were the parcels at issue not landlocked at the time of conveyance, but the petitioners themselves created their landlocked parcels when they conveyed away their highway access." This fact is important to the determination that they are not entitled to an easement by necessity.

According to the court in Johnson, under the doctrine of caveat emptor (buyer beware) a seller cannot be liable even if she fraudulently misrepresents (i.e., lies about) the conditions of the property.

False, the court states that "[t]he doctrine of caveat emptor does not exempt a seller from responsibility for the statements and representations which he makes to induce the buyer to act, when under the circumstances these amount to fraud in the legal sense."

In Holbrook v. Taylor, Taylor obtained an easement via the doctrines of both easement by estoppel and easement by prescription.

False, the court, at 243, notes that the use of the road was permissive and therefore the requirements for an easement by prescription were not satisfied. There was, however, detrimental reliance sufficient to establish an easement by estoppel.

In the majority of states, if a residential tenant abandons/leaves the rental property early (before termination of the lease) the landlord is under no duty to try to find a new tenant and the abandoning tenant is always liable for any unpaid rent.

False, the majority of states now impose on landlords a duty to mitigate. This is another example of the law increasing treating tenancies as a contractual relationship.

A tenancy-in-common includes the right of survivorship.

False. A joint tenancy, and not a tenancy-in-common, includes the right of survivorship, through which the surviving joint tenant automatically takes the deceased joint tenant's interest.

The Associated Press seeks protection for and claims a property interest in only the literary quality of its news articles and not the news or information itself.

False. AP is seeking protection for the underlying facts - or the news element - "the information respecting current events contained in the literary production." (48) However, it seeks this protection not generally speaking as against the public, but specifically in relation to INS, its competitor. The court concludes that as between the parties the news "must be regarded as quasi property, irrespective of the rights of either as against the public." (48)

"Redlining" refers to the practice of mortgage lenders making individualized determination to deny loans to particular prospective homebuyers on the basis of their race.

False. As discussed at page 139, the term "refers to the practice of lenders, insurers, and government agencies of drawing literal red lines on city maps around neighborhoods that were collectively deemed an unacceptable credit risk. This 'location-based' discrimination is distinct from discrimination against particular individuals on the basis of race, though the two forms of discrimination often go hand in hand."

In a lien theory state when one joint tenant grants a mortgage it severs the joint tenancy and therefore the mortgage survives and remains attached to the property when the joint tenant who granted the mortgage dies before the other joint tenant.

False. As explained in Note 1 at page 334, in a "lien theory" state the mortgage does not sever the joint tenancy. As such "the mortgage disappears if the joint tenant who granted it predeceases the other joint tenant . . ."

Where a landlord/property owner resides is never relevant to Fair Housing Act issues.

False. As noted at page 27, the FHA's application is limited in the context of "rooms or units in dwellings containing living quarters occupied or intended to be occupied by no more than four families living independently of each other, if the owner actually maintains and occupies one of such living quarters as his residence." This is the so-called Mrs. Murphy exception.

A co-tenant who occupies the property always must pay rent to any other co-tenants who do not live on the property.

False. As stated at page 306, the majority rule is that a cotenant need not pay rent unless there is an ouster or an agreement to pay rent. See also the discussion at note 6 on page 311. However, most courts will, in an action by an occupying tenant to obtain a contribution for upkeep of the property from a non-occupant, allow the non-occupant to offset the rental value against the amount owed. See note 7 at 311.

Teresa enters into a lease from July 1, 2019 until June 30, 2020. She pays her rent on a month to month basis. What kind of lease does Teresa have?

term of years. Teresa has a term of years because it is a fixed term lease, with a specified end date.

Which of the following is an accurate description of the doctrine of riparian rights:

Only property owners whose lands a river flows through (or adjacent to) have riparian rights in that body of water

Per Hinman, do property owners have any ownership rights to the air and space above the ground of their property?

Property owners own as much air and space above them as they use, but only as long as they make use of it.

Which of the following was not part of the court's reasoning in Jacques v. Steenberg Homes, Inc.?

The Jacques suffered actual harm.

Which is not an accurate statement about adverse possession?

The adverse possessor must use the property exclusively, which means that no one besides the adverse possessor may ever use, enter or visit the property during the period of adverse possession. An adverse possessor will still satisfy the exclusivity requirement if they "allow others to occasionally use their property" as such permissive use is consistent with normal behavior of an owner of land.

Five years ago Kevin purchased an acre of property in a rural areas two hours outside Boston. He built a rustic cabin on the property and began to spend many weekends and two weeks each summer relaxing on his quiet wooded property. Two years ago, the land next to Kevin's property, which had been vacant, was sold to a wind company. The company has installed four large windmills at the top of a hill on the land a few hundred feet from Kevin's cabin. The windmills are very loud and when the wind is strong they can be heard inside Kevin's cabin. They make it very difficult for Kevin to enjoy the classical music he often listens to during the day. On some days he finds the sound gives him a headache. Kevin has considered selling the cabin, but after receiving an appraisal learned that the windmills have reduced the value of his property by $20,000. The company that owns the windmills employs two people full-time to operate and maintain them and generates $300,000 annually in profit from the windmills.

The court definitely will not find a nuisance if it applies the first Restatement test, but may find a nuisance if it applies the second (or alternative) Restatement test (the test in Boomer). In this case the harm does not outweigh the benefit of the activity ($20,000 in harm versus two full time positions and $300,000 in profits), so therefore the first Restatement test would not be satisfied. However the second Restatement test may be satisfied as the harm is substantial and the company could be forced to pay for it without going out of business. For this reason A and D are not correct. There is also only mention in the facts of the harm to this one party, and so no indication this is a public nuisance.

Arnold sells the house he has owned and lived in for fifteen years to Ben in 2020. Approximately two months after the sale Ben learns that there is a significant problem with the house's roof, which results in massive leaks throughout the house following heavy rains. Arnold never said anything about the roof prior to the sale, nor did Ben ask about it. Ben skipped an inspection because he was eager to move in and did not want to delay things. Shortly after the leaks start Ben obtains evidence that indicates Arnold knew of the leaks prior to the sale. Ben is most likely to succeed with a lawsuit against Arnold if:

The jurisdiction recognizes a duty to disclose and the problem with the roof is considered a latent defect.

What are the 4 unities of a joint tenancy?

The four unities are (1) time - joint tenant's interests were all acquired at the same time; (2) title - the interests were all acquired by the sa,e document or by joint adverse possessionl; (3) interest - the tenants' shares must all be equal and undvided; and (4) possession - all joint tenants must have equal rights to possess the whole (in the absence of an agreement to the contrary). Severenace is any act that destroys one or more of the four unities required to maintain a joint tenancy.

Which of the following is NOT an accurate statement about the hostility/claim of right element, as discussed by the Mannillo v. Gorski court?

The objective state of mind requirement (Connecticut doctrine) requires an inquiry into the mind of the adverse possessor to ensure that it was not in bad faith.

what was the custom in Ghen v. rich?

The person who first strikes the whale with an iron/lance achieves ownership (i.e.possession), and if the someone else finds the whale afterwards, that person is entitled to a finder's fee, but not the whale

An individual cannot transfer a life estate that is measured by their own life through their will at the time of their death.

True. Since a life estate ends when the life it is measured by ends it cannot, in this instance, be passed by a will. So if O grants a life estate to A, A cannot transfer the life estate in her will (or through the laws of intestacy). However, if O grants a life estate to A and A makes an intervivos transfer of the life estate to B, giving B a life estate pur autre vie, measured by the life of A, then B can transfer this life estate in her will (if B dies before A). Whoever receives this life estate will then have it for as long as A remains alive.

Tenants in common need to own equal shares.

This is false. Tenants in common do NOT need to have equal shares, and can specifiy their shares in a non-equal way.

Locke contends that one can appropriate, that is take, from nature and claim as one's property anything that one mixes one's labor with, in all situations and without any limitation.

This question is intended to tease out a key passage in Locke, who states at the end of the first paragraph on page 51 that one can claim a property right in that which one mixes one's labor with "at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others." This places a limit on what one can appropriate.

Keeble would have had a cause of action/legal claim against Hickeringill if Hickeringill set up his own decoy pond on his own land and Hickeringill's pond lured docks away from Keeble's pond.

True

The doctrine of prior appropriation is more similar than the doctrine of riparian rights to the rule of capture discussed in cases like Pierson v. Post.

True

The owner of the property in State v. Shack, when he first encountered the Defendants on his property, offered to allow them to meet with the migrant workers in his office.

True

The New Jersey Supreme Court, in Matthews v. Bay Head Imp. Ass'n, pursuant to the public trust doctrine, recognized a limited public right to use the dry sand portion of private land to gain access to the ocean.

True, as the court says at 270: "We see no reason why rights under the public trust doctrine to use of the upland dry sand area should be limited to municipally-owned property. It is true that the private owner's interest in the upland dry sand area is not identical to that of a municipality. Nonetheless, where use of dry sand is essential or reasonably necessary for enjoyment of the ocean, the doctrine warrants the public's use of the upland dry sand area subject to an accommodation of the interests of the owner."

A periodic tenancy, unlike a term of years tenancy, automatically renews unless notice is given of termination.

True, this is a key distinction between the two types of tenancies, as noted at pages 11-12.

The husband in O'Brien v. O'Brien argued that his medical license was not marital property because, unlike property, it could not be sold or transferred. The court rejected that argument in the opinion you read

True, this was the husband's principal argument, discussed at page 363. It was accepted by the lower court, but rejected in the opinion you read.

The doctrine of tacking enables an individual claiming property through adverse possession to add the time when a prior possessor was on the property (and satisfying the elements of adverse possession) to their own time, but only if the two individuals are in "privity."

True. A basic definition of privity is provided at page 187, note 9 and discussed in footnote 6 at 182. "Privity" refers to a voluntary and knowing transfer between two parties.

Jenny enters into a lease on September 1, 2020. When she arrives at the apartment, she discovers that Chuck is still living there. If Jenny lives in a jurisdiction following the minority 'American' rule, then it would be up to Jenny to force Chuck to vacate the apartment, such as by filing a lawsuit against Chuck.

True. See the discussion at page 22 of the casebook, within the Hannan v. Dusch case, where the court states "under the American rule, where the new tenant fails to obtain possession of the premises only because a former tenant wrongfully holds over, his remedy is against such wrongdoer and not against the landlord." Because Jenny lives in a jurisdiction following the American rule, it would be up to her to deal with Chuck.

According to the Court in Johnson v. M'Intosh, the act of discovery granted a European government the sole right - as between it and other European governments - to acquire land from the native inhabitants.

True. The court notes that, among the European governments of the day the principle of discovery governed the relationship among the European governments (and not between the European governments and any native residents of the land). It granted the "discoverer" nation exclusive right to acquire land from the existing residents, with the relationship "regulated by themselves."

The private road easement at issue in Brown v. Voss was an express easement.

True: At 253 the court notes that "the predecessors in title of parcel A granted to the predecessor owners of parcel B a private road easement across parcel A for 'ingress to and egress from' parcel B." Then at 255 the court explicitly states this was an express grant.

Which of the following factors did not contribute to the court's rejection of the ad coelom doctrine in Hinman?

Under no circumstances could an airplane flying over someone's land constitute a trespass.

Dunia has a one year lease that runs from July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2016. On February 1, 2016, Dunia, having obtained any permission that might be required, purports to "transfer the remainder of my interest in the lease to Betty." Which of the following is correct?

Under the majority common law rule, this is an assignment and Betty now holds a tenancy that will end on June 30, 2016.

Does the following advertisement violate the Fair Housing Act and if so, why? "For Rent: Furnished basement apartment. Ideal tenant will be a single Native American male, but all races and sexes will be considered."

Yes, an advertisement may not express a preference based on race or sex.

Judge Kozinski believes that White should have an exclusive right to anything that clearly reminds a viewer of her.

false

Samsung used Vanna White's image, name, likeness and voice in an advertisement.

false

O conveys to A for life. A conveys his estate to B. What interest does B have?

life estate for A's life ("life estate pur autre vie")

What are the basic duties of a trustee?

loyalty, prudence, obedience

Lucy rents to Tom "for one year beginning October 1, 2005." Tom makes all rent payments as required. Exactly one year later, on September 30, 2006, Tom moves out without giving Lucy any notice. What remedy, if any, does Lucy have?

none. This is a term of years lease. It ends at the end of the one-year term, on September 30th and neither party needs to give any notice for it to terminate, as discussed at page 11.

A license can be differentiated from an easement due to the fact that a license is permissive and usually can be revoked.

rue. A license is permission from the owner to enter the land, and due to the fact that it is permissive, is usually revocable

According to M.P.M. Builders, LLC v. Dwyer the owner of a servient estate may change the location of dimensions of an easement, so long as the changes do not

significantly lessen the utility of the easement, increase the burdens on the owner of the easement in its use and enjoyment, frustrate the purpose for which the easement was created. ll three of these are provided in the court's statement of the rule at 262, where the court adopts the Restatement.

According to Delfino v. Vealencis most courts favor a partition in kind over a partition by sale.

true

Although the law typically states a preference for partition in kind, in practice courts typically order a partition by sale rather than a partition in kind.

true

The court in Coffin adopts the doctrine of "prior appropriation" (or "priority of appropriation"), according to which the first party to appropriate/take water for its beneficial use obtains a right to continued use of the diverted water.

true

When language in a grant or a deed is ambiguous, courts will generally prefer the fee simple subject to condition subsequent over the fee simple determinable.

true

in Moore v. Regents of University of California Moore claimed that he had a property interest in his cells after they were removed from his body.

true

tenancy by the entirety is like a joint tenancy, but is more difficult to sever/end

true A joint tenancy can be severed unilaterally, by one joint tenant conveying her interest to another person. In contrast, a tenancy by the entirety (which is formed by married persons) typically requires the consent of both spouses, or the marriage ending in divorce.

In Howard v. Kunto, the court held that the continuity element was met even though the house was only used in the summers.

true This is exactly what the court holds: "We reject the conclusion that summer occupancy only of a summer beach home destroys the continuity of possession required by the statute. It has become firmly established that the requisite possession requires such possession and dominion 'as ordinarily marks the conduct of owners in general in holding, managing, and caring for property of like nature and condition.'"