Property II -- Practice Questions

Apply the statute below to these facts: In B's presence and with B's knowledge, O conveys Blackacre to A for value.O conveys to B for value.O conveys to C for value.B conveys to D.B records.A records.D records. Statute: Arkansas Code § 14-15-404. Effect of recording instruments affecting title to property.*** (b) No deed, bond, or instrument of writing for the conveyance of any real estate, or by which the title thereto may be affected in law or equity, made or executed after December 21, 1846, shall be good or valid against a subsequent purchaser of the real estate for a valuable consideration without actual notice thereof or against any creditor of the person executing such an instrument obtaining a judgment or decree which by law may be a lien upon the real estate unless the deed, bond, or instrument, duly executed and acknowledged or proved as required by law, is filed for record in the office of the clerk and ex officio recorder of the county where the real estate is situated. Under this statute, who owns Blackacre?

A

In a jurisdiction with a race-notice recording act, who prevails given the events below? O conveys to A for value; A does not immediately record.O shows B the deed from O to A. O conveys to B for value; B does not immediately record. O conveys to C for value; C does not immediately record. B shows D the deed from O to B. B conveys to D, who does not immediately record. A records. B records. D records.

A

In a common interest community, the developer imposed the following restrictions. Is any one invalid under the touch and concern test? Under the Restatement? All of these prohibitions limit some activity on the servient land. Traditionally, negative restrictions on land touch and concern the land. These restrictions may, however, be deemed objectionable as a matter of public policy. "Common areas shall not be used to hold religious services."

Neuman: not a violation of right to peaceably assemble. "Prohibiting those types of assembly which will have a particularity divisive effect on the condominium community is a reasonable restriction"

Alf wants his daughter Becky to have Blackacre when he dies. He drafts a deed to Blackacre which says that "Alf hereby grants Blackacre to Becky, her heirs, and assigns forever." On her birthday, he shows her the deed and tells her it will be in a drawer in his desk with his will which gives all of his property to the Odd Fellows, a charitable organization. When Alf dies, his executor finds the deed and gives it to Becky, who promptly records it. Does Becky own Blackacre?

No because the deed was not delivered effectively.

A owns Blackacre and Whiteacre. A conveys Blackacre by deed to B. In the deed, B promises A for himself, his heirs, and his assigns, that he will use Blackacre only for a single-family residence. The deed is recorded. One year later, B starts to build a grocery store on Blackacre. Can A recover money damages or enjoin B's construction of a grocery store on Blackacre? Explain.

Yes. There is a covenant between B and A (promise regarding land use), enforceable at law or in equity based on privity of contract relationship between A and B.

In 2014, Nancy, who needed cash and knew she would inherit Redacre on the death of true owner Owen, conveyed Redacre by a general warranty deed to Alice (who did not know Nancy was not yet the owner of Redacre) for a payment of $100,000. In 2016, Alice conveyed Redacre by a special warranty deed to Beatrice for a payment of $120,000. In 2020, Owen finally visited the property and evicted Beatrice. If Beatrice recovers, her damages will be limited to which of the following?

$100,000

Redacre is in a race-notice jurisdiction. O sells Redacre to A at fair market value. A does not record. A immediately moves out of town. O, feeling A has deserted him, donates Redacre to B. B records the deed. Who prevails as between A and B?

A because B is not a purchaser value.

A owns Blackacre and Whiteacre. A conveys Blackacre by deed to B. In the deed, B promises A for himself, his heirs, and his assigns, that he will use Blackacre only for a single-family residence. The deed is recorded. One year later, B conveys a term of years to D. D starts to build a grocery store on Blackacre. Can A recover money damages or enjoin D? Explain.

A can enjoin D (because the covenant between A and B is enforceable as an equitable servitude running with the land because it meets all four requirements ) but cannot recover money damages if the jurisdiction requires vertical privity because a term of years is less than a fee simple absolute.

A owns Blackacre and Whiteacre. A conveys Blackacre by deed to B. In the deed, B promises A for himself, his heirs, and his assigns, that he will use Blackacre only for a single-family residence. The deed is recorded. Ten years later, B loses Blackacre to D by adverse possession. Then D starts to build a grocery store on Blackacre. Can A recover money damages or enjoin D? Explain.

A can enjoin D because both the benefit and the burden of the covenant between A and B will run with the land as an equitable servitude because it meets all four requirements. However, A cannot recover damages against D if the jurisdiction requires vertical privity between B and D.

A owns Whiteacre and B owns Blackacre, adjacent properties. A and B enter into a written agreement in which B promises for himself, his heirs, and his assigns that he will use Blackacre only for a single-family residence. The agreement is recorded. One year later, B conveys Blackacre to D. Then D starts to build a grocery store on Blackacre. Can A recover money damages or enjoin D? Explain.

A can enjoin D because the covenant between A and B is enforceable as an equitable servitude running with the land because it meets all four requirements.a. A cannot recover money damages against D because the burden of the covenant will not run to a transferee (D) unless there was horizontal privity between A and B. Horizontal privity requires a relationship between A and B in addition to the covenant (grantor/grantee, landlord/tenant, or mutual).

A and B, neighboring landownders, decide that they will mutually restrict their lots to single-family residential use. They sign an agreement wherein each promises on behalf of herself, and her heirs and assigns, that her lot will be used for single-family residential purposes only. This agreement is recorded in the county courthouse under the name of each signer. B sells her lot to C. C builds an apartment house on his lot. A sues C for damages. What result?

A cannot recover damages from C if horizontal privity of estate is required for running of the burden at law. A and B are not in grantor-grantee relationship when the promise is made, nor do they have any interest other than the covenant in each other's land.

If A and B, neighboring landowners, have reciprocal restrictions on their lots, but they do not have horizontal privity, what is the most likely consequence at common law?

A cannot sue B's successors to enforce the agreement at law.

O, owner of Blackacre, which is worth $50,000, borrows $10,000 from A and gives A a mortgage on Blackacre. A does not record. O then borrows $14,000 from B and, after telling B of the prior mortgage to A, gives B a mortgage on Blackacre. B records. O then borrows $5,000 from C and gives C a mortgage on Blackacre. C has no notice of A's mortgage. C records. Subsequently Blackacre is discovered to be contaminated with hazardous wastes and its value plummets. O defaults. Upon foreclosure sale, Blackacre sells for $20,000. How should this amount be distributed among A, B, C?

A has priority over B because B had actual notice of A's mortgage. B has priority over C because C has constructive notice of B's mortgage. C has priority over A because C has no notice of A's mortgage and in a race-notice jurisdiction, records first. C expects to be second in line at the pot, after a prior mortgage of $14,000 is satisfied. Since the pot turns out to have $20,000, C can be paid $5,000. C gets her expectation B expects to be second in line, after a prior mortgage of $10,000 is satisfied. Giving B her expectation thus leaves B with $10,000. A's expectation should be that, by not recording, she can lose the entire $10,000 mortgage if O conveys to a subsequent BFP. Hence A should get what's left: $5,000

O conveys to A. O conveys to B, who knows of the deed from O to A. O conveys to C. B shows D the deed from O to B. B conveys to D. A records. D records. Who prevails?

A in a race or race-notice jurisdiction, and D in a notice jurisdiction.

Olga purchased a large tract of land that included tideland. An agreement between the state government and a Native American nation gave the nation the right to harvest shellfish on her property. The Native American nation has:

A profit

Cindy held a large parcel of land that she hoped to develop into a residential neighborhood. To make the project economical, Cindy needs to include some apartment buildings in her plan. Unfortunately for Cindy, the municipal zoning regulations permit only single family residences, without any specific provisions for deviation from this requirement. In order to gain the right to include apartment buildings in her development, Cindy must seek which of the following?

A use variance

O conveys to A, who does not record. O conveys to B, who knows of the deed from O to A and does not record. O conveys to C, who does not record. B conveys to D, who does not record. (D is shown the deed from O to B.) A records. B records. D records. Who prevails in a race-notice jurisdiction?

A; A recorded before any subsequent purchaser did, and had neither actual nor record notice of the other deeds.

Olsen owned a property called (imaginatively) Blackacre, which he conveyed to Alton by quitclaim deed on October 15. On his way to the county recorder's office with his deed, Alton encountered his friend Cora who worked for Air New Zealand. Cora said, "I have this round-trip ticket to Auckland I can't use, but I can transfer it to you if you want to go; you'll have to leave within the hour, though." Alton, who had always wanted to go to New Zealand, accepted the tickets and left for New Zealand. On October 17 Olsen received a notice from the Franchise Tax Board telling him that he owed $300,000 in unpaid state taxes, and that "substantial penalties" would accrue after November 1. He told his friend Brad about the letter and offered to sell Blackacre to Brad for about 80 percent of its fair market value if Brad would pay him cash and quickly. Brad agreed, and Olsen gave Brad a general warranty deed in exchange for the cash. One week later, on October 24, Brad recorded his deed. Meanwhile, Alton had returned from New Zealand on the morning of October 22 and completed his interrupted journey to the county recorder's office, where he recorded his deed. In a subsequent dispute between Alton and Brad about the ownership of Blackacre, who will win: In a Race Jurisdiction?

Alton wins because he recorded first, properly and within the chain of title.

Olsen owned a property called (imaginatively) Blackacre, which he conveyed to Alton by quitclaim deed on October 15. On his way to the county recorder's office with his deed, Alton encountered his friend Cora who worked for Air New Zealand. Cora said, "I have this round-trip ticket to Auckland I can't use, but I can transfer it to you if you want to go; you'll have to leave within the hour, though." Alton, who had always wanted to go to New Zealand, accepted the tickets and left for New Zealand. On October 17 Olsen received a notice from the Franchise Tax Board telling him that he owed $300,000 in unpaid state taxes, and that "substantial penalties" would accrue after November 1. He told his friend Brad about the letter and offered to sell Blackacre to Brad for about 80 percent of its fair market value if Brad would pay him cash and quickly. Brad agreed, and Olsen gave Brad a general warranty deed in exchange for the cash. One week later, on October 24, Brad recorded his deed. Meanwhile, Alton had returned from New Zealand on the morning of October 22 and completed his interrupted journey to the county recorder's office, where he recorded his deed. In a subsequent dispute between Alton and Brad about the ownership of Blackacre, who will win: Under Common Law?

Alton wins because he took his deed from Olsen on January 15, and Brad took his deed from Olsen two days later, on January 17.

Olsen owned a property called (imaginatively) Blackacre, which he conveyed to Alton by quitclaim deed on October 15. On his way to the county recorder's office with his deed, Alton encountered his friend Cora who worked for Air New Zealand. Cora said, "I have this round-trip ticket to Auckland I can't use, but I can transfer it to you if you want to go; you'll have to leave within the hour, though." Alton, who had always wanted to go to New Zealand, accepted the tickets and left for New Zealand. On October 17 Olsen received a notice from the Franchise Tax Board telling him that he owed $300,000 in unpaid state taxes, and that "substantial penalties" would accrue after November 1. He told his friend Brad about the letter and offered to sell Blackacre to Brad for about 80 percent of its fair market value if Brad would pay him cash and quickly. Brad agreed, and Olsen gave Brad a general warranty deed in exchange for the cash. One week later, on October 24, Brad recorded his deed. Meanwhile, Alton had returned from New Zealand on the morning of October 22 and completed his interrupted journey to the county recorder's office, where he recorded his deed. In a subsequent dispute between Alton and Brad about the ownership of Blackacre, who will win: In a Race-Notice Jurisdiction?

Alton wins. Although Brad took his deed without notice of the deed to Alton, Alton recorded his deed two days earlier than Brad did. In a race/ notice jurisdiction, the later grantee must meet both elements of the statute to prevail.

In 2010, Amy and Blake acquired neighboring properties in Zoning District 11-C, which permitted commercial uses. Since that time Amy has operated a gourmet grocery and restaurant on her property. In 2011, Blake contacted the City Planning Dept. to find out which permits he would need to build a skating rink on his property. Of the multiple permits he would need, Blake obtained only the grading permit. Blake also hired a consultant to do a preliminary study to determine the economic feasibility of a skating rink in the area. Based upon the information from the City and from the consultant, Blake decided to delay further development of the skating rink. However, he continued to meet with his potential investors to discuss the project. In 2013 the City rezoned all of District 11-C as exclusively residential. The City notified all property owners in the area that they would have to comply with the new designation unless they could establish a valid nonconforming use. Discuss whether (1) Amy and (2) Blake have nonconforming uses.

Amy fits definition. No "use" on Blake's property, but the question whether his rights have vested; probably insufficient justifiable, detrimental reliance (insufficient investment of money) on former zoning for rights to have vested before zoning was changed. Blake's strongest argument is based on the one permit he obtained; fact that City granted permit strengthens his justifiable reliance argument, but fact that 3 years have passed may mean permit has expired.

Olga was the fee simple owner of three adjoining lots (Lots 1, 2, and 3) fronting on a common street. She built a private sewage drainage system underneath all three lots. The drainage system was constructed so that the sewage from the cabin on Lot 1 ran underneath Lot 2 and Lot 3 via a pipeline and drained into a municipal sewer outside Lot 3. Olga then conveyed Lot 1 to Alicia and Lot 2 to Bea. Olga retained Lot 3. Neither Alicia's deed nor Bea's deed mentioned the sewer pipeline. Only the cabin on Alicia's lot uses the pipeline. Assume the relevant statute of limitations is ten years. After 30 years, the pipeline most likely is:

An easement appurtenant, and an easement by implication.

Mary enjoyed fly fishing. She never kept the fish; instead she always released them back to the wild. Mary did not own any land, but her good friend, Charles, owned land along one of the best fly fishing streams in the state. If Charles agreed in writing that "Mary has an irrevocable right to cross Charles's land to reach the stream at any time she wishes during fishing season," Mary's interest would be:

An easement in gross

A owns Blackacre and Whiteacre. A conveys Blackacre by deed to B. In the deed, B promises A for himself, his heirs, and his assigns, that he will use Blackacre only for a single-family residence. The deed is recorded. One year later, B conveys Blackacre to D, without mentioning B's promise. D starts to build a grocery store on Blackacre. Can A recover money damages or enjoin D? Explain.

Yes. The burden of the covenant between A and B will run to B as either a real covenant or an equitable servitude.

A owns Blackacre and Whiteacre. A conveys Blackacre by deed to B. In the deed, A promises B for herself, her heirs, and her assigns, that she will use Whiteacre only for a single-family residence. One year later, A starts to build a grocery store on Whiteacre. Can B recover money damages or enjoin A's construction of a grocery store on Whiteacre? Explain.

Yes. There is a covenant between A and B (promise regarding land use), enforceable at law or in equity based on privity of contract relationship between A and B.

In 2014, Nancy, who needed cash and knew she would inherit Redacre on the death of true owner Owen, conveyed Redacre by a general warranty deed to Alice (who did not know Nancy was not yet the owner of Redacre) for a payment of $100,000. In 2016, Alice conveyed Redacre by a special warranty deed to Beatrice for a payment of $120,000. In 2020, Owen finally visited the property and evicted Beatrice. Assuming no statute of limitations has run and there are no adverse possession issues, which of the following is most true?

Beatrice may recover against Nancy on a present deed covenant only in a Rockafellor jurisdiction.

In a common interest community, the developer imposed the following restrictions. Is any one invalid under the touch and concern test? Under the Restatement? All of these prohibitions limit some activity on the servient land. Traditionally, negative restrictions on land touch and concern the land. These restrictions may, however, be deemed objectionable as a matter of public policy. "No solar energy device shall be insntalled on the roof of any house"

Public policy: Benefits of solar energy against aesthetic concerns

Olivia conveyed Blackacre to Alice, who did not record her deed. Several months later, Alice conveyed Blackacre to Beth, who recorded her deed and moved onto the property. Four months later Olivia conveyed Blackacre to Calvin for a valuable consideration. When Calvin inquired whether Blackacre was occupied, Olivia told him that she had moved out eight months earlier and had not rented the property to anyone. After Calvin recorded his deed, he visited the property and found Beth living there. Calvin told Beth to get off his property. Beth refused. Calvin sued Beth for ejectment and to quiet title. Who prevails in a race-notice jurisdiction?

C

Olivia conveyed Blackacre to Alice, who did not record her deed. Several months later, Alice conveyed Blackacre to Beth, who recorded her deed and moved onto the property. Four months later Olivia conveyed Blackacre to Calvin for a valuable consideration. When Calvin inquired whether Blackacre was occupied, Olivia told him that she had moved out eight months earlier and had not rented the property to anyone. After Calvin recorded his deed, he visited the property and found Beth living there. Calvin told Beth to get off his property. Beth refused. Calvin sued Beth for ejectment and to quiet title. Who would prevail at common law?

B

Olivia conveyed Blackacre to Alice, who did not record her deed. Several months later, Alice conveyed Blackacre to Beth, who recorded her deed and moved onto the property. Four months later Olivia conveyed Blackacre to Calvin for a valuable consideration. When Calvin inquired whether Blackacre was occupied, Olivia told him that she had moved out eight months earlier and had not rented the property to anyone. After Calvin recorded his deed, he visited the property and found Beth living there. Calvin told Beth to get off his property. Beth refused. Calvin sued Beth for ejectment and to quiet title. Who would prevail in a race jurisdiction?

B

This question is based on the following facts: O conveys to A. O conveys to B, who knows of the deed from O to A. O conveys to C.C conveys to D. B records. C records. A records. Who prevails in a jurisdiction with a race recording act?

B

A owns Whiteacre and B owns Blackacre, adjacent properties. A and B enter into a written agreement where B promises for himself, his heirs, and his assigns, that he will use Blackacre only for a single-family residence. The agreement is recorded. One year later, B starts to build a grocery store on Blackacre. Can A recover money damages or enjoin B? Explain.

Yes. There is a covenant between A and B, enforceable at law as a real covenant or in equity as an equitable servitude, based on privity of contract between A and B.

By general warranty deed A conveys Blackacre to B for $20,000. B conveys Blackacre to C for $15,000. O, true owner, Ousts C. The jurisdiction holds that present covenants are breached, if at all, when made, and the in action is not assigned to subsequent grantees. The deed from B to C is a general warranty deed. C has not sued B nor settled with him. How much, if anything, can B recover from A?

B has a contingent liability to C of $15,000. It seems unfair either to give B 15,000 now or refuse too ever do so. The court might order A to put 15,000 in escrow (or pay into court) until the contingency is resolved or until the statue of limitations runs on C's claim against B, whichever happens first.

Jennie (O) conveys Blackacre to Lisa (A), who does not record. Jennie subsequently dies, leaving Jisoo (H) as her heir. Jisoo then conveys Blackacre to Rose (B), who records. Rose purchases for a valuable consideration and without notice of the deed from Jennie to Lisa. Who prevails?

B must prevail over A.

By general warranty deed A conveys Blackacre to B for $20,000. B conveys Blackacre to C for $15,000. O, true owner, Ousts C. The jurisdiction holds that present covenants are breached, if at all, when made, and the in action is not assigned to subsequent grantees. The deed from B to C is a quitclaim deed. How much, if anything, can B recover from A?

B must prove actual damages in order to recover more than nomincal damages. Since B has no liability to C under the quitclaim deed, B can prove actual damages only by showing that he sold Blackacre for less than market value because of O's claim. If Blackacre decreased from $20,000 to $15,000 in value because of general market conditions, B cannot recover damages from A; the buyer takes the risk of market rise or fall. In a Rockefeller jurisdiction, C could sue A.

- Ariel owned a 100 by 400-foot lot fronting on Reading Road, a paved state highway, on the west. Ariel divided her lot into two parcels, each 100 by 200 feet, which left lot 1 as the only one with frontage access to Reading Road. Lot 2, immediately to the east of lot 1, had no access to a public road after the split. Therefore, when Ariel sold Lot 2 to Belle, she included in the deed the following express easement: "In order to assure access to Reading Road from Lot 2, an eight-foot- wide gravel easement in favor of Lot 2 is hereby granted across the northernmost edge of Lot 1." At the time of the deed, the area was zoned for single-family residences and residential duplexes only. Belle used the easement across Lot 1 to build her house on Lot 2 and has continued to use the easement to get to her house for the past 10 years. The area was recently rezoned to allow multi-family dwellings. Belle has now acquired Lot 3, immediately to the east of Lot 2. A rough gravel road runs along the eastern edge of Lot 3. Belle intends to redevelop Lots 2 and 3 by building a 10-unit apartment building. Belle wants to pave the easement on Lot 1 and widen it to a 16-foot-wide access road for improved access to Lots 2 and 3. Ariel does not want the easement paved or widened, but in order to redevelop her own property, she would like to relocate the easement to the south side of her property if she cannot get rid of it altogether. (1) Can Ariel prevent: (a) Belle's ongoing use of the easement, (b) the widening or paving of the easement, and (c) the redevelopment of Belle's property? (2) Can Ariel relocate the easement?

Belle can't widen without Ariel's consent because that would impose an additional burden on the servient estate without consent of the servient owner. Majority: Ariel cannot relocate without Belle's consent Ariel can't stop Belle's redevelopment of Lots 2 and 3 but can enjoin Belle's use of the easement beyond the scope originally contemplated or reasonably foreseeable by the parties. Belle cannot use the easement to benefit Lot 3, which is nondominant land; the express terms of the easement limit its use to benefit Lot 2. Express easement does not disappear even if necessity upon which it was based disappears—can be changed by express written agreement of the parties. Belle may be allowed to pave the easement to improve its condition but not if is purpose is to increase use.

Orton conveyed Blackacre to Andy, who did not record his deed. Shortly thereafter, Orton died, leaving all of his property to Paul. After probate of Orton's estate, title to Blackacre was recorded in Paul's name. Several weeks later, Andy sold Blackacre to Betty, and Betty recorded her deed. Paul then conveyed Blackacre to Charlie for $400,000, and Charlie recorded his deed. In a dispute between Betty and Charlie about title to Blackacre, who will win and why: In a Race jurisdiction?

Betty recorded first, but Betty's deed was a wild deed, outside the chain of title. (Because Andy did not record.) Charlie's recording was within the chain of title; Charlie wins

Orton conveyed Blackacre to Andy, who did not record his deed. Shortly thereafter, Orton died, leaving all of his property to Paul. After probate of Orton's estate, title to Blackacre was recorded in Paul's name. Several weeks later, Andy sold Blackacre to Betty, and Betty recorded her deed. Paul then conveyed Blackacre to Charlie for $400,000, and Charlie recorded his deed. In a dispute between Betty and Charlie about title to Blackacre, who will win and why: Under Common Law?

Betty would prevail over Charlie because Orton conveyed to Andy before Orton died, leaving his property to Paul. Orton thus had nothing left to leave to Paul, and Paul had nothing to convey to Charlie.

M and N purchased homes in the Happy Acres Subdivision. They were each several predecessors in title removed from the original purchasers from the subdivision developer. Covenants in each of their chains of title stated that all vehicles must be parked in each owner's garage overnight. M owned four pickup trucks and each night parked one in the garage, one in the street, and two in M's front yard. M refused to comply with the covenant, and N sued for damages and an injunction. Which of the following statements is most likely true?

Both issues are true.

Olsen owned a property called (imaginatively) Blackacre, which he conveyed to Alton by quitclaim deed on October 15. On his way to the county recorder's office with his deed, Alton encountered his friend Cora who worked for Air New Zealand. Cora said, "I have this round-trip ticket to Auckland I can't use, but I can transfer it to you if you want to go; you'll have to leave within the hour, though." Alton, who had always wanted to go to New Zealand, accepted the tickets and left for New Zealand. On October 17 Olsen received a notice from the Franchise Tax Board telling him that he owed $300,000 in unpaid state taxes, and that "substantial penalties" would accrue after November 1. He told his friend Brad about the letter and offered to sell Blackacre to Brad for about 80 percent of its fair market value if Brad would pay him cash and quickly. Brad agreed, and Olsen gave Brad a general warranty deed in exchange for the cash. One week later, on October 24, Brad recorded his deed. Meanwhile, Alton had returned from New Zealand on the morning of October 22 and completed his interrupted journey to the county recorder's office, where he recorded his deed. In a subsequent dispute between Alton and Brad about the ownership of Blackacre, who will win: In a Notice Jurisdiction?

Brad probably wins because he took his deed from Olsen without any knowledge of the earlier deed to Alton. No facts suggest actual notice. No constructive notice because at the time Brad took his deed, Alton had not yet recorded his deed. Probably insufficient facts for inquiry notice. Brad purchased the property for 80 percent of market value, but he was paying all cash and knew Olsen needed money quickly.

A owns Blackacre and Whiteacre. A conveys Blackacre by deed to B. In the deed, B promises A for himself, his heirs, and his assigns, that he will use Blackacre only for a single-family residence. The deed is recorded. One year later, A conveys a life estate to C. B starts to build a grocery store on Blackacre. Can C recover money damages or enjoin B? Explain.

C can enjoin B because the covenant between A and B is enforceable as an equitable servitude running with the land because it meets all four requirements. C cannot recover money damages if the jurisdiction requires vertical privity. Vertical privity requires a transfer of the entire interest, and a life estate is less than a fee simple absolute.

A owns Whiteacre and B owns Blackacre, adjacent properties. A and B enter into a written agreement where B promises for himself, his heirs, and his assigns, that he will use Blackacre only for a single-family residence. The agreement is recorded. One year later, A conveys Whiteacre to C. Then B starts to build a grocery store. Can C recover money damages or enjoin B? Explain.

C can enjoin B because the covenant between A and B is enforceable as an equitable servitude running with the land because it meets all four requirements. C, as the transferee of the benefited parcel, may be able to recover money damages against B if the jurisdiction does not require horizontal privity between A and B for the benefit of a real covenant to run with the land.

A owns Blackacre and Whiteacre. A conveys Blackacre by deed to B. In the deed, B promises A for himself, his heirs, and his assigns, that he will use Blackacre only for a single-family residence. The deed is recorded. Ten years later, A loses Whiteacre to C by adverse possession. Then B starts to build a grocery store on Blackacre. Can C recover money damages or enjoin B? Explain.

C can enjoin B because the covenant between A and B is enforceable as an equitable servitude running with the land because it meets all four requirements. However, she cannot recover money damages against B if the jurisdiction requires vertical privity between A and C for the benefit of a real covenant to run with the land. Vertical privity is voluntary transfer of the entire estate. Adverse possession is not voluntary.

A owns Blackacre and Whiteacre. A conveys Blackacre by deed to B. In the deed, B promises A for himself, his heirs, and his assigns, that he will use Blackacre only for a single-family residence. The deed is recorded. Ten years later, A loses Whiteacre to C by adverse possession, and B loses Blackacre to D by adverse possession. Then D starts to build a grocery store on Blackacre. Can C recover money damages or enjoin D? Explain.

C can enjoin D because both the benefit and the burden of the covenant between A and B will run with the land as an equitable servitude because it meets all four requirements. However, C cannot recover damages against D if the jurisdiction requires vertical privity between A and C.

A owns Whiteacre and B owns Blackacre, adjacent properties. A and B enter into a written agreement where B promises for himself, his heirs, and his assigns, that he will use Blackacre only for a single-family residence. The agreement is recorded. One year later, A conveys Whiteacre to C and B conveys Blackacre to D. Then D starts to build a grocery store on Blackacre. Can C recover money damages or enjoin D? Explain.

C can enjoin D because both the benefit and the burden of the covenant between A and B will run with the land as an equitable servitude because it meets all four requirements. However, C will not get money damages against D because the burden of a real covenant will not run to a transferee of the burdened parcel unless there is horizontal privity between the original parties, A and B.

Olivia conveyed Blackacre to Alice, who did not record her deed. Several months later, Alice conveyed Blackacre to Beth, who recorded her deed and moved onto the property. Four months later Olivia conveyed Blackacre to Calvin for a valuable consideration. When Calvin inquired whether Blackacre was occupied, Olivia told him that she had moved out eight months earlier and had not rented the property to anyone. After Calvin recorded his deed, he visited the property and found Beth living there. Calvin told Beth to get off his property. Beth refused. Calvin sued Beth for ejectment and to quiet title. Who would prevail in a notice jurisdiction?

C or B because they inquired so argue either way.

Mary enjoyed fly fishing. She never kept the fish; instead she always released them back to the wild. Mary did not own any land, but her good friend, Charles, owned land along one of the best fly fishing streams in the state. If Charles grants Mary an easement to cross Charles's land to reach the stream at any time she wishes during fishing season, which of the following statements best defines the relationship of the parties?

Charles owns the servient estate and there is no dominant estate because the easement does not benefit a parcel of land.

Abbot owned fifty acres of wilderness property. He let his good friend, Baker, take photos of the many birds on his property, which Baker sold for a profit. Abbot wanted Baker to be able to be able to continue her use of his land should he die, so he executed the grant of an easement "to Baker, her heirs and assigns" allowing access to his land to shoot photos. Baker then died unexpectedly, leaving her estate to her daughter Charlie, whom Abbot disliked. Charlie attempted to shoot photos on the land a few months after Baker died. Abbot told her to leave and not come back, and Charlie sued. A court is most likely to hold that:

Charlie now holds the easement in gross and may shoot photos on the land.

Orton conveyed Blackacre to Andy, who did not record his deed. Shortly thereafter, Orton died, leaving all of his property to Paul. After probate of Orton's estate, title to Blackacre was recorded in Paul's name. Several weeks later, Andy sold Blackacre to Betty, and Betty recorded her deed. Paul then conveyed Blackacre to Charlie for $400,000, and Charlie recorded his deed. In a dispute between Betty and Charlie about title to Blackacre, who will win and why: In a Race-Notice jurisdiction?

Charlie took his deed from Paul without any form of notice of the Andy or Betty deeds, and was the first to record properly within the chain of title.

Orton conveyed Blackacre to Andy, who did not record his deed. Shortly thereafter, Orton died, leaving all of his property to Paul. After probate of Orton's estate, title to Blackacre was recorded in Paul's name. Several weeks later, Andy sold Blackacre to Betty, and Betty recorded her deed. Paul then conveyed Blackacre to Charlie for $400,000, and Charlie recorded his deed. In a dispute between Betty and Charlie about title to Blackacre, who will win and why: In a Notice jurisdiction?

Charlie wins because he had no notice of either Andy's deed to Betty or Orton's deed to Andy; Andy failed to record, and Betty's deed was a wild deed and outside the chain of title. No facts indicate Charlie had any actual knowledge of Andy or Betty.

In a jurisdiction with a notice recording act, who prevails given the events below? O conveys to A for value; A does not immediately record.O shows B the deed from O to A.O conveys to B for value; B does not immediately record. O conveys to C for value; C does not immediately record. B shows D the deed from O to B. B conveys to D, who does not immediately record. A records. B records. D records.

D

O conveys to A, who does not immediately record. O conveys to B, who knows of the deed from O to A and does not immediately record. O conveys to C, who does not record. B shows D the deed from O to B. B conveys to D, who does not immediately record. A records. B records. D records. Florida Statutes 695.01 Conveyances and liens to be recorded.— (1) No conveyance, transfer, or mortgage of real property, or of any interest therein, nor any lease for a term of 1 year or longer, shall be good and effectual in law or equity against creditors or subsequent purchasers for a valuable consideration and without notice, unless the same be recorded according to law; nor shall any such instrument made or executed by virtue of any power of attorney be good or effectual in law or in equity against creditors or subsequent purchasers for a valuable consideration and without notice unless the power of attorney be recorded before the accruing of the right of such creditor or subsequent purchaser. Who prevails under the Florida recording act?

D

O conveys to A, who does not record. O conveys to B, who knows of the deed from O to A and does not record. O conveys to C, who does not record. B conveys to D, who does not record. (D is shown the deed from O to B.) A records. B records. D records. Who prevails in a notice jurisdiction?

D; D is later in time than A and C, and has neither record notice nor actual notice of thier deeds.

Darrin and Tamika owned adjoining tracts of land. Darrin's property was landlocked, so in return for consideration, Tamika granted an easement to Darrin, his heirs, and assigns, allowing Darrin to build a driveway from his house east across Tamika's land to the state highway. This easement was recorded. Tamika quitclaimed her property to Terri, and Darrin conveyed his property to Doyle. Neither the Tamika-to-Terri deed nor the Darrin-to-Doyle deed mentioned the easement. Which one of the following is most correct?

Doyle has a right to use the easement.

Assume O owns the land before any conveyance is given. Each conveyance is by a warranty deed. Each person is a bona fide purchaser except as otherwise indicated. The jurisdiction has only a grantor-grantee index. O conveys to B, who does not record. O conveys to A, who does not record. B conveys to C, who records. A conveys to D, who records. (D is shown the deed from O to A.) O conveys to E, who records. Who prevails in a notice jurisdiction? In a race-notice jurisdiction?

E prevails in either. E is a subsequent BFP without notice of the prior deeds. A's and B's deeds are not recorded. C's and D's deeds are wild (not connected to O, the record owner).

O conveys to A, who does not record. O conveys to B, who knows of the deed from O to A and does not record. O conveys to C, who does not record. B conveys to D, who does not record. (D is shown the deed from O to B.) A records. B records. D records. If, after D records, A conveys to E, who promptly records, who prevails in a race-notice jurisdiction?

E. A recorded first, so B and D cannot be BFPs who first recorded.

In 2014, Nancy, who needed cash and knew she would inherit Redacre on the death of true owner Owen, conveyed Redacre by a general warranty deed to Alice (who did not know Nancy was not yet the owner of Redacre) for a payment of $100,000. In 2016, Alice conveyed Redacre by a special warranty deed to Beatrice for a payment of $120,000.Owen dies in 2020 and Nancy inherits Redacre, as she knew she would. If a court quiets title in Beatrice rather than Nancy, it will most likely be under which legal theory?

Estoppel by deed

Since 1980, Smith has owned a property called Blackacre. In the 1970s, a road was cut across the eastern edge of Blackacre to haul timber from the previously forested parcel to the north of Blackacre, called Woodacre. After the forest was depleted, the road fell into disuse until 2010, when Green purchased Woodacre in order to build a house. Because of relatively easier access to the public roads, Green began using the old road across Blackacre in 2010, hauling workers, materials, and equipment to his property. Even after the new house was completed, Green used the road across Blackacre to get to and from Woodacre because it was shorter and more level than alternative access to his property from the north. At least a dozen times over the ensuing years Smith saw Green on the road and yelled, "Get off my property!" Green always laughed and continued on his way. In 2021 Smith told Green he planned to bulldoze the road and build a wall across it. Analyze Green's right to use the road under a theory of prescriptive easement. The limitations period in this jurisdiction is 10 years.

Green has a prescriptive easement over Smith's Road. If smith really wants to get rid of him, he'll probably have to pay Green to give up his easement rights. Actual use - Green started using the road in 1992. Adverse (without owner's consent) - Smith repeatedly told Green to get off his property. Open and Notorious - Green used the road regularly since 1992 and Smith actually knew of Green's use. Continuous and uninterrupted - Green used the road to build his house and now uses it regularly. Smith yells at him but has done nothing to interrupt green's use. For the prescriptive period - Green has been using the road since 1992 and SOL is 10 years.

The owner of Blackacre, on which is an easement in favor of Whiteacre, fails to pay property taxes. The county forecloses on Blackacre for failure to pay taxes and sells Blackacre to a new owner. Does the foreclosure terminate the easement?

Herm: Foreclosure did not extinguish the easement. The Restatement of Servitudes agrees.

Real covenants between fee simple owners differ from contracts because:

It is possible to enforce real covenants against successors in title who were not parties to the covenants.

For many years, Lester has owned and operated a scrap and salvage yard. After watching his profits from the scrap yard dwindle for several years and after tracking the increasing market for recyclable materials (metal, glass, and paper) for some time, Lester decided to convert his scrap yard operation to a recycling center. In preparation for the conversion to recycling, Lester temporarily shut down the scrap yard operation. Two weeks later, the area was rezoned to permit only residential and light retail uses. (1) Can Lester reopen and operate his scrap and salvage yard? (2) Can Lester convert his scrap yard into a recycling center? (3) If Lester decides to sell the property to his cousin, Daryl, what can Daryl do?

Lester probably has not abandoned the scrap yard use. --Abandonment requires: (1) discontinuation of the use, and (2) intent not to return to the use. Lester has likely not expended sufficient resources to have vested rights establish the recycling center. -- If the recycling center is not a substantial change from a scrap yard, Lester can open the recycling center even if his rights have not vested. If Lester chooses to sell his property to Daryl, Daryl would have the same rights in regard to the use of the property that Lester had.

Jon (O) conveys Pinkacre to Matt (A), who does not record. Jon subsequently conveys to Anthony (B), who purchases in good faith and for a valuable consideration but does not record. Matt then records and conveys to Lili (C). Lili purchases in good faith and for a valuable consideration. Anthony records. Lili records. Who prevails under a race-notice statute?

Lili In a race-notice jurisdiction, Matt prevails over Anthony because Anthony does not record before Matt. Therefore, Matt can convey good title to Lili. Even if Lili had notice of Anthony's claim Lili would prevail over B because of the shelter rule.

Jon (O) conveys Pinkacre to Matt (A), who does not record. Jon subsequently conveys to Anthony (B), who purchases in good faith and for a valuable consideration but does not record. Matt then records and conveys to Lili (C). Lili purchases in good faith and for a valuable consideration. Anthony records. Lili records. Who prevails under a notice statute?

Lili In a notice jurisdiction Anthony prevails over matt because Anthony is a subsequent BFP. Then Lili prevails over Anthony because Lili is a subsequent BFP from the record owner, Matt.

O conveys to A, who does not record. O conveys to B, who knows of the deed from O to A and does not record. O conveys to C, who does not record. B conveys to D, who does not record. (D is shown the deed from O to B.) A records. B records. D records. If, after D records, A conveys to E, who promptly records, who prevails in a notice jurisdiction?

Morse v. Curtis: E. E does not have to search the records after E finds the deed from O to A recorded. Woods v. Garnett: D. E must search the records under O's name to the date of purchase; thus E has notice of the deed to B.

In June, Bruce purchased, for investment purposes, a 100-acre parcel called (surprisingly) Blackacre from Sneed by general warranty deed. Neither the deed nor Sneed mentioned the fact that Sneed had previously granted to Nabor, a neighbor, a right to use a road across a corner of Blackacre during the rainy season when the access road to Nabor's property tended to flood. After three months of owning Blackacre (and still unaware of Nabor's right of way), Bruce sold Blackacre to Cal by special warranty deed. In October, Cal saw Nabor on the road and confronted him. Nabor showed Cal the deed giving him the right to use the road. Furious, Cal called Bruce, who said, "Hey, don't look at me--I gave you a special warranty deed." Can Cal prevail in a suit for breach of the covenant against encumbrances against (1) Bruce on the special warranty deed, or (2) Sneed on the general warranty deed?

Nabor's right of way is an express easement, which is a physical encumbrance on the property. By failing to disclose on transfer, Sneed breached covenant against encumbrances. C/L: Cal cannot sue a remote grantor. Modern Law: When Bruce conveyed to Cal, Bruce's COA was impliedly assigned to Cal. Cal cannot sue Bruce on the special warranty deed because Bruce did not create the encumbrance and the SWD warrants only Bruce's act.

North Carolina Statutes § 47-18. Conveyances, contracts to convey, options and leases of land. (a) No (i) conveyance of land, or (ii) contract to convey, or (iii) option to convey, or (iv) lease of land for more than three years shall be valid to pass any property interest as against lien creditors or purchasers for a valuable consideration from the donor, bargainer or lessor but from the time of registration thereof in the county where the land lies, or if the land is located in more than one county, then in each county where any portion of the land lies to be effective as to the land in that county. Unless otherwise stated either on the registered instrument or on a separate registered instrument duly executed by the party whose priority interest is adversely affected, (i) instruments registered in the office of the register of deeds shall have priority based on the order of registration as determined by the time of registration, and (ii) if instruments are registered simultaneously, then the instruments shall be presumed to have priority as determined by: (1) The earliest document number set forth on the registered instrument. (2) The sequential book and page number set forth on the registered instrument if no document number is set forth on the registered instrument. The presumption created by this subsection is rebuttable. This is an example of which type of recording act?

Race

A owns Blackacre and Whiteacre. A conveys Blackacre by deed to B. In the deed, B promises A for himself, his heirs, and his assigns, that he will use Blackacre only for a single-family residence. The deed is recorded. One year later, A conveys Whiteacre to C without mentioning B's promise. Then B starts to build a grocery store on Blackacre. Can C recover money damages or enjoin B? Explain.

Yes. The benefit of the covenant between A and B will run to C (as purchasers of the benefited parcel) as either a real covenant or an equitable servitude because it meets all five requirements for a real covenant running with the land and all four requirements for an equitable servitude to run with the land.

A owns Blackacre and Whiteacre. A conveys Blackacre by deed to B. In the deed, B promises A for himself, his heirs, and his assigns, that he will use Blackacre only for a single-family residence. The A to B deed is not recorded. One year later, B conveys Blackacre to D by deed without mentioning the promise B made to A. D starts to build a grocery store on Blackacre. Can A recover money damages or enjoin D? Explain.

No. A cannot recover money damages or enjoin D if D did not have notice of the burden B placed upon Blackacre by the covenant with A. The facts state that A to B deed was not recorded (no constructive notice) and the B to D deed does not mention the promise (no actual notice) and there are no facts for inquiry notice. The burden of either a real covenant or equitable servitude requires notice to run.

Ala. Code sec. 35-4-90 All conveyances of real property, deeds, mortgages, deeds of trust or instruments in the nature of mortgages to secure any debts are inoperative and void as to purchasers for a valuable consideration, mortgagees and judgment creditors without notice, unless the same have been recorded before the accrual of the right of such purchasers, mortgagees or judgment creditors. This is an example of which type of recording act?

Notice

O is the owner of Blackacre, the sole nesting habitat of the endangered Blackacre Bluebird. At the time O acquired Blackacre, existing state and federal law already prohibited any mechanized construction activity, large buildings, or other activities that might harm the birds. Using hand tools, O has built a path and a meditation paviliion on Blackacre; he hikes there several times a week to view the birds and contemplate nature.The state government recently passed a new law preventing any human from being within 500 yards of any Blackacre Bluebird during nesting season, which runs from March 1 to August 31 every year. This will prevent O from setting foot on the pavilion or the path, and about 75% of the entire property. If O sues the state government for compensation, the most likely result is:

O loses because she can still make use of part of Blackacre at all times, and all of Blackacre for half the year.

Owen owned Oldacre, a two-acre parcel of land. In 2021 Owen subdivided Oldacre into two one-acre lots, Blackacre and Greenacre; he then granted Greenacre to Bud by a deed that accurately described the property. In 2022 Owen sold Blackacre to Caleb by a general warranty deed that described Oldacre, the two-acre parcel originally owned by Owen. Caleb then promptly sold the property to Dudley by a special warranty deed that also described Oldacre. Dudley then discovered that Bud was living on one acre of the land described in the deed he had received from Caleb. Does Dudley have a viable claim for breach of the covenant of seisin against Owen or Caleb or both under the warranty deeds?

Owen breached the covenant of seisin when he sold property he did not own. Dudley has no claim against Caleb because Caleb's acts did not create the problem, and Caleb gave a special warranty deed. C/L: Dudley has no remedy against Owen, a remote grantor. Modern: Caleb's COA against Owen was impliedly assigned to Dudley.

Arkansas Code § 14-15-404. Effect of recording instruments affecting title to property.*** (b) No deed, bond, or instrument of writing for the conveyance of any real estate, or by which the title thereto may be affected in law or equity, made or executed after December 21, 1846, shall be good or valid against a subsequent purchaser of the real estate for a valuable consideration without actual notice thereof or against any creditor of the person executing such an instrument obtaining a judgment or decree which by law may be a lien upon the real estate unless the deed, bond, or instrument, duly executed and acknowledged or proved as required by law, is filed for record in the office of the clerk and ex officio recorder of the county where the real estate is situated. This is an example of which type of recording act?

Race-notice

Georgia Code § 44-2-1. Where and when deeds recorded; priority as to subsequent deeds taken without notice from same vendor. Every deed conveying lands shall be recorded in the office of the clerk of the superior court of the county where the land is located. A deed may be recorded at any time; but a prior unrecorded deed loses its priority over a subsequent recorded deed from the same vendor when the purchaser takes such deed without notice of the existence of the prior deed. This statute is an example of which type of recording act?

Race-notice

Stern owns a house on a 15,000 square foot lot in an area zoned for single-family residences only. Stern's house is in compliance with the requirements of a 25-foot front yard setback and 10-foot side and back yard setbacks on each lot. Stern's 8-year-old son, Ricky, is an excellent jai-alai player; Stern believes Ricky has professional potential. Stern plans to build a covered jai-alai court in the backyard (which borders on a small public park), so Ricky can practice at home because the nearest jai-alai courts are 30 miles away. However, the proposed building would encroach into the back yard setback by about three feet. Is Stern likely to be able to get a variance?

Stern's proposed use is probably not detrimental, but he will not be able to show undue hardship.

The Byars purchase a house and finance the purchase as stated: $200K house, $20K down, $150K first mortgage from bank, $30K second mortgage from seller. Subsequently the Byars default on payments of the note secured by the first mortgage and the bank forecloses. On foreclosure sale, the house brings $100,000. How should this be distributed?

The bank holds a $150,000 first mortgage. The $100,000 from the sale is distributed to the bank.

Addams owned a property called Blackacre, and his neighbor, Bogart, owned the adjacent property called Greenacre. Addams and Bogart signed a written agreement, wherein Bogart agreed for himself, his heirs, and assigns that he would build and maintain an attractive, natural stone wall along the boundary between the two properties. Because of the topography of the land, the wall would be more visible from Blackacre than from Greenacre, and the wall would create several small marshy patches on Greenacre. The agreement was recorded, and Bogart built the wall as promised. Two years later, Addams sold Blackacre to Cohen. Five years after that, Bogart lost Greenacre to Dismas by adverse possession. While Cohen was on a two-week vacation, Dismas tore down the wall. Cohen would like to get money from Dismas for the removal of the wall. Discuss whether the promise between Addams and Bogart runs with the land as a real covenant.

The covenant cannot run as a real covenant because neither horizontal nor vertical privity requirements are satisfied. However, it may run as an equitable servitude.

Albert, a developer, subdivided a 12 acre property into 24 homesites. In selling each property, he incorporated the following covenant: "the purchaser, together with his heirs, successors, and assigns, agrees to pay the sum of $100 per month into a Homeowner's Associate Account that will be used to provide health care support to individuals living in the neighborhood who cannot afford health care." Brian purchased Lot A, which included the covenant. One year later, Brian sold Lot A to Cara by a general warranty deed that did not mention the covenant. Cara, however, was aware of the covenant when she took delivery of the deed. Cara then refused to make the monthly payment to the homeowner's association. If a court ruled that Cara did not have to make the payment, the decision would most likely rest on which of the following grounds?

The covenant does not touch and concern the land.

The primary difference between a special warranty deed and a general warranty deed is that:

The covenants in a special warranty deed apply only to events that occurred during the grantor's ownership of the property.

In a common interest community, the developer imposed the following restrictions. Is any one invalid under the touch and concern test? Under the Restatement? All of these prohibitions limit some activity on the servient land. Traditionally, negative restrictions on land touch and concern the land. These restrictions may, however, be deemed objectionable as a matter of public policy. "No flag of any kind, including the American flag, may be displayed."

This is a restraint on political expression. It may be invalid under the First Amendment if there is state action. Even if there is not, it may be invalid under the state constitution or an applicable statute (as in California or Kentucky) or because it violates public policy.

Opal executed a deed conveying a home to Abe but, as she handed it to him, she said "This deed is not effective until I die." If a court invalidates the deed, it will most likely be because

The deed is actually a testamentary device, which must satisfy the requirements for a will.

Owen owned 40 acres of cattle land, Redacre, which had been in his family for many generations. In 1992, the Greens purchased a 40-acre tract to the north, Greenacre, intending to establish an organic farm. Decades prior, Owen's grandfather and predecessor in title had granted a north-south easement to the then-owner of Greenacre across Redacre, opening onto an east-west road, Highway 44, which bordered the south side of Redacre. The easement had been recorded in the county records, although no mention of it was in the deed to the Greens. The easement itself was a gravel road in poor shape. A north-south road, Highway 67, ran alongside the western boundaries of both Greenacre and Redacre. The Greens built a driveway out to Highway 67 across their own land. The Greens never used the gravel road across Redacre, although Owen used it from time to time on his own land. In 2018, the Greens retired and conveyed Greenacre to Owen. In 2020, Owen conveyed Greenacre to a developer who planned to build a subdivision. Prior to purchasing Greenacre, the developer searched title to Greenacre and discovered the easement across Redacre. After the closing, the developer informed Owen that she would be paving the easement and residents would use it as one way of access into the subdivision. Owen responded that no easement existed, so the developer sued to determine her rights to use the gravel road.

The developer should lose because the easement was extinguished by merger when Owen bought Greenacre.

Owen, the owner of Blackacre, granted an easement to Derrin for a long driveway access to neighboring Greenacre. The driveway included a wooden bridge across a deep ravine on Blackacre. After several years, Owen and Derrin had a falling out and Owen asked Derrin to stop using the easement. When Derrin refused, Owen poured gasoline on the bridge and set it on fire. The bridge was completely destroyed, and Derrin was forced to build another, less convenient driveway on the other side of Greenacre.Which of the following statement is most true?

The easement has not been terminated because Owen voluntarily set the bridge on fire.

Grantor executed a deed to Grantee conveying a tract of real property. The deed stated the complete street address but not the legal description of the property and was not acknowledged by the grantee. Grantor failed to sign the deed. Which of the following would cause the deed to be void, in all states? Choose one answer.

The grantor failed to sign the deed.

O, who owned two adjacent lots, conveyed one of the lots to A by a deed that contained a covenant against mobile homes on the lot. Later, A conveyed his lot to B by a deed that did not mention the mobile home restriction. B immediately put a mobile home on the property. O demanded that B remove the mobile home and, when B did not, sued for damages due to loss of property value. Which one of the following is most likely true?

The issue is whether the burden of a real covenant runs with the land.

Oaks, the owner of Blackacre, conveyed an easement to United Utility "for the underground transportation of gas by pipeline, the location of easement to be mutually agreed upon by Oaks and United Utility." United Utility then installed a six-inch pipeline at a location selected by it and not objected to by Oaks. Two years later, United Utility advised Oaks of its intention to install an additional six-inch pipeline parallel to and three feet laterally from the original pipeline. Oaks sued for a declaration that United Utility has no right to install the second pipeline. If Oaks prevails, it will be because

The original installation of the pipeline defined the scope of the easement.

In a common interest community, the developer imposed the following restrictions. Is any one invalid under the touch and concern test? Under the Restatement? All of these prohibitions limit some activity on the servient land. Traditionally, negative restrictions on land touch and concern the land. These restrictions may, however, be deemed objectionable as a matter of public policy. "No sign except house location number may be displayed, nor may Christmas lights be displayed outside of a house."

The sign prohibition may be another impermissible restriction of free speech. The prohibition of Christmas lights has a valid aesthetic objectives and probably does not burden the freedom of religion. Osborne -- Large christmas light display was a nuisance.

Olivia conveyed Blackacre to Alice, who did not record her deed. Several months later, Alice conveyed Blackacre to Beth, who recorded her deed and moved onto the property. Four months later Olivia conveyed Blackacre to Calvin for a valuable consideration. When Calvin inquired whether Blackacre was occupied, Olivia told him that she had moved out eight months earlier and had not rented the property to anyone. After Calvin recorded his deed, he visited the property and found Beth living there. Calvin told Beth to get off his property. Beth refused. Calvin sued Beth for ejectment and to quiet title. The governing recording statute provides that "an unrecorded conveyance is invalid as against a subsequent bona fide purchaser for value without notice who first records." In the suit between Calvin and Beth, who should prevail under this recording statute and why?

The statute is a race/notice statute. Calvin wins; he is a later good-faith purchaser for value, and was first to properly record within the chain of title. Effect of wild deed to Beth: no constructive notice. No actual notice, and probably no inquiry notice: Olivia told him that she had moved out and had not rented the property.

A owns five adjoining tracts of forest land, numbered 1 through 5. All five lots had previously been owned by O as a single tract; A purchased each lot from O in a separate transaction, lot 1 first, lot 2 second, lot 3 third, lot 4 fourth, and finally lot 5. Lots 1 and 2 are bounded by a public road on the north. Lots 3 and 4 are bounded by a public road on the south. Lot 5 has no access to a public road except through one of the other four lots. A dies intestate. Her five children; B, C, D, E, and F, are her heirs. In the decree of distribution settling A's estate, the court assigns lot 1 to B, lot 2 to C, lot 3 to D, lot 4 to E, and lot 5 to F. Nothing is said in the decree about lot 5 having an easement of way. Sometime later F sues the owners of lots 1 through 4, claiming an easement by necessity. What result?

When A buys lot 4 from O an easement by necessity is established over lot 4 for the benefit of lot 5 retained by O. When A buys lot 5 the easement disappears. When A dies, a new easement by necessity must be created.

In a common interest community, the developer imposed the following restrictions. Is any one invalid under the touch and concern test? Under the Restatement? All of these prohibitions limit some activity on the servient land. Traditionally, negative restrictions on land touch and concern the land. These restrictions may, however, be deemed objectionable as a matter of public policy. "No house shall be used to provide day care for nonresidents of the house."

Woodvale (Massachusetts): not against public policy to prohibit use of residential condominium units for day care providers. California: statute voids covenants that prohibit use of residential property for family day care home.

A owns Blackacre and Whiteacre. A conveys Blackacre by deed to B. In the deed, B promises A for himself, his heirs, and his assigns, that he will use Blackacre only for a single-family residence. The deed is recorded. One year later, A conveys Whiteacre to C without mentioning B's promise, and B conveys Blackacre to D without mentioning B's promise. D starts to build a grocery store on Blackacre. Can C recover money damages or enjoin D? Explain.

Yes as to either. Both the benefit and the burden of the covenant between A and B will run to C and D, respectively, as the purchasers of the benefited and burdened parcels. The covenant will run as either a real covenant or an equitable servitude because it meets all the requirements for both.

A owns Blackacre and Whiteacre. A conveys Blackacre by deed to B. In the A to B deed, A promises B that she will use Whiteacre only as a single-family residence, and B promises A that he will use Blackacre only as a single-family residence. The deed is recorded. One year later, B conveys Blackacre to D. Then A begins to build a grocery store on Whiteacre. Can D recover money damages or enjoin A? Explain.

Yes, assuming intent requirement is met. These are also mutual promises, but only the promise from A to B is at issue, as A breaches.

A owns Blackacre and Whiteacre. A conveys Blackacre by deed to B. In the A to B deed, A promises B that she will use Whiteacre only as a single-family residence, and B promises A that he will use Blackacre only as a single-family residence. The deed is recorded. One year later, B conveys Blackacre to D. D begins to build a grocery store on Blackacre. Can A recover money damages or enjoin D? Explain.

Yes, assuming the intent requirement is met. There are mutual promises, but only the promise from B to A is at issue, as B's transferee, D, breaches B's promise to A.

In 2000, Joe opened a shoe repair store in a storefront that he owned. Joe operated the shoe repair store continuously until 2010 when he sold the business and the storefront to Paul. In 2002, the local zoning ordinance was amended to permit only single-family residences in the part of town in which the shoe repair store is located. Can Paul continue to operate the shoe repair store?

Yes, because Joe's non-conforming use runs with the land to Paul.

Dave Developer has acquired a large parcel in Springfield that he would like to develop into a single family neighborhood. His plans meet all of the applicable zoning requirements except for side yards on several properties. If he can obtain a variance, he will be able to include four extra houses in the development and significantly increase his profits. The city granted the variance with the condition that Dave permit telephone providers to install cell phone towers at various points throughout the development. Would Dave be entitled to compensation from the city?

Yes, unless the city cana prove a reasonable nexus between the side yard variance and the cell towers and rough proportionality between the harm caused by the variance and the benefit from the towers.