Property Problems
O conveys Blackacre to A and her heirs, but If Blackacre is used for any purpose other than agricultural purposes, then O has the right to re-enter and take possession of the land. Suppose that some years after the conveyance, A begins construction of several residences on Blackacre. O has died and devised her entire estate to B. What is the state of title?
(ASK ABOUT THIS) Assuming that building residences is a breach of the condition, A has breached the condition subsequent, but the fee does not automatically terminate. Based on the conveyance, it terminates only if and when the right of entry is exercised by B. So, A fee is still in place.
A, B, and C are joint tenants that have all of the four unities. C sells the property to D. What is the interest?
A and B are still tenants in common, and D has a tenancy in common.
A and B are planning to be married. Two weeks before the ceremony they buy a house and take a title as "in A and B by tenancy by the entirety.nSeveral years after the marriage, A moves out of the house and conveys his interest in the to his brother C. C brings an action to partition of the property what result?
A and B has tenancy in common. C is a tenant in common and can force partition.
Color of Title Hypo: X and Y own contiguous lots respectively. The lots are conveyed by an invalid deed by Z to A for both lots, who enters lot 1 and occupies it in the usual manner for the period required by the statute of limitations. Subsequently A sues X and Y to quiet title to lots 1 and 2. What result?
A enters with exclusivity, it was open and notorious, and the intent was there to win in adverse possession for X. However, the invalid deed conveyed both 1 and 2 so they have color of title, so it helps their case, but A has not entered lot 2 so they would lose the adverse possession case for lot 2
O conveys To A for life, then to A's heirs, but if A dies without children, then to B and her heirs. Two years after the conveyance twins C and D are born to A, what is the state of the title?
A has a LE, C and D have a remainder subject to open because more children could be born and a VRSD because they have to survive A, and B has a shifting executory interest
Does the following conveyance violate RAP? O transfers a sum in trust to A for life, then to A's first child to reach 25
A has a life estate and A's children have nothing because their contingent reminder breaks the RAP because if A's child is born within 3 years of A's death then the property will not vest within the 21 years
Does the following break RAP: to A for life then to A's children who reach 25. A has a 26 year old child B.
A has a life estate and B has vested remainder subject to open, and they are both validating life. However, if A has a kid C, and both A and B die then c could vest in the property 24 years after that, so it violates RAP
What is the state of title: O conveys "to A for life, then to B if B reaches the age of 25, otherwise to C." B is currently 15
A has a life estate, B has a contingent remainder because they must meet their 25th birthday, and C has a contingent remainder based on the event B does not make it to the 25th birthday, and O has a reversion if A dies before B turns 25 (C only gets it if B dies before 25)
What is the state of title: O conveys Blueacre to A for life, then to B if B reaches the age of 25. B is currently 15.
A has a life estate, B has a contingent remainder, and O has a reversion
What is the state of title: to A for life, then to B, but if B dies before reaching the age of 25, then to C." B is currently 15
A has a life estate, B has a vested remainder subject to divestment, C has an executory interest (B is an ascertained person and has a future interest but can lose that interest if he doesn't reach a subsequent condition; C has an shifting executory interest because (B is not the grantor) B's vested interest is shifting to C upon B's death)
What is the state of title: "to A for life, then to B for life, then to C and her heirs"
A has a life estate, B has a vested remainder, and C has a vested remainder, C's heirs has contingent remainders because we do not know who there are (unascertained persons)
What is the state of title: O conveys Blueacre to A for life, then to B, but if B should die before the age of 25, then to C. B is currently 15.
A has a life estate, B has vested remainder subject to divestment, and C has a shifting executory interest
What is the state of title: O conveys "to A for life, then to B if B reaches the age of 25." B is 15 at time of conveyance, turns 26, has a child D, then B dies intestate
A has a life estate, B is dead and has nothing, and D has an indefeasible vested remainder while A is still alive.
What is the state of title: O conveys Blackacre to A for life, then to B and her heirs so long as Blackacre is organically farmed.
A has a life estate. B has a vested remainder subject to divestment. O has a reversion
What is the state of title: to A for life, then B if B reaches age 25, otherwise to C. B is currently 16 and A dies
A has nothing because he is dead. O has a FSSEL, B has a springing executory, and C has springing executory interest (C has a springing as well because B meets the condition then C gets nothing, but if B does not meet the condition then C gets the interest directly from O)
What is the state of title: O conveys Blueacre to A for life, then to B if B reaches the age of 25. B is currently 16 and A dies
A has nothing because he is dead. O has a fee simple subject to a executory limitation and B has a springing executory interest
What is the state of title? O conveys Blueacre to A for life, then to B, but if B should die before the age of 25, then to C. A dies and B is 16
A has nothing, B has a FSSEL and C has a shifting executory interest
In 1994 A enters adversely upon Blackacre, owned by O. In 1995 O dies, leaving a will that devises Blackacre to B for life, remainder to C. In 2010 B dies without having ever entered Blackacre. Who owns Blackacre?
A owns Blackacre if A has met all elements of adverse possession, but if not then C owns the property after B's death. Entry is only required for adverse possession.
Does the following conveyance violate RAP? O transfers a sum in trust to A for life, then to A's first child to reach 21
A's children have an equitable contingent remainder and does not have fail the RAP because there is no way the property vests outside of 21 years of A's death because if A's children die before 21 or A has no children and A dies then the property vests in O before 21 years are up.
It is 2017, and the city of Tallahassee is constructing a light- rail system to run along the congested Tennessee-Mahan corridor. Construction is noisy and dusty, and Temple Israel, which is a synagogue and also a daycare and child education center, sues the City. Which of the following are true? a) The City will be liable to Temple Israel in trespass. b) The City will be liable to Temple Israel in public nuisance. c) The City will not be liable to Temple Israel because the value of transit in Tallahassee is likely to be greater than the harm to Temple Israel. d) Two of the above are true. e) None of the above are true.
A) A is correct (Cannot sue for public nuisance because they have not suffered a harm different from that of the public)
It is 2017, and the city of Tallahassee is constructing a light- rail system to run along the congested Tennessee-Mahan corridor. Construction is noisy and dusty, and Temple Israel, which is a synagogue and also a daycare and child education center, sues the City. Which of the following are true? a) The City will be liable to Temple Israel in trespass. b) The City will be liable to Temple Israel in nuisance. c) The City will not be liable to Temple Israel because the value of transit in Tallahassee is likely to be greater than the harm to Temple Israel. d) Two of the above are true. e) None of the above are true.
A) is correct because there is dust on their property, which is a physical evasion that creates a possible trespass B) is correct because there is a public nuisance that creates damages, so transportation will be held liable but the project will not be permanent estopped. `D) D is correct because A and B are correct
It is 2017, and the city of Tallahassee is constructing a baseball stadium on Mahan Drive (the East extension of Tennessee), next to Temple Israel, which is a synagogue and also a daycare and child education center. Minor League teams have about 40 home games per year from April to August, and draw crowds, some of whom inadvertently wind up on adjoining properties. Temple Israel sues the City. Which of the following are true? a) The City will be liable to Temple Israel in trespass. b) The City will be liable to Temple Israel in nuisance. c) The City will not be liable to Temple Israel because the value of baseball in Tallahassee is likely to be greater than the harm to Temple Israel. d) More than one of the above are true. e) None of the above are true.
A) yes, because the stadium brings people to trespass then the baseball stadium is liable B) Weigh the gravity of harm of land uses. The daycare and religious property does not usually conflict with the baseball schedule that is flexible. Therefore, the harm done is not too significant to go against the enjoyment of the property. Therefore, B is incorrect C) C is correct. Therefore, since the enjoyment of the property and gravity of harm is not significant then the value of the baseball stadium will be higher than the harm. D) D is correct because A and C are correct
It is 2017, and the city of Tallahassee is constructing a baseball stadium on Mahan Drive (the East extension of Tennessee), next to Temple Israel, which is a synagogue and also a daycare and child education center. Minor League teams have about 40 home games per year from April to August, and draw crowds, some of whom inadvertently wind up on adjoining properties. Temple Israel sues the City. Which of the following are true? a) The City will be liable to Temple Israel in trespass. b) The City will be liable to Temple Israel in public nuisance. c) The City will not be liable to Temple Israel because the value of baseball in Tallahassee is likely to be greater than the harm to Temple Israel. d) More than one of the above are true. e) None of the above are true.
A) yes, because the stadium brings people to trespass then the baseball stadium is liable C) C is correct. Therefore, since the enjoyment of the property and gravity of harm is not significant then the value of the baseball stadium will be higher than the harm D) D is correct because A and C are correct (Cannot sue for public nuisance because they have not suffered a harm different from that of the public)
O conveys Wiseacre to A and her heirs, and A promises, on behalf of her heirs and assigns forever, that Wiseacre shall be used solely for agricultural purposes. What is the state of title?
After the conveyance, A has a fee simple absolute. A's promise creates a covenant, one which binds only A but everyone who succeeds to ownership in Wiseacre. The covenant does not make the fee subject to either a condition or a limitation.
O conveys Blackacre to A and her heirs so long as Blackacre is used for residential purposes only. What is the state of title?
After the conveyance, A has a fee simple determinable, and O has a possibility of reverter. A possibility of reverter does not have to be expressly stated to be created because it arises by operation of law
O conveys Blackacre to A and her heirs, but If Blackacre is used for any purpose other than agricultural purposes, then O has the right to re-enter and take possession of the land. What is the state of title in Blackacre at common law?
After the conveyance, A has a fee simple subject to condition subsequent, and O has a right of entry.
O conveys Whiteacre to A and his heirs; but if A ever drinks alcohol, then to B and her heirs. Later, B executes and delivers a deed purporting to convey her interest in Whiteacre to C. Later still, A drinks whiskey and gets drunk. What is the state of title?
After the conveyance, A has a fee simple subject to executory limitation, and B has an executory interest. Note that A's fee simple is defeasible only during A's lifetime, i.e., in the event that A ever drinks alcohol. Hence, B's executory interest is valid under the common law Rule Against Perpetuities (A is the validating life). The state of title after the given events death depends on the alienability of executory interest that B had. When A subsequently drinks whiskey, that act causes the fee simple to terminate, and C's executory interest now vests in possession as a fee simple absolute. C need not take any action for this to occur.
What is the state of title: O conveys to A for life, then to B and her heirs; but if B marries Z, then to C and his heirs.
After the conveyance, A has a life estate; B has a remainder in fee simple that is vested subject to complete divestment; C has a shifting executory interest in fee simple absolute. There is no reversion.
What is the state of title: O conveys to A for life, then to B for life, then to C's heirs. A, B, C, and O are all alive at the time of the conveyance. C is unmarried and has two living children, X and Y
After the conveyance, A has a life estate; B has a vested remainder, and there is a contingent remainder in C's unascertained heirs. There is also a reversion in O.
What is the state of title: O conveys to A for life, then to A's children. A and O are still alive at the time of the conveyance. A has one child, X.
After the conveyance, A has a life estate; X has a vested remainder in fee subject to open, and there is a shifting executory interest in fee simple in A's unborn children. There is no reversion.
What is the state of title: O conveys a sum of money to A if she graduates from college. A is not yet enrolled in college.
After the conveyance, A has a springing executory interest in fee simple absolute. O has a fee simple subject to executory limitation. If and when A graduates from college, A's executory interest will vest in possession, divesting O's fee simple.
What is the state of title: O conveys to A upon her first wedding anniversary. A is alive and unmarried at the time of conveyance. O is also alive.
After the conveyance, A has a springing executory interest. O has a fee simple subject to executory limitation. Immediately and automatically upon A's first wedding anniversary, if it ever occurs, A's executory interest will divest O's fee simple and become possessory in fee simple.
O conveys to A for 10 years, then to such of A's children as attain age 21. At the time of the conveyance, A and O were alive. A had two children, X and Y, ages 20 and 17, respectively. What is the state of title?
After the conveyance, A has a term of years followed by a contingent remainder in fee simple in which X and Y have an interest. There is also a reversion in fee simple in O. The remainder is contingent because it is subject to an unfulfilled condition precedent (attaining age 21)
O conveys Greenacre to the finger lakes land trust on condition that Greenacre remains forever undeveloped and in its natural condition; in the event Greenacre is ever developed, residentially, commercially, or otherwise, then to the land conservatory in fee simple absolute. What is the state of title?
After the conveyance, the finger lakes land trust has a fee simple subject to executory limitation, and Land Conservancy has an executory interest. It will become possessory if and when Greenacre is ever developed. (This would be automatic much like FSD)
T dies creating the interest. This solidifies the children as X and Y. If we kill off X and Y die, then count out 21 years after Y's death. Why are X and Y validating life if they are not in the will?
Anyone can be validating life if they affect the interest being conveyed (parents can make more children and can be validating lives)
O conveys Blackacre to A and her heirs so long as Blackacre is used for residential purposes only. Suppose that some years after the conveyance, A begins construction of a factory on Blackacre. O has died and devised her entire estate to B. What is the state of title?
Assuming that building a factory on Blackacre is a violation of the limitation, which it clearly is, A has violated the limitation with the result that the fee automatically terminates, without any action taken by O or anyone else. Title to Blackacre depends on succession to O's possibility of reverter. If possibilities of reverter may be dvised under local law (as most states permit), then B owns Blackacre in fee simple absolute. Otherwise, O's hiers (whoever they are) hold the fee simple absolute as tenants in common.
What is the state of title: O conveys To A for life, then to A's heirs, but if A dies without children, then to B and her heirs
At this point A has a LE, A's children are unascertained and have a CR, O has no reversion, and B has a contingent remainder
Tacking Problem: In 2000, A enters adversely upon Blackacre. owned by O. In 2007, B tells A, "Get out of there, I'm taking over now." A, feeling threatened, leaves Blackacre, and B enters into possession. In 2010 who owns Blackacre? Can O or A eject B?
B could not tack A because there is no privity because there is no legal transaction that tacks the two parties' interest in adverse possession. Therefore, O can eject B at any time until the statutory period runs out.
O conveys to A for life, then to such of A's children that survive A, but if none of A's children survive A, then to B and her heirs. A is alive and has two children, C and D. What is the state of the title?
Condition precedent is that children must survive A to get property. Therefore, C and D have contingent remainders tied to surviving A, B has a contingent remainder tied to if A's children meet the condition, and O has no reversion
to A for life, then to B if B attains the age of 30. B is now 2. Does this violate RAP
Creation of CR to B. Both A and B are validating life. So the 21 year clock does not start until BOTH A and B die, so we know the reversion will kick in after B dies, so it does not break the RAP
What is the state of title: O conveys Blackacre to A, B, and C as joint tenants. Subsequently, A coneys his interest to D. Then B dies intestate, leaving H as his heir. What if B had died leaving a will devising his interest to H?
D became a tenancy in common with C and B, who still are joint tenants. When B dies the right of survivorship goes directly to C, and C owns 2/3 of property in tenancy in common with D.
A promissory note (mortgage) by one joint tenant is created on his interest, and the other joint tenant makes an oral agreement simply that he is fine with that. If the joint tenant misses the payment, can the mortgagor foreclose on it?
Distinguish from Harms because in Harms the other joint tenant did not have any knowledge. Therefore, since the other person said it was ok then the foreclosure could be held up. However, it is similar to Harms because it involves a promissory note that was not signed by both parties, and since he was ok with it but did not sign it means that the foreclosure could not be enforced
How does the rule of capture apply to water in Eastern States?
Eastern states use riparian rights for water, which means the first to have land with the water on it has a right to that water. This uses the rule of possession because the first to have the land owns right to use the water.
April ("A") and Mae ("M") agree for A to sell her house (and land) to M. No written agreement is made, but A and M shake hands. A gives M the keys, and M moves in. No money has changed hands, but unbeknownst to A, M sells her old house. After a week, A tells M, "I've changed my mind, I want my house back." A is not admitting that there was any agreement. Can A enforce the oral contract with M?
For: M had the keys and moved in for part performance and changed their position significantly because M sells the house. However, the words that say "I've changed my mind", then it is admitting that there was an oral argument and the restatement applies. Against: No money changing possession, and seller does not concede there was an agreement, and A does not know that M sold her house, which could distinguish the Hickey v. Green case. Since, the seller does not concede there is an agreement then the Restatement might not apply
Final Exam fact pattern: Couple wants to establish a joint tenancy and there were not married yet. Could they convey the property to a dog and the dog convey it back to you.
For: Riddle v. Harmon Against: Conveyance needs a human entity to be valid
What is the state of title: T devises $10,000 to my cousin, if and when he survives his wife.
Grantor has fee simple subject to executory limitation and cousin has a shifting executory interest because it comes from the grantor
(Concurrent ownership) A promissory note (mortgage) by one joint tenant is created on his interest, and the other joint tenant makes an oral agreement simply that he is fine with that. Is there severance? If the joint tenant misses the payment, can the mortgagor foreclose on it?
If it is a lien state then the mortgage did not require a transfer, which means joint tenancy was not severed. If it is a title theory state then the loan caused a transfer of deed, which would sever joint tenancy.
(Florida's Limitation on infinite reverted provisions) O conveys Blackacre to A for life, then to B and her heirs so long as Blackacre is organically farmed. • A stops farming organically 22 yrs from now. What is the state of title?
In Florida, A has a FSA even though he broke the provision because the provision was only valid for 21 years.
T devises Blackacre to A and B as joint tenants for their lives, remainder to the survivor. What interests are created by the devise? How does a joint tenancy in fee simple differ?
Joint tenancy based on the redundant clause of conveyance because joint tenants already have right of survivorship implicitly.
T, who has a term of years, vacates the leased premises prior to the end of the term and stops paying rent. In a subsequent suit by L for unpaid rent, T asserts a defense of constructive eviction, claiming that L breached the covenant of quiet enjoyment. What result from the facts below? (b) the building in which T leases an apartment from L has been the site of criminal activity - acts of burglary and vandalism unknown third parties. L installs deadbolt locks on all entrances and hires private security guards, but the problem still continues.
Landlord has done everything he/she could reasonably do to curtail the criminal activity. However, if it persists it goes beyond what the landlord can control, so the tenant is not constructively evicted.
Hypo: Does the covenant of having no political signs for an independent candidate touch and concern the land?
No because it is about someone's politics rather than their land. It would be enforceable if it simply allowed no political signs.
T dies creating the interest. This solidifies the children as X and Y. If we ill off X and Y die, then count out 21 years after Y's death. Will a grandchild's interest vest after 21 years?
No because since we know if all the grandchildren die or live the property will vest before 21 years because they were alive when the person died and will be 21 years old or die to get the interest in the property
T resides in a fancy apartment building in NYC and pays high rent for the privilege. T's lease provides for a lot of fancy amenities: an attendant at the door, an elevator, a swimming pool, a gym, and so on. State law requires that leased dwellings have to be fit for human habitation with the uses reasonable intended by parties. Does the quoted language extend the IWOH so as to encompass the services and amenities that T reasonably expected to get according to the terms of her rent?
No because the purpose of IWOH is to protect public safety. If the amenities do not serve that purpose then the issue is most likely a contract problem rather than an IWOH problem.
Disabilities Hypo: O is the owner in 1995, and A enters adversely in May 1995. The age of majority is 18. O is insane in 1995. O dies insane and intestate in 2008. O's heir, H, is 6 years old at the time. Who owns the property?
O is insane until his death, and then the property is conveyed by will to H whom is also disabled until H turns 18 in 12 years. Therefore, the clock for adverse possession does not start for another 12 years.
O conveys Blackacre to A and her heirs so long as the premises are not used for sale of beer, wine, or liquor, and if that is met O retains the right to re-enter the premises. B wants to buy the land and open a bar, what would you advise?
O would have right to re-enter once B opens the bar
A, B, and C are joint tenants. Subsequently A conveys his interest to D. B dies and H is his heir. What is the title?
Once A conveys, D has tenancy in common and A and B are still joint tenants. Once B dies, A gets everything because of right of survivorship, and H has nothing.
Disabilities Hypo: O is the owner in 1995, and A enters adversely in May 1995. The age of majority is 18. O is insane in 1995. O dies insane and intestate in 2008. O's heir, H, is in no disability in 2008. Who owns the property?
Once O is called insane the disability does not require him to force him to tell adverse possessors to get off his land. However, when O dies intestate the property goes to H and the clock starts back for adverse possession, but according to the statute the adverse possessor only has to wait five years once the disability is removed instead of the full 10 years to satisfy adverse possession in the jurisdiction. Therefore, A does not own the property until he waits another 5 years.
Hypo: Covenants that say you cannot build your home very high because there needs to be air passage to other homes because they do not have air conditioning, but the area now how has modern air conditioning systems. What would tell someone about these covenants and their enforceability?
Pure change of conditions because there is no longer a need because there is no real and substantial value anymore because you can get air conditioning. (One person in the community argued for it but the court said this person is an outlier)
How does the rule of capture apply to oil?
Since oil is a fugitive resource, the rule of capture can apply. Therefore, when one oil well shows up then many more show up because whatever oil they capture, they own
Mistaken Boundary Hypo: A builds fence 3 feet beyond her boundary, A acts as the owner for statutory period, and she obtains the property on adverse possession (you do not need a court litigation to obtain it by adverse possession). B surveys the land and asks B for land back, and A tears the fence down to avoid trouble. A three years later sues to eject B for the disputed property. What happens? Does B get it back since A owned but gave it back to avoid a hassle? Does B get back on adverse possession?
Since the statutory period is over 3 years and A already owned the property by adverse possession, then the only way A can lose the property is through a formal legal remedy (i.e. adverse possession, conveyance, etc.). Therefore, B does not own the property.
T devises property to my grandchildren who reach the age of 21. T leaves 2 children (X&Y) and three grandchildren (K,L,M) under 21. What is the state of title?
Since there are ascertained persons (K,L, and M) have contingent remainders because there could be more grandchildren born to X or Y and the current grandchildren have to reach 21 (condition precedent)
A and B are married. Two week before the ceremony, they buy a house and take title in A and B as tenants by the entirety. Several years after marriage, A moves out of the house and coneys his interest in the house to his brother C. C brings an action to partition the property. What is the result?
Tenancy in Common in the beginning because they did not have the 5th unity of marriage when the deed was created. However, they most likely have joint tenancy because they have all other unities and the intent to create the right of survivorship. However, some states default to tenancy in common if something is not explicitly stated.
If the tenant abandons the lease and does not pay the rent for two months, and there is 10 months left on the lease. Rent was $400. What damages must the tenant pay if the LL re-lets the property at $300 for the last 10 months?
Tenant will owe 800 (back rent) + 1,000 (10x100) = 1800 plus the cost to find the new tenant
T, who has a term of years, vacates the leased premises prior to the end of the term and stops paying rent. In a subsequent suit by L for unpaid rent, T asserts a defense of constructive eviction, claiming that L breached the covenant of quiet enjoyment. What result from the facts below? (c) The office space leased by T, a gynecologist whose practice includes performing elective abortions, has been the target of ongoing demonstrations by protestors. During the protests, signing and chanting demonstrators picketing in the parking lot and inner lobby. They approach patients to speak to them, distribute literature, discourage patients from entering, and accuse T of killing babies. L has done nothing despite T's continuous complaints.
The Landlord has control of the inner lobby/parking lot, then the landlord has control to eject from the private spaces. However, if it is taking place on public sidewalks, then it falls outside of the scope of what the landlord can control, which denies tenant's case for constructive eviction
Adverse Possession Hypo: a family goes camping in Alaska. They go every summer and clean up everything once they leave. Do they have adverse possession rights?
The argument against them would be that since the camp was broken down then it would not be open and notorious, but they would argue that an attentive property owner would only use this property in the summer when it is not too cold, thus they would be the adverse possessor.
O conveys to A for life, then to A's children. A and O are still alive at the time of the conveyance. A has one child, X. Assume that A has another child, Y, and then A dies survived by X,Y, and O. What is the state of title after A's death?
The birth of Y vests the remainder in him and simultaneously partially divests X's remainder. Both X's and Y's remainders are subject to open so long as A is still alive and capable of having more children. Once A dies, however, the class of A's children closes and X's and Y's interests become indefeasibly vested in fee simple absolute. With A's life estate terminated, X and Y take possession and own the property in fee simple absolute as tenants in common
O conveys Wiseacre to A and her heirs, and A promises, on behalf of her heirs and assigns forever, that Wiseacre shall be used solely for agricultural purposes. Suppose that some years after the conveyance, A begins construction of a factory on Wiseacre. What is the state of title in Wiseacre when A begins construction? What remedies does O have against A?
The essential differene betweena covenant, on the one hand, and a condition or limitation, on the other, concerns the effect of breach. As we have seen, in the case of both a condition and limitation the effect of a breach or violation of the restriction is forfeiture of the fee simple, either automatically or upon the exercise of a right of entry. With a covenant, however, no forfeiture follows a breach. Rather, the person who holds the benefit of the covenant may either enjoin or seek damages.
Baseball stadium moves into a residential area. The baseball stadium creates a lot of noise and forces fans to walk onto to people's property to get to the game. What is this an example of?
The noise would create a nuisance, and there is a trespass on the baseball stadium because the fans are only there because of the baseball stadium.
Reasons for adverse possession
The policy is to reward those using the land in a way beneficial to the community (goes to highest and best use); adverse possession is meant to penalize the negligent and dormant party for sleeping upon his rights (sleeping principle)
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 lot 5 fifth. Lots 1 and 2 are bound by a public road on the north. Lot 3 and 4 are bounded by a public road on the south. Lot 5 has no access to another road unless going through another lot. 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. Sometime later F sues the owners of lots 1 through 4 claiming an easement by necessity. What result?
There was common ownership. There is strict necessity because there are no other ways to get to the road from F's property, it does not matter that he has multiple options because if they all say that then F still needs a viable option. However, this does not matter because 4 and 5 are together at the final severance, and the easement by necessity is created in Lot 4. Because at the time 1, 2, and 3 are severed Lot 4 and 5 are together and 5 is not yet land locked. However, when the lots came apart 5 became landlocked, the necessity was present, thus the easement by necessity is given to Lot 5.
When are the unities analyzed for joint tenancy?
Time of Conveyance and Date of deed creation is when the unities are analyzed
(Florida's rule of destructibility) : O conveys redacre to A for life, then to B once B reaches the age of 30. A dies, B is less than 30. What is the state of the title?
Under Florida law, O has FS and B has nothing (once It reverts back to O then B has nothing because of FL's rule on destructibility of contingent remainders)
Does the following break RAP: for all members of my present property class to be admitted to the car.
Validating life is all 74 members in the present property class. Once the last 74 members die we will know which ones pass the bar and the property will vest in those people. So the clock starts after all members die, but the property vests before that anyway so the provision is valid
To A for life, then A's Children for their lives, then to B if B is then alive, and if B is not alive, to B's heirs. A has no children. Does this violate RAP?
Validating lives are A and B. A has a life estate and B has a contingent remainder if he is alive. If A dies and B dies we know B's children get the property. If A has children are alive and die and B is alive then B gets the property. Therefore, there is never any uncertainty and it does not fail RAP.
Does the following break RAP: for the first child of A who is admitted to the bar.
Validating lives are A, A's children X & Y. A has another kid Z. A, X, & Y all die and Z passes the bar 22 years after their death, then it violates RAP
T dies creating the interest. This solidifies the children as X and Y. If we ill off X and Y die, then count out 25 years after Y's death. Will a grandchild's interest vest after 21 years?
Violates RAP because if after both X and Y dies then the property can vest 21 years in the future if K, L, or M are under the age of 4 and both other parties die
O owns property. O has two sons A and B. B dies and gives all property to W, his wife, in his will. O dies intestate who owns his property?
W does not get the O property because W only receives B's interest at the time at his death. Therefore, A gets half and B's children get half divided equally because W no longer has a direct relationship with O because B died.
What is the state of title: O conveys to A for 10 years, then to such of A's children as attain age 21. At the time of the conveyance, A and O were alive. A had two children, X and Y, ages 20 and 17, respectively. Assume that X later attains age 21 and Y is still under age 21. A and O are still both alive.
X's attaining age 21 vests the contingent remainder in X, so that X now has a vested remainder in fee simple subject to open by Y and also subject to open because A is still alive and may have more children whom may reach 21. There is no reversion because the interest is vested. Y now has a shifting executory interest in fee simple which will vest when he reaches 21.
What is the state of title: O conveys to A for 10 years, then to such of A's children as attain age 21. At the time of the conveyance, A and O were alive. A had two children, X and Y, ages 20 and 17, respectively. Assume that X dies and when X is age 22 and Y is 19. O is still alive.
X's vested remainder is transmissible at death because it is not subject to any condition that X survive to the time of possession. So, it passes to X's successors in interest, i.e., X's devises under any valid will or X's heirs. Those persions take exactly the same interest that X had. Y still has a shifting executory interest in fee simple. There is no reversion.
L owns a high rise apartment building. L's entire maintenance and janitorial staff goes on strike goes two weeks. The building's incenerators are inoperative because of the strike; tenants must take their garbage to the curb in paper bags supplied by L. City sanitation workers refuse to cross the striking employer's picketing lines. Trash piles up to the height of the building's first floor windows. The garbage exudes noxious odors and results in a declaration of a health emergency by the city, and rats and vermon become a problem. Has L breached the warranty of habitability?
Yes because his refusal to settle the strike has led to major health concerns that make the property unfit for human habitation
Hypo: If a tenant knows about the noise before entering into the contract, then can the tenant still sue for constructive eviction?
Yes the tenant can because the covenant of quiet enjoyment is implied in all leases no matter what
T conveys property to my grandchildren who reach 21. T has 2 children and 3 grandchildren under 21. Does this violate RAP?
Yes, it violates RAP because T could have another child Z and if all parties die and Z could have a child sometime in the future. Therefore, all validating life died before Z's child was born. Therefore, Z's child could vest in the property farther than 21 years in the future. (Validating life has to be there at the time of conveyance so X and Y are validating lives, so the 21-year countdown occurs after they die. X, Y, K, L, and M are all validating lives because they are all alive at the time of conveyance; Z and Z's child are not validating lives in this case because it was a conveyance and both were created after the conveyance.)
O grants Crimsonacre, in Alabama "to A for life, then to B once B graduates from the University of Alabama law school." A dies, and B is a 2L at the University of Alabama law school. Which of the following is true? a) O has a fee simple subject to executory limitation and B has a springing executory interest. b) O has a fee simple subject to divestment and B has a shifting executory interest. c) B has a fee simple absolute and O has nothing. d) O has a fee simple absolute and B has nothing. e) None of the above.
a) O has a fee simple subject to executory limitation and B has a springing executory interest.
O grants Crimsonacre, in Alabama "to A so long as it she permits Alabama football fans to use her property for tailgate parties on home football days." Which of the following is true? a) A has a fee simple determinable, and O has a right of of entry. b) A has a fee simple determinable and O has a possibility of reverter. c) A has a fee simple subject to condition subsequent and O has a right of entry. d) A has a fee simple absolute and O has nothing. e) A has nothing, and O has a fee simple absolute.
b) A has a fee simple determinable and O has a possibility of reverter
O grants Gatoracre, in Florida "to A so long as it she permits Gator football fans to use her property for tailgate parties on home football days." Which of the following is true? a) A has a fee simple determinable, and O has a right of of entry. b) A has a fee simple determinable and O has a possibility of reverter. c) A has a fee simple subject to condition subsequent and O has a right of entry. d) A has a fee simple absolute and O has nothing. e) A has nothing, and O has a fee simple absolute.
b) A has a fee simple determinable and O has a possibility of reverter.
O grants Crimsonacre, in Alabama "to A for life, then to B once B graduates from the University of Alabama law school." B has not yet graduated from the U of A law school. Which of the following is true? a) B has a contingent remainder. b) B has a contingent remainder and O has a reversion. c) B has a vested remainder subject to divestment, and O as a shifting executory interest. d) B has a vested remainder subject to divestment, and O has a reversion. e) None of the above.
b) B has a contingent remainder and O has a reversion.
O grants Garnetacre, in Florida "to A for life, then to B once B graduates from the FSU law school." B has not yet graduated from FSU law school. Which of the following is true? a) B has a contingent remainder. b) B has a contingent remainder and O has a reversion. c) B has a vested remainder subject to divestment, and O as a shifting executory interest. d) B has a vested remainder subject to divestment, and O has a reversion. e) None of the above.
b) B has a contingent remainder and O has a reversion.
Caleb and Dale are neighbors. Unbeknownst to either of them, a driveway that had been there before either of them lived on their respective lots, was used by Dale for the entire fifteen years that he had owned his property, and both parties assumed was completely on Dale's land, actually encroaches onto Caleb's property by about fourteen inches. This was discovered after Caleb did a land survey. If Dale brings an action to quiet title, which is the most likely outcome? a) Dale wins because he had continued the use for fifteen years. b) Dale wins because he had used the driveway in a manner that was inconsistent with Caleb's ownership. c) Caleb wins because Dale's encroachment was only fourteen inches, so there was insufficient notice. d) Caleb wins because the driveway was there before Dale moved in. e) More than one of the above are true.
c) Caleb wins because Dale's encroachment was only fourteen inches, so there was insufficient notice
O grants Gatoracre, in Florida "to A so long as it she permits Gator football fans to use her property for tailgate parties on home football days." 22 years from the date of this grant, A invites FSU fans over and bars Gator fans from her property. Which of the following is true? a) A has a fee simple determinable, and O has a right of of entry. b) A has a fee simple determinable and O has a possibility of reverter. c) A has a fee simple subject to condition subsequent and O has a right of entry. d) A has a fee simple absolute and O has nothing. e) A has nothing, and O has a fee simple absolute
d) A has a fee simple absolute and O has nothing.
In Panama City, Florida, Larry leases a commercial property to Terry. Terry is late with 2 rent payments, but makes them. Terry planned to open up a knock-off Trader Joe's store (buying goods in Tallahassee and driving them to Panama City). A few months go by, and Terry finally misses a rental payment, and the store has still not opened, though Terry has made some renovations. Larry would like to retake the premises. Which of the following are true? a) Larry can do so if the lease provides for landlord re-entry in the case of missed rental payments. b) Larry can do so provided that the store has not opened by the time that he re-takes. c) Larry can do so provided that Terry does not make his missed rental payment. d) Larry can do so provided that he undertakes a summary court proceeding adjudicating the dispute. e) Two of the above are true.
d) Larry can do so provided that he undertakes a summary court proceeding adjudicating the dispute.
O grants Garnetacre, in Florida "to A for life, then to B once B graduates from the FSU law school." A dies, and B is a 2L at FSU law school. Which of the following is true? a) O has a fee simple subject to executory limitation and B has a springing executory interest. b) O has a fee simple subject to divestment and B has a shifting executory interest. c) B has a fee simple absolute and O has nothing. d) O has a fee simple absolute and B has nothing. e) None of the above.
d) O has a fee simple absolute and B has nothing
O grants Crimsonacre, in Alabama "to A so long as it she permits Alabama football fans to use her property for tailgate parties on home football days." 20 years from the date of this grant, A invites Auburn fans over and bars Alabama fans from her property. Which of the following is true? a) A has a fee simple determinable, and O has a right of of entry. b) A has a fee simple determinable and O has a possibility of reverter. c) A has a fee simple subject to condition subsequent and O has a right of entry. d) A has a fee simple absolute and O has nothing. e) A has nothing, and O has a fee simple absolute.
e) A has nothing, and O has a fee simple absolute.
O grants Crimsonacre, in Alabama "to A so long as it she permits Alabama football fans to use her property for tailgate parties on home football days." 22 years from the date of this grant, A invites Auburn fans over and bars Alabama fans from her property. Which of the following is true? a) A has a fee simple determinable, and O has a right of of entry. b) A has a fee simple determinable and O has a possibility of reverter. c) A has a fee simple subject to condition subsequent and O has a right of entry. d) A has a fee simple absolute and O has nothing. e) A has nothing, and O has a fee simple absolute.
e) A has nothing, and O has a fee simple absolute.
O grants Gatoracre, in Florida "to A so long as it she permits Gator football fans to use her property for tailgate parties on home football days." 20 years from the date of this grant, A invites FSU fans over and bars Gator fans from her property. Which of the following is true? a) A has a fee simple determinable, and O has a right of of entry. b) A has a fee simple determinable and O has a possibility of reverter. c) A has a fee simple subject to condition subsequent and O has a right of entry. d) A has a fee simple absolute and O has nothing. e) A has nothing, and O has a fee simple absolute.
e) A has nothing, and O has a fee simple absolute.
T, who has a term of years, vacates the leased premises prior to the end of the term and stops paying rent. In a subsequent suit by L for unpaid rent, T asserts a defense of constructive evicition, claiming that L breached the covenant of quiet enjoyment. What result from the facts below? (a) L fails to control excessive noise made by neighboring tenants of T.
if the neighboring tenants are the LL's tenants then yes, but if not then no