Property Canvas Quizzes

Kate just celebrated her ninetieth birthday. She is extremely frail, takes copious amounts of prescription drugs, and is often very sickly. Yesterday, Kate felt terrible. She phoned Eduardo and asked him to come by her house. When he arrived, Kate called him to her bed and softly whispered, "I'm feeling bad today. God only knows how much time I have left on this earth. I'm not sure when I will see you again, so here, take this amulet. It's my most prized object and it will bring you good luck." Kate handed the amulet to Eduardo. He thanked her profusely, put the amulet in his pocket, and left. Two weeks later, Kate regained her strength. She called Eduardo, explained that she needed her good luck charm back, and demanded that he return the amulet. Who has the better claim to the amulet? Eduardo, because Kate made a valid inter vivos gift. Eduardo, because Kate waited too long to revoke her gift causa mortis. Kate,

Eduardo, because Kate made a valid inter vivos gift.

Wilma and Harry were married. Before the marriage, Wilma owned a valuable painting, while Harry owned nothing except his clothes. During the marriage, Harry earned a substantial salary as a professional baseball player. Harry used his earnings to purchase a single-family house, taking title only in his name, where he and Wilma lived with their four children. Wilma never worked outside of the home. Harry eventually died. His will provided, in part: "I bequeath and devise all of my property, including the house and my one-half share of Wilma's painting, to my nephew Nate." Which of the following is the most likely outcome in a state that follows the modern common law approach (aka the separate property approach) to marital property? Nate and Wilma will be tenants in common in the painting. Nate and Wilma will be tenants in common in the house. Harry's estate will be subject to equitable distribution. Wilma will dis

Nate and Wilma will be tenants in common in the house.

Lana owned a large warehouse, which she leased to Tim for five years beginning on January 1. One month before the expiration of Tim's lease, Lana entered into a lease with Ned, whereby Ned leased the premises for a three-year term beginning on January 1. When Ned arrived at the warehouse on January 1, however, he discovered that Tim was still occupying the premises, even though Tim had no legal right to do so. Which of the following is correct? Lana is now obligated to evict Tim if the jurisdiction follows the English rule. Lana is liable to Ned for damages if the jurisdiction follows the American rule. Ned's lease is terminated if the jurisdiction follows the English rule. Ned may evict Tim if the jurisdiction follows the American rule.

Ned may evict Tim if the jurisdiction follows the American rule.

Daisy and Jorge married. As a wedding present, Daisy took money from her separate property trust fund and purchased Greenacre. The deed read, "to Daisy and Jorge as tenants by the entirety." Jorge often gambled and soon needed money. He received a loan from his friend Ezra, who required a mortgage (which listed Greenacre as security for the loan). One day, coming back from a bar, Daisy negligently injured Alan when she ran a red light. Daisy was also intoxicated. Jorge has defaulted on his loan to Ezra and Daisy is being sued by Alan. Greenacre is their sole asset. Fearing the worse, Daisy and Jorge convey Greenacre "to our son Trevor and his heirs." Which of the following statements is correct in a majority of jurisdictions that recognize the tenancy by the entirety? Neither Ezra nor Alan has any interest in Greenacre. Alan (a tort creditor) can gain Daisy's interest in Greenacre; but Ezra (a contract creditor) ca

Neither Ezra nor Alan has any interest in Greenacre.

Daisy and Jorge married. As a wedding present, Daisy took money from her separate property trust fund and purchased Greenacre. The deed read, "to Daisy and Jorge as tenants by the entirety." Jorge often gambled and soon needed money. He received a loan from his friend Ezra, who required a mortgage (which listed Greenacre as security for the loan). One day, coming back from a bar, Daisy negligently injured Alan when she ran a red light. Daisy was also intoxicated. Jorge has defaulted on his loan to Ezra and Daisy is being sued by Alan. Greenacre is their sole asset. Fearing the worst, Daisy and Jorge convey Greenacre "to our son Trevor and his heirs." Which of the following statements is correct in a majority of jurisdictions that recognize the tenancy by the entirety? Neither Ezra nor Alan has any interest in Greenacre. Daisy and Jorge are liable to Ezra and Alan for the fraudulent transfer of Greenacre. Alan (a t

Neither Ezra nor Alan has any interest in Greenacre.

Aunt Betty loved her nephew, Louis. On Louis's twenty-first birthday, the family had a huge party, which Aunt Betty attended. Aunt Betty handed Louis a check for $2100, saying "You're my favorite nephew. This is for you. Have a great time." The next morning, Louis came home drunk. Aunt Betty was not overly understanding and immediately stopped payment on her uncashed check. If this jurisdiction applies the majority rule, which of the following statements is correct? Aunt Betty made a revocable gift of $2100 to Louis and therefore had the right to retract the same. No gift occurred. Aunt Betty made an irrevocable gift of $2100 to Louis and owes him that amount. Louis can successfully bring an action in trover to gain the $2100.

No gift occurred.

Al owned Bookacre, which consisted of a freestanding store building and its surrounding parking area. In January, Al leased Bookacre to Cara for a 10-year term pursuant to a written lease. The lease was silent about who would pay for repairs to the building. Cara moved her stock of books into the building and opened a used bookstore. During a strong rainstorm in November, the building roof began to leak, first through slow drips in three places and then small trickles in 12 spots. Cara was able to catch most of the water in buckets, but the leakage ruined 53 books. Cara consulted a contractor who reported that the roof was so old that the leakage would continue getting worse with each new storm until the roof collapsed by March or April of the next year. Cara then sent this email to Al: "Al: The roof is leaking badly, and it will only get worse unless you fix it now! Regards, Cara." Al failed to respond. Has Cara bee

No, because Al is not obligated to repair the roof.

Perry owned a small shopping center, which consisted of 10 retail stores and an adjacent parking lot. He leased one of the store spaces to Dan for a five-year term pursuant to a written lease. Dan then opened "Dan's Donuts," where he sold doughnuts, pastries, snacks, and coffee. The business was a success; within a year, it produced $10,000 per month in total revenue, giving Dan a profit of $6,000 per month. Perry then leased another space in the center to Dunkin' Donuts, a national doughnut chain. Once the Dunkin' Donuts store opened, the total revenue from Dan's business fell to $5,000 per month, only slightly more than his expenses. Dan would like to terminate his lease and move to a new location. If Dan gives proper notice and vacates the premises, can he avoid liability for future rent on the basis that he was constructively evicted? No, because Perry cannot control the activities of Dunkin' Donuts. Yes, becau

No, because Perry was entitled to lease to Dunkin' Donuts.

Sara owns a 2,000-acre ranch in a remote, undeveloped part of a western state which she uses for grazing cattle. An oil company now wants to install a pipeline that will run 500 feet underneath Sara's land; this will be one link in a 200-mile pipeline system. Construction and use of the system will not interfere with Sara's cattle grazing. Under the Chance standard, will Sara be able to bar the pipeline? No, because Sara's ownership extends downward less than 500 feet. Yes, because Sara's ownership extends downward to the center of the earth. Yes, because the installation of the pipeline would be a trespass. No, because it will not adversely affect Sara's use of the property.

No, because it will not adversely affect Sara's use of the property.

In 1995, Molly and Adam moved in together and are still very much in love. They have one child, Bruno, who is in his last semester of law school. Molly is writing her will and wants to leave a large nature preserve that she owns (Greenacre) to her partner and son. She is very insistent that Greenacre be preserved in its current state and not be developed. She would like Adam to become the owner when he dies, but wants Bruno to automatically gain the property if the land is developed. This jurisdiction applies the common law Rule Against Perpetuities. Which of the following provisions, if placed in her will, will best honor Molly's intentions? "Greenacre to Adam so long as it is only used as a nature preserve, then to Bruno and heirs." "Greenacre to Adam until it ceases to be used as a nature preserve, then to Bruno if living." "Greenacre to Adam on the condition that if it ceases to be used as a nature preserve, t

"Greenacre to Adam until it ceases to be used as a nature preserve, then to Bruno if living."

Evan owns an apartment in a high rise condominium. His most valued possession, a Picasso painting, hangs on his living room wall. Evan is currently visiting a distant city and has met Juan, his closest friend. A few years earlier, Juan had graciously helped Evan when he was down on his luck. Evan feels greatly indebted to Juan for his past kindness and is thinking about making a gift of his Picasso painting to him. Which of the following statements (made by Evan) would result in a valid inter vivos gift of the painting? "Juan, I want you to have my Picasso painting now, but I want to keep it in my home until I die." "Juan, I have written my will and it provides you get my Picasso painting immediately when I die." "Juan, I want you to have my Picasso painting when I die." "Juan, I am pretty sure I want you to have my Picasso painting."

"Juan, I want you to have my Picasso painting now, but I want to keep it in my home until I die."

Laurie leases an apartment to Toby for a term of two years; Toby agrees to pay $1,000 each month in rent. Six months later, Toby's employer transfers him to a new state, so Toby vacates the apartment, stops paying rent, and notifies Laurie that he has left. For six months, Laurie does nothing to find a new tenant for Toby's unit. Laurie then advertises the unit for rent in the local paper and also retains a real estate broker to find a tenant. Pablo immediately offers to rent the unit for $800 per month; Laurie refuses this offer because she is reasonably confident that Randy, another prospective tenant, will agree to pay $1,000 per month. But Randy is killed in an automobile accident. Laurie never finds a replacement tenant. How much rent is Toby liable for? None. $2,400. $18,000. $12,000.

$12,000.

Oren holds a fee simple absolute. Oren conveys "to Gail and her heirs, but if the land is used as a bar, then Oren shall have the right to re-enter and retake the estate." Which of the following is correct? Oren retains his fee simple absolute. Oren has a right of entry. Oren has an executory interest. Gail has a fee simple determinable.

Oren has a right of entry.

The theory of property which best explains why the farmworkers in State v. Shack were entitled to receive visitors over the landowner's objection is: A. Utilitarian Theory B. First possession theory C. labor theory D. Civil republican theory

A. Utilitarian theory The sentiment in Shack that property rights "serve human values" and "are recognized toward that end" reflects classic utilitarian theory

In most jurisdictions, which of the following is NOT a correct statement about gifts causa mortis? A gift causa mortis is automatically revoked if the donor recovers. A gift causa mortis may be made for both real and personal property. A gift causa mortis becomes irrevocable upon the donor's death. A gift causa mortis must be made in contemplation of imminent death.

A gift causa mortis may be made for both real and personal property.

Ethan threw his large fishing net into unowned waters of the Pacific Ocean. After several hours, four large fish swam into the net. While it was not absolutely impossible for fish to escape Ethan's net, under normal circumstances only a few, if any, fish escape. Emma also was fishing in the area on her own boat. Just as Ethan was about to raise his net and bring the fish onto his boat, Emma reached over the net and with a large spear (never touching the net) stabbed two of the more prized fish and lifted them into her boat. In a suit to regain the fish, Ethan will be... A. Successful, because the fish were safely secured in Ethan's net. B. Successful, because Emma's spear entered waters controlled by Ethan. C. Unsuccessful, because Ethan could only own the fish if he brought them onto his boat. D. Unsuccessful, because the fish could escape Ethan's net.

A. Successful, because the fish were safely secured in Ethan's net. The law does not require absolute certainty against the possibility of escape. Given that the probability of escape was minimal, Ethan demonstrated the degree of certain control required by the rule of capture.

A bailment is a rightful possession of goods by someone who is not the owner. A bailee has the duty to return the item to the bailor and typically owes some level of care in her handling of the bailed item. Which of the following situations correctly identifies the duty of care of the respective bailee? A law student who agrees to take care of her friend's cat while her friend goes on vacation owes her friend a duty of extraordinary care when taking care of the cat. A valet is responsible for any damages caused when she parks a car. A jeweler who finds a lost diamond ring on the public sidewalk is responsible if she negligently damages the ring. An individual who borrows her neighbor's lawnmower must pay to have a broken wheel fixed even if she was not negligent when using the lawnmower.

An individual who borrows her neighbor's lawnmower must pay to have a broken wheel fixed even if she was not negligent when using the lawnmower.

Jay owned an expensive gold pen. When Jay became seriously ill, he wrote a will leaving all his property to his wife, Gene. Jay then summoned Aya to his bedside and handed her his pen, saying: "Take this. I want you to have it to remember me by." Aya took the pen and Jay died shortly thereafter. Who has the better claim to the pen? Gene because Jay left all of his property to her. Gene because Jay did not have a present intent to give the pen to Aya. Aya because she has present possession of the pen. Aya because Jay made a valid gift causa mortis

Aya because Jay made a valid gift causa mortis

Bea, Cob, and Dan own Greenacre as tenants in common. Bea independently sold 10% of the trees on Greenacre to Jake and received a net profit of $15,000. Which of the following is correct? Cob and Dan each receive $1,500 (10% of the net profit). Cob and Dan each receive $7,500, and Bea receives nothing because of her malfeasance. Bea, Cob, and Dan split the net profits equally, each receiving $5,000. Bea can keep the entire $15,000 since her proportionate share of the trees is greater than the amount of trees removed.

Bea, Cob, and Dan split the net profits equally, each receiving $5,000.

Brianna and Lillian planned to attend the opening of a new exhibit at a local museum. Lillian drove to Brianna's to pick her up. While waiting for Brianna in Brianna's bedroom, Lillian accidently broke the necklace she was wearing. Lillian became very upset, but Brianna calmed her and said, "Don't worry my friend. I'm going to make you a gift of one of my necklaces." In which of the following situations has Brianna effectively delivered a necklace to Lillian? Brianna tosses a necklace into Lillian's lap. Brianna hands Lillian a note that reads, "The necklace on my dresser is yours." Brianna touches a necklace on her dresser and says, "It's yours." Brianna gives Lillian a key to her jewelry box on the dresser. The necklace is in the jewelry box.

Brianna tosses a necklace into Lillian's lap.

Patricia conveys Blackacre "to Able for life, then if Carol survives Able, to Carol and her heirs; but if Carol has not survived Able, to David and his heirs." What future interests are created by this conveyance? Carol and David own alternative contingent remainders. Carol has an indefeasibly vested remainder. Carol and David own a remainder subject to open. Carol has a vested remainder in fee simple subject to divestment.

Carol and David own alternative contingent remainders.

Bob's hobby is flying radio-controlled model airplanes in the backyard of his suburban home. Each airplane has a wing span of three feet and is propelled by a battery-powered motor. Every Saturday afternoon, Bob flies one of his airplanes over the homes owned by his neighbors, usually at an altitude of 50-80 feet. Bob's neighbor Gina complains about the model airplanes flying over her house, but Bob continues his conduct. Gina then sues Bob for trespass. Who will win the lawsuit? Bob, because Gina is not actually occupying the airspace above her home. Bob, because anyone may fly an airplane through the airspace above privately owned land. Gina, because Bob's airplanes flew through Gina's airspace. Bob, because Gina only owns as much of the airspace as she can occupy or use in connection with her land.

Gina, because Bob's airplanes flew through Gina's airspace.

Tom rented a storage container at a commercial facility. Tom placed $8,000 in cash and a diamond necklace in the container. One day, Tom told his brother, Nick, "I want Sam to have the contents of my storage container." Tom gave Nick the key to the container and instructed Nick to give the key to Sam. A few days later, Tom died. In which of the following circumstances was there no effective gift? At Tom's request, Nick returned the key to Tom, rather than giving it to Sam. Nick immediately delivered the key (rather than the contents of the container) to Sam. Nick immediately delivered the key to Sam. Tom's will provides: "To my wife, all the contents of my storage container." All of the above.

At Tom's request, Nick returned the key to Tom, rather than giving it to Sam.

Charlotte owned Greenacre, a large parcel that included a butterfly habitat. As a birthday present to her only daughter Julia, Charlotte made the following valid inter vivos gift: "Greenacre to Julia for life." A few years later, Julia made the following conveyance to Naomi: "I, Julia, grant Naomi any and all interest I have in Greenacre." Naomi moved onto Greenacre, hoping to cultivate her hobby of butterfly watching. Regrettably, shortly thereafter Naomi fell on the handle of a butterfly net and died. Her valid will left everything she owned to her best friend, Avery. Who has the best right to present possession of Greenacre? Julia, because life estates are not devisable. Julia, because her reversion became possessory upon Naomi's death. Charlotte, because her reversion became possessory upon Naomi's death. Avery, because she inherited Naomi's estate.

Avery, because she inherited Naomi's estate.

Anna owns a 100-acre tract of farmland. In which of the following situations did a trespass not occur? A. Carol pushes Dave onto Anna's land as a joke. B. Elmer has to land his hot air balloon on Anna's land. C. Bob walks onto Anna's land, believing in good faith that he owns it. D. Fran runs onto Anna's land to recover her $20 bill which a strong wind has carried away.

B. Elmer has to land his hot air balloon on Anna's land. The best answer is that Elmer did not trespass because he entered Anna's under a privilege arising from necessity. A hot air balloon can only remain aloft for a short period of time and cannot be steered in any particular direction. Thus, the pilot of a hot air balloon has little choice about when or where to land. The facts here indicate that Elmer "has to" land on Anna's land, which implies that the landing was due to necessity rather than voluntary choice.

Freda provides housing on her farm for farmworkers during the harvest season. George, a neighboring farmer, seeks to enter Freda's land in order to induce them to quit their jobs on Freda's farm and instead work on George's farm. Harry, the cousin of a farmworker living on Freda's farm, also wants to enter to visit his relative. Which of the following is correct under State v. Shack? A. Freda may only exclude Harry. B. Freda may only exclude George. C. Freda may exclude both George and Harry. D. Freda may not exclude George or Harry.

B. Freda may only exclude George. Freda has a legitimate interest in excluding a competitor like George who seeks to interfere with her farming activities by luring away her employees.

Jim owns a ranch on which he raises a large herd of sheep. Jim's neighbor, Logan, is a dairy farmer. Logan's farm includes large areas of natural grassland. Several of Jim's sheep wandered off his ranch onto Logan's farm. Logan caught the sheep while they were grazing in his meadows and placed them in his barn. Logan refuses to return the sheep to Jim. Who has better right to the sheep, Jim or Logan? A. Logan , because the sheep freely wandered onto his property B. Jim, because sheep are domesticated animals. C. Logan, because he has certain control of the sheep. D. Logan, because the sheep returned to their natural habitat.

B. Jim, because sheep are domesticated animals. In order to encourage investment in domesticated animals, the law recognizes an exception to the rule of capture. When a domesticated animal escapes, the owner retains his property rights in the animal. Thus, the law makes a distinction between animus revertendi (those with a "habit of returning") and ferae naturae (wild animals). Jim still owns the sheep (domesticated animals) even though he lost certain control of them. However, if Jim captured a wild cougar and it later escaped onto Logan's land, Logan would have better property rights under the rule of capture.

Kim plants a row of young oak trees next to the fence that separates her residential lot from Lana's lot. Two years later, Lana installs a new swimming pool in her backyard. Over time, Kim's trees grow so large that they (a) occasionally cast shadows onto Lana's pool (making the pool water colder to swim in) and (b) drop some leaves into the pool (forcing Lana to clean the pool monthly). Lana sues Kim. Who will win the lawsuit? A. Lana, because the trees that cast shadow onto her pool constitute a nuisance. B. Kim, because the trees are not a spite fence or a nuisance. C. Lana, because the trees that drop leaves into her pool constitute a nuisance. D. Lana, because the row of trees is an illegal spite fence.

B. Kim, because the trees are not a spite fence or a nuisance. Even assuming that the trees could be viewed as a "fence," here Kim did not plant the trees with malice, so they cannot be a spite fence. Turning to the elements of private nuisance, it seems unlikely that the level of interference with Lana's use is "substantial." Neighborhood trees routinely cast shadows and drop leaves. In any event, Kim's conduct is not "unreasonable." The utility of the trees (summer temperature reduction due to shade; aesthetic pleasure; etc.) is greater than the gravity of harm they cause to Lana.

Xao owns a herd of domesticated horses that roam free on his ranch. One day, one of Xao's horses wandered onto the adjoining property owned by Yarin. Yarin decided he wanted to ride the horse and began to pursue it with a rope. Just as Yarin was about to lasso the horse, Zeb, who was trespassing on Yarin's land, jumped out and wrestled the horse onto the ground. Hearing the commotion, Xao ran over and demanded the horse's return. However, both Yarin and Zeb also claim they own the horse. Who owns the horse? A. Yarin owns the horse because he gained certain control over the horse by pursuing it. B. Xao owns the horse because it is a domesticated animal and belongs to Xao, even though it wandered onto Yarin's land and even though a subsequent party exercised control over it. C. Zeb owns the horse because he gained certain control over the horse by capturing it. D. Yarin owns the horse because it was captured on hi

B. Xao owns the horse because it is a domesticated animal and belongs to Xao, even though it wandered onto Yarin's land and even though a subsequent party exercised control over it. A prior owner retains title to her domestic animals (who have animus revertendi) even if they roam at large and are captured by a subsequent party.

Driving home from work, Ben noticed a chrome hubcap laying the middle of the street. Ben stopped, grabbed the hubcap, and threw it in the back bed of his pickup. Ben's route home included a dirt road along which were a number of potholes. Hitting one pothole extremely hard, the pickup bounced violently and the hubcap fell out of the truck's bed onto the dirt road. A few minutes later, Cale came upon the hubcap while on his evening jog. Cale picked up the hubcap and carried it with him until he reached home. That weekend, Ben went to the local swap meet and discovered the hubcap sitting on a vendor's (Cale's) table. When Ben asked the Cale where he got the hubcap, Cale replied that he had found it on a local dirt road. Ben immediately screamed that the hubcap was his and that he had lost it on that very road when it had fallen out of his pickup. Who has the best property right to the hubcap, Ben or Cale? Ben, because

Ben, because he was a prior possessor of the hubcap.

Laura owned a retail store. She leased it to Tana for a 10-year term in return for $2,000 per month in rent. Three years later, Tana entered into an agreement with Susan, by which Tana "transferred all of my interest in the premises to Susan for five years" in return for $3,000 per month in rent. One week later, Susan entered into an agreement with Wesley, by which Susan "transferred all of my interest in the premises to Wesley" in return for $4,000 per month in rent. The next month no one paid rent to Tana. Under the majority approach, who is liable to Tana for rent? Neither Susan or Wesley. Wesley. Both Susan and Wesley. Susan

Both Susan and Wesley.

Octavia holds a fee simple absolute. Octavia conveys "to City, its successors and assigns, provided that if the land is not used as a park, then to Karl and his heirs." (City is the City of New York.) This jurisdiction applies the common law Rule Against Perpetuities. Which of the following is correct? Octavia retains her fee simple absolute. Karl has an executory interest. City has a fee simple subject to an executory limitation. City has a fee simple absolute.

City has a fee simple absolute.

The best explanation for the Supreme Court's ruling in Johnson v. M'Intosh that Native Americans did not have the authority to transfer their ancestral lands to private buyers is that the Native Americans: A. Waited too long to assert their right to transfer. B. Abandoned their lands. C. Did not have the right to transfer under the laws of the United States. D. Did not establish first in time possession

C. Did not have the right to transfer under the laws of the United States. Johnson reflects legal positivism. Under the laws of the United States, the Native Americans did not have the right to transfer title to their ancestral lands, as the Court stated: "All of our institutions recognize the absolute title of the crown, subject only to the Indian right of occupancy." As the successor to the crown's rights, the United States obtained the right to transfer title. Accordingly, "[c]onquest gives a title which the Courts of the conqueror cannot deny."

Carl owns a 10-acre tract of unfenced, rural land, where he lives in a small cabin. Don walks up to Carl's front door to try to sell him a set of encyclopedias. The next day, while researching an endangered species of frog, Ella walks across Carl's land, believing in good faith that it is public land. Who is liable for trespass? A. Neither Don nor Ella B. Both Don and Ella C. Only Ella D. Only Don

C. Only Ella Good faith is not a defense to trespass liability. Ella intentionally entered land that, in fact, was privately owned; this is enough to subject her to liability.

Rita notices a rare and valuable butterfly sitting on a leaf in a public park. As Rita moves forward with her hands outstretched to grab the butterfly, it begins to fly away and a brisk wind quickly pushes it 100 feet away from Rita. Susan springs up from behind a bush, nets the butterfly, and refuses to give it to Rita. Under which circumstances below would Rita own the butterfly? A. Susan acted in bad faith, to prevent Rita from catching the butterfly. B. Rita injured the butterfly when trying to grab it. C. Rita threw a rock that mortally wounded the butterfly before Susan netted it. D. Rita would have caught the butterfly without Susan's intervention.

C. Rita threw a rock that mortally wounded the butterfly before Susan netted it. The Pierson majority holds that property rights in a wild animal are acquired only through capturing or killing the animal, which seems to include mortal wounding. The butterfly is wild; Rita mortally wounded it, thus acquiring title, before Susan captured it.

Bob owned a private campground. He leased the property to Cara for a term of 20-years. One year later, Cara transferred all of her interest in the property to Dave. Dave operated the campground briefly, and then transferred all of his interest in the property to Ella. Ella then transferred all of her interest in the property to Frank, who continued operating the campground. Last month no one paid rent to Bob. Under the majority approach, who is liable to Bob for rent? Cara and Frank. Dave, Ella, and Frank. Cara, Dave, Ella, and Frank. Cara.

Cara and Frank.

Obe conveyed Greenacre to "Ben so long as it is used as a school, and if such use ever ceases, then to Carl, if living." At the time of the grant, Ben is 90 years old and Carl is five years old. In a jurisdiction that applies the common law Rule Against Perpetuities, which of the following is correct? Carl has a contingent remainder. Carl has no interest because what would have been an executory interest violates the Rule Against Perpetuities. Carl has an executory interest. Carl has no interest because what would have been a contingent remainder violates the Rule Against Perpetuities.

Carl has an executory interest.

Ace Gas Company stores natural gas from several of its wells around the country in a large, natural underground reservoir in State X. A small portion of the reservoir is located under Bess's land, and some of the natural gas migrates there. Bess sinks a well and starts to extract the natural gas. Assume State X has no specific statute regarding ownership rights to natural gas. Applying the rationale of Pierson v. Post, which of the following is true? A. The gas is Ace's because of the principle "first in time, first in right." B. The gas is Bess's because Bess is first to capture this minerae revertendi. C. Ace can recover damages against Bess for conversion. D. Bess cannot recover damages against Ace for the use and occupation of Bess's land.

D. Bess cannot recover damages against Ace for the use and occupation of Bess's land.

Mia lived in a very remote area. Walking home, Mia took a shortcut over the back ten acres of Liam's farm. Mia noticed a wild turkey next to a small stream that flowed through Liam's property. Throwing a rock, she stunned the turkey, brought it home, and placed it in a cage in her backyard. A few days later, Aiden, a lost and hungry hiker, wandered onto Mia's land, saw the turkey, grabbed it from its cage, and wandered back into the woods. When Mia noticed that the turkey had been taken, she traced the steps of Aiden and found him with the turkey. Between Mia and Aiden, who has better claim to the turkey? A. Mia, because she was first-in-time to gain the turkey. B. Aiden, because Mia never had any right to the turkey since she had gained the turkey while trespassing on Liam's land. C. Aiden, because he secured certain control of the animal while he was unaware that he was trespassing on Mia's land. D. Mia, becaus

D. Mia, because Aiden trespassed on her land to gain the turkey. Mia's possession is protected against the unlawful acts of Aiden, even though Mia may have gained possession of the turkey unlawfully. The law protects Mia's possessory rights against a later wrongdoer in order to avert an unending series of trespasses.

Jacob tracked a small wild boar on unowned land. Jacob won a gold medal in shooting at the most recent summer Olympics and has never missed his target. Surprisingly, the boar came within three feet of Jacob. Jacob aimed his rifle, but just as he was about to press the trigger, Sophia jumped out of the bushes, screaming loudly. She immediately hit the boar with a large stick and then picked it up, walking away with the unconscious boar in her arms. Who has best rights to the boar? A. Jacob because he invested time and energy in the capture. B. Jacob, because he had a reasonable prospect of killing the boar. C. Jacob, because he was first in time and track the boar. D. Sophia, because she was the first to gain certain control of the boar.

D. Sophia, because she was the first to gain certain control of the boar. Sophie owns the boar as long as she maintains her bodily seizure of it. Under the rule of capture, an individual owns a wild animal once she kills, entraps, bodily seizes, or "mortally wounds and pursues" the wild animal.

Lia has lived in her Victorian home (Homely Manor) all her life. The house is an excellent example of American Victorian architecture. It was originally built by Lia's great-grandfather and has been handed down from one generation to the next. Lia has no children or close relatives and does not want Homely Manor to be inhabited by anyone outside her immediate family. In a legally valid will, Lia directed her executor to demolish the house. Following Lia's death, a group of neighbors brought suit to stop the demolition. They produced evidence that the destruction of Homely Manor would lead to a 25% reduction in their home property values. If the court follows Eyerman v. Mercantile Trust, how should the court rule? A. The court should enjoin the trustee from carrying out Lia's testamentary directive if the house retained any substantial value. B. The court should not enjoin the trustee from carrying out Lia's testame

D. The court should enjoin the trustee from carrying out Lia's testamentary directive because it would amount to the senseless destruction of resources and affect important interests of other members of the community. While an individual normally has an unlimited right to destroy property she owns while alive (the individual personally incurs the economic consequences), public policy can place restraints on the right to destroy once the individual dies (society absorbs the consequences). Courts often look to whether the destruction serves a good purpose and whether it negatively affects the interests of others in the community. Here there is no evidence that Lia's directive serves some useful purpose and property owners in the neighborhood will be severely injured if the will is followed.

When Bess retired, she purchased a single room school building ("Readacre") in fee simple absolute. There Bess held free reading classes for illiterate adults. Last month, Bess fell and broke her hip. Unable to continue teaching, Bess conveyed Readacre to Dee. The valid deed read, "...to Dee and her heirs provided that Readacre is used for teaching reading to illiterate adults, then to my daughter Lucy." Last month, Dee cancelled all classes and converted Readacre into a commercial winery. This jurisdiction applies the common law Rule Against Perpetuities. Which of the following statements is correct? Lucy has a fee simple absolute in Readacre. Lucy's interest violated the Rule Against Perpetuities and therefore Bess regained possession of Readacre when Dee violated the condition. Dee has a fee simple absolute in Readacre. Lucy's interest violated the Rule Against Perpetuities and therefore Bess has a vested rema

Dee has a fee simple absolute in Readacre.

Erik and Drake were brothers and owned a two-bedroom house as tenants in common. The house was located on a large lot containing a number of mature trees (excellent commercial timber). For the past 15 years, Erik occupied the house and paid all of the operating and maintenance expenses during that period. He built a greenhouse in the backyard at a cost of $20,000 (although it only increased the market value of the property by $15,000). Erik also cut down approximately one third of the trees on the property and sold the timber to a paper mill. Erik and Drake recently sold the house and now are arguing about how to divide the proceeds of the sale. This jurisdiction applies all existent majority rules when dealing with the rights and obligations of concurrent tenants. Which of the following is correct? Drake is entitled to a proportionate share of the proceed from the cut timber. Erik is not entitled to reimbursement

Drake is entitled to a proportionate share of the proceed from the cut timber.

Aishath owns a two-story home. The home contains two separate living areas, one on the ground floor and one upstairs. Aishath is a sprightly ninety-year-old woman who immigrated from the Maldives two decades ago. Aishath is in need of additional income and therefore is looking to rent the upstairs apartment. In which of these situations has the federal Fair Housing Act likely NOT been violated? Aishath tells her friend that she needs to rent her upstairs apartment. Aishath explains that she would be most comfortable renting to an older individual since she would have more in common with the individual and she would not have to worry about teenagers or children living in the unit. At Aishath's request, her friend places an ad in a local newspaper. It reads, "One-bedroom apartment available in nice home. Mature person preferred." Aishath places an ad in the local Maldivian monthly magazine. It reads, "One-bedroom apa

Driving by Aishath's house, Mary sees a for-rent sign and stops to inquire. Mary is a young attorney of Indian descent and is wearing a sari. When Aishath opens the door and sees Mary, Aishath exclaims, "I don't rent to Indians, Hindus, young women, or attorneys. Please leave!"

Liana went to a nail salon to have a manicure. There she noticed a small purse resting on a side table by the entrance. Liana picked it up and discovered a large stack of $20 bills inside. She gave the purse and money to Ember, the salon's proprietor, telling Ember to give the items to the purse's owner if she should come back. After four months, Liana returned to the salon. When she discovered that no one had returned to claim the purse and money, Liana demanded that Ember hand over both items to her. Ember refused and Liana brought suit. In whose favor should a court rule? Ember, because she gained title through adverse possession. Liana, because as finder of lost property she has the best claim to the items against the entire world except the true owner. Ember, because she was the owner of the salon in which an individual mislaid the items. Liana, because Ember was her bailee and owed Liana a duty to return th

Ember, because she was the owner of the salon in which an individual mislaid the items.

Which of the following statements is NOT correct? Generally, a joint tenant does not have the right to sue for partition of the property unless his interest would be diminished or harmed by continuing the concurrent tenancy. Traditionally, a husband could not create a joint tenancy with his wife in a parcel he owned by executing a deed that read "to myself and my wife as joint tenants with right of survivorship" because the unities of time and title were missing. The prevailing rule is that, absent an ouster, a cotenant in exclusive possession does not owe rent to a cotenant out of possession. A tenancy by the entirety is different from a joint tenancy in that one spouse cannot unilaterally destroy the other's right of survivorship.

Generally, a joint tenant does not have the right to sue for partition of the property unless his interest would be diminished or harmed by continuing the concurrent tenancy.

In 2000, Haru and Wyla were married. One year later, Haru purchased Greenacre, using the bonus Haru received that year from his employer. In 2005, Haru inherited Redacre and the family business located on it. In 2010, Haru's rich uncle gave him $500,000 as a birthday gift. Haru died last week and left a will that devised all his property to his mistress, Matilda. Haru and Wyla have always lived and worked in a community property state, and all of their real estate is located there. As Haru's surviving spouse, Wyla has rights to: Dower rights in Greenacre and Redacre. Half of Redacre. Half of Greenacre. Haru's $500,000 gift.

Half of Greenacre.

In 2003, Jasmine purchased an older, furnished house. Although she lived in a neighboring state, Jasmine purchased the house with the intent to move there when she retired. To help her make her mortgage payments on the house, Jasmine immediately rented it to her friend Hanna. Hanna had lived there for over ten years when she decided, with Jasmine's permission, to repaint the interior. When moving a dresser in the upstairs bedroom, Hana found a dusty antique ring resting on the floorboard. Hanna was joyous about her find. She immediately called Jasmine to tell her the good news. To Hanna's amazement, Jasmine was not supportive and claimed that the ring should be hers since it was found in her house. Who has the best right to the ring? Hanna, because she found the ring and Jasmine did not reside in the house. Jasmine, because the ring was attached to the house. Hanna, because she labored to move the dresser. Jasmin

Hanna, because she found the ring and Jasmine did not reside in the house.

Wendy and Harvey were married. Before the marriage, Harvey acquired a valuable antique car; when the wedding ceremony was over, Harvey handed Wendy a key to the car and said: "We now own it together!" After the marriage, Wendy established a successful business on the internet, while Harvey managed the family home and supervised their two children. Wendy used some of the earnings from the business to purchase a large house, taking title only in her own name, where she and Harvey lived with their children. Soon after the second child was born, Wendy's aunt died intestate, leaving Wendy an ocean-front cabin. Which of the following is not correct in a state which follows the community property approach to marital property? Harvey owns a one-half share of the cabin. Harvey owns a one-half share of the business. Harvey owns a one-half share of the house. Harvey owns a one-half share of the car.

Harvey owns a one-half share of the cabin.

Louise leases a retail store space to Zed for a term of 10 years. Zed uses the premises as an art gallery, selling paintings that he has created over the years. Five years into the lease, Zed fires his employees and hangs a sign on the gallery door that says "Closed for Painting," but continues paying rent thereafter. Two months later, while peering through a window, Louise sees that the gallery is empty aside from two chairs, a cash register, and five paintings stacked against the wall. The same day Louise receives the following email from Zed: "Gone to France. Sorry for the mess. It's all my fault. Best wishes, Zed." One week later, Louise breaks down the gallery door with an ax, enters the gallery, changes the locks, and removes everything Zed had left there. The next day, Zed returns from France with 30 new paintings that he has created, and demands that Louise let him into the gallery. Which of the following is

If the jurisdiction allows self-help eviction, Louise acted improperly because she did not have the right to possession of the premises.

Which of the following statements is not correct? Ben's oral promise "to provide for Clare financially for the rest of her life" may form the basis of an enforceable palimony contract. In all jurisdictions, same-sex couples can freely enter into express contracts about how their property is to be shared. In most jurisdictions, graduate degrees and professional licenses are considered marital property. In a modern separate property jurisdiction, property gained during marriage is separately owned by the spouse who earned it; while in a community property jurisdiction, all earnings during the marriage and all assets acquired from those earning are owned by both spouses equally.

In most jurisdictions, graduate degrees and professional licenses are considered marital property.

Tenco Oil & Gas Co. (Tenco) owned large fields of natural gas. Once the gas was removed from the ground, Tenco needed to store the gas in anticipation of sale. Tenco owned a large tract of land under which was an immense natural cavern, ideal for storing gas. Tenco regularly injected much of its removed gas into this cavern. Unknown to Tenco, the natural cavern also extended a few hundred yards under Jamal's property, which was contiguous to Tenco's. In a jurisdiction that applies the traditional rule of capture to minerals such as oil and gas, a court would most likely hold: Jamal has title to the natural gas under his property because it is a "wild mineral" on his land. Tenco retained title to all the natural gas that Tenco placed in the underground cavern because Tenco retained certain control over the gas. Tenco retained title to all the natural gas placed in the ground because Tenco was the first-in-time to g

Jamal does not have an action in trespass against Tenco for the natural gas invading his land.

Jayce makes the following conveyance: "I convey my fee simple absolute in Greenacre to Omar for life, then to Stella for life, then to the heirs of Omar." Which of the following statements is correct? Stella has a present possessory interest in life estate. The heirs of Omar have a vested remainder in fee simple absolute. Jayce has retained a reversion. The interest in the heirs of Omar violates the Rule Against Perpetuities.

Jayce has retained a reversion.

Lou owned a 25-unit apartment building in a large city. Hoping to find a tenant for Apartment 14, Lou placed this ad on Craigslist: "1 bedroom, great location, perfect for bachelor. $1,200. 890-2286." Jill, an Asian woman, inspected the unit in response to the ad and asked if she could rent it. Jill mentioned that she earned a high income because she was a physician. Lou replied: "I'll think about it." When Jill called Lou two days later to inquire, Lou told her: "I won't rent to you. You doctors are too arrogant. You never listen to other people. You'd just cause trouble in the building." One month later, Lou rented the unit to a writer. Which of the following is correct? Lou has offered a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for refusing to rent to Jill. Jill cannot sue under the Civil Rights Act of 1866 because it does not apply to apartment units. Lou's ad does not violate the Fair Housing Act. Jill has a pri

Jill has a prima facie case for discrimination under the Fair Housing Act.

Obie conveyed Blackacre to John "for life, remainder after John's death, to his heirs." If the Rule in Shelley's Case, the Doctrine of Merger, and the common law Rule Against Perpetuities are followed in this jurisdiction, what are the parties' interests in the property? John has a life estate. Obie has a reversion. John's heirs have no interest in Blackacre after the application of the Rule Against Perpetuities. John has a life estate. John's heirs have a vested remainder in fee simple absolute. Obie has a reversion in fee simple absolute. John has a fee simple absolute. John has a life estate and his heirs have a contingent remainder in fee simple absolute. Obie has a reversion in fee simple absolute.

John has a fee simple absolute.

Kelly owned a 10-acre horse ranch. Over the years, the nearby large city slowly expanded until urban development surrounded the ranch. Because of traffic congestion, the city decided to install a light rail train system. The city initially planned to run the tracks across the surface of Kelly's land, but Kelly objected to any use of his property. The city planner then told the city council: "We can elevate the tracks so they run on a bridge 200 feet above Kelly's land; we won't even need to have the bridge towers on his land. Or we can run the tracks in a tunnel 500 feet under Kelly's land." Which of the following is correct in most jurisdictions? Kelly owns the airspace 200 feet above his land, but does not own the subsurface 500 feet below his land. Kelly owns neither the airspace 200 feet above his land nor the subsurface 500 feet below his land. Kelly does not own the airspace 200 feet above his land, but does

Kelly owns both the airspace 200 feet above his land and the subsurface 500 feet below his land.

LX Investments, Inc. ("LX") owned an older two-story building in a small town. The bottom floor was used as a small grocery store, while the upper floor was an apartment. LX leased the building to Theo for a term of five years pursuant to a written lease which required Theo to pay $5,000 per month in rent. Theo moved into the apartment and started operating the store. Six months later, while having breakfast in the apartment, Theo noticed an unusual electrical smell coming from his apartment wall; when he touched the wall, it was hot. He called an electrician who discovered that old frayed electric wiring inside the wall was smoldering and about to burst into flames. The electrician replaced the smoldering wires, but warned that the rest of the wiring in the building was old and frayed, and in such poor condition that it was likely to cause a fire in the near future. Theo sent a note to LX which read: "LX: There was

LX breached the implied warranty of habitability by not fixing the wiring problem.

Larry owned a 50-unit apartment building in a hot southwestern state. Unlike almost all other apartments in the area, the units in Larry's building did not have air conditioning. Tony leased Apartment 47 in Larry's building for a one-year term beginning on January 1. While inspecting the unit before signing the lease, Tony noticed that it had no air conditioning and asked whether Larry planned to install it. Larry replied: "No, that's why my rents are cheaper than the competition." In June, outside temperatures peaked at 110 degrees for two weeks, and the temperature inside Tony's unit reached 115 degrees. When Tony complained about the heat, Larry said: "I'll let you end the lease if you want. But air conditioning is too expensive." In July, after a week of scorching heat, the temperature in Tony's unit hit 118 degrees for several days. During that period, elderly tenants in five of Larry's units suffered heat strok

Larry breached the implied warranty of habitability.

Lee leases a house to Toni for a term of five years. Four months later, Toni stops paying rent and refuses to move out. In order to convince Toni to either pay the rent she owes or to vacate the premises, Lee cuts off the water to the house; Toni remains in possession. Which of the following is correct? Lee's conduct constituted retaliatory eviction. Lee is liable for self-help eviction. Lee is not liable for breach of the implied warranty of habitability. Toni can successfully claim constructive eviction.

Lee is liable for self-help eviction.

Seth inherited Greenacre in fee simple absolute from his uncle when Seth was a teenager. Seth became a successful entrepreneur and soon was independently wealthy. At 30, Seth married Leilani and they had two children, Elliot and Paxton. At 55, Seth purchased a small island (Floatacre); the habendum clause of the deed read, "to Seth for life, then to my son Elliot." Elliot is married to Fiona. They are incapable of having children and have agreed never to adopt. Seth recently died. His will left all his assets to his son Paxton. Seth and Leilani have always resided in a separate property jurisdiction that follows the rules of common law dower. Both Greenacre and Floatacre are located in this jurisdiction. Which of the following statements is correct? Leilani has a life estate in an undivided one-third of Greenacre. Fiona has a life estate in an undivided one-third of Floatacre. Paxton owns Greenacre in fee simple a

Leilani has a life estate in an undivided one-third of Greenacre.

Leonard and Tina orally agreed that Tina would lease Leonard's house on a month-to-month basis for $600 per month in rent. Two months after moving in, Tina noticed a few ants in the kitchen, which she ignored. A few weeks later, she discovered about 10 ants in the same place, which she stepped on and killed. Three months later, she encountered about 20 ants in the kitchen. When she complained to Leonard he offered her a can of ant spray to use in case the problem continued. Tina refused the spray, saying: "I can't use an insecticide in my home because my daughter has asthma." After that, Tina took special care to ensure that nothing in the kitchen would attract ants; she swept the floor each day, and emptied the trash basket frequently. One morning six months later, she found 15 more ants in the kitchen. She then sent Leonard an email which read: "Leonard: Sorry, but I won't pay any more rent until you fix the ant pr

Leonard did not breach the implied warranty because the house was habitable.

Hans and Willo were married for two years. Hans died unexpectedly and his will left all his assets to his mother. At death, Hans owned: (i) an interest in Greenacre, which Hans owned as a joint tenant with his brother, Bill; (ii) a $15,000 Rolex watch that Willo had given him for their first anniversary; (iii) a life estate in Redacre; and (iv) a commercial building (Moneyacre) that Hans had purchased in fee simple prior to marrying Willo. In a separate property state that recognizes dower, Willo has dower rights in which of the following assets: Moneyacre Greenacre, Redacre, and the watch. Greenacre, Redacre, and Moneyacre. Greenacre and Redacre.

Moneyacre

Fred is the owner of Forestacre and the father of twin daughters, Mia and Nada, and a son, Ben. Two years before Fred dies, Fred devises Forestacre to "Mia and Nada as joint tenants with right of survivorship." Two years after Fred dies, Mia dies in a car accident. Mia's will reads, "All my property goes to my brother, Ben." Who owns Forestacre? Nada and Ben own Forestacre as tenants in common. Nada is the sole owner of Forestacre. Nada owns a life estate in Forestacre, and Ben a vested remainder in fee simple. Nada and Ben own Forestacre as joint tenants.

Nada is the sole owner of Forestacre.

Ollie holds a fee simple absolute. Ollie conveys "to Glenda for life, then to Mel for life, then to Mel's firstborn child for life." Mel has no children. Which of the following is correct? Mel has a contingent remainder in life estate. Ollie has a reversion. Glenda has a vested remainder in life estate. Mel's firstborn has a vested remainder in life estate.

Ollie has a reversion.

Molly just learned that her application to the Peace Corps was approved and that she would be leaving for Mongolia in two days. She jumped into her car and drove the four miles to her best friend's (Josie's) apartment. After telling Josie the good news, Molly exclaimed, "Josie, I want you to have the silver Couture watch I am wearing and the Xbox One console that is in my apartment." Molly took a paper towel from Josie's kitchen and wrote, "I, Molly, make an irrevocable gift of my watch and Xbox One console to my best friend Josie." When she had finished writing, Molly gave the paper towel to Josie. She also simultaneously shouted, "Josie, I also want you to have my car. Here are the keys. Catch!" Molly threw the keys to Josie (which landed next to Josie's feet). Molly made a valid gift of which item(s)? Only the Xbox One and the car. The watch, the Xbox One, and the car. Only the watch and the Xbox One. Only the

Only the Xbox One and the car.

Oscar owned a luxury home in an upscale neighborhood. It had five bedrooms, four bathrooms, a gourmet kitchen, a huge living room, a private theater, a large library, and other amenities. The home also featured a spectacular ocean view. Oscar rented the home to Victor and Verna, a couple with one child, for a term of two years; the written lease required the payment of $8,000 per month in rent. Six months after Victor and Verna moved in, another property owner built a new house which entirely blocked the ocean view from their rented home; they protested to Oscar, who ignored their concerns. Two months later, the toilet in one of the bathrooms became inoperable; Victor and Verna again protested to Oscar, who promised to fix the problem but never did. Which of the following is most likely? Oscar did not breach the implied warranty of habitability because the warranty does not apply to luxury homes. Oscar breached the

Oscar did not breach the implied warranty of habitability because the home is habitable.

Paul and Ivy are identical twins. Several years ago, they bought a small farm (Farmacre) and took title as joint tenants. Paul and Ivy moved onto Farmacre and slowly remodeled the farm house. Three years ago, Ivy left Farmacre, moving to a large city to begin her professional career as an accountant. Paul continued to live on Farmacre and started medical school. Ivy has recently returned, wanting to spend a six week vacation at Farmacre. Paul refuses to allow Ivy onto Farmacre, stating that he needs to be alone while studying for his medical boards. Paul told Ivy to come at any other time she desired; he would even leave for that period and give her exclusive occupancy. Ivy is insistent upon spending her vacation at Farmacre. The fair market rental value of Farmacre is $1500 per week. In a majority of jurisdictions, which statement is correct? Paul is liable to Ivy for $9000. Paul is not liable to Ivy because her o

Paul is liable to Ivy for $4500.

Louis owns a 10-unit apartment building. Last week he entered into a written lease with Tina, a new tenant, which provided that she would lease Apartment 8 in his building "for $12,000 per year, payable at $1,000 per month." There is no other provision in the lease specifying when its term will end. What estate does Tina have? Periodic tenancy (month-to-month). Periodic tenancy (year-to-year). Term of years tenancy. Tenancy at will.

Periodic tenancy (year-to-year).

Terry leased a home from Laura pursuant to a written lease which provided that "the term of this Lease will begin on January 1 and continue for two years." The lease further provided that Terry would pay $850 in rent on the first day of each month. Terry immediately began occupying the home. Neither Laura nor Terry ever gave notice of termination. On January 2 two years later, Terry continued to occupy the home. Laura then sent Terry an email which read: "Terry: Get out of my house! You have no right to be there. Laura." Terry then mailed Laura a check for $850, which Laura cashed; the same thing happened in the next month. What estate does Terry have? Term of years tenancy. Periodic tenancy. Tenancy at sufferance. None.

Periodic tenancy.

Tara enters into an oral agreement to lease Leslie's house "on a year to year basis." But when Tara arrives to move into the house on the first day of the lease term, she discovers that the house is still occupied by Pierre, the prior tenant, who has remained in possession even though his lease term has expired. Which of the following is correct? Tara's oral agreement is unenforceable due to the Statute of Frauds. Pierre is a tenant at sufferance. Tara has a term of years tenancy. Tara is entitled to cancel her agreement with Leslie if the jurisdiction follows the American rule.

Pierre is a tenant at sufferance.

Rhonda owned an undeveloped tract of farm land, located 200 feet from a large river. Tim's barren and undeveloped 10-acre parcel was located immediately between Rhonda's land and the river. Three years ago, Rhonda installed a pipeline across the surface of Tim's land which Rhonda uses to bring water to irrigate Rhonda's crops during the summer months. Which of the following is correct? Rhonda has acquired title to the land underneath the pipeline. Rhonda has not acquired title to the land underneath the pipeline because her use was not continuous. Rhonda has acquired a right to take water from the river under the prior appropriation approach. Rhonda has acquired a right to take water from the river under the riparian approach.

Rhonda has acquired a right to take water from the river under the prior appropriation approach.

Mary was a sickly individual and was regularly hospitalized. During one of her hospital stays, Mary wrote a valid will leaving all of her property to her boyfriend, Kyle. A few weeks later, Mary became seriously ill and was once again hospitalized. The attending doctors doubted that Mary would survive the night. Her good friend Ruby visited her in her hospital room. Mary called Ruby next to her, reached under her pillow, and placed a small object in Ruby's hand. Mary folded Ruby's fingers over the object and said, "Ruby, I'll likely die tonight and this is for you. It's the most precious and valuable thing I own. It's my great-grandmother's gold brooch. Remember me when you wear it." Observing what had happened, Kyle became upset. He dearly wanted the brooch since it was worth more than $20,000 and, besides, Mary had given it to him in her will. Before he could speak, Mary fell into a deep sleep. Who owns the brooch?

Ruby

Pip has always been close to his two nephews, Dan and Eric. Dan and Eric are the sons of Pip's sister, Sara. Pip and Sara rarely get along and have been estranged from each other for some time. If Sara dies at this time, Dan and Eric would be her only heirs. Sara becomes sick and has little hope of surviving. Believing Sara will live only a few days, Pip conveys Greenacre to "Sara and her heirs." Sara miraculously recovers. Who owns Greenacre? Sara, Dan, and Eric in fee simple. Dan and Eric in fee simple. Sara in fee simple. Sara in life estate, and Dan and Eric have vested remainders in fee simple.

Sara in fee simple.

Greta owned a four unit apartment complex near a college campus. Greta rented one of the units to Simone, a student at the college, for a one year period. Both signed a written lease that provided, in pertinent part, that Simone would pay Greta $500 each month on the first of each month. After three months, Simone decided to transfer to another school and conveyed all the remainder of her lease term to Isla. Isla agreed to assume all the covenants of the Greta-Simone lease. Two months later at the end of the fall semester, Isla learned that she was academically disqualified and had to leave school. Isla assigned all the remainder of her lease term to Ben. Unfortunately, a few days later, Ben had to leave school for personal reasons. Although seven months remained on the leasehold, Ben was only able to find a student (Ximena) to rent the apartment until the end of the spring semester (a four month period). After Ben l

Simone is liable to Greta for the rent under privity of contract.

Austin owned a five acre parcel of desert land. Last week, Austin made the following conveyance of the parcel: "to Stella for life, then to Maya for life, then to the heirs of Stella." This jurisdiction applies the Rule in Shelley's Case. Which of the following statements is correct? Stella received a life estate and a vested remainder. Maya received a life estate. The heirs of Stella received a contingent remainder. Austin retained a reversion.

Stella received a life estate and a vested remainder.

Ron and Jed are joint tenants in Redacre. Ron transfers his interest to Sue. While Jed is on sabbatical in France, Sue takes up exclusive occupation of Redacre. Which of the following is true in most jurisdictions? Sue is not liable for any part of the rental value of Greenacre. Sue must account to Jed for ½ of the fair rental value of Greenacre. Sue must make a contribution to Jed for ½ of the fair rental value of Greenacre. Sue must account to Jed for the fair rental value of Greenacre.

Sue is not liable for any part of the rental value of Greenacre.

Lenora owned a mountain cabin that she wanted to rent. Toby answered her "For Rent" ad on Craigslist. He explained that his doctor had told him that he had only two years to live, and he wanted to spend the rest of his days in the same home. Lenora then entered into a written lease with Toby, which provided in part: "Lenora hereby leases the Property to Toby for so long as Toby lives, in return for $900 per month in rent." What estate does Toby have? Life estate. Periodic tenancy. Term of years tenancy Tenancy at will.

Tenancy at will.

Luis owned a residential condominium unit near a medical school. Tanya, a new medical student, inspected the unit and decided to rent it. Luis and Tanya entered into a written lease which provided, among other things: "Luis hereby leases the said property to Tanya for five years, but this lease will end if she graduates from medical school before that time." The lease obligates Tanya to pay $700 in per month in rent. What estate does Tanya have? Term of years subject to an executory limitation. Term of years subject to a condition subsequent. Tenancy at will. Term of years determinable.

Term of years subject to a condition subsequent.

Oliver conveyed Whiteacre to Horace "for life, with the remainder to Oliver's heirs." Which common law doctrine would be most applicable in a court's determination of the ownership of Whiteacre? The Doctrine of Worthier Title The Doctrine of Merger The Rule Against Perpetuities The Rule in Shelley's Case

The Doctrine of Worthier Title

Hafez and Wanda are happily married. They buy a small restaurant and take title as tenants by the entirety. Hafez spends most of his time working at the restaurant while Wanda stays at home raising her son from a prior marriage. Wanda is independently wealthy. The industrial stove in the restaurant breaks down and Hafez immediately goes to the bank to borrow money to purchase a replacement. The bank requires Hafez to sign a promissory note and a mortgage, which he does. The mortgage lists the restaurant as security for the loan. Unfortunately, the restaurant does not succeed and Hafez defaults on the payments to the bank. Which of the following is true in a majority of jurisdictions that recognize tenancies by the entirety? The bank can only foreclose on Hafez's survivorship right in the restaurant. Hafez and Wanda are jointly and severally liable for the loan. The bank has no interest in the restaurant. The mort

The bank has no interest in the restaurant.

Hafez and Wanda are happily married. They buy a small restaurant and take title as tenants by the entirety. Hafez spends most of his time working at the restaurant while Wanda stays at home raising her son from a prior marriage. Wanda is independently wealthy. The industrial stove in the restaurant breaks down and Hafez immediately goes to the bank to borrow money to purchase a replacement. The bank requires Hafez to sign a promissory note and a mortgage, which he does. The mortgage lists the restaurant as security for the loan. Unfortunately, the restaurant does not succeed and Hafez defaults on the payments to the bank. Which of the following is true in a majority of jurisdictions that recognize tenancies by the entirety? The mortgage severed the right of survivorship; the bank can foreclose on all of Hafez's interest in the restaurant. The bank can only foreclose on Hafez's survivorship right in the restaurant.

The bank has no interest in the restaurant.

Tim owned a small commercial building. On January 1, he leased the building to Abby for a one-year term pursuant to a written lease in return for $2,000 per month in rent; Abby planned to use the building as an art gallery. The lease provided, in part: "The Property may only be used as an art gallery." Abby opened an art gallery in the building, but after a few months it was still unsuccessful. To increase revenue, Abby opened a café in the building in May; the café sold espresso, tea, and gourmet snacks. The café occupied the middle of the building, while its walls continued to exhibit the same amount of art as in the past. Abby duly paid the rent due on June 1. But early in the morning on June 2, Tim entered the building in Abby's absence, changed the locks, and placed the contents of the gallery/café in a storage unit. Which of the following is most likely? Tim's conduct was appropriate because Abby breached

Tim's conduct was not appropriate, and Abby can recover damages from him.

Tim owned a small commercial building. On January 1, he leased the building to Abby for a one-year term pursuant to a written lease in return for $2,000 per month in rent; Abby planned to use the building as an art gallery. The lease provided, in part: "The Property may only be used as an art gallery." Abby opened an art gallery in the building, but after a few months it was still unsuccessful. To increase revenue, Abby opened a café in the building in May; the café sold espresso, tea, and gourmet snacks. The café occupied the middle of the building, while its walls continued to exhibit the same amount of art as in the past. Abby duly paid the rent due on June 1. But early in the morning on June 2, Tim entered the building in Abby's absence, changed the locks, and placed the contents of the gallery/café in a storage unit. Which of the following is most likely? Tim's conduct was not appropriate, and Abby can reco

Tim's conduct was not appropriate, and Abby can recover damages from him.

Tripp was walking along a trail on unowned land when he noticed a shiny object on the ground. He picked up the object, which turned out to be a lost Rolex watch. Noticing that the Rolex was not working, Tripp took it to a local jeweler to be repaired and explained to the jeweler that he found the lost watch while on his daily walk. The next day Tripp went to the jeweler to retrieve the watch. The jeweler refused to return the Rolex, simply saying "Hey, it isn't your watch." Tripp brings an action in replevin. Which statement is correct? Tripp incorrectly sued in replevin. He should have sued in trover if he wanted the watch returned. The jeweler has better possessory rights to the watch since Tripp was not the true owner and the watch is now in the jeweler's possession. Tripp will be successful in his suit although he is not the owner of the item. Tripp is the owner of the watch because he was first to find the l

Tripp will be successful in his suit although he is not the owner of the item.

Linda owned a commercial building which she had leased out to various businesses over the years, but was now vacant. Tully, who hoped to open a bookstore, contacted Linda about leasing the building. After inspecting the building, Tully told Linda that he would rent it for 24 months for $1,000 per month; Linda agreed. Later that day, Linda sent Tully an email which read: "Dear Tully: Confirming our conversation, you have agreed to rent my building at 101 Main Street, Centerville, for 24 months starting tomorrow, for $1,000 per month. Best, Linda." Tully moved into the building and opened his bookstore. But it was not a success. Tully paid the rent for each month for three months, but then handed Linda a note which read: "Linda: I hereby terminate my month-to-month tenancy. Tully." Tully then vacated the building and paid no further rent. Linda exerted reasonable efforts to find a replacement tenant, without success, a

Tully is not liable for any rent because the lease does not comply with the Statute of Frauds.

Larry leases to Tim for a term of 10 years at a monthly rent of $2,000. Two years later, Tim transfers "all my interest in this lease" to Ulla; three years later, Ulla "subleases and assigns" to Vern for a period of two years. No one is paying rent to Larry. Who is liable to Larry for rent? Ulla, under privity of estate. Vern, under privity of contract. Vern, under privity of estate. Ulla, under privity of contract.

Ulla, under privity of estate.

Dell owned a house, which he rented to Toby for a five-year term pursuant to a written lease which called for $1,000 per month in rent. Three months later, Toby's employer transferred him to a job in another state, so Toby transferred all of his interest in the house to Velma. After living in the house for almost two years, Velma had the opportunity to work in Paris on a special one-year assignment. She accordingly transferred "all of my interest in the property to Will for twelve months" in return for $800 per month in rent. After Will moved into the house, he discovered that it was infested with thousands of cockroaches. Who is responsible for fixing the cockroach problem? Dell. Toby. Dell and Velma. Velma.

Velma

Faiz is a wealthy bachelor and owns extensive lands in Ohio. His most treasured property is Moneyacre, a large, mineral-rich parcel in the center of the state. Faiz meets Wendy and falls in love. Faiz and Wendy marry and begin their life together in Ohio. A few years later, Faiz sells Moneyacre to Tom, a bona fide purchaser who has no knowledge of Faiz's marriage to Wendy. Several years later, Faiz dies. Unfortunately, Faiz's will reads, "All to Matilda, my true love." Wendy is crushed. Ohio is a jurisdiction that still recognizes dower rights. Which of the following is correct? Wendy holds a life estate in an undivided 1/3 interest in Moneyacre. Wendy holds Moneyacre in fee simple absolute. Tom owns Moneyacre free of any interest of Wendy because Tom was a bona fide purchaser without notice. Tom owns Moneyacre free of any interest of Wendy because Faiz acquired the parcel before his marriage to Wendy.

Wendy holds a life estate in an undivided 1/3 interest in Moneyacre.

Greenacre, a large farm, has been in Zachary's family for the past four generations. Zachary holds fee simple title to Greenacre. Recently, an extended drought destroyed Zachary's corn crop. Unable to meet his financial obligations, Zachary has consented to sell Greenacre to his cousin Xavier. However, Zachary wants the farm to stay in the family and is very concerned that Xavier may be tempted to sell Greenacre to a large farm conglomerate. Yesterday, Zachary made the following conveyance: "I, Zachary, grant Greenacre to Xavier and heirs on the condition that the land is never sold." Which of the following statements is correct? Xavier received a fee simple subject to a condition subsequent. Xavier received a fee simple absolute. Zachary retained a possibility of reverter. Xavier received a fee simple subject to an executory limitation.

Xavier received a fee simple absolute.

Hal, Sam, and Ted own Greenacre as tenants in common. Hal sells his interest to Xin without notifying either Sam or Ted. One day later, Sam dies intestate as a result of a tragic chain saw mishap, leaving Yap as his only heir. The next day, Ted dies. Ted's will leaves Ted's entire estate to Zoe. Who has what interest in Greenacre? Xin, Yap, and Zoe own Greenacre as tenants in common, in fractional shares of ½, ¼, and ¼. Yap and Zoe own Greenacre as tenants in common, in equal shares. Xin, Yap, and Zoe own Greenacre as tenants in common, in equal shares. Hal, Yap, and Zoe own Greenacre as tenants in common, in equal shares.

Xin, Yap, and Zoe own Greenacre as tenants in common, in equal shares.

Xiao, Yasir, and Zed own Greenacre as cotenants. Xiang builds a swimming pool in the backyard and incurs all the costs herself. Absent an agreement, which of the following is true in most jurisdictions? Yasir and Zed are obligated to pay their proportionate share of the cost because they each have an undivided right to use and possess Greenacre. Yasir and Zed are obligated to pay their proportionate share of the cost if they refuse to let Xiao occupy Greenacre. Yasir and Zed are obligated to pay their proportionate share of the cost only if they are cotenants in possession. Yasir and Zed are not obligated to pay their proportionate share of the cost; however, upon partition, Xiao will receive a credit equal to the increased market value produced by the improvement.

Yasir and Zed are not obligated to pay their proportionate share of the cost; however, upon partition, Xiao will receive a credit equal to the increased market value produced by the improvement.

Mel and Cassie are not married but have lived together for ten years. Mel gave up his career as a professional basketball player to help care for Cassie and manage the home. Mel could have made a substantial amount of money if he had continued with his career. Cassie gives Mel an allowance and pays for all his expenses. Throughout their relationship, Cassie has consistently assured Mel that he "is her deep love" and "could always count on her to take care of him." Unfortunately, Cassie has recently become enamored with a young business executive and has asked Mel to leave. In a jurisdiction applying the ruling in Roccamonte, does Mel have any rights to Cassie's property? No, there was no express agreement between Mel and Cassie. No, there was no legally recognized consideration for any promises Cassie made to Mel. Yes, a contract can be implied from oral statements made by Cassie within the context of a long marit

Yes, a contract can be implied from oral statements made by Cassie within the context of a long marital-type relationship.

Omar owned a residential duplex; both of his units, Unit A and Unit B, were vacant. He leased Unit A to Henry for a one-year term pursuant to a written lease which required Henry to pay $800 per month in rent. Six months later, when Henry abandoned Unit A without cause, Omar elected to continue the lease in effect and seek to mitigate his damages. Unit B was still vacant at this time. Omar retained a rental agency to locate tenants for both units; over the next four months, the agency sent three potential tenants to inspect the units. Rita inspected both units and decided to rent Unit B. Sam offered to rent Unit A for $700, which Omar refused. Tony offered to rent Unit A for $800 per month, but was unable to post the $1,500 security deposit which Omar always required from tenants. Unit A remained vacant from the time of Henry's abandonment until the end of his lease term. Did Omar adequately mitigate his damages? No

Yes, because his efforts were reasonable.

Oliver owned a two-story office building with a central heating system. On July 1, he leased part of the second floor to Freda, an architect, for a 10-year term pursuant to a written lease. The lease provided, in part: "Landlord will provide heat to the leased premises." During cool days in October, Freda discovered that the heating system would only heat her office to 55 degrees before automatically shutting off, regardless of how high she or her employees set the office thermostat. When Freda complained to Oliver that her office needed to be heated to at least 68 degrees, Oliver responded: "The lease says I have to supply heat, which I'm doing. It doesn't say how much. We all need to conserve energy now." As a result, Freda and her employees had to wear heavy sweaters, ski hats, long underwear, and other winter clothing while working inside the office. Even so, their fingers were cold, which made it much more diffi

Yes, because the constructive eviction elements are satisfied.

In which of the following situations has Thomas made a valid gift of his tools (two screwdrivers, a wrench, and a hammer) to Adam? Thomas was in his garage working on his car that would not start. Everything he tried did not work. Adam, Thomas' neighbor, came over to help. Adam was a mechanic for a major car dealership. Adam grabbed a pair of pliers and quickly fixed the problem. Frustrated, Thomas pointed to his large heavy tool box and exclaimed, "I hate this! I'm no mechanic and never should try to be one. Adam, here is the key to my tool box. It's yours and also every tool inside it!" Thomas tossed the key to Adam. The tool box contained two screwdrivers, a wrench, and a hammer. Yesterday Adam asked Thomas if he could borrow a few of his tools. Thomas happily loaned Adam two screwdrivers, a wrench, and a hammer. Today was Thomas's birthday and his husband gave Thomas a complete set of new tools. Delighted by th

Yesterday Adam asked Thomas if he could borrow a few of his tools. Thomas happily loaned Adam two screwdrivers, a wrench, and a hammer. Today was Thomas's birthday and his husband gave Thomas a complete set of new tools. Delighted by this present, Thomas called Adam and said, "Keep the tools. They're yours. I just got a brand new set of tools for my birthday."

Zora builds a concrete wall three feet along her border with Yvonne to prevent the flow of rain water running onto her land from Yvonne's property. This cases the surface water to stand and become stagnant on the northerly corner of Yvonne's land. Yvonne demanded that Zora remove the wall and upon Zora's refusal, Yvonne brought an appropriate action to compel removal. If the jurisdiction applies the "common enemy rule" the most likely result is: Zora must remove the wall or pay Yvonne for damages for the privilege of deflecting water onto her property. Zora may leave the wall without being liable to Yvonne for money damages. Zora may leave the wall, but she will be liable to Yvonne for money damages. Zora must remove the wall because she has no right to obstruct the flow of such surface water.

Zora may leave the wall without being liable to Yvonne for money damages.

Company leases a large warehouse from Lisa for a 20-year term to store large quantities of flowers until they can be delivered to retail florists. The written lease between Company and Lisa says nothing about the condition of the premises. The warehouse is located in an industrial park owned by Lisa, and Lisa leases other buildings to other tenants. After taking possession of the warehouse and filling it with flowers, Company discovers that one of Lisa's other tenants operates a toxic waste facility in the industrial park which emits large amounts of noxious smoke for three hours every Friday afternoon. The smoke penetrates small cracks in the Company warehouse, which injures 10% of the flowers, making them more difficult to sell. Can Company establish constructive eviction? No, because the smoke is a problem for only a few hours each week. No, because Lisa has not breached the lease. No, because Lisa is not respo

Yes, but it may have to vacate the premises.

Zelda owns a 500-acre farm. She installs an extensive network of wells to extract groundwater so that she can sell the water to the residents of an expanding city located 20 miles away. As a result of Zelda's pumping, the wells located on her neighbor Ned's land went dry. Under these circumstances, may Zelda continue pumping groundwater? Yes, if the state follows the correlative rights approach. Yes, if the state follows the absolute ownership rule. Yes, if the state follows the reasonable use approach as long as the city residents use the water reasonably. Yes, if the state follows the riparian approach.

Yes, if the state follows the absolute ownership rule.

Jim conveyed his Blue Bayou tract to his brother, Tim, for life. The tract consists primarily of swampland and cannot be converted to cultivation. At the time of the conveyance, the swampland had never been used for the production of timber. Tim took possession and cleared 40 acres of the timber on the swampland, thus becoming the first person to exploit this area. He then sold the timber from the swampland for $20,000. In an action by Jim to permanently enjoin Tim from cutting any more timber on the swampland section of Blue Bayou and to account for the profits he received for the sale of timber, Jim will most likely: not succeed, since a life tenant is not liable for ameliorative waste. succeed, since a life tenant may not exploit natural resources where no such prior use had been made. not succeed, since a life tenant has a right to make reasonable use of the land. succeed, since a life tenant must account for

succeed, since a life tenant may not exploit natural resources where no such prior use had been made.