Property

D. Yes, because the friend was informed about the rent increase before the beginning of the rental period and the increase is reasonable.

Question 1891 A friend convinced the owner of a vacant store to allow him use of the store for a one-year period for $12,000, to be payable in monthly installments of $1,000. This amount was significantly below its fair rental value. Their agreement was not reduced to writing. Near the end of the year, the friend and the owner discussed an extension of the arrangement, but did not arrive at an agreement. The owner informed the friend that, if the friend remained, the rent would be raised to its market value. The friend objected. After the end of the one-year period, the friend remained in the store. The friend sent the owner a $1,000 rent check. The owner returned it to the friend, indicating that the rent was now the fair rental value of the premises. Is the owner correct that the friend is obligated to pay the fair rental value of the premises? Answers: A. No, because the rental increase was not in writing. B. No, because the friend did not agree to the rent increase. C. Yes, because the owner did not have a duty to mitigate. D. Yes, because the friend was informed about the rent increase before the beginning of the rental period and the increase is reasonable.

B. The tenant, because the agreement contains a covenant that runs with land.

Question 2017 Two homeowners who own adjacent lots decided to construct a driveway that straddles their common property line. They entered into a written agreement whereby each granted to the other a right of access over his property in accord with the dimensions and location of the driveway and each promised that he, his heirs, devisees, assignees and successors would equally share the repair and maintenance of the driveway, including the cost of snow removal, with the neighboring property owner. This agreement was promptly and properly recorded. After the driveway was built, the owner of one of the improved lots sold it in fee simple absolute to a buyer who currently lives on the premises. A year ago, the owner of the other lot died. His property passed by intestacy to his son. Through an oral agreement, the son, who has a residence elsewhere, has rented out the inherited residence to a tenant for a one-year term. The son told the tenant of the shared maintenance agreement with the neighbor, but otherwise did not discuss the maintenance of the driveway with the tenant. This past winter, due to a number of heavy snowfalls, the removal of the snow in order to be able to use the driveway was costly. When the tenant contacted the current owner of the neighboring property, the owner, noting that he rarely used the driveway due to his advanced age and poor health, refused to reimburse the tenant for the snow removal costs borne by the tenant. If the tenant seeks to recover half of the costs for snow removal from the current neighbor, who will prevail? Answers: A. The tenant, because the tenant acted in reliance to his detriment on the son's revelation of the agreement. B. The tenant, because the agreement contains a covenant that runs with land. C. The neighbor, because only the son can enforce the agreement. D. The neighbor, because there was no horizontal privity between the neighbors who entered into the agreement.

B. Only the amount by which the property tax payment exceeds his ownership share may be recovered.

Question 2027 Two friends together purchased a beachfront residence. They took title to the residence as joint owners, with the older friend owning a 60% interest, and the younger, a 40% interest. During the past year, the younger friend used the residence for 75 days. The older friend used the residence for 50 days. When the time came for payment of the property taxes, the older friend paid 75% of the annual property taxes on the residence. The older friend filed an action for contribution. Can the older friend recover for the amount by which his property tax payment exceeded his ownership share and the fair market value of the younger friend's use of the residence in excess of her ownership share? Answers: A. Both may be recovered. B. Only the amount by which the property tax payment exceeds his ownership share may be recovered. C. Only the fair market value of the younger friend's use of the residence in excess of her ownership share may be recovered. D. Neither may be recovered.

D. Yes, because the easement was properly recorded.

Question 3110 Many years ago, the owner of a cattle ranch gave a utility company an easement to install underground phone lines on the ranch to service the other properties in the area. The easement was properly recorded. Five years ago, the rancher sold the underlying property to a gardener. The deed of sale did not mention the easement. Upon purchasing the ranch, the gardener spent great time and expense converting the cattle-trampled ranch into a large botanic garden. Recently, the utility company, who had never installed the phone lines, contacted the gardener to let him know that it would now like to install an underground fiber-optic system across the estate. The fiber-optic system would provide phone service and high-speed internet service to the gardener's estate and the surrounding estates, which to this point have had to depend on unreliable satellite service. The gardener refuses to allow the utility company to install the fiber optic system. Will the utility company likely be able to enforce the easement? Answers: A. No, because the easement was for the installation of phone lines, not fiber-optic cables. B. No, because the utility company abandoned the easement. C. Yes, because the easement is for public use. D. Yes, because the easement was properly recorded.

B. A tenancy in common by default, because the will failed to create a joint tenancy.

Question 3112 Two brothers received land when their father left it to them in his will. The will contained the following provision, "because I want each of my boys to pass his share of the land to their children upon his death, I want them to hold this land as joint tenants." Neither brother wanted to sell the property, but one brother did mortgage his interest in the property. The property is located in a lien theory state. What kind of co-tenancy do the brothers have in the land? Answers: A. A joint tenancy, because the father expressly created one in his will. B. A tenancy in common by default, because the will failed to create a joint tenancy. C. A tenancy by the entirety, because they are siblings. D. No co-tenancy, because any co-tenancy was destroyed when one brother mortgaged his interest in the property.

A. The homeowner's son, because the anti-lapse statute does not apply.

Question 3114 A homeowner devised his home to his neighbor in a jurisdiction with a traditional anti-lapse statute. The neighbor died shortly before the homeowner did. The neighbor is survived by his daughter, and the homeowner is survived by his son. The neighbor's daughter claims that she should take the home, while the homeowner's son claims that it should pass with the rest of the homeowner's estate. Who should receive the homeowner's home? Answers: A. The homeowner's son, because the anti-lapse statute does not apply. B. The homeowner's son, because of the Rule in Shelley's Case. C. The neighbor's daughter, because of the anti-lapse statute. D. The neighbor's daughter, because of the rule of convenience.

B. Yes, because the philanthropist is the owner of the residence.

Question 3130 A philanthropist conveyed a residence that he owned to a local charity for use as a homeless shelter. The deed stated that the parcel was transferred "in fee simple so long as the residence is used as a homeless shelter." After using the residence as a homeless shelter for twenty-two years, the charity recently closed the shelter and put the building up for sale. The philanthropist sought to prevent the sale of the residence. The jurisdiction has retained the common-law Rule Against Perpetuities and imposes a 20-year period for adverse possession. May the philanthropist stop the sale of the residence? Answers: A. Yes, because the doctrine of cy pres does not apply. B. Yes, because the philanthropist is the owner of the residence. C. No, because the charity owns the residence by adverse possession. D. No, because the philanthropist's reversionary interest violates the Rule Against Perpetuities.

B. The daughter took the nephew's interest in the land upon his death.

Question 3137 A widow transferred land that she held in fee simple to her only heir, her nephew, for his life, to her nephew's wife for the wife's life if she survived him, and then to any of the nephew's children who reached the age of 21. The widow later died intestate. Shortly after the widow's death, her nephew and his wife had their first and only child, a daughter. Five years ago, immediately prior to dying, the nephew's wife transferred her interest in the land to her daughter. One year ago, when the daughter was 18 years old and possessed legal capacity to transfer real property, she sold any interest she then owned in the land to a speculator. Recently, the nephew died and left everything to his daughter by his will. The jurisdiction recognizes the majority rule regarding inter vivos transfers of contingent remainders and executory interests. Which of the following would be the daughter's best argument that she is entitled to current possession of the land? Answers: A. The daughter was transferee of her mother's interest in the land. B. The daughter took the nephew's interest in the land upon his death. C. The daughter's contingent remainder in the land was not transferable inter vivos. D. The daughter was the only child of the nephew and his wife.

A. The oldest brother in fee simple.

Question 3140 Three brothers inherited, as joint tenants with the right of survivorship, a building in which their parents had operated a hardware store. Only the oldest brother continued to operate the hardware store on the premises, but he did not restrict his brothers' access to the building. The middle brother sold his interest in the building to the oldest brother. The youngest brother died, leaving everything to his daughter in his will. Who owns the building? Answers: A. The oldest brother in fee simple. B. The oldest brother and the youngest brother's daughter as joint tenants. C. The oldest brother and the youngest brother's daughter as equal tenants in common. D. The oldest brother and the youngest brother's daughter as tenants in common, with the oldest brother owning a 2/3 interest and the youngest brother's daughter owning a 1/3 interest.

C. Yes, because the daughter held the residence as a tenant in common with her brother.

Question 3158 A widow owned a residence in fee simple. Upon her death, the residence passed by will to her two children, "jointly with right of survivorship, 60 percent to my daughter and 40 percent to my son." The son moved into the house with his family. The sister, having a home of her own, did not seek to possess any portion of the residence, nor did she demand or receive rental payments for possession of the residence. For eleven years, the son maintained the property in addition to making the mortgage and real property tax payments as they came due. Upon his death, the son willed everything to his wife. The state in which the residence lies recognizes ownership of property that has been adversely possessed for at least ten years. Does the daughter likely have an ownership interest in the property? Answers: A. No, because the son treated the residence as his own property. B. No, because the son devised his property interest in the residence to his wife. C. Yes, because the daughter held the residence as a tenant in common with her brother. D. Yes, because the son failed to pay rent to his sister for his use of the residence.

A. The daughter, because she owned the property as a joint tenant with the right of survivorship.

Question 3159 A widower owned a car repair business, including the garage out of which it operated. Upon his retirement, the widower sold the business to an employee and deeded a 50 percent ownership interest in the garage to the employee in exchange for the employee's payment to the widower of the fair market value of both the business and the share of the garage. Within the same deed, the widower deeded the remaining 50 percent interest in the garage to his daughter. The deed specified that his daughter held her interest jointly with the employee's 50 percent interest and that the survivor would take sole ownership of the garage. Upon the employee's death, his real property interests passed by will to his child by a prior marriage. Who owns the garage? Answers: A. The daughter, because she owned the property as a joint tenant with the right of survivorship. B. The daughter and the employee's child each hold a 50 percent interest, because rights of survivorship may only be created between married persons. C. The employee's child, because the employee paid fair market value for the business while the daughter did not. D. The daughter and the employee's child each hold a 50 percent interest, because they are tenants in common.

B. Breach of the warranty of quiet enjoyment.

Question 3161 The owner in fee simple of an undeveloped lot in the city promised to leave the property to her nephew upon her death. The nephew, shortly before his aunt's death, purported to convey the lot by a general warranty deed to his son as a gift. This transfer was not recorded. Despite the aunt's promise, the lot passed to a charity upon her death pursuant to provisions in her will. The following month, the son sold the lot to a developer but was shortly thereafter killed in an accident. When the charity's attorneys learned of the developer's plan to construct a building on the lot, they sued to block the construction by alleging the charity owned the lot. Which of the following breach of warranty actions can the developer successfully pursue against the nephew as a consequence of the charity's suit? Answers: A. Breach of the warranty against encumbrances. B. Breach of the warranty of quiet enjoyment. C. Breach of the warranty of the right to convey. D. Breach of the warranty of seisin.

B. The lease was residential.

Question 4211 A tenant rented a two-story building; she operated a store on the first floor of the building and lived on the second floor. During a winter weekend when the tenant was out of town and the store was closed, a thief broke into the building. The thief left the building exposed to the elements. As a consequence, water in the pipes froze and burst the pipes, resulting in structural damage to the building. When the tenant returned and discovered the problem, she promptly notified the landlord. The lease contains a provision obligating the tenant to maintain and repair the premises during the tenancy. Which of the following would be the tenant's best argument that she is not obligated to repair the damage to the building? Answers: A. The criminal act of a third party caused the damage. B. The lease was residential. C. The structure of the building was damaged. D. The damage was due to natural causes.

B. The friend.

Question 4270 Five years ago, a landowner deeded a mansion with historical significance to a charity. The warranty deed stated that the property was transferred to the charity "so long as the charity keeps the property open to the public." The landowner recently died. Shortly before his death, the landowner had, by quitclaim deed, transferred any interest in the mansion to a friend for $100,000. The landowner, pursuant to a valid will, devised all of his real property to a local historical preservation organization. By law, the landowner's niece was his only heir. Shortly after his death, the charity denied the public access to the mansion. Who holds the current possessory interest in the mansion? Answers: A. The charity. B. The friend. C. The historical preservation organization. D. The niece.

A. The daughter cut down the trees on the property.

Question 4273 A man owned a residence in fee simple absolute. The man was an avid gardener, and had imported many valuable trees that he planted around the property. At his death, the man devised the residence to his daughter for her life, and upon her death to his son. Over the objection of the son, who wanted the residence inhabited only by family members, the daughter rented the residence to a friend for its fair market value. Although she received rental income significantly in excess of the amount of the mortgage, she refused to pay the mortgage and insisted that she would pay only the interest on the mortgage. Despite the son's urging, the daughter also refused to insure the property. The son thus paid for insurance on the property and the mortgage principal. Finally, without the son's knowledge or consent, the daughter cut down all the trees on the property. What is the son's best argument that he is entitled to damages from the daughter? Answers: A. The daughter cut down the trees on the property. B. The daughter refused to pay the mortgage. C. The daughter refused to insure the property. D. The daughter rented the property over the objection of the son.

C. The engineer, because the librarian did not record her deed until after the engineer purchased the vacation home.

Question 4390 On April 15, a librarian purchased a vacation home from a seller for $200,000 cash. She placed the deed in a safety deposit box but did not immediately record it. On April 20, the seller sold the vacation home to an engineer, who had no knowledge of the prior sale, for $250,000 cash. On April 22, the librarian recorded her deed. The engineer, who had placed the deed in a drawer and forgotten about it, did not record the deed until June 1. The recording statute in the jurisdiction states: "No conveyance or mortgage of real property shall be good against subsequent purchasers for value and without notice unless the same be recorded according to law." In a subsequent action, who will prevail? Answers: A. The librarian, because she was first to record the deed. B. The librarian, because the engineer had constructive notice of her deed when he recorded his deed on June 1. C. The engineer, because the librarian did not record her deed until after the engineer purchased the vacation home. D. The engineer, because the paid value of his purchase was greater than that for the librarian.

C. The building was subject to an equitable servitude.

Question 4391 A superintendent owned two adjacent buildings. The superintendent sold one of the buildings to a professor. The deed stated, in part: "The Professor, her heirs, and successors-in-interest, shall only paint the exterior of said building white or ivory in order to maintain aesthetic uniformity in the neighborhood." The deed was subsequently recorded. Ten years later, the professor sold the building to an artist, who promptly painted the exterior of the building red. The superintendent sued the artist for injunctive relief and the court ordered the artist to paint the building white or ivory. Which of the following would justify the court's decision? Answers: A. The superintendant retained an easement in gross. B. The building was subject to a real covenant. C. The building was subject to an equitable servitude. D. The building was subject to a license.

D. Correct Answer: Yes, because the employee was in privity of estate with the professor.

Question 5863 An adult college student entered into a written, one-year lease of a condominium unit owned by a professor who was taking a one year sabbatical in France. The lease, which began on September 1, called for a yearly rent of $12,000 to be paid in monthly installments of $1,000. The student lived in the unit for four months and paid rent to the professor for each of those four months. The student moved out of the unit in late December and has not made any rental payments since then. In a signed note, the student transferred all of his rights under the lease for the remaining eight months to an employee of the college. Nothing in the lease prohibited the student from making this transfer. The employee moved into the unit on January 1. She lived there for five months, and mailed the $1,000 monthly payments for those five months to the professor in France, but otherwise had no contact with the professor. At the end of May, the employee moved out and has not made any further rental payments. Despite making a good faith effort through friends at the college, the professor was unable to find anyone to rent the condominium unit for the remaining three months of the lease. Under the terms of the lease, the student is liable to the professor for any unpaid rent. However, upon his return from France in September, the professor sued the employee for the unpaid rent of $3,000. Is the employee liable to the professor for the unpaid rent? Answers: A. No, because the employee did not enter into a lease agreement with the professor. B. No, because the student remained liable for the rent under the terms of the lease. C. Yes, because the employee was the person who vacated the condominium unit. D. Yes, because the employee was in privity of estate with the professor.

D. Yes, because the buyer can obtain specific performance with an abatement of the purchase price.

Question 5895 A buyer entered into an installment land contract with a seller, agreeing to purchase a vacant lot owned by the seller. The parties agreed that after the buyer made the last of 120 installment payments, the seller would deliver a warranty deed conveying the lot in fee simple. The contract did not mention any encumbrances on the vacant lot. The buyer took possession of the lot and constructed an office building. The buyer made 119 timely installment payments. Upon making the last payment, the buyer demanded that the seller convey title to the lot in fee simple pursuant to the land sales contract. The seller delivered the deed to the lot at which time the buyer discovered an outstanding, enforceable mortgage on the lot. There was no evidence that the seller ever defaulted on the mortgage. However, the balance of the mortgage obligation remained at half the value of the lot. Upon learning of the outstanding mortgage, the buyer refused to accept the deed and demanded that the seller either pay the mortgage obligation or return half of the installment payments to compensate for the encumbrance. The seller has refused to comply with either demand. Is the buyer likely to succeed in a suit against the seller? Answers: A. No, because there is no covenant of marketable title in an installment land contract. B. No, because the buyer can no longer sue under the installment land contract. C. Yes, because the installment land contract specifically called for delivery of a warranty deed. D. Yes, because the buyer can obtain specific performance with an abatement of the purchase price.

C. The landlord cannot retaliate against the tenant for demanding improvements by either increasing his rent by $200 or evicting him for failing to pay that increase.

Question 6038 A landlord owned a large apartment building. One of the tenants was dissatisfied with the state of disrepair of the lobby, and decided to organize a tenant meeting to discuss in what ways the lobby could be improved from both an aesthetic and safety standpoint. After the meeting, the tenant gave the landlord a list of the various items that needed to be fixed and improved in the lobby area for safety reasons, and also notified the local fair housing organization. The tenant had lived in his apartment for two months, and paid $1000 in rent per month, but after submitting the list to the landlord, the landlord informed the tenant that he would now need to pay $1200 in rent per month. The tenant disputed the rent increase, because other tenants in similar apartments only paid $1000. The landlord then sent the tenant a notice of eviction for failure to pay the requisite rental amount. The tenant challenges the eviction. If he succeeds, what is the most likely reason? Answers: A. The rent demanded by the landlord now is $200 more than what is charged to tenants in a similar apartments. B. A periodic tenancy was created by implication when the landlord raised the rent from $1000 to $1200. C. The landlord cannot retaliate against the tenant for demanding improvements by either increasing his rent by $200 or evicting him for failing to pay that increase. D. A rental agreement of one year was implied by the rent of $1000 in the absence of any express agreement stating otherwise.

B. The sister, because she had the right to use the meadow and earn profits from her use of it.

Question 6642 A sister and brother inherited property that consisted primarily of a meadow as tenants in common. The sister received a one-third interest in the property; the brother received a two-thirds interest. The sister grazed sheep in the meadow. Once a year, she sheared the sheep and sold their wool. Her brother, who lived in a distant city, never visited the meadow or made any attempt to make use of it. Upon learning of his sister's use of the meadow, the brother demanded that his sister pay him rent for her use of the meadow and a share of the profits she made from selling the wool of the sheep that grazed there. When she refused, he filed suit against her. For whom should the court rule? Answers: A. The sister, because the siblings did not hold the meadow as joint tenants with the right of survivorship. B. The sister, because she had the right to use the meadow and earn profits from her use of it. C. The brother, because he held the majority interest in the meadow. D. The brother, because his sister made exclusive use of the meadow.

D. No, because the landlord breached the implied warranty of habitability for the apartment.

Question 6039 A landlord that owned a large apartment building rented a two-bedroom apartment to a single mother and her two young children. The landlord warned the mother that the heater in the apartment was not working, and oftentimes the running water was not functional in violation of local housing codes. The landlord planned to fix these problems in the near future. In general, the landlord preferred to rent to families with a two-income household for one-year lease periods, but he wanted to help the mother out so he leased the apartment to her on a month-to-month basis. However, he included an absolute duty to repair on the part of the mother as a compromise for her less than ideal income status. The mother waited for three months for the landlord to fix the heating and water issues, but the landlord failed to do so. The mother then paid a handyman to fix both problems, and deducted the cost of repairs from her monthly rent. The landlord now seeks to evict the mother and her children from the apartment for failure to pay the entire rent amount. Will the landlord prevail? Answers: A. Yes, because the mother had a contractual duty to repair the premises according to the lease. B. Yes, because the mother was aware of the heating and water issues when she signed the lease. C. No, because the landlord constructively evicted the mother and her children from the apartment. D. No, because the landlord breached the implied warranty of habitability for the apartment.

C. The landlord, because the sculptor committed waste by improving the property.

Question 6040 A landlord and tenant entered into a one-year lease to rent a one-bedroom apartment in a multi-family dwelling. The tenant was a sculptor, and spent much of her time working on art projects that could cause a significant amount of noise. The windows and doors in the apartment were lacking proper sealing and soundproofing for sculpting, but the landlord and sculptor agreed to leave the property as-is and that the sculptor could create art pieces in the apartment. After one month, numerous neighbors complained to the sculptor that her sculpting activities were loud and disruptive. The sculptor decided to soundproof the windows and doors in her apartment, and deduct the expenses from her monthly rental payment. The landlord is now filing an action against the sculptor for the full rental amount. Who will succeed? Answers: A. The sculptor, because she made necessary improvements to the property. B. The sculptor, because the landlord did not provide adequate soundproofing. C. The landlord, because the sculptor committed waste by improving the property. D. The landlord, because the sculptor cannot withhold a portion of the rent for repairs.

A. No, because widening and paving the road contradicts the terms of the easement.

Question 6046 A farmer granted to a shepherd the right to construct a road along the eastern boundary of his farm. The purpose of the road was to permit the shepherd to access a pasture that he owned in order to graze his sheep there. The instrument creating this right was recorded, and the shepherd constructed a dirt road to the pasture and used it for several years. Recently, the shepherd sold the pasture to a company. Due to a change in the character of the area from agriculture to commercial, the company intends to build its headquarters on land, using the road as the sole means of accessing the headquarters. While the road is not the only means by which to access the property, it is reasonable one. Given the new use of the property, the developer has proposed, in contradiction of the express terms of the easement, widening and paving the road. The farmer has filed suit to enjoin the company from widening and paving the road. Should the court permit the company to widen and pave the road? Answers: A. No, because widening and paving the road contradicts the terms of the easement. B. No, because the easement was granted to the shepherd. C. Yes, because of the changes in the character of the area justifies the change in the use of pasture. D. Yes, because the road is reasonably necessary for the use of the property as the company's headquarters.

B. The nephew's son and the niece's daughter.

Question 6417 By warranty deed, a man conveyed land to his niece and nephew "as joint tenants with right of survivorship." A month later, the niece conveyed all of her real property interests to her daughter. The niece then died intestate. After the niece died, the nephew conveyed any interest he might have in the land to his son by quitclaim deed. There is no applicable statute, and the jurisdiction recognizes the common-law joint tenancy. Who holds valid title to the land? Answers: A. The nephew's son. B. The nephew's son and the niece's daughter. C. The nephew's son and the niece's heirs. D. The niece's heirs and the nephew.

D. Only the owner's two surviving children, because their remainders vested upon the brother's death.

Question 6442 The owner of a residence devised it, by a valid probated will, to "any brother who survives me, remainder to such of my children who are alive at his death." Upon the owner's death, he was survived by a brother and three children. Subsequently, the eldest child died and properly devised by will her entire estate to her godchild. The owner's two remaining children were the eldest child's only heirs. A year after the eldest child's death, the owner's brother died. The middle and youngest children survived the brother. In whom should the court find proper title to the residence is vested? Answers: A. The owner's surviving two children and the eldest child's godchild, because their remainders vested upon the owner's death. B. The owner's surviving children and the eldest child's godchild, because the survival requirement for the owner's children violates the Rule Against Perpetuities. C. Only the owner's two surviving children, because the eldest child's remainder can only pass by intestacy. D. Only the owner's two surviving children, because their remainders vested upon the brother's death.

B. Estoppel

Question 6515 The owner of land improved with a residence enjoyed an express, duly recorded easement appurtenant to use a neighbor's driveway. This driveway was part of a larger driveway that looped from the street to the owner's residence and back to the street via the driveway on the neighbor's property. The owner sold the property. The purchaser, in his first face-to-face conversation with his new neighbor after moving in, stated that he had no intention of using the portion of the driveway that ran through his neighbor's property. Acting in reliance on the purchaser's words, the neighbor shortly thereafter entered into a contract to have a wall constructed across the driveway at the point it entered onto her property and before it joined the portion of driveway that she continued to use for access to her own residence. When the contractor began to build the wall, the purchaser, having doubts about foregoing use of the private driveway, demanded that the neighbor stop building the wall and return the driveway to its former condition. Of the following, which is the neighbor's best defense to the purchaser's demand? Answers: A. Abandonment B. Estoppel C. Prescriptive easement D. Release

D. Easement by necessity.

Question 6516 A developer bought an island located in a large lake. The only access to the island was by boat. The developer subdivided the land and sold parcels, truthfully advertising each as being bounded on one side by water. One of the purchasers of a parcel further subdivided his parcel into two lots. The original purchaser of the parcel retained the higher of the two lots, which had a magnificent view of the entire area, but no direct access to the lake. The original purchaser gave the first lot, which was bounded by the lake on one side, to his daughter. The original purchaser expressly told his daughter that he was reserving the right to cross her lot in order to access the lake. Shortly thereafter the deed was recorded. Although the deed made no mention of this right, the father promptly created a foot path across his daughter's lot to the lake. Although the father dreamed of building a house on his lot, he fell ill and was unable to pursue his dream. Two years later the father died. By will, his lot passed to his son. The son, seeking to fulfill his father dream, informed his sister of his intent to build a house on his lot. She refused to permit her brother to use the path to access the lake. He brought a legal action against her to force her to permit him to use the path. The application jurisdiction recognizes the riparian rights doctrine with regard to water usage. If the son is successful in his lawsuit, which of the following is the most likely basis for awarding him use of the path? Answers: A. Riparian rights. B. Express easement by reservation. C. Easement by implication. D. Easement by necessity.

A. None, because the manufacturer is a tenant at sufferance.

Question 6621 Pursuant to a written lease, the owner of a warehouse leased the premises to a manufacturer for a term of one year at a total rent of $60,000. The lease called for the rent to be paid in monthly installments of $5,000 at the beginning of each month. The lease contained no provisions regarding termination or extension. The manufacturer promptly made the required rental payment each month. At the end of the year, the owner did not provide notice to the manufacturer of the termination of the lease. The manufacturer tendered a rental payment of $5,000 for the following month to the owner, which the owner refused to accept. In the absence of an applicable statute, how much advance notice must the owner give the manufacturer before seeking to evict the manufacturer? Answers: A. None, because the manufacturer is a tenant at sufferance. B. A reasonable time, because the manufacturer is a tenant at will. C. A month, because the manufacturer, by tendering a rental payment, has created a periodic tenancy. D. Six months, because the manufacturer, by tendering a rental payment, has created a tenancy for years.

A. No, because the landlord has violated the implied warranty of habitability.

Question 6626 A tenant rented an apartment in a residential building owned by a landlord. Before the tenant signed the monthly lease, the tenant pointed out to the landlord that the apartment's hot-water heater was not working. The tenant was aware that the local housing code required a landlord to provide residential tenants with hot water, for the tenant's health and safety. In response, the landlord pointed out to the tenant that the lease contained a provision making the tenant responsible for providing her own hot water and making repairs. The tenant signed the lease and began occupying the apartment. After waiting a reasonable amount of time for the landlord to fix the hot-water heater, the tenant began paying his monthly rent into an escrow account. The landlord demanded that the tenant pay the rent due directly to her. After she did not receive any rental payments for three months, the landlord filed an action to evict the tenant. Will the landlord succeed in her eviction action against the tenant? Answers: A. No, because the landlord has violated the implied warranty of habitability. B. No, because the landlord's actions constitute a constructive eviction. C. Yes, because the tenant knowingly accepted the duty to repair his own apartment. D. Yes, because the tenant knowingly waived the implied warranty of habitability.

B. The dentist's daughter has a 1/3 interest as a tenant in common with the artist and the baker, and the artist and the baker each has a 1/3 interest as joint tenants with the right of survivorship between themselves.

Question 6628 A professor died, devising his home to his three friends "jointly with a right of survivorship." The three friends, an artist, a baker, and a cook, lived together in the house for many years. The cook then decided to move to the city and sold her interest in the house to a dentist. The dentist executed a will devising his entire estate to his daughter. One year later, the dentist died. Of the following, which best describes the parties' interests in the house? Answers: A. The artist and the baker each has a 1/2 interest, as joint tenants with the right of survivorship. B. The dentist's daughter has a 1/3 interest as a tenant in common with the artist and the baker, and the artist and the baker each has a 1/3 interest as joint tenants with the right of survivorship between themselves. C. The artist, the baker, and the dentist's daughter each has a 1/3 interest, as joint tenants with the right of survivorship. D. The artist, the baker, and the dentist's daughter each has a 1/3 interest, as tenants in common.

C. Correct Answer: Yes, because the realtor failed to seek the owner's permission to lease the office space to the lawyer.

Question 6629 The owner of an office building leased office space to a realtor for a term of five years. The lease contained a provision that prohibited the assignment of the lease without the owner's permission. After both parties complied with the terms of the lease for 18 months, the realtor leased the premises to an accountant for a one-year period. The realtor did not seek the permission of the owner. The owner accepted payment of the monthly rent from the accountant without objection during the one-year period. Without seeking the owner's permission, the realtor then entered into a written agreement to lease the premises to a lawyer for the remaining 30 months of the five-year period. If the owner sues the realtor for breach of their lease agreement, is he likely to prevail? Answers: A. No, because the realtor is no longer in privity of estate with the owner. B. No, because the owner waived the provision in the lease prohibiting assignment by accepting rental payments from the accountant. C. Yes, because the realtor failed to seek the owner's permission to lease the office space to the lawyer. D. Yes, because the realtor was prohibited from leasing the office space to the lawyer.

C. The writer has an easement by prescription to use the dock.

Question 6647 A small island was divided into two parcels of land. A writer owned the northern parcel, and a businessman owned the southern parcel. Both parcels, which had never been under common ownership, were undeveloped. The businessman leased the southern parcel to a youth group, allowing them to use the parcel freely for camping. The writer built a home on the northern parcel. Because the shoreline of the northern parcel consisted of a steep, inhospitable cliff, the writer repaired a decaying dock on the shoreline of the southern parcel. For 13 years, the writer and campers used the dock year-round. Last month, the businessman visited his land and discovered the writer's unauthorized repair and use of the dock. He immediately denied the writer access to the dock and made plans to demolish it. The period of time necessary to acquire rights by prescription in the jurisdiction is 10 years. The period of time necessary to acquire title by adverse possession in the jurisdiction is 10 years. Of the following, which best describes the writer's rights in the dock? Answers: A. The writer has no right to use the dock. B. The writer has an easement by necessity to use the dock. C. The writer has an easement by prescription to use the dock. D. The writer has title to the dock by adverse possession.

C. "To [charity], so long as [charity] uses [office building] for [charitable purpose]."

Question 6653 A client has discussed with an attorney her desire to immediately transfer to a charity an office building she owns. Although she fully supports the charity and hopes that it thrives, she has doubts about its long-term viability. The client wants to ensure that ownership of the office building will automatically be returned to her, or her heirs or devisees if she is not alive, if and when the charity ceases to use the office building for its charitable purpose. In drafting the deed, which of the following phrases should the attorney use to accomplish the client's goal? Answers: A. "To [charity], provided that if [charity] ceases to use [office building] for [charitable purpose], ownership of [office building] will revert to [client], her heirs, devisees, or assigns." B. "To [charity], on the condition that if [charity] ceases to use [office building] for [charitable purpose], ownership of [office building] will revert to [client], her heirs, devisees, or assigns." C. "To [charity], so long as [charity] uses [office building] for [charitable purpose]." D. "To [charity], but if [charity] ceases to use [office building] for [charitable purpose], ownership of [office building] will revert to [client], her heirs, devisees, or assigns."

D. Yes, because the use of the property as a convenience store does not predate the adoption of the ordinance.

Question 7361 A property owner operated a gas station in an area zoned for residential uses only. Although the gas station was a nonconforming use, the zoning ordinance provided that, as a use that predated the adoption of the zoning ordinance, it was permitted to continue. Recently, the owner has sought to transform the property from a gas station to a convenience store. Can the zoning board enjoin this use? Answers: A. No, because a convenience store is more in keeping with a residential neighborhood than a gas station. B. No, because the property owner has a vested right to use the property for a nonconforming use. C. Yes, because a zoning ordinance generally is not required to permit a nonconforming use to continue after the ordinance becomes effective. D. Yes, because the use of the property as a convenience store does not predate the adoption of the ordinance.

A. Against the accountant for $72,000, the full amount of the rent due for the last two years of the lease.

Question 7400 An accountant leased office space in a building from the owner of the building for a four-year term. Under the terms of the written lease, the rent was $36,000 per year, with $3,000 payable monthly. The accountant occupied the office space for two years, and timely paid the monthly rent. At the beginning of the third year, the accountant orally leased the office space to a financial advisor for one year. Their agreement made no reference to the original lease. The financial advisor occupied the office space for six months, but paid no rent. The premises were vacant for six months until the beginning of the fourth year, when the accountant returned. The accountant occupied the premises for the final year of the original lease, but did not pay any rent. At the end of the fourth year, the building owner sued the accountant and the financial advisor for all of the unpaid rent. How should the court rule? Answers: A. Against the accountant for $72,000, the full amount of the rent due for the last two years of the lease. B. Against the accountant individually for $36,000, and against the accountant and the financial advisor jointly for $36,000. C. Against the accountant individually for $36,000, and against the financial advisor individually for $36,000. D. Against the accountant individually for $54,000, and against the financial advisor individually for $18,000.

A. The lease provision does not require the owner's approval of the agreement between the retailer and the distributor.

Question 7466 The owner of a building leased it to a manufacturer for 10 years. Among the terms of the lease was a provision that prohibited anyone from assigning any rights under the lease without the express written consent of the owner. Three years later, the manufacturer, facing a contraction of its business, entered into an agreement with a retailer to assume the manufacturer's obligations under the lease for the remaining seven years. The manufacturer did not seek the approval of the owner to this agreement, but the owner was aware of it and accepted the retailer's payment of the rent. With five years remaining on the lease, the retailer entered into an agreement with a distributor for the distributor to lease the building for two years. The retailer sought the owner's permission for this transfer. The owner, because of personal animus towards the distributor, has refused to grant his permission. Which of the following is an argument that is most likely to compel the owner to accept the distributor as the tenant of the building? Answers: A. The lease provision does not require the owner's approval of the agreement between the retailer and the distributor. B. The owner waived his rights to object under the lease by accepting the retailer as a tenant. C. A non-assignment provision constitutes an unreasonable restraint on alienation. D. The owner does not have a commercially reasonable objection to the distributor as a tenant in the building.

A. No, because the title is not free from an unreasonable risk of litigation.

Question 7472 A buyer contracted with a seller of farmland to buy the land. The contract provided that the seller would provide the buyer with a general warranty deed upon closing, but was silent regarding a covenant of marketable title. Upon performing a title search, the buyer learned that the seller was not the record owner of the land. In response, the seller provided the buyer with an affidavit in which the seller swore that he had first farmed the land 12 years ago without seeking the consent of the record owner of whom the seller has no knowledge and that from then to the present he had received no communication from the record owner nor anyone else regarding the seller's possession of the land. In response, the buyer informed the seller that, because there was a reasonable risk that the record owner or someone entitled to the land through the record owner could challenge the seller's ownership of the land, the buyer would not purchase the land. The statute of limitations for adverse possession in the applicable jurisdiction is 10 years. If the seller takes no further action, can the seller force the buyer to purchase the land at the closing? Answers: A. No, because the title is not free from an unreasonable risk of litigation. B. No, because a seller cannot seek specific performance of a real property contract. C. Yes, because the seller is contractually obligated to provide the buyer with a general warranty deed. D. Yes, because the seller did not specifically convenant to provide marketable title.

C. An executory interest, because the time period for determining whether the Rule Against Perpetuities applies has not expired.

Question 7507 The owner of a farm located on the site of a Civil War battle died. She devised the farmland as follows: "to my children, their heirs and assigns, so long as the property is used as a farm, but if the property ceases to be used as a farm, then to a charitable trust dedicated to the preservation of Civil War battle sites." Thirty years later, the owner's children continue to farm the land. The applicable jurisdiction has adopted the Uniform Statutory Rule Against Perpetuities. What interest in the farm does the charitable trust hold? Answers: A. Nothing, because more than 21 years have passed since the owner's death and her children continue to farm the land. B. A remainder interest, because the trust is a charity. C. An executory interest, because the time period for determining whether the Rule Against Perpetuities applies has not expired. D. A right of entry.

B. Implied reciprocal servitude

Question 7509 An individual purchased a building previously used for industrial purposes and converted it into 25 spaces for lease. The individual attached a sign to the outside of the building that prominently displayed the words "Homemade Local Crafts" because her plan was to fill the building with tenants who were local artisans. Because of rental rates well below the market rates, 23 local artisans rapidly entered into oral one-year leases with the individual. With regard to each lease, the artisan promised to display and sell in the leased space only items that the artisan had personally created. The individual orally leased the 24th space for one-year to a seller of exotic specialty foods that the seller acquired from producers in various places throughout the world. Because the individual was very good friends with the seller, the individual did not extract from the seller the same promise that the individual had required of the other tenants nor did the individual mention having done so with regard to the other tenants. When the artisans who were tenants, all of whom had complied with the promise they made to the individual, learned of the seller's tenancy, they objected. The individual, however, refused to rescind the seller's lease. Which of the following is the best theory for the artisans to obtain an injunction against the seller? Answers: A. Express equitable servitude B. Implied reciprocal servitude C. License D. Real covenant