Property Law, Property Law, Property: Rule Statements, Property Law, Property Law Practice Questions, Property - Leasing Real Property, Chapter 7- Leasing Real Property, Property II, Servitude (Quiz #2), 2 - Hypos

Terms of a land sale contract

The essential terms of a land sale contract under that statute of frauds are (1) description of the property (2) identification of the parties (3) price and manner of payment

True of False. A condition for a fee simple subject to a condition and fee simple determinable may "fall off" in time?

True, but when that time occurs is debatable.

Living People Don't Have Heirs

True.

Land Trusts in IL

Trustee acts as a figurehead and has no real authority to make decisions regarding the land, CANNOT CONVEY the land. Beneficiary of the trust holds all of the power. - Unique to IL - Allows for owners of land to remain anonymous (ish)

Joint Tenancy with Right of Survivorship

Two or more assets; title transfers to other owners at death without probate; overrides any provisions of the will; not a substitute for a will

Periodic Tenancy

Type of Non Freehold Estate that continues for successive intervals until L or T gives proper notice of termination (typically month-to-month)

Term for Years

Type of non freehold estate that continues for a definite period of time.

Notice Statute

Under a notice statute, a later purchase of land will prevail overs an earlier grantee if she takes actual or constructive notice.

Notice Statute

Under a notice statute, the general rules is that a subsequent BFP will prevail over a prior grantee who failed to record before the BFP's purchase. If the prior grantee previously recorded, the subsequent grantee would have record notice.

Race Notice

Under a race notice statute, a subsequent purchaser for value without notice of any prior conveyance is protected if she records before the prior grantee.

Race Notice

Under a race-notice statute, a later purchaser will prevail over an earlier grantee only is she takes without notice and records before a prior grantee.

Equitable Conversion

Under the doctrine of equitable conversion, the buyer of the land is considered to own (equitable title) to the real property once the contract is signed.

Abandonment

a tenant has moved out of the rental unit, mid-way through a term, does not intend to return, and has ceased payment of rent.

alienable

able to be transferred to new ownership

"to A and his heirs"

absolute

Seisen

actual possession of real property / freehold estate

Decedent

deceased person

sine qua non

essential element

How to create tenancy at will

expressly, can't be implied.

Owelty

extra compensation required to be given by one party in order to balance the outcome in a partition in-kind suit

Unity of Possession

All joint tenants must have the same/identical rights of possession; i.e., each has the right to possession of the whole and cannot exclude the other(s).

Unity of interest

All joint tenants must take the same kind and same amount of interest.

Specific Performance

Both buyer and seller of real estate are entitle to specific performance of a land sale contract.

A and B, adjoining landowners, agree to maintain a retaining wall on the border of their land. A1 and B1 later acquire A's and B's land, respectively. A1 then lets the retaining wall degrade, and B1 sues A1, seeking to have a court enjoin A1 to keep up the wall. Is this issue about the burden or benefit of the covenant?

Both! It's about the burden from A1's perspective, but the benefit from B1's perspective.

Dependent Convenant

Breach of one party = the other party STILL has to perform.

Burden Shifting

Burden of proof procedure in a Housing Discrimination cause of action

Reconveyance of Deed

Courts will not presume that a grantee's return of a deed is a reconveyance to the grantor. The grantee must executee and deliver a new deed.

Easement by Reservation

Creation of an easement by reserving (setting aside) that portion of a property at the time the whole property is conveyed --> Willard Case: Christian Science Church & the parking lot.

inter vivos

During ones lifetime

State Zoning Enabling Act

Each of the 50 states have passed acts to delegate the authority to local units of government to exercise zoning law & ordinances within the boundaries and jurisdictions of those municipalities.

Tenants in Common

Each of the owner has a share (i.e. 50% each). -If one of the owners dies, his/her share of the property will pass on to who ever he/she specifies in a will.

Unity of Possession

Each party has the right to use/possess ALL (100%) of the property. (doesn't matter percentage you own).

A records a document in the county hall of records reading, "The owners of the property adjacent to mine may cross my land to reach the river."

Easement appurtenant

A grants B the right to stay on A's land every summer for perpetuity.

Easement in gross

easement by express grant

Easements may be expressly created by grant or reservation. The presumption when an easement is granted is that it is perpetual unless otherwise stated.

S has title to only 25 of the 40 acres he agreed to sell B.

Easy case—clear breach of warranty. Curable, though. How?

Contested use for Eminent Domain

Economic Development - Kelo Case If the land constitutes a public purpose = public use.

Affirmative Easements

Entitle one to do acts upon the burdened land or which affect the burdened land.

Negative Easements

Entitled the other of the easement to prevent the owner of the burdened land from making certain used of his land. Most common examples = can't block someone's view of the mountains, light or air issues.

Possessory Interest

Entitles holder to possession of property, now or in the future.

Redemption

Equitable redemption allows the mortgagor to redeem her land before the closing. Note: This right cannot be waived. This is known as clogging.

Variance

Exception to a zoning ordinance.

Sommer v. Kridel

Facts- -D entered into a 2 year lease with P but D was not able to to move in; D wrote P informing him that he couldnt move in -P eventually re let the apartment but not until a year later; prior to re-letting, P sued D for total amount of two year lease; D claimed he failed to mitigate damages Rule- A landlord has a duty to mitigate damages where he seeks to recover rents due from a defaulting tenant -Duty consists of making reasonable efforts to re-let the apartment -Tenant may be required to bear cost of any reasonable expenses incurred by landlord in attempting to re-let expense Factors on whether landlord has made reasonable efforts -Whether landlord has offered or showed apartment; advertising; proffered tenants who were rejected

Marketable title

Marketable title is title that is reasonable free from doubt. This is title that a reasaonble prudent buyer would accept.

O sells Blackacre to A, who does not record. Then O sells to B, who knows of the O-A sale, but B also does not record. O sails away to Fiji with all his money. Between A and B, who prevails?

Race jurisdiction A—FTFR prevails Notice jurisdiction A—FTFR prevails again Race-notice jurisdiction A—ditto

Covenant of Seizins

Promise that the grantor owns in fee simple absolute (so he is actually legally conveying the property)

Covenant Against Encumbrances

Promise to the grantee that the property has no encumbrances to mar the title of the property (unless otherwise explicitly agreed upon between the parties to take subject to the encumbrance)

Abandoned Property

Property that has been discarded by the owner, who has no intention of reclaiming it. True owner extinguishes all possessory interest upon discarding

RAP application

RAP applies to: Contingent remainder executory interests vested remainders subject to open

O conveys to A, then to B. B takes as a BFP for value, and records. A records later.

Review: who wins, and why? Do jurisdictional rules matter? B wins in any jurisdiction, regardless of local rules

Licenses

Revocable permission to use property

Prescriptive Easement

Right to use someone else's real property acquired by continued use without the permission of the owner (adverse possession) for a period beyond the state law statute of limitations (20 years in IL)

Moment of signing land contract

Risk of loss passes to buyer aft signing the contract. This applies under the doctrine of equitable conversion.

What do you need for adverse possession

Running Statute (time) open and notorious absolute exclusivity continuous hostile

Easement Appurtenant

Runs with the land. The former benefits its owner in connection with his ownership of neighboring land. INDEFINITE, even if the land or easement transfers to another party.

General Warranty Deed & Present Covenants

Seisin Encumbrance Right to Convey

Difference in Foreclosure Process in IL vs. other states?

Takes place in a court of law

The land in City D is rich in silica quartz. When the land surface is disturbed in any manner, dust laden with silica pollutes the air. Because silica is known to cause cancer, the dust is quite dangerous to humans. City D adopts an ordinance that prevents all landowners from disturbing the land surface in any way. The law reduces the value of undeveloped land in the City by 90%.

Taking? Major reduction in value; no ARA No taking? Avoids serious threat to public Likely a classic noxious use state may regulate, see Hadacheck

J owns a grove of cedar trees that adds significant value to his single-family home in state C. The trees host a bacteria called red cedar rust. The rust is benign to the cedar trees, but can cause serious damage to any nearby apple orchards. To protect the apple industry, State C adopts a statute that requires state employees to destroy cedar trees which host this rust. All of J's cedar trees are cut down, lowering the cost of J's home from $200,000 to $180,000.

Taking? No ARA No taking? Small reduction in value; serious threat to local industry Probably valid regulation of a threat to important industry. ; Cf. Miller (U.S. 1928) (not a taking to destroy one class of property to save a more important one).

% Theory of Damages (IWH)

Tenant may withhold the percentage/seek the percentage value of reimbursement for the percentage reduction in the living space due to the un-repaired issue. -IL uses this

Tendency at will sufferance

Tenant remains in possession of the property after the agreement terminated

Holdover Tenant

Tenant remains on the property after the lease expired.

Underwater

Term used to define a home that's current market value is worth less than the outstanding amount of money owed on the mortgage.

"for so long as" "until" or "during" is verbiage that creates a...

fee simple determinable

"but if" "provided that" is verbiage that creates a ...

fee simple subject to a condition

"A and his heirs upon the condition that if liquor is ever sold on the premises the land is passed to X and his heirs"

fee simple subject to limitation

Defeasible Fees

fee simples that could last forever but there are limitations and if you break the 'rule/limitation' it goes back to the original owner.

Future interest

has the right to enjoy the estate in the future.

Land Control

how people decide to use their land

Holdover Tenant

if a tenant stays beyond the amount of time of the lease

The Grammar Rule

if future interest violates RAP (striking rule)

Joint Tenancy

if one of the owners die, ownership is transferred to the remaining owner(s).

Doctrine of Acquiescence

long silence is evidence of an agreement between the parties fixing the boundary line. (think Kunto)

Rule of Construction

methods used to determine what the parties meant to do. - Transferor's intent is important and may override.

Damages for breach in real covenant

monetary damages and/or injunction

transferable

preventing heirs of your body from taking your land after you die.

Affirmative convenant

requires the owner of the burdened estate to perform some act or pay money

Negative covenant (or restrictive covenant)

restrict or prohibit the uses that can be made of the burdened property

Perpetuities

restriction making an estate inalienable perpetually or for a period beyond certain limits fixed by law.

Present Estate

right to property right now.

innocent improver

someone who is not the true owner of the land but is there in good faith and ends up improving the land.

Testamentary Transfer

something given in a will or a trust; a gift that occurred because of a death

Fee Sample Absolute

specific language used. "to 'A'" : words of purchase "and his heirs" : words of limitations/heritability. - Give ownership to one person at the time. (no heirs)

remainder

the interest in real property that is left after another interest in the property ends, such as full title after a life estate. Must be created by deed or by will.

Per Stirpes

the method of proportionately dividing an estate between beneficiaries according to their deceased ancestor's share

The Benefitted estate/ property

the property whose owner benefits from the covenant or servitude.

Privity of Contract

the relationship that exists between the promisor and the promisee of a contract. (Can still be responsible even if the land is subleased or assigned)

Implied Warranty of Habitability

the rental of any residential dwelling has an implied warranty (does not need to be in the lease) that the LL will deliver over (at beginning of tenancy) and maintain throughout the tenancy, premises that are safe and habitable. o Places responsibility on the landlord even if it is not the LL's fault.

Reversion

the right of the Lessor to possess back the leased property upon the termination of the lease.

Profits à Prendre (Profit)

the right to go onto someone's land and remove something that exists their naturally, Ex: hunting, grazing sheep on lands other persons land, removing timber, minerals, oil, etc.

Possession

the right to use it but someone else has more of it.

Surrender

the tenant contacts the landlord and asks the LL if he/she can mutually cancel the lease with the LL midway through the term. (very rare in practice-->LL has to agree which is very unlikely)

Title Theory of Mortgages

title passes to mortgagee (creditor), subject to the right of redemption in the mortgagor (debtor) ex: C+B= co-tenants. (once C+B repay the debt).

Conveyance

traction in which real estate is transferred from grantor to grantee by deed

Injunctive Relief

type of nuisance relief in the form of a court order to refrain from performing the particular act considered to be a nuisance.

Tenancy by the Entirety (TBE)

undivided right to use the entirety under 5 requirements. (All must be met).

Fee Simple Subject to Conditions Subsequent (FSSCS)

upon happen of condition your right are revokable (you can lose your right).

Covenants can be terminated by...

waiver and repeated breach

Remedies for Tenants

-Constructive Eviction (not recommended) -Rent Withholding -Rent Reimbursement -Repair & Deduct

Statute of Frauds

-Lease of real property for term of more than 1 year cannot be enforced unless in writing

Tenancy at will

-No fixed Ending Point

Judicial Sale Process (Foreclosure Context)

-Court orders the sale -Enter an order of possession -Stay Order for 30 Days (allowing people time to move)

how to tell when reversion v. remainder?

"." after language = reversion "," after language = remainder

partition

"Divorce" of a Co-tenancy, action filed in court in order to separate their property interests

Fee Simple Absolute

"To A and his or her heirs" Maximum possible estate or right of ownership of real property, continuing forever (Remember, government can still screw you though)

Fee Tail

"To A and the heirs of his body" = keep land in the family only; generally not allowed anymore

Fee Tail Female

"To A in heirs of female"

Material Defects Definition Under the IL Disclosure Form

"a condition that would have a substantial adverse effect on the value of the residential real property / or significantly impair the health or safety of future occupants of the property unless the seller reasonably believes that the condition has been corrected."

Life of state

"to A for life."

Pur actre ve

"to A for the life of B."

Fee Tail Special

"to A in heirs of his body from the marriage of _________."

Fee Tail Male

"to A in heirs of male"

Reciprocal Negative Easements

(1) Common Scheme (2) Notice - Actual, Inquiry, Record

Steps for Easement Problems

(1) Permission? (if yes, see license analysis) (2) Is it affirmative or negative? (3) Is it expressed, implied or prescriptive? (4) Appurtenant or in Gross? (5) Termination? -- expressed or abandonment

Attributes of Property

(1) The Right to Exclude (2) The Right to Use (3) The Right to Transfer

Fourfold unities of joint tenancy

(1) Unity of interest -- have like interests equal and undivided (2) Unity of Title -- interest derived from the same event (Ex, a death of parent) (3) Unity of time -- interest vested at the same time (4) Unity of Possession -- each tenant is seised of the whole property

Holdover tenant

(1) Will become a periodic tenancy (2) Must determine the kind of tenancy (3) Determine the amount owed

Easements can be terminated by...

(1) abandonment (2) express

Vested Remainder

(1) born / ascertainable AND (2) no conditions required before receiving the land

How do you know if an easement is abandoned?

(1) intent (2) knowledge of easement (3) non-use is not enough (4) burden of proof is on the party calling it abandoned

Equitable Servitudes Test

(1) intent to bind (2) touch and concern the land (ask does it make the land more or less valuable) (3) NOTICE! (4) must be in writing

Real Covenants Test

(1) run with the land, must touch and concern the land (ask does it make the land more or less valuable) (2) Intent to bind (3) PRIVITY of estate! -- Mutual privity -- Vertical privity (ask at every level) -- Or Horizontal privity (ask only at original) (4) Must be in writing

Tenancy at Sufferance

-Created when a person who rightfully took possession of land continues in possession after right ends -arises from improper conduct, not an agreement

Term of Years Tenancy

-Fixed Duration that is agreed upon in advance; once term ends, tenants possessory right automatically expires and landlord may retake

Present Covenants in General Warranty Deed

1) Covenant of Seizins 2) Covenant of Right to Convey 3) Covenant Against Encumbrances

Chattel

An item of personal property which is movable, as distinguished from real property

Zoning Board of Appeals

A local appointed board that has the power to review administrative rulings made by the planning board or another legislative body. Hears local property owner requests for variances.

Able, owner of Blackacre and Whiteacre, two adjoining parcels, conveyed Whiteacre to Baker and covenanted in the deed to Baker that when he, Able, sold Blackacre he would impose restrictive covenants to prohibit uses that would complete with the filling station that Baker intended to construct and operate on Whiteacre. The deed was not recorded. Baker constructed and operated a filling station on Whiteacre and then conveyed Whiteacre to Dodd, who continued the filling station use. The deed did not refer to restrictive covenant and was promptly and properly recorded. Able then conveyed Blackacre to Egan, who knew about Able's covenant with Baker to impose a covenant prohibiting the filling station use but nonetheless completed the transaction when he noted that no such covenant was contained in Able's deed to him. Egan began to construct a filling station on Blackacre. Dodd brought an appropriate action to enjoin Egan from using Blackacre for filling station purposes. If Dodd prevails, it will be because (A) Egan had actual knowledge of the covenant to impose restrictions. (B) Egan is bound by the covenant because of the doctrine of negative reciprocal covenants. (C) business-related restrictive covenants are favored in the law. (D) Egan has constructive notice of the possibility of the covenant resulting from the circumstances.

(A) Egan had actual knowledge of the covenant to impose restrictions.

Maria is the owner and possessor of Goodacre, on which there is a lumber yard. Maria conveyed to Reliable Electric Company the right to construct and use an overhead electric line across Goodacre to serve other properties. The conveyance was in writing, but the writing made no provision concerning the responsibility for repair or maintenance of the line. Reliable installed the poles and erected the electric line in a proper and workmanlike manner. Neither Maria nor Reliable took any steps toward the maintenance or repair of the line after it was built. Neither party complained to the other about any failure to repair. Because of the failure to repair or properly maintain the line, it fell to the ground during a storm. In doing so, it caused a fire in the lumber yard and did considerable damage. Maria sued Reliable Electric Company to recover for damages to the lumber yard. The decision should be for (A) Maria, because the owner of an easement has a duty to so maintain the easement as to avoid unreasonable interference with the use of the servient tenement by its lawful possessor. (B) Maria, because the owner of an easement is absolutely liable for any damage caused to the servient tenement by the exercise of the easement. (C) Reliable Electric Company, because the possessor of the servient tenement has a duty to give the easement holder notice of defective conditions. (D) Reliable Electric Company, because an easement holder's right to repair is a right for his own benefit, and is therefore inconsistent with any duty to repair for the benefit of another.

(A) Maria, because the owner of an easement has a duty to so maintain the easement as to avoid unreasonable interference with the use of the servient tenement by its lawful possessor.

In 1970, Oscar, owner of a 100-acre tract, prepared and duly recorded a subdivision plan called Happy Acres. The plan showed 90 one-acre lots and a ten-acre tract in the center that designated "Future Public School." Oscar published and distributed a brochure promoting Happy Acres which emphasized the proximity of the lots to the school property and indicated potential tax savings "because the school district will not have to expend tax money to acquire this property." There is no specific statute concerning the dedication of school sites. Oscar sold 50 of the lots to individual purchasers. Each deed referred to the recorded plan and also contained the following clause: "No mobile home shall be erected on any lot within Happy Acres." Sarah was one of the original purchasers from Oscar. In 1976, Oscar sold the remaining 40 lots and the ten-acre tract to Max by a deed which referred to the plan and contained the restriction relating to mobile homes. Max sold the 40 lots to individual purchasers and the ten-acre tract to Pete. None of the deeds from Max referred to the plan or contained any reference to mobile homes. Assume for this question only that Pete has announced his intention of erecting a fast food restaurant on the ten-acre tract and that Sarah has filed an action to enjoin Pete. If Sarah wins, it will be because (A) Sarah has an equitable servitude concerning the use of the tract. (B) Sarah, as a taxpayer, has legal interest in the use of the tract. (C) Sarah is a creditor beneficiary of Oscar's promise with respect to the tract. (D) Pete is not a bona fide purchaser.

(A) Sarah has an equitable servitude concerning the use of the tract.

In 1970, Oscar, owner of a 100-acre tract, prepared and duly recorded a subdivision plan called Happy Acres. The plan showed 90 one-acre lots and a ten-acre tract in the center that designated "Future Public School." Oscar published and distributed a brochure promoting Happy Acres which emphasized the proximity of the lots to the school property and indicated potential tax savings "because the school district will not have to expend tax money to acquire this property." There is no specific statute concerning the dedication of school sites. Oscar sold 50 of the lots to individual purchasers. Each deed referred to the recorded plan and also contained the following clause: "No mobile home shall be erected on any lot within Happy Acres." Sarah was one of the original purchasers from Oscar. In 1976, Oscar sold the remaining 40 lots and the ten-acre tract to Max by a deed which referred to the plan and contained the restriction relating to mobile homes. Max sold the 40 lots to individual purchasers and the ten-acre tract to Pete. None of the deeds from Max referred to the plan or contained any reference to mobile homes. Assume for this question only that Joe, who purchased his lot from Max, has placed a mobile home on it and that Sarah brings an action against Joe to force him to remove it. The result of this action will be in favor of (A) Sarah, because the restrictive covenant in her deed runs with the land. (B) Sarah, because the presence of the mobile home may adversely affect the market value of her land. (C) Joe, because his deed did not contain the restrictive covenant. (D) Joe, because he is not a direct but a remote grantee of Oscar.

(A) Sarah, because the restrictive covenant in her deed runs with the land.

A has an easement to cross B's waterfront land to access the ocean. A does not use the land for five years, and one day tells B "I hate the ocean, and absolutely, positively never want to use that path again!"

--Plausibly abandoned: there is non-use, plus evidence of intent to abandon (from A's statement)

Redemption

-7 month period that begins from the time the Mortgagor is served the foreclosure complaint. -Allows for reinstatement if you pay the entire principle of the mortgage plus additional expenses incurred by the lender during foreclosure proceedings

Periodic Tenancy

-Automatically renewed for successive periods unless landlord or tenant terminates by giving advance notice

Mortages and Recording Statutes

A mortgage comes within the scope of the recording statute.

Blackacre was a tract of 100 acres retained by Byron, the owner, after he had developed the adjoining 400 acres as a residential subdivision. Byron had effectively imposed restrictive covenants on each lot in the 400 acres. Chaney offered Byron a good price for a five-acre tract located in a corner of Blackacre far away from the existing 400-acre residential subdivision. Byron conveyed the five-acre tract to Chaney and imposed the same restrictive covenants on the five-acre tract as he had imposed on the lots in the adjoining 400 acres. Byron further covenanted that when he sold the remaining 95 acres of Blackacre he would impose the same restrictive covenants in the deed or deeds for the 95 acres. Byron's conveyance to Chaney was promptly and properly recorded. However, shortly thereafter, Byron conveyed the remaining 95 acres to Dart for $100,000 by a deed that made no mention of any restrictive covenants. Dart had no actual knowledge of the restrictive covenants in Chaney's deed. Dart now proposes to build an industrial park which would violate such restrictive covenants if they are applicable. The recording of the jurisdiction provides: "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 an appropriate action by Chaney to enforce the restrictive covenants against Dart's 95-acre tract, if Dart wins it will be because (A) the deed imposing the restrictions was not in the chain of title for the 95 acres when Dart bought. (B) the disparity in acreage means that the covenant can only be personal to Byron. (C) negative reciprocal covenants are not generally recognized. (D) a covenant to impose restrictions is an illegal restraint on alienation.

(A) the deed imposing the restrictions was not in the chain of title for the 95 acres when Dart bought.

Sal owned five adjoining rectangular lots, numbered 1 through 5 inclusive, all fronting on Main Street. All of the lots are in a zone limited to one- and two-family residences under the zoning ordinance. Two years ago, Sal conveyed Lots 1, 3, and 5. None of the three deeds contained any restrictions. Each of the new owners built a one-family residence. One year ago, Sal conveyed Lot 2 to Peter. The deed provided that each of Peter and Sal, their respective heirs and assigns, would use Lots 2 and 4 respectively only for one-family residential purposes. The deed was promptly and properly recorded. Peter built a one-family residence on Lot 2. Last month, Sal conveyed Lot 4 to Betty. The deed contained no restrictions. The deed from Sal to Peter was in the title report examined by Betty's lawyer. Betty obtained a building permit and commenced construction of a two-family residence on Lot 4. Peter, joined by the owners of Lots 1, 3, and 5, brought an appropriate action against Betty to enjoin the proposed use of Lot 4, or, alternatively, damages caused by Betty's breach of covenant. Which is the most appropriate comment concerning the outcome of this action? (A) All plaintiffs should be awarded their request judgment for injunction because there was a common development scheme, but award of damages should be denied to all. (B) Peter should be awarded appropriate remedy, but recovery by the other plaintiffs is doubtful. (C) Injunction should be denied, but damages should be awarded to all plaintiffs, measured by diminution of market value, if any, suffered as a result of the proximity of Betty's two-family residence. (D) All plaintiffs should be denied any recovery or relief because the zoning preempts any private scheme of covenants.

(B) Peter should be awarded appropriate remedy, but recovery by the other plaintiffs is doubtful.

Olwen owned 80 acres of land, fronting on a town road. Two years ago, Olwen sold to Buck the back 40 acres. The 40 acres sold to Buck did not adjoin any public road. Olwen's deed to Buck expressly granted a right-of-way over a specified strip of Olwen's retained 40 acres, so Buck could reach the town road. The deed was promptly and properly recorded. Last year, Buck conveyed the back 40 acres to Sam. They had discussed the right-of-way over Olwen's land to the road, but Buck's deed to Sam made no mention of it. Sam began to use the right-of-way as Buck had, but Olwen sued to enjoin such use by Sam. The court should decide for (A) Sam, because he has an easement by implication. (B) Sam, because the easement appurtenant passed to him as a result of Buck's deed to him. (C) Olwen, because Buck's easement in gross was not transferable. (D) Olwen, because Buck's deed failed expressly to transfer the right-of-way to Sam.

(B) Sam, because the easement appurtenant passed to him as a result of Buck's deed to him.

Oaks, the owner of Blackacre, conveyed a right-of-way to United Utility "for the underground transportation of gas by pipeline, the location of right-of-way to be mutually agreed upon by Oaks and United Utility." United Utility then installed a six-inch pipeline at a location selected by it and not objected to by Oaks. Two years later, United Utility advised Oaks of its intention to install an additional six-inch pipeline parallel to and three feet laterally from the original pipeline. In an appropriate action, Oaks sought a declaration that United Utility has no right to install the second pipeline. If Oaks prevails, it will be because (A) any right implied to expand the original use of the right-of-way creates an interest that violates the Rule Against Perpetuities. (B) the original installation by United Utility defined the scope of the easement. (C) Oaks did not expressly agree to the location of the right-of-way. (D) the assertion of the right to install an additional pipeline constitutes inverse condemnation

(B) the original installation by United Utility defined the scope of the easement.

Two adjacent, two-story, commercial buildings were owned by Simon. The first floors of both buildings were occupied by various retail establishments. The second floors were rented to various other tenants. Access to the second floor of each building was reached by a common stairway located entirely in Building 1. While the buildings were being used in this manner, Simon sold Building 1 to Edward by warranty deed which made no mention of any rights concerning the stairway. About two years later, Simon sold building 2 to Dennis. The stairway continued to be used by the occupants of both buildings. The stairway became unsafe as a consequence of regular wear and tear. Dennis entered upon Edward's building and began the work of repairing the stairway. Edward demanded that Dennis discontinue the repair work and vacate Edward's building. When Dennis refused, Edward brought an action to enjoin Dennis from continuing the work. Judgment should be for (A) Edward, because Dennis has no rights in the stairway. (B) Edward, because Dennis's rights in the stairway do not extend beyond the normal life of the existing structure. (C) Dennis, because Dennis has an easement in the stairway and an implied right to keep the stairway in repair. (D) Dennis, because Dennis has a right to take whatever action is necessary to protect himself from possible tort liability to persons using the stairway.

(C) Dennis, because Dennis has an easement in the stairway and an implied right to keep the stairway in repair.

Blackacre is a large tract of land owned by a religious order known as The Seekers. On Blackacre, The Seekers erected a large residential building where its members reside. Blackacre is surrounded by rural residential properties and its only access to a public way is afforded by an easement over a strip of land 30 feet wide. The easement was granted to The Seekers by deed from Sally, the owner of one of the adjacent residential properties. The Seekers built a driveway on the strip, and the easement was used for 20 years without incident or objection. Last year, as permitted by the applicable zoning ordinance, The Seekers constructed a 200-bed nursing home and a parking lot on Blackacre, using all of Blackacre that was available for such development. The nursing home was very successful, and on Sundays visitors to the nursing home overflowed the parking facilities on Blackacre and parked all along the driveway from early in the morning through the evening hours. After two Sundays of the resulting congestion and inconvenience, Sally erected a barrier across the driveway on Sundays preventing any use of the driveway by anyone seeking access to Blackacre. The Seekers objected. Sally brought an appropriate action to terminate the easement. The most likely result in this action is that the court will hold for (A) Sally, because The Seekers excessively expanded the use of the dominant tenement. (B) Sally, because the parking in the driveway exceeded the scope of the easement. (C) The Seekers, because expanded us of the easement does not terminate the easement. (D) The Seekers, because Sally's use of self-help denies her the right to equitable relief.

(C) The Seekers, because expanded us of the easement does not terminate the easement.

In 1930, Owens, the owner in fee simple of Barrenacres, a large, undeveloped tract of land, granted an easement to the Water District "to install, inspect, repair, maintain, and replace pipes" within a properly delineated strip of land twenty feet wide across Barrenacres. The easement permitted the Water District to enter Barrenacres for only the stated purposes. The Water District promptly and properly recorded the deed. In 1931, the Water District installed a water main which crossed Barrenacres within the described strip; the Water District has not since entered Barrenacres. In 1935, Owens sold Barrenacres to Peterson, but the deed, which was promptly and properly recorded, failed to refer to the Water District easement. Peterson built his home on Barrenacres in 1935, and since that time he has planted and maintained, at great expense in money, time, and effort, a formal garden area which covers, among other areas, the surface of the twenty-foot easement strip. In 1976, the Water District proposed to excavate the entire length of its main in order to inspect, repair and replace the main, to the extent necessary. At a public meeting, at which Peterson was present, the Water District announced its plans and declared its intent to do as little damage as possible to any property involved. Peterson objected to the Water District plans. Peterson asked his attorney to secure an injunction against the Water District and its proposed entry upon his property. The best advice that the attorney can give is that Peterrson's attempt to secure injunctive relief will be likely to: (A) succeed, because Peterson's deed from Owens did not mention the easement. (B) succeed, because more than forty years have passed since the Water District last entered Barren acres. (C) fail, because the Water District's plan is within its rights. (D) fail, because the Water District's plan is fair and equitable

(C) fail, because the Water District's plan is within its rights.

Oxnard owned Goldacre, a tract of land, in fee simple. At a time when Goldacre was in the adverse possession f of Amos, Eric obtained the oral permission of Oxnard to use as a road or driveway a portion of Goldacre to reach adjoining land, Twin Pines, which Eric owned in fee simple. Thereafter, during all times relevant to this problem, Eric used this road across Goldacre regularly for ingress and egress between Twin Pines and a public highway. Amos quit possession of Goldacre before acquiring title by adverse possession. Without any further communication between Oxnard and Eric, Eric continued to use the road for a total period, from the time he first began to use it, sufficient to acquire an easement by prescription. Oxnard then blocked the road and refused to permit its continued use. Eric brought suit to determine his right to continue use of the road. Eric should (A) win, because his user was adverse to Amos and once adverse it continued adverse until some affirmative showing of a change. (B) win, because Eric made no attempt to renew permission after Amos quit possession of Goldacre. (C) lose, because his user was with permission. (D) lose, because there is no evidence that he continued adverse user for the required period after Amos quit possession.

(C) lose, because his user was with permission.

Ogden was the fee simple owner of three adjoining vacant lots fronting on a common street in a primarily residential section of a city which had no zoning laws. The lots were identified as Lots 1, 2, and 3. Ogden conveyed Lot 1 to Akers and Lot 2 to Bell. Ogden retained Lot 3, which consisted of three acres of woodland. Bell, whose lot was between the other two, built a house on his lot. Bell's house included a large window on the side facing Lot 3. The window provided a beautiful view from Bell's living room, thereby adding value to Bell's house. Akers erected a house on his lot. Ogden made no complaint to either Akers or Bell concerning the houses they built. After both Akers and Bell had completed their houses, the two of them agreed to and did build a common driveway running from the street to the rear of their respective lots. The driveway was built on the line between the two houses so that one-half of the way was located on each lot. Akers and Bell exchanged right-of-way deeds by which each of them conveyed to the other, his heirs and assigns, an easement to continue the right of way. Both deeds were properly recorded. After Akers and Bell had lived in their respective houses for thirty years, a new public street was built bordering on the rear of Lots 1, 2, and 3. Akers informed Bell that, since the new street removed the need for their common driveway, he considered the right-of-way terminated; therefore, he intended to discontinue its use and expected Bell to do the same. At about the same time, Ogden began the erection of a six-story apartment house on Lot 3. If the apartment house is completed, it will block the view from Bell's window and will substantially reduce the value of Bell's lot. In an action brought by Bell to enjoin Akers from interfering with Bell's continued use of the common driveway between the two lots, the decision should be for (A) Akers, because the termination of the necessity for the easement terminated the easement. (B) Akers, because the continuation of the easement after the change of circumstances would adversely affect the marketability of both lots without adding any commensurate value to either. (C) Bell, because an incorporeal hereditament lies in grant and cannot be terminated without a writing. (D) Bell, because the removal of the need for the easement created by express grant does not affect the right to the easement.

(D) Bell, because the removal of the need for the easement created by express grant does not affect the right to the easement.

Frank owned two adjacent parcels, Blackacre and Whiteacre. Blackacre fronts on a poor unpaved public road, while Whiteacre fronts on Route 20, a paved major highway. Fifteen years ago, Frank conveyed to his son, Sam, Blackacre "together with a right-of-way 25 feet wide over the east side of Whiteacre to Route 20." At that time, Blackacre was improved with a ten-unit motel. Ten years ago, Frank died. His will devised Whiteacre "to my son, Sam, for life, remainder to my daughter, Doris." Five years ago, Sam executed an instrument in the proper form of a deed, purporting to convey Blackacre and Whiteacre to Joe in fee simple. Joe then enlarged the motel to 12 units. Six months ago, Sam died and Doris took possession of Whiteacre. She brought an appropriate action to enjoin Joe from using the right-of-way. In this action, who should prevail? (A) Doris, because merger extinguished the easement. (B) Doris, because Joe has overburdened the easement. (C) Joe, because he has an easement by necessity. (D) Joe, because he has the easement granted by Frank to Sam.

(D) Joe, because he has the easement granted by Frank to Sam.

Fair Housing Act of 1968

-Cannot refuse to lease to someone based on race, color, religion, sex, familial status or national origin -Cannot make, print or publish any statement with respect to sale or rental that indicates preference based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, national origin

Oscar, the owner in fee simple, laid out a subdivision of 325 lots on 150 acres of land. He obtained governmental approval (as required by applicable ordinances) and, between 1968 and 1970, he sold 140 of the lots, inserting in each of the 140 deeds the following provision: "The Grantee, for himself and his heirs, assigns and successors, covenants and agrees that the premises conveyed herein shall have erected thereon one single-family dwelling and that no other structure (other than a detached garage, normally incident to a single-family dwelling) shall be erected or maintained; and, further, that no use shall ever be made or permitted to be made than occupancy by a single family for residential purposes only." Because of difficulty encountered in selling the remaining lots for single family use, in January 1971, Oscar advertised the remaining lots with prominent emphasis: "These lots are not subject to any restriction and purchasers will find them adaptable to a wide range of uses." Suppose that Oscar sold 50 lots during 1971 without inserting in the deeds any provisions relating to structures or uses. Doyle purchased one of the 50 lots and proposes to erect a service station and to conduct a retail business for the sale of gasoline, etc. Pringle purchased a lot from Boyer. Boyer had purchased from Oscar in 1968 and the deed had the provision that is quoted in the fact situation. Pringle brings suit to prevent Doyle from erecting the service station and from conducting a retail business. In the litigation between Pringle and Doyle, which of the following constitutes the best defense for Doyle? (A) Oscar's difficulty in selling with provisions relating to use establishes a change in circumstances which renders any restrictions which may once have existed unenforceable. (B) Enforcement of the restriction, in view of the change of circumstances, would be an unreasonable restraint on alienation. (C) Since the proof (as stated) does not establish a danger of monetary loss to Pringle, Pringle has failed to establish one of the necessary elements in a cause of action to prevent Doyle from using his lot for business purposes. (D) The facts do not establish a common building or development scheme for the entire subdivision.

(D) The facts do not establish a common building or development scheme for the entire subdivision.

In 1930, Owens, the owner in fee simple of Barrenacres, a large, undeveloped tract of land, granted an easement to the Water District "to install, inspect, repair, maintain, and replace pipes" within a properly delineated strip of land twenty feet wide across Barrenacres. The easement permitted the Water District to enter Barrenacres for only the stated purposes. The Water District promptly and properly recorded the deed. In 1931, the Water District installed a water main which crossed Barrenacres within the described strip; the Water District has not since entered Barrenacres. In 1935, Owens sold Barrenacres to Peterson, but the deed, which was promptly and properly recorded, failed to refer to the Water District easement. Peterson built his home on Barrenacres in 1935, and since that time he has planted and maintained, at great expense in money, time, and effort, a formal garden area which covers, among other areas, the surface of the twenty-foot easement strip. In 1976, the Water District proposed to excavate the entire length of its main in order to inspect, repair and replace the main, to the extent necessary. At a public meeting, at which Peterson was present, the Water District announced its plans and declared its intent to do as little damage as possible to any property involved. Peterson objected to the Water District plans. Assume that Peterson reserved his rights and after the Water District completed its work sued for the $5,000 in damages he suffered by reason of the Water District entry. Peterson's attempt to secure damages probably will (A) succeed, because his deed from Owens did not mention the easement. (B) succeed, because of an implied obligation imposed on the Water District to restore the surface to its condition prior to entry. (C) fail, because of the public interest in maintaining a continuous water supply. (D) fail, because the Water District acted within its rights.

(D) fail, because the Water District acted within its rights.

Ollie owned a large tract of land known as Peterhill. During Ollie's lifetime, Ollie conveyed the easterly half (East Peterhill), situated in the municipality of Hawthorn, to Abel, and the westerly half (West Peterhill), situated in the municipality of Sycamore, to Betty. Each of the conveyances, which were promptly and properly recorded, contained the following language: The parties agree for themselves and their heirs and assigns that the premises herein conveyed shall be used only for residential purposes; that each lot created within the premises herein conveyed shall contain not less than five acres; and that each lot shall have not more than one single-family dwelling. This agreement shall bind all successor owners of all or any portion of Peterhill and any owner of any part of Peterhill may enforce this covenant. After Ollie's death, Abel desired to build houses on one-half acre lots in the East Peterhill tract as authorized by current applicable zoning and building codes in Hawthorn. The area surrounding East Peterhill in Hawthorn was developed a s residential community with homes built on one-half acre lots. West Peterhill was in a residential area covered by the Sycamore zoning code, which allowed residential development only on five-acre tracts of land. In an appropriate action brought by Betty to enjoin Abel's proposed construction on one-half acre lots, the court will find the quoted restriction to be (A) invalid, because of the change of circumstance in the neighborhood. (B) invalid, because it conflicts with the applicable zoning code. (C) valid, but only so long as the original grantees from Ollie own their respective tracts of Peterhill. (D) valid, because the provision imposed an equitable servitude.

(D) valid, because the provision imposed an equitable servitude.

FSSCS Formula

(FS language (to A & HH) + WOC (but only if) + FI)

FSSEL Formula

(FS language + WOD or WOC + FI to 3rd party)

FSD Formula

(FS language + WORD + FI to O)

Dumpor's Rule

(common law) Once the landlord gives consent once to something/someone, their control over future consent is gone.

Fee Simple Determinable (FSD)

(think term = time) Language connotes that the transferor is conveying a fee simple only until an event happens.

Title Insurance

- Extra step in the process that buyers can make sure they have good title - Seller Agrees in the contract to purchase title insurance for the benefit of the buyer. - Buyer also buys title insurance to protect the buyer's lender. - Title insurance company does an investigation over the chain of title to see if there are any encumbrances and guarantees protection from any costs relating to encumbrances discovered in the chain of title that was not disclosed by the seller in the original agreement.

How to create a periodic tenancy

- act like it's there or, - term (expressly or by implication)

How to terminate periodic tenancy

- automatic renewals (common law) (give a weeks notice with week-week, months notice with month-month etc.) - Modern law; 30 days.

How do create a term of years with land-lord tenant relationship

- through a contract - through conduct

Harold, an 80 year old man with lung cancer, says to Jim and his wife, "Thank you both for caring for me in my old age. I want you to be taken care of when I'm gone." Harold shows Jim a deed for Harold's farm made out to Jim and his wife. Jim takes the deed, reads it, and hands it back to Harold. Harold then puts the deed in a safety deposit box at the bank, and tells Jim how to retrieve it upon Harold's death. Harold continues to live on the farm. When Harold dies, who owns the farm, Jim or Harold's estate?

--Harold's estate. No effective delivery for lack of present donative intent. See Rosengrant (Okla. 1981).

A has an easement appurtenant to cross B's waterfront land to access the ocean. A ceases to use the easement for a year, then builds a permanent wall around his land that effectively precludes any use of the easement by occupants of A's land.

--Likely abandonment: affirmative conduct is sufficient to give rise to inference of abandonment.

IL Defect Disclosure Form

-Requires for sellers of homes/ apartments with 4 or less units to fill out -If sellers have knowledge of particular problems and the things that they are aware of relate to MATERIAL DEFECTS under this disclosure requirement -seller must disclose defects listed on the form. -For every YES or N/A Seller must provide a written explanation.

Landlord Remedies for Abandonment

-Sue for Rent -Terminate lease -Mitigate damages and then sue for rent

Easement

-The limited right to use a portion of the land of another for a particular purpose. NOT a possessory interest. -encumbrance on title -can be indefinite

Remedies for Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability

-Withold Rent -Repair and Deduct -Sue for Damages

Rent Witholding

-a legal protection for tenants living in conditions falling beneath the Implied Warranty of Habitability ie) must be substandard conditions and must notify landlord 15 days before rent is due in writing in Chicago

Fee Simple Subject to Divestment (FSSD)

-died without issues -Treated as FSSEl

How to terminate term of years landlord-tenant relationship

-on its own terms (end of time) -operation of law

Buying Subject To

-when a buyer agrees to buy title to property, knowing the encumbrance exists. -Ex) Subdivisions & covenants restricting how they may or may not use the land.

Fidelity Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Kaminsky holding

1 - A constructive eviction occurs when the tenant leaves the leased premises due to conduct by the landlord which materially interferes with the tenant's beneficial use of the premises. Texas law relieves the tenant of contractual liability for any remaining rentals due under the lease if he can establish a constructive eviction by the landlord. 2 - that a landlord is not responsible for the actions of third parties, applies only when the landlord does not permit the third party to act 3 - Both action and lack of action can constitute "conduct" by the landlord which amounts to a constructive eviction 4 - omissions by a landlord which result in patients' lack of access to the office of a practicing physician would suffice to establish a permanent deprivation of the use and enjoyment of the premises for their leased purpose, here "an office for the practice of medicine."

Fair Housing Act limits

1 - FHA applies to residential and not commercial property (Civil rights act of 1866 applies to commercial and residential property) 2 - Look to state law for gender and disability

Wrongful omission by LL

1 - LL fails to perform an obligation in the lease 2 - fails to adequately maintain and control the common area 3 - breaches a statutory duty owed to the tenant 4 - fails to perform promised repairs, or 5 - allows nuisance-like behavior Generallly, tenant can't assert constructive eviction due to acts of 3rd parties, but many cts and Rest 2nd of prop recognize an exception if the LL has a legal right to control the 3rd party conduct

Teller v. McCoy dissent

1 - Many people live in quarters which are less than luxurious because they cannot afford to pay more than what they already pay for rent. 2 -The landlord cannot make substantial renovations without passing his costs on to the tenant, and the tenant may then find that he has been given more luxury than he can afford

Wade v. Jobe holding

1 - Modern tenants generally lack the necessary skills or means to inspect the property effectively or to make repairs. Moreover, the rule of caveat emptor assumes an equal bargaining position between landlord and tenant. Modern tenants, like consumers of goods, however, frequently have no choice but to rely on the landlord to provide a habitable dwelling. 2 - the residential landlord warrants that the leased premises are habitable at the outset of the lease term and will remain so during the course of the tenancy. 3 - Consistent with prevailing trends in consumer law, products liability law, and the law of torts, we reject the rule of caveat emptor and recognize the common law implied warranty of habitability in residential2 leases. 4 - the warranty of habitability requires that the landlord maintain "bare living requirements," and that the premises are fit for human occupation. 5 - Under the percentage diminution approach, the tenant's recovery reflects the percentage by which the tenant's use and enjoyment of the premises has been reduced by the uninhabitable conditions

Proving discriminatory intent under Fair Housing Act

1 - PT establishes prima facie case of discrimination 2 - burden then shifts to the DEF to prove a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for his conduct 3 - if DEF meets that burden, then PT must show that the reason is mere pretext

JMB Properties Urban CO. v. Paolucci holding

1 - Untenantability exists when the interference with occupancy is of such a nature that the property cannot be used for the purpose for which it was rented. 2 - We need not address the question of whether the noise was sufficient to render the premises untenantable because we find that defendant waived any claim of constructive eviction by remaining on the premises for an unreasonable length of time after the rise of the untenantable condition. 3 - Constructive eviction cannot exist where the tenant does not surrender the property. Following a constructive eviction, the tenant is not required to vacate the premises immediately, but is entitled to a reasonable time to do so. 4 - If the tenant fails to vacate within a reasonable time, the tenant is considered to have waived the landlord's breach of covenant

6 Covenants of a General Warranty Deed

1) Covenant of Seizins: 2) Covenant of Right to Convey 3) Covenant Against Encumbrances 4) Covenant of General Warranty 5) Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment 6) Covenant of Further Assurances

What are the steps leading up to the filing of the formal Foreclosure action against the mortgagor?

1) First Missed Payment 2) 3rd Missed Payment 3) Notice of Acceleration

Two Contracts in Mortgage

1) Promissory Note 2) Mortgage

Constructive eviction

1 - Wrongful conduct by the LL that substantially interfered with the tenant's beneficial use and enjoyment of leased premises. Under these circumstances, the tenant could vacate the premises and end the lease, thus avoiding liability for future rent. 2 - tenant must notify LL about the problem, give LL a reasonable period to fix the problem, and then vacate the premises (some states and the restatement 2nd of prop allows the tenant to remain in possession and collect damages) 3 - The promises in a lease were originally seen as independent covenants, so the LL's breach of this covenant didn't excuse the tenant's continued performance. There was one exeption to the rule: actual eviction. If the LL physically evicted the tenant, this breached the covenant of quiet enjoyment and ended the lease. 4 - applies both to residential and commercial tenancies

Implied warranty of habitability

1 - does not require the landlord to maintain the premises in perfect condition at all times, nor does it preclude minor housing code violations or other defects. Moreover, the landlord will not be liable for defects caused by the tenant. Further, the landlord must have a reasonable time to repair material defects before a breach can be established. 2 - Generally, it requires that the landlord maintain "bare living requirements," and that the premises are fit for human occupation. 3 - Once the landlord has breached his duty to provide habitable conditions, there are at least two ways the tenant can treat the duty to pay rent. The tenant may continue to pay rent to the landlord or withhold the rent.3 If the tenant continues to pay full rent to the landlord during the period of uninhabitability, the tenant can bring an affirmative action to establish the breach and receive a reimbursement for excess rents paid. 4 - Substantial compliance with building and housing code standards will generally serve as evidence of the fulfillment of a landlord's duty to provide habitable premises. Evidence of violations involving health or safety, by contrast, will often sustain a tenant's claim for relief. 5 - At the same time, just because the housing code provides a basis for implication of the warranty, a code violation is not necessary to establish a breach so long as the claimed defect has an impact on the health or safety of the tenant. 6 - Under the prevailing contemporary view of the residential lease as a contractual transaction, however, the tenant's obligation to pay rent is conditioned upon the landlord's fulfilling his part of the bargain. The payment of rent by the tenant and the landlord's duty to provide habitable premises are, as a result, dependent covenants. 7 - tenant must notify the LL about the defects and allow a reasonable time for LL to make repairs

Exemptions to FHA

1 - rooms or units in dwellings containing living qtrs occupied by no more than 4 families living independently of each other, if the owner occupies one of such living qtrs as his residence 2 - any single-family house sold or rented by an owner if he owns less than 3 houses and doesn't use a real estate broker or agent in the sale or rental

Choices after LL material breach

1 - sue for damages 2 - terminate K pursuant to material breach (breach has to be substantial enough)

Lease of real property at common law

1 - the leasing of real property was viewed primarily as a conveyance of land for a term, and the law of property was applied to landlord/tenant transactions. 2 - At a time when the typical lease was for agricultural purposes, it was assumed that the land, rather than any improvements, was the most important part of the leasehold. 3 - Under the rule of caveat emptor, a tenant had a duty to inspect the premises to determine their safety and suitability for the purposes for which they were leased before entering a lease. 4 - Moreover, absent deceit or fraud on the part of the landlord or an express warranty to the contrary, the landlord had no duty to make repairs during the course of the tenancy. Under the law of waste, it was the tenant's implied duty to make most repairs. 4 - lessee's covenant to pay rent was viewed as independent of any covenants on the part of the LL (even if LL breached express covenant to make repairs, less wasn't justified in withholding rent)

Neithamer v. Brenneman Property Services, Inc. holding

1 - when a plaintiff offers no direct evidence of discrimination, his claim of discrimination under the FHA is to be examined under the burden-shifting framework of McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green,(1973), 2 - Even if someone had suspicions of another's HIV status, such perceptions could easily be denied. Therefore, requiring a plaintiff to show definitive proof of a defendant's perceptions at the summary judgment stage creates an impossible burden of proof, one that is inappropriate at the prima facie stage. It is sufficient for a plaintiff to demonstrate that there is a material dispute as to the defendant's perception of him as an individual with HIV or AIDS. 3 - Plaintiff immediately informed Defendants that his lover had died of AIDS. It is no leap of logic to assume that he had had sexual relations with this lover, and was probably exposed to the AIDS virus. Whether Defendants actually made assumptions and had suspicions based on these clues is, however, a material disputed fact, which Plaintiff will have to prove at trial by a preponderance of the evidence. 4 - Defendants also knew that Plaintiff's bad credit history was due to a one-time medical catastrophe; that he had significant assets in his bank accounts; that he had credit references and a co-signor; and that he offered to prepay one year's rent on the property. Looking at the record as a whole, Plaintiff has established that he was qualified to rent the property, and thus he has established a prima facie case of discrimination. 5 - Plaintiff has provided evidence indicating that Defendants did not consistently follow their own policy regarding rejecting applicants with poor credit. Additionally, Plaintiff has provided evidence that Defendants did not present Stephens with all of Plaintiff's offers, or all the relevant information about those offers. Plaintiff has advanced evidence suggesting that Defendants' proffered reasons are pretext, and has also established that material disputed facts exist which cannot be resolved on summary judgment.

Remedies for warranty of habitability breach

1 - withhold rent: in most jdxs, the tenant may withhold all rent, even for a partial breach of the warranty. some cts recommend that rent be paid into an escrow fund under judicial control 2 - repair and deduct: the tenant may withhold rent and use these funds to repair the defects 3 - sue for damages: the tenant may sue for damages while remaining in possession or after vacating the premises

Standard forms

1 -The LL and tenant usually negotiate the key terms of a residential lease, but the typical tenant is then asked to sign a preprinted standard lease form, w/o any meaningful opportunity to negotiate the other terms. In contrast, extensive bargaining often precedes the execution of a commercial lease 2 - Cts interpret leases w/ K law, not property laws: look at contracts of adhesion and possible unconscionability

Statute of Limitations for Breach of Contract Action Against Seller - RE: Disclosure Form

1 Year from date buyer takes possession of the property. -Can sue for damages and attorney's fees.

What does service on the mortgagor trigger?

1) Answer Due (varies on exact time) 2) Reinstatement 3) Redemption

Future Covenants in General Warranty Deed

1) Covenant of General Warranty 2) Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment 3) Covenant of Future Assurances

Elements of Constructive Eviction

1)Landlord's actions or failure to act renders the leased premises useless to the tenant, in whole or in part 2)Tenant notifies Landlord of defective conditions 3)Landlord fails to repair defects within a reasonable timeline 4)Tenant promptly vacates leased premises.

What does someone need to have possession

1. An intent to control the property 2. An act of control

what are the 3 Hostile tests?

1. Connecticut Test (subjective) 2. Maine Test (intentional) 3. Good Faith test (objective)

What are the 3 doctrines used when there is land boundary uncertainty?

1. Doctrine of Agreed Boundaries 2. Doctrine of Acquiescence 3. Doctrine of Estoppel

Owner bought a home in a suburban residential neighborhood during the winter. In the spring, Owner dug up his entire side lawn and planted a vegetable garden where previously there was just grass. He also acquired five hens that he installed in a fenced-in area equipped with a chicken coop. Owner's neighbor watched his activities with concern and, the day after Owner had finished with his installations, told him that the original grant deed for every lot in the neighborhood (including Owner's) had identical provisions specifically precluding "fowls and other livestock" and requiring "grass lawns on the front and both sides of each home." Owner noticed that in the neighborhood, about 10% of the homes have side-yard vegetable gardens, and one other family has a chicken coop. If the neighbor sues Owner to obtain a court order that he restore the lawn and get rid of the chickens, which would be Owner's best defense? 1. Estoppel, because the neighbor waited until after Owner had made changes to his property before informing him of the restrictions. 2. Restrictions relating to animals do not "touch and concern the land" and there has been waiver with respect to other side-yard gardens. 3. Changed circumstances, because multiple property owners in the neighborhood have chickens and/or side-yard gardens. 4. Lack of notice, because Owner was unaware of the restrictions until he had made changes to his land.

1. Estoppel, because the neighbor waited until after Owner had made changes to his property before informing him of the restrictions.

Governor Stevens of Goodland and his colleagues Vern and Ted fly to Alaska to go caribou hunting, but find no caribou. On the fourth evening, Gov. Stevens breaks out a stash of single-malt scotch, and the men sit around camp drinking into the wee hours. Gov. Stevens is in no shape to hunt the next morning, so Vern and Ted head off without him. Vern picks up the trail of a caribou about 3 miles from camp, and carefully tracks the animal over the next 5 hours. Ted follows behind. When Vern finally sees the caribou, but before he can ready his gun, Ted takes aim and fires. The bullet strikes the animal in the hind quarters, but doesn't bring him down - the huge beast gallops away. After 3 more hours of searching, Ted and Vern return to camp, where they see Gov. Stevens busily cleaning the caribou (there is a bullet hole in the same place, indicating that it is the caribou that Ted shot). The Governor grins and tells them that he awoke to the sound of a caribou tramping through camp, and managed to grab his rifle and kill it. Each of Ted and Vern claim that the caribou rightfully belongs to him. Who has the best claim? 1. Gov. Stevens, because ownership vested with the capture of the animal. 2. Ted, because ownership vested with the wounding of the animal. 3. Vern, because he spent the most effort in obtaining the animal and should be rewarded for his diligence. 4. It is impossible to say; a court should split the value of the caribou 3 ways.

1. Gov. Stevens, because ownership vested with the capture of the animal.

Father conveyed Whiteacre "to Son for his life, and then to Daughter, if she has passed the bar by Son's death, for the duration of her life, and then to Grandson, if he has reached the age of 30." At the time of this conveyance, Daughter was 20 and Grandson was 12. Eighteen years later, at a family celebration of Grandson's 30th birthday, Grandson overheard his aunt (Daughter) mention to Father that she was finishing up her last year of law school. The next day, Grandson paid his father (Son) $50 to sell him all of his interest in Whiteacre. At this point, who holds what interests in Whiteacre? 1. Grandson now owns the property in fee simple absolute. 2. Grandson holds a life estate pur autre vie in the property as well as a vested remainder in fee simple absolute. 3. Grandson holds a life estate pur autre vie in the property, as well as a contingent remainder in fee simple absolute. 4. Grandson holds a vested remainder in fee simple absolute in the property.

1. Grandson now owns the property in fee simple absolute.

What must a property owner show to receive a variance?

1. Great Economic Hardship 2. Public Purpose in granting the variance.

On May 29th, Tenant signed a lease to rent an apartment from Landlord with the term commencing on June 1, and Landlord gave Tenant the key to the apartment. When Tenant showed up with her belongings, ready to move in on June 1, she found X living in the apartment. X admitted that he was "technically homeless," but that he had broken in and has been living in the vacant apartment for one week. When Tenant asked him to leave, X told her that he'd rather not, because the apartment had two bedrooms and she should "share the wealth with people less fortunate." What legal rights does Tenant haave with respect to X's occupancy of the apartment? 1. In a majority of states, Landlord will be liable to Tenant for X's presence in the apartment. 2. In a majority of states, Landlord will not be liable to Tenant for X's presence in the apartment because X lacks privity with Landlord. 3. In a majority of states, X can only be removed if Tenant brings an action in ejectment and/or trespass. 4. In a majority of states, X's actual possession will trump the bare legal right to possess conveyed to Tenant.

1. In a majority of states, Landlord will be liable to Tenant for X's presence in the apartment.

Elements for Inter vivos gift?

1. Intent 2. Delivery 3. Acceptance

Elements for Donatio Causa mortis

1. Intent 2. Delivery 3. Acceptance 4. donors anticipation of imminent death

different categories of gifts

1. Inter vivos gifts 2. Gifts causa mortis

Grantor conveyed Orangeacre "to A for life or until her son, B, reaches the age of 30, then to B for the remainder of his life, and then to his children." B died at age 25, leaving one child, C. A entered into a contract to have all the trees on Orangeacre cut and sold for timber. Does C have any grounds to object to A's contract to sell the timber on Orangeacre? 1. Yes, because C has a Vested Remainder. 2. Possibly, because C holds a Vested Remainder Subject to Open. 3. Probably not, because C has a Contingent Remainder. 4. No, because C has no interest in Orangeacre.

1. Yes, because C has a Vested Remainder.

Company signed a lease for office space on the ground floor of Landlord's office building. The lease term ends on December 31, 2017. In February 2015, Company assigned its leasehold to Law Firm. Two months after taking possession of the premises, Law Firm stopped paying rent and moved out, taking with it an expensive crystal chandelier that was hanging in the premises. What legal rights does Landlord have with respect to Law Firm's actions? 1. Landlord can sue Law Firm for unpaid rent and for waste, and the law firm's actions operate to terminate the lease 2. Landlord can sue for specific performance to regain the chandelier and reinstate occupancy by Law Firm 3. Landlord has no privity of estate with Law Firm, and thus must sue Company in lieu of bringing any action against Law Firm directly. 4. Landlord has no privity of contract with Law Firm, and thus has no right to receive rent from Law Firm

1. Landlord can sue Law Firm for unpaid rent and for waste, and the law firm's actions operate to terminate the lease

Q has an easement to cross over a path through the center of Lot 1 to access a public road. When the deed of easement was recorded, Lot 1 was undeveloped open space owned by R. Several years later, R wishes to develop Lot 1, and as part of that development wishes to relocate Q's right of way to a strip along the eastern border of Lot 1. Q does not consent to the relocation. Under the modern/emerging trend, can R relocate the easement over Q's objection? 1. Likely yes, as long as the relocation would create no adverse impact on Q. 2. Likely yes, as long as it was reasonably foreseeable that Lot 1 would be developed. 3. No, because easements may not be unilaterally relocated. 4. No, but the development of Lot 1 will operate to terminate the easement.

1. Likely yes, as long as the relocation would create no adverse impact on Q.

M and N were a cohabitating, unmarried couple, who purchased Grayacre to hold "as joint tenants with full rights of survivorship." When M and N decided to terminate their relationship, M moved out, leaving N in sole possession of Grayacre. N eventually married O. Twenty years later N died, leaving O "all my property" in her will. Who holds what interests in Grayacre after N's death? 1. M owns all of Grayacre because of survivorship. 2. M and O each hold half of Grayacre because of severance. 3. M and O each hold half of Grayacre because of partition. 4. O owns all of Grayacre because of adverse possession.

1. M owns all of Grayacre because of survivorship.

3 types of delivery for gifts

1. Manual/actual 2. Constructive 3. Symbolic

Notice Statute

1. O, owner of Blackacre, conveys Blackacre to A, who does not record the deed. 2. O subsequently conveys Blackacre to B for a valuable consideration (payment). 3. B has no knowledge of A's deed. In a state (like IL) following this recording statute-- -B prevails over A even though B does not record the deed from O to B. -If A had recorded the deed, B would not have superior property interest because the document had been recorded so gave CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE *PUTS THE WHOLE WORLD ON NOTICE* (Whether he/she ACTUALLY knows does not matter. )

Title Protections for the Buyer

1. Rescind 2. General Warranty Deed 3. Title Insurance

Process of Sale of SF Home

1. Seller Lists Home on Market 2. Buyer Presents Offer to Seller 3. Buyer Accepts Offer & Presents Contract for Sale 4. Seller Signs C/F/S 5.Seller presents Deed @ Closing--> effectively transferring title to the buyer.

Elements of a Contract for Sale

1. Statute of Frauds 2. Marketable Title 3. List of Encumbrances 4. Duty to Disclose Defects

On January 1, 2000, L and T enter into a written agreement that provides for T to rent L's warehouse "for 99 years, provided that should Boyack Memorial Hospital be permanently closed prior to the expiration of the stated term, this lease shall terminate on the last day of the following month." The agreement provides for payment of rent annually, on January 1st of each calendar year. Boyack Memorial Hospital closes on October 15, 2016. T does not vacate the premises but remains in possession thereafter. On December 1, 2016, what is T's interest in the property? 1. T is a tenant at sufferance (a holdover tenant) because the lease terminated November 30, 2016. 2. T is a tenant in a term of years lease until December 31, 2098. 3. T has a year-to-year tenancy that will terminate December 31, 2017. 4. T never was a tenant, only a licensee, and the license may have ended by its terms.

1. T is a tenant at sufferance (a holdover tenant) because the lease terminated November 30, 2016.

Judicial Remedies to Nuisance

1. Temporary Damages 2. Prospective Relief 3. Serial Damages 4. Permanent Damages 5. Injunctive Relief

Types of freehold estates (leaseholds)

1. Term of years 2. Periodic tenancies 3. tenancy at will 4. tenancy at sufference

Zora owns beachfront property, and the local government just passed a regulation that mandates that all beachfront property owners allow public access across their property to the public beach. Zora would like to challenge this regulation. Which of the following is the best claim that Zora can make to challenge the regulation? 1. This regulation is a disguised "trespassory" taking 2. This regulation is a disguised "non-trespassory" and "regulatory" taking 3. This regulation is a taking under the Lucas precedent. 4. This regulation is a taking under the Dolan precedent. 5. This regulation is not rationally related to a legitimate public purpose.

1. This regulation is a disguised "trespassory" taking

5 requirements for Tenancy by the entirety (TBE)

1. Unity of Time 2. Unity of Title 3. Unity of Interest 4. Unity of Possession 5. Usage of Marriage

4 Unities for In Joint Tenancy

1. Unity of time 2. Unity of Title 3. Unity of interest 4. Unity of Possession

Requirements for burden to pass on to future owners

1. Vertical Privity 2. Intent to pass on to future owners 3. Notice to future owners 4. Horizontal Privity

Assignment

1. When a person transfers his interests under a contract to another. 2. When a tenant transfers his right of possession, or other interest, in leased property to another person for the remainder of the lease term.

Assignment

A complet transfer of the tenants remaining term is an assignment of the lease. The original tenant can be held liable on his original contractual obligations in the lease to pay the rent because it is in privity of contract with the landlord.

Easement in gross

A right to use someone else's land independent of his ownership or possession of his tract of land holds an easement in gross.

Tenant signed a lease with Landlord for a two-year term. The lease was silent with respect to Tenant's ability to assign or sublease. After occupying the premises for one year, Tenant entered into an agreement with X whereby X would "take over the lease from Landlord to Tenant" for a six-month period. The agreement provided that X would pay rent to Tenant, who would then forward the rent to Landlord. After X has paid three monthly payments to Tenant, Landlord informs X that Landlord has received no rental payments because Tenant has failed to forward any monies to Landlord. Landlord has initiated a court action to terminate the tenancy and seek to evict X through judicial process. Will Landlord be successful? 1. Yes, because a landlord may terminate a tenancy and evict the occupant if the landlord is not paid rent. 2. Yes, because the occupancy by X was not sanctioned by the lease 3. No, because X has paid rent 4. No, because X is a subtenant, not an assignee

1. Yes, because a landlord may terminate a tenancy and evict the occupant if the landlord is not paid rent.

A and B were dating when they jointly bought Blackacre, each contributing half of the purchase price. One year later, however, A and B dissolved their personal relationship, and A moved out of Blackacre. B would like to terminate the co-tenancy, but A insists that B has no right to do so other than conveying his half-interest to A at "fair market value." B and A cannot, however, agree on what a "fair market" price for half of Blackacre would be. Can B end the co-tenancy? 1. Yes, because any unmarried co-tenant may obtain involuntary partition in court. 2. Yes, because A must accept a conveyance of B's half-interest for a price that a third-party appraiser sets as "fair." 3. Yes, but only through a judicially ordered sale of Blackacre. 4. No, because partition must be accomplished by voluntary exchange of mutual deeds among co-tenants. 5. No, because there has been no voluntary sale of Blackacre to a third party.

1. Yes, because any unmarried co-tenant may obtain involuntary partition in court.

Sylvia dropped her expensive watch in the locker room at the community pool. Tara found the watch on the floor, by the lockers. When Tara told Ulrich, the pool's manager, about finding the watch, Ulrich took possession of the watch "in case the owner returns looking for it." Several weeks later, Tara found out that Ulrich gave the watch to Vinnie, his son, for his 10th birthday. Tara sues to recover the watch. Will she succeed? 1. Yes, because of jus tertii. 2. Yes, because the watch was mislaid property. 3. No, because the watch was abandoned. 4. No, because Vinnie is a bona fide purchaser. 5. No, because Sylvia is the true owner.

1. Yes, because of jus tertii.

A owns Redacre, but is not living there. B moved onto Redacre. Six months later, B delivered a signed, notarized deed purporting to convey Redacre to C. When C arrived at Redacre the next day, she found that D had taken possession of the property. Can C remove D? 1. Yes, because of privity. 2. Yes, because C now owns the property per adverse possession. 3. No, because of possessor rights. 4. No, because she does not own the property per adverse possession.

1. Yes, because of privity.

In 1980, W bought a tract of undeveloped land surrounding a lovely mountain lake. Over the next two decades, he often brought his family to the property during the winter in order to go snowshoeing and cross-country skiing. During a summertime hike in 1999, S came upon the lake. S presumed that the land is owned by someone else, but decided to return there for several weeks in the summers of 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003. In 2003, she built a small cabin by the lake. In 2002, W became ill and did not visit the property in the winter of 2003. W died in 2004, leaving his mountain property to his ten-year-old granddaughter V. In 2007, S sold "her cabin" to T, giving him a deed in exchange for $10,000. T spent every summer at the cabin between 2007 and 2015. V turned 18 in 2014. In 2015, while exploring her property for the first time, V discovers the cabin occupied by T. V asks T to leave, and T tells her that he's been there for years and he's not going anywhere. V brings an action in trespass, seeking an injunction. Can T successfully defend by claiming adverse possession, assuming a 10-year statutory period? 1. Yes, because of tacking. 2. Yes, because of color of title. 3. No, because of tolling. 4. No, because summer-only use cannot be considered continuous.

1. Yes, because of tacking.

Grantor conveyed Blackacre "to A for life, and then to B." At A's death, A's widow and sole heir continued to occupy Blackacre. Twenty years later, A's widow brings a quiet title action for Blackacre. Will she obtain clear title to the property? 1. Yes, because she has adversely possessed the property for the statutory period. 2. Yes, because she was the sole heir to A's property. 3. No, because A's estate ended at his death. 4. No, because her possession was not adverse.

1. Yes, because she has adversely possessed the property for the statutory period.

R moved into a condominium that has a declaration provision stating that "no smoking is allowed in the building." R is a smoker, but she is careful to smoke only in her unit, with the doors and windows closed, and she uses a smoke-less ashtray. Her neighbors have never complained of her smoking. Nevertheless, a visitor to her apartment noticed the cigarettes and reported her smoking to the Condominium Association. Will R face liability for smoking inside her own home? 1. Yes, because she violated a term of the declaration. 2. No, unless a court specifically finds that this sort of restriction is "reasonable." 3. No, because R owns her unit in fee simple absolute. 4. No, because no neighbor has complained of smelling smoke.

1. Yes, because she violated a term of the declaration.

Zsa Zsa drops her fur coat off at the Kaufman Center coat check before going to see an opera performance. When she returns, the coat checkers cannot find her coat anywhere. Zsa Zsa sues. Will she prevail? 1. Yes, because the coat checkers are strictly liable. 2. Yes, because the coat checker was negligent. 3. No, because there is no proof of negligence. 4. No, because there was no valid bailment. 5. No, because of assumption of risk.

1. Yes, because the coat checkers are strictly liable.

Landlord leased an empty space on the ground floor of Landlord's office building to Tenant for use as a convenience store. Tenant affixed shelves to the walls of the leased premises. Tenant failed to remove these shelves after vacating the premises at the end of the term. May Landlord claim ownership of the shelves? 1. Yes, because the shelves were trade fixtures that were not removed during the lease term. 2. Yes, because the shelves were trade fixtures and were not permitted to be removed by Tenant. 3. No, and Tenant will be liable for permissive waste for affixing the shelves to the walls of the premises. 4. No, because the shelves were not fixtures.

1. Yes, because the shelves were trade fixtures that were not removed during the lease term.

Covenant

Agreement between landowners regarding uses of their land, enforceable by monetary relief.

Grantor conveyed Brownacre "to E for life, and then to F." At age 80, E moved into an assisted living facility, leaving Brownacre vacant. G moved onto the property and lived there openly, telling neighbors that he purchased the property from E, although in fact that was untrue. G lived there until E's death 20 years later. A month after E's death, F brings a quiet title action for Brownacre. Will he obtain clear title to the property? 1. Yes, because there has been no adverse possession of F's interest. 2. Yes, because E's interest in Brownacre was inherited by F. 3. No, because G openly and notoriously continuously adversely possessed Brownacre for the statutory period. 4. No, G lacked color of title.

1. Yes, because there has been no adverse possession of F's interest.

Christine applied for a building permit to install an in-ground swimming pool on her residential property. The city zoning authority told Christine that they would grant her a building permit only if she paid $300 toward necessary street repairs in her neighborhood. Will Christine be able to invalidate this condition to obtain her permit? 1. Yes, because there is no essential nexus. 2. Yes, because although nexus exists, there is disproportionality. 3. Yes, unless the government proves that there is a rational reason to make the street repairs. 4. No, because there is a valid public purpose. 5. No, because Chritsine does not need - rather, only wants - to build a swimming pool.

1. Yes, because there is no essential nexus.

What are the elements for bundle of sticks?

1. possession 2. Control 3. exclusion 4. Enjoyment 5. Disposition

6 prohibited acts of discrimination

1. racial/ethnicity 2. sex 3. familial status 4. National Origin 5. Religious 6. Disability

Exceptions to Title Insurance

1.) Any loss arising out of government regulation, unless there is written notice recorded in the chain of title -- i.e.) Zoning ordinances, subdivision regulations and building codes 2.) Claim of person not on record -- i.e.) adverse possession 3.) Unrecorded Easements 4) Defects that a Survey of the Property Would Have Revealed *basically any and all things not recorded in the chain of title*

What are the (2) possibilities with future interest?

1.) Remainder, Remainder; OR 2.) Remainder, Reversion.

Burden Shifting Procedure

1.) π establishes a prima facie case: -member of the protected class -applied for & were qualified for the housing - rejected - housing remained available after the rejection 2.) ∆ has the opportunity to rebut, providing evidence that there was a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the rejection. 3.) If ∆ presents a legitimate reason, π must show there was pretext (the reason stated is not actually what happened)

Present Covenant Statute of Limitations

10 Years from the date of transfer-- i.e.) the day of the delivery of the deed to the GRANTEE.

Future Covenant Statute of Limitations

10 Years from the time from the assertion of any adverse interest to the property.

A owns Blackacre in fee simple absolute. A grants an easement in favor of B to run a sewer pipe under Blackacre. A then sells Blackacre to C via special warranty deed without disclosing the easement. The sales price is $250k. Years later, C discovers the condition and successfully sues A on the deed. At the time the condition is discovered, Blackacre has appreciated and is now worth $300k. An appraiser testifies that the presence of the easement will diminish Blackacre's value 10%, or to $270k. What damages does A owe to C?

10% of FMV at time of sale—$25k.

Grantor gifted his property "To Grantee for her life, and then to her first child to marry, provided that if such child should later divorce, then to my then-surviving issue." Which of the following best describes the effect of the Rule Against Perpetuities to this gift? 1. If Grantee has a child when this gift is made, then this conveyance is valid under the Rule Against Perpetuities. 2. Because of the Rule Against Perpetuities, Grantor will take in fee simple absolute when Grantee dies. 3. Because of the Rule Against Perpetuities, Grantor retains a reversion and Grantee's first child to marry has a contingent remainder, both in fee simple absolute. 4. The Rule Against Perpetuities does not apply to this grant because the contingent future interest is held by the issue of the original grantor.

2. Because of the Rule Against Perpetuities, Grantor will take in fee simple absolute when Grantee dies.

Grantor conveyed Blackacre "to A for her life, and thereafter to B, but if B is ever convicted of perjury, then to C." During A's lifetime, A conveyed "all my interest in Blackacre" to D. A year later, a tax lien is put on the property for failure to pay real estate assessments. Do A or D face possible liability for failure to pay the taxes on Blackacre? 1. A is likely liable to B for permissive waste because A holds a life estate. 2. D is likely liable to B for permissive waste as long as A is still alive. 3. Either A or D would be liable to B for affirmative waste if they intentionally failed to pay taxes. 4. Neither A nor D is liable to B for waste because B's future interest is contingent.

2. D is likely liable to B for permissive waste as long as A is still alive.

A and B hold record title to contiguous lots (Lots 1 and 2 respectively), but both live in a city 2,000 miles away. C, a con artist, delivered a deed to D purporting to convey both of the lots to D. D moved into the house on Lot 1 and remained in residence there, openly. D told neighbors that he owned Lots 1 and 2, paid taxes on both lots, and brought trespass suits against some people who had been crossing the properties without authorization. After fifteen years, D brings a quiet title action. Assuming a statutory period for adverse possession of ten years, what is the likely result? 1. D owns both lots per color of title. 2. D owns Lot 1 due to actual possession. 3. In a jurisdiction requiring good faith, D would not acquire title because C did not own the property he purported to convey. 4. Because A and B live far away and lack actual knowledge of D's occupancy, the statutory period has not yet run against either of them.

2. D owns Lot 1 due to actual possession.

When Buyer bought her property, she noticed a distinct path running from a neighboring property, down a steep hill on her property, and then looping back to the neighboring parcel. She soon realized that the Neighbor's teenage children regularly rode their dirt bikes along that path. There is no recorded easement permitting the Neighbor to bike across Buyers' property. Buyer spoke with Neighbor who stated that the bike path had been in use "for at least 20 years," by Neighbor's family and by the family who had previously lived on Neighbor's property. Assuming this is true, can Buyer stop her neighbors from biking across her property? 1. Likely no, if the prior owner of the property gave the neighbor oral permission to bike across the property. 2. Likely no, if the prior owner of the property did not give the neighbor permission to bike across the property. 3. Likely yes, because whether or not permission was given to the neighbor in the past, the current owner can either use self help or obtain an injunction to stop people from biking across her property. 4. Likely yes, because whether or not permission was given for biking in the past, the current owner can obtain a permanent injunction to prevent further bike-riding across her land, even though she may not use self help to stop the biking in this case.

2. Likely no, if the prior owner of the property did not give the neighbor permission to bike across the property.

Q owns two adjoining lots and leases one of them to R and one of them to S. S hires a contractor to build a wall along the property line, but the contractor mistakenly sites the wall one inch over the boundary, onto the property leased by R. May R legally withhold rental payments to Q while this wall stands? 1. Yes, because there has been actual eviction and a trespass is a trespass no matter how small. 2. Maybe, but only if Q gave permission to S to build the wall. 3. Maybe, but only if S should have known that the wall encroached onto R's leased property. 4. No, because there was no intent to trespass. 5. No, because landlords are not responsible for trespasses by other people.

2. Maybe, but only if Q gave permission to S to build the wall.

L owned four lots - each one a quarter of a large rectangle. (You may want to diagram this.) Going clockwise from the northwest corner of the rectangle, the lots are numbered 1, 2, 4, and 3. Lots 1 and 3 (1 north of 3) are bounded on the west by the highway, and Lots 2 and 4 (2 north of 4, and 2 directly east of 1, and 4 directly east of 3) are bounded on the east by a large lake. L had a home on Lot 2, near the lake, and used a dirt path across Lot 1 (just north of the border with Lot 3) to reach her home on Lot 2. L conveyed Lots 1 and 3 to M, and M constructed a house on Lot 1 and moved in. The deed from L to M expressly provided that "the grantor retains a right of way across the northern thirty feet of Lot 3 to access Lot 2 and 4." This deed was not recorded. Notwithstanding the provision in the deed to M, L continued to use a dirt path across the southern part of Lot 1 to access the highway. There is no obvious path across Lot 3, and L and never crossed over Lot 3. Three years later, L conveyed Lot 4 to N in a deed that contains no reservation of easement. N has no actual knowledge of the deed to M. After the conveyances described above, what right, if any, does N have to cross Lot 1 and/or Lot 3? 1. N has no right to cross either lot because N has access to Lot 4 via the lake. 2. N has an express easement to cross Lot 3. 3. N has an implied easement to cross Lot 1. 4. Any express easement to cross Lot 3 did not run to N because the deed containing it was not recorded, but N has an easement by necessity to cross Lot 3. 5. Any express easement to cross Lot 3 was extinguished by non-use, but N has an easement by implication to cross Lot 3.

2. N has an express easement to cross Lot 3.

Oliver purchased a set of collectible coins from the bank. On the way home, he stopped for lunch and the coin set fell out of his bag under the booth where he sat. Amy, the waitress, finds the coin set while clearing the table. Mr. Brown, the owner of the restaurant, tells her to hand the coins over to him, but Amy refuses, asserting that she is the finder, so she will keep them. Mr. Brown forcefully takes the coin set from Amy. Does Amy have the legal right to get the coins back? 1. No, because the coins belong to Oliver, not Amy. 2. No, because Amy found them as an agent for Mr. Brown. 3. Yes, because Amy was the first finder, and first finders have rights over everyone but the true owner. 4. Yes, because coins are treasure, and per the doctrine of treasure trove, the finder has superior rights. 5. Yes, the coins were lost, not mislaid, so Amy's rights are superior to the owner of the locus in quo.

2. No, because Amy found them as an agent for Mr. Brown.

Randy and Melissa were married only one year before Randy died, leaving Melissa pregnant and devastated. Randy never changed his will, and the will left all his property "to my children, Andrew and Lyle." Can Melissa obtain a portion of Randy's estate? 1. Yes, if they lived in a community property state. 2. Yes, if they lived in a non-community property state. 3. Yes, because intestacy statutes in every state specify at least a portion of an estate goes to a surviving spouse. 4. No, unless she can prove that the will is invalid (forgery, not witnessed, etc.) 5. No, because they were only married a year. 6. No, unless her child is later born alive.

2. Yes, if they lived in a non-community property state.

Mortgagee

A lender in a mortgage loan transaction. (typically a bank)

L, M, N, O, and P purchased property "as joint tenants with rights of survivorship." Shortly after they bought the property, P deeded "my interest" in the property to herself. She recorded this deed. A month later, O leased "my interest" in the property to J for a ten-year term. Just days after O entered into this lease, N died, leaving "my interests" in the property to K. Who holds what property interests in the property after N's death? 1. P, J, K, M, and L are tenants in common, each holding 20% of the ownership of the property, and O holds a reversionary interest in J's 20%. 2. P and J each hold 20% interest as tenants in common, O holds a reversionary interest in J's 20%, and M and L each hold 30% interest as joint tenants with each other. 3. P holds 20% interest in the property as a tenant in common with O, M, and L, who are joint tenants equally sharing the remaining 80%. 4. M and L are joint tenants, each holding 50% of the interest in the property.

2. P and J each hold 20% interest as tenants in common, O holds a reversionary interest in J's 20%, and M and L each hold 30% interest as joint tenants with each other.

Twenty years ago, Wife devised her property "to Husband for life, and then to those of my children who have attained the age of 35." Husband is now 65 and their three children are now adults aged 35, 32, and 28. A few years ago, Husband became estranged from his adult children. Husband has started making renovations to the home on the property, including combining three small bedrooms into one massive master bedroom suite, putting in a swimming pool, and cutting down numerous trees to build a golf course on the grounds. If the children bring an action for waste against Husband, what will be the likely result? 1. All of the children will likely be able to enjoin further renovations because of waste. 2. Some, but not all, of the children may be able to enjoin further renovations because of waste. 3. Husband will likely lose his interest in the property because of waste. 4. Husband faces no liability for waste if these renovations may increase the property's value.

2. Some, but not all, of the children may be able to enjoin further renovations because of waste.

Grantor conveyed Whiteacre "to A for life, and then to A's children as joint tenants with rights of survivorship." A had three children at her death, B, C, and D. B and C were had married and moved to another state, but D still lived on Whiteacre at her parent's death. D decided to get a roommate to live with her on Whiteacre and help pay its maintenance costs, and therefore entered into a one-year lease agreement with E. E paid a total of $6,000 during the course of E's one-year lease, and D used $3,000 of that amount to pay for taxes, mortgage payments, and necessary expenses for the home on Whiteacre. At the end of the year, B demands "his share" of the rents paid by E. Does B have any right to monies paid by E as rent for Whiteacre? 1. Yes, B has a right to $2,000, because B holds 1/3 of the property. 2. Yes, B has a right to $1,000, because B did not contribute to necessary upkeep. 3. No, because there has been no ouster. 4. No, because the lease was personal between D and E.

2. Yes, B has a right to $1,000, because B did not contribute to necessary upkeep.

Tenant rented a house from Landlord for a 1-year term commencing January 1. When Tenant failed to pay rent on September 1, Landlord went to the house to investigate. She found the lawn un-mowed and several newspapers in plastic bags on the front porch. Tenant's belongings remained in the house. Surmising that Tenant must have abandoned the premises, Landlord changed the locks, put Tenant's belongings in storage, and put a "for rent" ad in the paper, stating "small 2BR home for rent, $600/mo. Available immediately." The first applicant to rent the home was A, a first-year law student. Landlord dislikes lawyers, however, so she refused to rent her the property to A. The second applicant, B, was of a religion that Landlord particularly dislikes, so she refused to rent the property to B either. Landlord finally found a renter to her liking at the end of September and signed a lease with that tenant starting October 1st. On October 2nd, Tenant returned from vacation and demanded possession of the house. Did Landlord's actions violate any law? 1. Yes, Landlord's refusal to rent to both A and B was illegal. 2. Yes, Landlord illegally changed the locks on the home. 3. Yes, Landlord illegally refused to reasonably mitigate damages. 4. No, Landlord has not violated any law because the house is privately owned, residential property.

2. Yes, Landlord illegally changed the locks on the home.

Blackacre is located in a neighborhood designated "General Commercial" under the applicable municipality's comprehensive plan. In the original comprehensive plan, "retail" was listed as a "permitted uses" for the General Commercial designation. When the municipality learned that the owner of Blackacre planned to build an erotic book and video store on Blackacre, the municipality passed an amendment to the comprehensive plan, rezoning Blackacre as "Residential." The amendment also re-defined the General Commercial designation to permit "retail other than the sale of erotic or pornographic materials." The owner of Blackacre challenges these two changes to the municipality's zoning as unconstitional. Will the owner of Blackacre prevail? 1. Yes, because prohibiting pornographic materials attempts to regulate community morals, not community health, safety, and welfare. 2. Yes, because spot-zoning is likely to be a violation of the owner's Due Process. 3. Yes, because the owner has not been paid just compensation for the rezoning's impact. 4. No, because municipalities are free to make zoning changes deemed necessary for the public good.

2. Yes, because spot-zoning is likely to be a violation of the owner's Due Process.

Owner conveyed Silveracre "to Helping Hands Charity, but if it ever ceases to use the property as a homeless shelter, then to Rhapsody Regional Church." Thirty years after the conveyance, Helping Hands Charity closed its operations, transferring all of its property to Developer. Rhapsody Regional Church claims that it is the true titleholder of Silveracre and seeks a quiet title judgment to that effect. Applying modern law, will the Church be successful? 1. Yes, because the Church's possibility of reverter became possessory. automatically upon the Charity's failure to use the property as a homeless shelter. 2. Yes, because the Church's executory interest became possessory automatically upon the Charity's failure to use the property as a homeless shelter. 3. No, because the Church's future interest did not automatically become possessory upon the Charity's failure to use the property as a homeless shelter 4. No, because the Church's future interest was invalidated by the Rule Against Perpetuities.

2. Yes, because the Church's executory interest became possessory automatically upon the Charity's failure to use the property as a homeless shelter.

Statute of Limitations for AP in IL

20 years

Tenant lived in apartment 2C in one of Landlord's mixed-use buildings. When Tenant moved in, the commercial space immediately below her was vacant, although the other portions of the first floor contained a wine store and a bank. Two weeks after Tenant moved in, a new commercial tenant moved into the vacant space on the first floor. The new tenant soon opened a "Smoking Lounge" in its commercial space below Tenant's apartment. This lounge is a private club that sells and permits on-site consumption of various tobacco products, including cigarettes, pipes and cigars. It operates from 6pm until midnight every night of the week. Tenant suffers from asthma, and the tobacco smoke seeping from her downstairs neighbor's space triggered more frequent attacks over the following few weeks. After leaving several voicemails for Landlord, with no response, Tenant packed up and moved out of the apartment. One month later, Landlord sued Tenant for unpaid rent, and Tenant raises constructive eviction as her defense. Will Tenant's defense likely be successful? 1. Yes, because the smoke constituted constructive eviction, which breached the implied warranty of habitability. 2. Yes, because the smoke constituted constructive eviction, which breached the covenant of quiet enjoyment. 3. No, because the landlord has done nothing that would have deprived a reasonable person of any tenant rights. 4. No, because a landlord cannot be held responsible for the legal actions of another tenant occurring outside the common areas.

2. Yes, because the smoke constituted constructive eviction, which breached the covenant of quiet enjoyment.

L agrees to rent an apartment to T for "as long as T wishes to stay," and T agrees to pay rent to L in a stated amount on the first of each month. After just two months, L notifies T, on March 31st, that T will have to move out by May 1st. Must T comply with L's request and vacate by May 1st? 1. Yes, because L remains the landowner and the landlord always has the right to exclude. 2. Yes, because this is a tenancy at will and L has given sufficient notice. 3. No, because this is a periodic lease and L has given insufficient notice. 4. No, because T was the only party who had the right to terminate the lease. L had no such right.

2. Yes, because this is a tenancy at will and L has given sufficient notice.

The county in which Blackacre is located recently passed a zoning ordinance amendment requiring all buildings to be built at least 15 feet back from the public road. Although there was no building already constructed on Blackacre when the ordinance was passed, the owner of Blackacre had obtained a permit to build an office building located ten feet back from the public road. Recorded covenants burdening Blackacre mandate a set-back from the road of "at least ten feet." Can the municipality prevent a building from being constructed on Blackacre in violation of the new zoning ordinance amendment? 1. Yes, because zoning is authorized under the state's police power. 2. Yes, but if the permit is considered to have vested the right to develop at only ten-feet back from the road, the county may have to pay compensation for a taking. 3. No, a fifteen-foot setback is not rationally related to the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the community. 4. No, because the ten-foot setback complies with applicable servitude restrictions.

2. Yes, but if the permit is considered to have vested the right to develop at only ten-feet back from the road, the county may have to pay compensation for a taking.

The Board of Directors of Homeowners' Association recently voted to prohibit members and family and guests of members from use of the community pool area between 9pm and 9am. This resolution was in response to the frequent complaints of a 65-year old neighbor who happens to live next to the pool. This neighbor objected to teenagers "hanging out" in the pool area at night. Owner, a thirty-year-old member of the community, works long hours and is never home until after 9pm. In the past several summers, he has enjoyed spending serene post-work moments sitting peaceably by the pool. Owner is enraged that this resolution purports to stop his enjoyment of the common area - area that he "pays good money" to enjoy, and otherwise has no time to use. If Owner sues for a declaratory judgment that the rule prohibiting peaceful nighttime use of the pool is void for unreasonableness, will he succeed? 1. Yes, if Owner can prove that he voted against this rule. 2. Yes, if Owner can prove that the Board of Directors did not follow the procedures set forth in the bylaws in passing this rule. 3. No, but Owner will not have to pay whatever portion of the assessments are applied to pool maintenance if he legitimately can no longer use the pool during the new hours. 4. No, because Owner bought his home subject to the homeowner association covenants, conditions and restrictions, and therefore he has no right to challenge rulemakings of the Board of Directors.

2. Yes, if Owner can prove that the Board of Directors did not follow the procedures set forth in the bylaws in passing this rule.

Riverside City has a depressed downtown area where many stores and homes are vacant and boarded up. The Riverside City Council decided to engage in a revitalization effort in the core of the city, paying a private developer to construct a pedestrian-friendly shopping street with several new mixed use condominiums along this revitalized area. As part of the redevelopment plan, Riverside would like to use eminent domain not only to obtain title to the buildings that are themselves in disrepair, but all parcels of land surrounding the new downtown, including Michelle's small hardware store. Michelle's store is two blocks from downtown, on a street that has not experienced the same degree of infrastructure decline and vacancy as the main street, and she owns and operates a well-kept and profitable hardware store on her lot. The City plans to sell her lot (and all the lots on that same block) to a developer who will build a new office building on the property. Can Michelle successfully defend against this governmental taking as being not for "public use"? 1. Yes, if the jurisdiction follows the approach of Kelo. 2. Yes, if the jurisdiction does not follow the approach of Kelo. 3. No, because of the decision of Kelo. 4. No, unless the jurisdiction has a state constitutional limitation on eminent domain that is worded differently than the U.S. Constitution. 5. No, because the proposed development is an attempt to cure a public harm.

2. Yes, if the jurisdiction does not follow the approach of Kelo.

Property owners X, Y and Z each own farms located above an underground aquifer. The aquifer is considered "percolating," rather than flowing in a permanent channel. X builds a water park and extracts over 90% of the water from the aquifer for use in the park. Can Y and Z enjoin this use of the water from the aquifer? 1. Yes, if the state has adopted the rule of capture approach to underground water. 2. Yes, if the state has adopted the correlative rights approach to underground water. 3. No, if the state has adopted the reasonable use approach to underground water. 4. No, if the state has adopted the common enemy approach to underground water.

2. Yes, if the state has adopted the correlative rights approach to underground water.

Unity of Time

All joint tenancy interests must have vested at the same time.

Grantor conveyed Blueacre "to Brother for life, then to my grandchildren who attain the age of 18." At the time of the grant, the Grantor is 60 and his one child is 25 and his only grandchild, A, is 2 months old. At the time of Brother's death, Grantor has two grandchildren: A (age 20) and B (age 10). Five years thereafter, Grantor's third grandchild, C, is born. At this point, Grantor's grandchildren are A, age 25, B, age 15, and C, a newborn. Assuming this jurisdiction has abolished the doctrine of destructibility, who now holds what interest in Blueacre? 1. A, B, and C each have vested remainders subject to open. 2. A has a fee simple, and B and C each have an executory interest. 3. A has a fee simple, B has an executory interest, and C has no interest. 4. A has a fee simple, and B and C each have a contingent remainder. 5. A has a fee simple absolute, and B and C have no interest.

3. A has a fee simple, B has an executory interest, and C has no interest.

Grantor conveyed Blackacre "to Church, but if the property is ever used for non-church purposes, then to P." One year after this conveyance, Church leased the property to R for use as a restaurant. After the restaurant opens on Blackacre, who holds what interests in Blackacre? 1. P owns Blackacre in fee simple absolute, and R is a mere trespasser. 2. P owns Blackacre in fee simple absolute, subject to R's lease. 3. Church owns Blackacre in fee simple absolute, subject to R's lease. 4. Church owns Blackacre in fee simple subject to executory limitation, subject to R's lease, and P holds an executory interest in fee simple absolute. 5. Grantor owns Blackacre in fee simple absolute because her Right of Entry has become possessory.

3. Church owns Blackacre in fee simple absolute, subject to R's lease.

F owned two adjacent lots, called Lot 1 and Lot 2. F built a home and a man-made fishing pond on Lot 1. He then sold Lot 2 to E. The recorded deed to E stated that he was conveying "Lot 2 of XYZ Subdivision, together with a strip of land between Lot 2 and the pond on Lot 1 and the right to use the pond for fishing." E did not like to fish and never used the pond while she lived on the property, but after she sold the property to D, she took a fishing class and decided that she actually loved fishing and wanted to take advantage of the pond. The deed from E to D merely conveyed "Lot 2" and said nothing about a strip of land to the pond or rights to fish in the pond. Who has what rights to the strip of land from Lot 2 to the pond on Lot 1 and the right to fish in the pond? 1. E has fee simple title over a strip of land together with an appurtenant easement to fish in the pond. 2. E has an easement in gross allowing her to access the strip of land and to fish in the pond 3. D has an appurtenant easement allowing her to access the strip of land to fish in the pond 4. Neither E nor D has the right to access the strip of land and to fish in the pond

3. D has an appurtenant easement allowing her to access the strip of land to fish in the pond

C and D were husband and wife. C and his brother, B, owned Beigeacre in a joint tenancy. B conveyed his interest in Beigeacre to his sister-in-law, D. Thereafter, C died leaving all of his property to the Red Cross. What is the state of the title? 1. D holds 100% of Beigeacre in fee simple absolute. 2. D and the Red Cross each hold 50% of Beigeacre as tenants in common. 3. D holds 50% of Beigeacre, and Red Cross holds 50% of Beigeacre subject to any elective spousal share of D. 4. B holds 100% of Beigeacre in fee simple absolute.

3. D holds 50% of Beigeacre, and Red Cross holds 50% of Beigeacre subject to any elective spousal share of D.

Barak devised his property, Whiteacre, to "Donald and Hillary, jointly and not as tenants in common, until either of them is sworn is as President of the United States, and thereafter to Jill for her life." Who holds what interests in Whiteacre? 1. Donald and Hillary hold a life estate as tenants in common, Jill holds a vested remainder in life estate, and Barak holds a reversion in fee simple absolute. 2. Donald and Hillary hold a fee simple subject to an executory limitation as tenants in common, Jill holds an executory interest in life estate, and Barak holds a reversion in fee simple absolute. 3. Donald and Hillary hold a fee simple subject to an executory limitation as joint tenants, Jill holds an executory interest in life estate, and Barak holds a reversion in fee simple absolute. 4. Donald and Hillary hold a fee simple subject to an executory limitation as joint tenants, Jill holds an executory interest in fee simple absolute, and Barak retains no interest because this is a "devise" and therefore we know that that he is dead. 5. Donald and Hillary hold a fee simple absolute as joint tenants. 6. Donald and Hillary hold a fee simple absolute as tenants in common. 7. If Donald and Hillary are married, they hold a life estate as tenants by the entirety, with Jill holding the remainder.

3. Donald and Hillary hold a fee simple subject to an executory limitation as joint tenants, Jill holds an executory interest in life estate, and Barak holds a reversion in fee simple absolute.

Maggie makes an inter vivos gift of Beigeacre to "my children Amy and Bryan for their lives, and afterwards to their children, Kylee, Anita, Larry, and Lorna as joint tenants with the right of survivorship, as long as they never use the property for commercial purposes, and if any of them ever uses the property for commercial purposes, then to my children as joint tenants with the right to survivorship." Maggie dies two months after making this gift. A decade after this gift, Maggie's only son, Larry, is distraught when he finds out that neither Amy nor Bryan is still living on the property and that neither has paid the property taxes on the property, and that there is now a tax lien on the property. Can Larry obtain title to the property to keep the tax lien from being foreclosed? 1. Yes, because Amy and Bryan have committed affirmative waste. 2. Yes, because Amy and Bryan's interest was defeased when they ceased to live on the property. 3. No, although Larry can obtain other legal and equitable remedies. 4. No, because Larry's interest in the property is contingent. 5. No, because only Amy and Bryan's children have standing to sue for waste. 6. No, because Larry's interest was held in joint tenancy. 7. No, because Larry has no interest in the property because of the Rule Against Perpetuities.

3. No, although Larry can obtain other legal and equitable remedies.

A and B owned adjacent lots. A paid B $1,000 to sign an agreement promising that B's lot will be "restricted to residential uses." A recorded the agreement in the land records. Six months later, B sold his lot to C, who proceeded to build a gas station on the property. Can A sue C for damages from violating the residential use restriction? 1. Yes, because the real covenant runs with B's land because it was recorded and touches and concerns the land. 2. Yes, because A and B were in instantaneous privity when the covenant was signed. 3. No, because although A may be able to equitably enforce the promise, A did not create a real covenant that runs with B's land. 4. No, because a residential use restriction does not touch and concern the land.

3. No, because although A may be able to equitably enforce the promise, A did not create a real covenant that runs with B's land.

Y leased half of Z's duplex for a three-year term. Before the end of the first year, Y decided to go to school in another state. Y's older brother, X, a wealthy partner in a local law firm, recently divorced and is happy to take over her lease for the last two years. The lease provides that "Tenant shall obtain Landlord's consent prior to any assignment to be given or withheld in Landlord's sole discretion." When Y approached Z to obtain consent to assign the lease to X, however, Z flatly refuses. Since X has a better and more stable income than Y, Y suspects that the true reason for Z's refusal of the assignment is that the rental rates have increased and she is paying slightly "below market." Y gives the keys to her brother and writes Z a letter that says "I'm moving across the country and my brother, X, has the key. He's the new tenant, so deal with him." Must Z accept Y's brother, X, as the new tenant? 1. Yes, because landlords must always act reasonably in withholding consent to assign 2. Yes, because public policy mandates free alienability of a leasehold interest 3. No, because the landlord did not consent to the proffered substitution of tenant 4. No, because Z is a subtenant, not an assignee

3. No, because the landlord did not consent to the proffered substitution of tenant

Tenant signed a lease with Landlord for a two-year term. The lease was silent with respect to Tenant's ability to assign or sublease. After occupying the premises for one year, Tenant entered into an agreement with Q whereby Q would "take over the lease from Landlord to Tenant" for the remainder of the term at a monthly rental amount that is $200 more than the amount payable under the lease between Landlord and Tenant. The agreement provided that Q would pay the monthly amount to Tenant, who would then forward the amount required under Landlord and Tenant's lease to Landlord. Upon learning of this arrangement, Landlord wishes to preclude the occupancy by Q unless and until the additional rental amount is paid to Landlord (not kept by Tenant). Will Landlord be successful? 1. Yes, because landlords retain the right to all rents payable with respect to the property 2. Yes, because landlords have the right to give or withhold consent to assignments and subleases 3. No, because the lease fails to address the issue of transfer 4. No, because Q is a subtenant, not an assignee

3. No, because the lease fails to address the issue of transfer

X owned two parcels of property, Lots 1 and 2. Lot 2 abuts a public road, and Lot 1 does not. X conveyed Lot 2 to Y by recorded deed, reserving "the right to access the public road across a thirty-foot strip along the western boundary of Lot 2." X built and maintained a gravel road across the thirty-foot strip along the western boundary of Lot 2 which it used to access a his small home on Lot 1. Ten years after the conveyance to Y, X conveyed Lot 1 to Developer who subdivided Lot 1 into 100 single-family building lots. Developer plans on paving the gravel road along the western boundary of Lot 2 and having all the purchasers of those 100 lots use that road to access their property. Can Y enjoin this use of the 30-foot strip of Lot 2? 1. Yes, the proposed use by 100 homeowners is a per se misuse of the easement 2. Yes, the easement over Lot 2 did not run with the land 3. No, if it was reasonably foreseeable that Lot 1 could be subdivided 4. No, but Developer has no right to pave the road over Lot 2

3. No, if it was reasonably foreseeable that Lot 1 could be subdivided

Grantor conveyed Yellowacre to a husband and wife, A and B. The recorded deed's conveyancing and habendum clause merely read, "To A and B, a married couple." A conveyed all his interest in Yellowacre to Friend in exchange for $100,000. Shortly thereafter, A died. Friend claims to be the owner of one-half interest in Yellowacre. Will Friend prevail? 1. Yes, because Friend was a bona fide purchaser. 2. Yes, because the joint tenancy was severed by the sale to Friend. 3. No, in states that still permit property to be held as tenants by the entirety. 4. No, because joint tenancies cannot be unilaterally severed.

3. No, in states that still permit property to be held as tenants by the entirety.

S tells her sister, T, that she may live in her home for "as long as you like" if she pays $300 a month in rent to S. S and T sign a form lease that S finds on the internet, and in the blank labeled "commencement date," S wrote "September 1, 2012." In the blank labeled "expiration date," S wrote "T's choice." What interest does T have in the property? 1. T has a license, not a lease. 2. T has a life estate, not a lease. 3. T has a month-to-month lease. 4. T has a perpetual lease. 5. T has a term of years.

3. T has a month-to-month lease.

Tenant signed an agreement to lease an apartment in Landlord's multi-family building "from year to year, commencing with January 1, 2010." On November 1, 2015, Landlord informs Tenant in writing that the lease will terminate on December 31, 2015 because Landlord will be converting the building to a condominium. When, if at all, will Tenant's lease terminate? 1. Tenant's lease will terminate on December 31, 2015 because Landlord has notified tenant of the termination in writing with adequate notice. 2. Tenant's lease will terminate on March 31, 2016 because year-to-year tenants are guaranteed six months' notice of termination. 3. Tenant's lease will terminate on December 31, 2016 because the lease will automatically renew for a year on January 1, 2016. 4. Tenant's lease will not terminate based on this notice because a landlord may not terminate periodic tenancies in order to convert a building into a condominium.

3. Tenant's lease will terminate on December 31, 2016 because the lease will automatically renew for a year on January 1, 2016.

S and T owned and lived on two contiguous lots (Lots 1 and 2 respectively). S built a fence along what she believes to be the boundary of Lot 1 and 2, but mistakenly located the fence five feet over the boundary line on Lot 2. Eight year after building the fence, S sold the property to U, and that same year, T died, leaving his property to V. U mowed and maintained the property on "her" side of the fence for another three years before U and V both discovered from an updated survey that the fence is actually located five feet away from the boundary, encroaching onto Lot 2. V brings an action to have the fence removed, and U claims that she has acquired title to the five-foot strip of land on "her" side of the fence. Assuming a ten-year statutory period for adverse possession, will V or U win title to the five-foot strip? 1. V will win title to the strip, because there has been no actual acquiescence to a new boundary and the precise location of the actual boundary was not apparent. 2. V will win title to the strip, because U has only possessed the strip of land for three years. 3. U will win title to the strip, because the possession was "open and notorious." 4. U will win title to the strip, because she did not build the fence.

3. U will win title to the strip, because the possession was "open and notorious."

Licenese

A license is a privilege to enter onto to property of another. It may be revoked at anytime merely by a manifestation of the licensor's intent to end it.

S was five years old in 1990 when T moved into an empty home on Blackacre, owned by S. In 2000, S, now age 15, became legally insane and was institutionalized. In 2011, S, still institutionalized, died, leaving U as his heir. The same year, T also died, leaving V as her heir. Four years later, V institutes a quiet title action for Blackacre. Assuming the statute of limitations for ejectment is 10 years in this jurisdiction, who most likely owns Blackacre and why? 1. U owns the property because V has only possessed the property for four years. 2. U owns the property because of tolling. 3. V owns the property because of tacking. 4. V owns the property because T had already acquired title prior to her death.

3. V owns the property because of tacking.

Brother and Sister purchased Blueacre together, with Brother contributing 90% of the purchase price and Sister contributing 10%, and they agreed that they would hold interests in that same proportion. Two years after buying Blueacre, Brother married a widow with four children, and all five of his new family members moved into the house on Blueacre. Sister decided to give Brother and his new family some space, so she moved in with a friend who lived nearby. One year after she moved out, Sister received a bill from Brother for 10% of the amount that he had paid in scheduled mortgage and assessed real estate taxes for Blueacre. Is Sister required to pay these costs? 1. Yes, because Sister remains a co-owner of Blueacre. 2. No, because there has been no ouster. 3. Yes in part. Sister needs only pay those costs that exceed 10% of the fair rental value of Blueacre for the past year. 4. No, because Sister was constructively ousted by Brother's use of Blueacre. 5. No, because the co-tenancy was severed when Sister moved out.

3. Yes in part. Sister needs only pay those costs that exceed 10% of the fair rental value of Blueacre for the past year.

Buyer moved into "Nice View Estates" two years ago, when the subdivision was almost completely built out. Although he noticed at the time that the homes seemed to have a uniform feel about them (all had non-enclosed front patios, attached one-car garages, and were one-story "rambler" style homes), neither Buyer's deed nor his title report for the property showed any specific restrictive covenant with respect to his lot. Last month, Buyer hired a contractor to remodel his home by adding a second story, which would nearly double the square footage of his home. After contractor obtained the appropriate permits from the county and started construction, some neighbors brought a suit to enjoin the project. Apparently, in the case of every lot in Nice View Estates except Buyer's lot, the deed from the developer included a deed covenant limiting the height of homes to one floor, and the developer of the subdivision had specifically told all the initial buyers (except Owner, it seems) that the entire subdivision would consist of single-story homes. Is it possible that Owner's home improvements may be lawfully enjoined? 1. Yes, because of the Conservation Easement doctrine. 2. Yes, because of the Average Reciprocity of Advantage doctrine. 3. Yes, because of the Implied Negative Reciprocal Servitude doctrine. 4. No, because Owner had no actual notice of the restrictions in the community.

3. Yes, because of the Implied Negative Reciprocal Servitude doctrine.

X and Y are neighbors. X starts taking bagpipe lessons, and for at least an hour every evening, the sounds of X's novice attempts at bag-piping resonate loudly through the neighborhood - so loudly that the glass shakes in Y's home and Y can "barely hear herself think." Y has asked X to cease playing the bagpipes, but X refuses. X assures Y that "it will sound a lot better in a few months," once he "gets the hang of it." Can Y do anything to stop X's bagpiping? 1. Yes, if Y has an appurtenant easement over X's property. 2. Yes, if Y has a negative easement over X's property 3. Yes, if the adverse impact of X's behavior outweighs the benefit of X learning to play the bagpipes. 4. No, if X's property and Y's property are part of a common interest community. 5. No, because X and Y lack horizontal privity. 6. No, because there is no public nuisance.

3. Yes, if the adverse impact of X's behavior outweighs the benefit of X learning to play the bagpipes.

In exchange for $200,000, X delivered a deed for a ten-acre parcel to Y. Y immediately recorded the deed and established residence on a home located on one acre of the property. The rest of the property was unimproved, and Y did nothing to improve or maintain the remaining 9 acres. Twenty years later, it is determined that Z is actually the true record owner of the property, and Z brings a quiet title action. Assuming a ten-year statutory period for adverse possession, what is the most likely result? 1. Z will obtain clear title because Z is the true record owner, and nemo dat quod non habet. 2. Z will obtain clear title to all but the one-acre area Y actually possesses, and Y will be granted title to that parcel. 3. Z will lose title, and Y will be granted title, to the entire ten-acre parcel because of color of title. 4. Z will lose title to the entire ten-acre parcel if Y knew or had reason to know that the deed from X was invalid.

3. Z will lose title, and Y will be granted title, to the entire ten-acre parcel because of color of title.

When does the foreclosure process actually begin?

3rd Missed Payment

A and B both live along River, with A living upstream from B. A began farming his property and diverted approximately 20% of the water from River to irrigate his crops. B objected to A's use of the water from River because B operates a mill on River and the volume of water flowing through the mill has decreased due to A's irrigation. Under what doctrine(s) can B prevent A's diversion of the River's water for irrigation use? 1. Under the natural flow doctrine, because irrigation is considered an "artificial use." 2. Under the prior appropriation doctrine, because B's mill was built before A began farming. 3. Under the reasonable use doctrine, because it is unreasonable to use 20% of a river's waters for irrigation. 4. Both 1 and 2. 5. All of the above.

4. Both 1 and 2.

E and F orally agreed that F will rent "one of the rooms in E's house" for "fair market rent" for a period of "six months commencing January 1." Why would this lease be invalid or unenforceable? 1. This oral lease is invalid because it fails to describe the premises. 2. This oral lease is invalid because it fails to set rent. 3. This oral lease is unenforceable because of the Statute of Frauds. 4. Both A and B. 5. All of the above.

4. Both A and B.

Grantor conveyed Redacre "to A for so long the property is not sold." What interest in Redacre does A have? 1. Fee Simple Determinable 2. Fee Simple Subject to Condition Subsequent 3. Fee Simple Subject to Executory Limitation 4. Fee Simple Absolute

4. Fee Simple Absolute

C and D were next-door neighbors who both loved to celebrate Christmas with outdoor lighting displays. C agreed to purchase lights for both of their lots and to install a huge joint-display each December (including Santa on a sleigh with galloping reindeer, Frosty the Snowman, a nativity scene, Victorian-era carolers, etc.). C promised to install the display by December 1st and to take it down on January 10th each year, and to run all the electricity through her home. D agreed to pay C half of her out-of-pocket costs for lights and electricity. The two drafted and recorded a "Declaration of Covenants" to this effect. Several years later, D moved away, conveying her land to A. A does not celebrate Christmas and does not want any part of C's holiday light display plans, but C argues that he is bound by the recorded Declaration to allow her to put up the display on both yards and to pay for half of the costs. What is A's best defense to this claim? 1. An agreement to pay money does not touch and concern the land. 2. The agreement did not run with the land because A lacked notice of it. 3. This agreement created an easement in gross, not an appurtenant easement. 4. It would violate public policy to enforce this agreement against A.

4. It would violate public policy to enforce this agreement against A.

L, a owner of a small 6-unit apartment building, advertised two of the units for rent. He had two applicants the day after he ran the ad seeking tenants. One was S, a young, single woman who owns a small dog. The other was T, a Hispanic man, mid 30s, who wears glasses. L decided not to rent to either of them. He asserts that the reason he rejected S was that he knows dogs make way too much noise and "can cause an apartment to stink." He claims the reason he rejected T was because he "can't trust people who wear glasses." Unless a plaintiff can prove that L was lying with respect to his subjective motives, which of the following statements are true? 1. L violated the Fair Housing Act by refusing to rent to someone with a pet 2. L violated the Fair Housing Act by refusing to rent to someone who is Hispanic and L violated the Fair Housing Act by refusing to rent 3. L likely acted unreasonably with respect to S, probably violating state law 4. L likely acted unreasonably with respect to T, probably violating state law

4. L likely acted unreasonably with respect to T, probably violating state law

N died at age 98, leaving his home "to my darling wife, O, for the remainder of her life, and then to her last child to reach the age of 30." At N's death, O was 95 and has one child, age 62. After O's death the following year, what is the state of the title for the property? 1. O's 63-year-old child holds in life estate. 2. O's 63-year-old child holds in fee simple absolute. 3. O's heirs hold in fee simple absolute. 4. N's heirs hold in fee simple absolute.

4. N's heirs hold in fee simple absolute.

In September, E's neighbor, F, verbally promised that she would cut down the monstrously large and mostly dead tree located on her property "by March 1st at the very latest." This tree abuts the border between E and F's lot and blocks sunlight to a significant portion of E's yard. Although E is an avid gardener, she was not ever able to get much to grow in the shade of this tree. After F promised to take down the tree, E spent many afternoons planting tulip bulbs in a garden she created on her lot in the shade of the tree. E was looking forward to finally having some sun to grow flowers in that spot during the coming spring. Now, however, it is March 15th, and F still has not taken out her tree. E knows that her tulips will never bloom without adequate sunlight. Although E asked F last week to please make good on her promise to take out the tree, F has refused. E wants to sue to force F to take out the tree. Will she likely succeed? 1. Yes, because E can specifically enforce her negative easement rights to light 2. Yes, because F specifically covenanted to remove the tree, and tree removal touches and concerns the land 3. No, because F's promise was a license, and licenses are revocable at will 4. No, because E cannot obtain an oral negative easement

4. No, because E cannot obtain an oral negative easement

Tenant entered into a one-year lease of Landlord's apartment commencing September 1. Several months later, Tenant accepted a summer job in another city starting at the end of May, so she asked Friend if she would move in on June 1st and pay rent for the months of June, July, and August. Friend agreed. The lease had a provision that "tenant shall not sublet without landlord's consent, given or withheld in landlord's sole discretion." Tenant did not talk to Landlord about Friend moving in, and when Friend sent Landlord rent on June 1st, Landlord returned the rent to Friend and told her that she would have to move out. He then sent Tenant a letter stating that she had breached the lease. Has Tenant breached the lease? 1. Yes, because Tenant has violated an express lease provision. 2. Yes, unless Landlord's failure to approve Friend's residency was unreasonable. 3. No, because the lease contained an unlawful restraint on alienation. 4. No, because Friend was not a subtenant.

4. No, because Friend was not a subtenant.

Drug Store signs a lease, as a tenant, in a shopping center. The lease explicitly states that "the Premises will be used as a drug store, and that landlord will not permit any other drug store to operate in the shopping center." One month after entering into the lease with Drug Store, the landlord signs a lease with Grocery Store for space in the shopping center. Grocery Store has an in-store prescription drug counter. Drug Store seeks to terminate the lease because Grocery Store will compete with their customer base and frustrate their business plan. May Drug Store terminate the lease without incurring liability to the landlord? 1. Yes, because Landlord's breach of the restrictive covenant by leasing to Grocery Store amounts to a constructive eviction 2. Yes, because Landlord's breach of the restrictive covenant is a material breach justifying Drug Store's termination 3. No, because even though Drug Store can obtain an injunction to keep Grocery Store from operating in the shopping center, it cannot 4. No, because Landlord has likely not breached the restrictive covenant by leasing to Grocery Store 5. No, but Drug Store may assign its leasehold to any other commercial entity in order to avoid the commercially unreasonable situation of having to run an unprofitable enterprise

4. No, because Landlord has likely not breached the restrictive covenant by leasing to Grocery Store

Q's brother owned 100 acres of land and told Q that she was "welcome to come and live on one of the acres." Q moved to the property, fenced in one acre, built a house, moved in and planted an orchard. Q lived there for 11 years. Then, Q's brother died. Q's brother's heir, (Q's nephew) then brought an action of ejectment to remove Q from the property. Assuming a ten-year statutory period for adverse possession, will Q be able to successfully defend this ejectment action? 1. Yes, because Q has occupied that acre for the statutory period. 2. Yes, because of tacking. 3. No, because Q's brother may have been unaware of Q's occupancy. 4. No, because Q's brother never intended to convey the acre to Q.

4. No, because Q's brother never intended to convey the acre to Q.

Doctor bought a parcel of commercial property, converted it to office space, and started doing dental reconstructive surgery there. Unfortunately, a blacksmith forge operated next to Doctor's new office, and the hammering and smells associated with blacksmithing significantly bothered Doctor's patients and interfered with Doctor's ability to perform precise and careful oral surgery. Can Doctor get a court to enjoin the blacksmith operation next door? 1. Yes, because a blacksmith forge is a nuisance per se. 2. Yes, as long as he pays the blacksmith a judicially determined amount to relocate. 3. No, because he "came to the nuisance." 4. No, because even if the blacksmith forge is a private nuisance, he may be forced to accept damages rather than obtain an injunction.

4. No, because even if the blacksmith forge is a private nuisance, he may be forced to accept damages rather than obtain an injunction.

Grantor conveyed Whiteacre "to C, but if C ever divorces, then her estate shall end." C divorced in 2004, but continued to reside on Whiteacre. Twelve years later years later, C brings a quiet title action for Whiteacre. Will she obtain clear title to the property? 1. Yes, because she has adversely possessed the property for the statutory period. 2. Yes, because the defeasing condition in the grant was void as against public policy. 3. No, because C's rights to the property terminated upon her divorce. 4. No, because her possession was not adverse.

4. No, because her possession was not adverse.

P leases farmland from Q. P harvested and sold apples that grew on trees located on the leased farmland. Q claims the right to share in the profits from the sale of apples. Will the Q be able to obtain at least some portion of the profits from the sale of apples? 1. Yes, because fructus naturales are considered part of the land and thus are owned by Q. 2. Yes, because apples are movable, tangible personal property, governed by the state's version of the Uniform Commercial Code, Article 2. 3. Yes, because apples are fixtures under the meaning of the state's version of the Uniform Commercial Code, Article 9. 4. No, because tenants obtain usufructuary rights to leased property.

4. No, because tenants obtain usufructuary rights to leased property.

Homeowner built a beautiful home on his 10-acre wooded property, straddling a waterfall and extending several levels down the slope of a hill. Homeowner built the home just 5 feet away from his property's boundary with another 10-acre parcel, because that was where the waterfall was located. At the time Homeowner built the home, this neighboring 10-acre parcel was undeveloped woodland, but twenty-five years later, the neighboring owner sold the undeveloped property to Developer. Developer obtained rezoning and subdivision approval for the property to be developed as 30 homes. This plan would involve removing most of the trees and constructing four homes within 20 feet of Homeowner's elaborate home. The development as planned would substantially change the setting in which Homeowner's home is situated and will diminish Homeowner's property values. Can Homeowner stop the planned development of the neighboring parcel? 1. Yes, because Homeowner has obtained a negative easement over the neighboring parcel and the planned development would limit his easement rights. 2. Yes, because Homeowner's house was located on the property before the planned development, and the planned development would adversely affect his parcel's value. 3. Yes, because cutting down trees in a wooded area lacks utility and will be able to be enjoined as a nuisance. 4. No, because the planned development violates no servitude and is likely not a nuisance.

4. No, because the planned development violates no servitude and is likely not a nuisance.

When X bought a condominiumunit in Happy Halls Condo for $60,000, the deed to X from the developer contained a reservation of a right of first refusal to buy the property for $65,000 if X offered the property for sale during the first two years of ownership. The developer transferredthis right of first refusal to Happy Halls Condo Association one year after X's purchase. Nine months after that, X listed her condominium unit for sale. The market price for condominium units in the vicinity had increased dramatically in the 21 months since X had bought the unit, and X had listed the property for sale for $90,000. The Happy Halls Condo Association informed X that it was exercising the right of first refusal and would be acquiring her unit for $65,000. Can the Association legally compel X to sell the unit to the association for $65,000? 1. Yes, because this property right was reserved in the deed to X. 2. Yes, because $65,000 is a higher price than the amount that X paid for the property. 3. Yes, because the right of first refusal in question only lasted 2 years, well within the 21-year RAP period applicable to entities. 4. No, because the right of first refusal price is below market. 5. No, because the right of first refusal was retained by the developer and was non-transferable. 6. No, because of the Rule Against Perpetutities

4. No, because the right of first refusal price is below market.

Testator devised Whiteacre "to my widow for life, then to our grandchildren, but if the property is thereafter used as a place of gambling, then title shall revert to my estate." At his death, Testator had one grandchild who was one year old. Testator's widow survived her husband for five years before her death. Testator's only grandchild sold Whiteacre to a developer who opened a convenience store on the premises. The store sells lottery tickets. Assuming that the sale of lottery tickets would be found to render the convenience store a "place of gambling," will the developer lose title to Whiteacre by selling lottery tickets? 1. Yes, because the defeasible condition would have been met. 2. Yes, because Testator's heirs hold a reversionary interest. 3. No, because the rule against perpetuities invalidates the future interest. 4. No, because there is no automatic reversion in this case.

4. No, because there is no automatic reversion in this case.

For Christmas, Z delivered to his neighbor Y a "Deed of Easement" which granted to Y "the perpetual right to camp, hunt and fish" on a Greenacre, a parcel of land that Z owns in the mountains, about an hour away from Y and Z's homes. Y recorded this document. Y worked with the local Boy Scouts and was thrilled to have the ability to use Greenacre for outdoor activities with the boys. Five years later, Y moved away and sold his home to X. Y gave up his position with the local Boy Scouts, and W took over as the new scoutmaster. Z thereafter died, leaving all his property to V. Who has the right to use Greenacre now? 1. W automatically succeeds to Y's right to use Greenacre because this was an easement in gross 2. X automatically succeeds to Y's right to use Greenacre because this was an appurtenant easement 3. Y's right to use Greenacre terminated when he sold his home and moved away, because the easement was personal and not assignable 4. Y continues to have the right to use Greenacre

4. Y continues to have the right to use Greenacre

License

A license is merely a privilege to do upon the land of another. This is not an interest in land.

Tenant rented apartment unit 2D from Landlord. There are 10 units on each of 5 floors in the building, all owned by Landlord. On October 1st, a new occupant moved into unit 3D, immediately above Tenant. Apparently this occupant is a professional dancer and practices dancing at home during the evening hours. Sometimes the dance practice sessions are not tremendously intrusive, but at least ten hours a week, Tenant's upstairs neighbor practices tap-dancing, which creates a tremendous racket in Tenant's apartment. The noise has been so awful that Tenant is unable to enjoy being at home during those times. When the tap-dancing starts, Tenant immediately vacates his unit. He usually stays away for a couple hours, either at a friends' house, the library, or a local eatery. After the very first instance of tap-dancing, Tenant complained in writing to Landlord, but Landlord has done nothing to address the situation. It is now November 6th and this has been going on over a month. Does Tenant have a valid claim against Landlord? 1. Yes. If a court finds that the tap-dancing is a significant interference with Tenant's quiet enjoyment of his unit, Tenant can win a constructive eviction claim against Landlord 2. Yes. If a court finds that the tap-dancing amounts to a nuisance, Tenant can win a constructive eviction claim against Landlord. 3. Yes. If a court finds that tap-dancing in an apartment building is an unreasonable use of property, Tenant can win an implied warranty of habitability claim against Landlord. 4. No. Tenant does not have a valid cause of action against for constructive eviction against Landlord under these facts.

4. No. Tenant does not have a valid cause of action against for constructive eviction against Landlord under these facts.

Gerald owns a farm on the outskirts of a rapidly developing city. Several land developers over the past decade have approached Gerald and offered to buy his home, but Gerald is dedicated to working the land and does not want to sell. He adheres to the philosophy expressed in Gone With the Wind, that "Land is the only thing that matters, because land is the only thing that lasts." To accommodate the growth of the city and alleviate traffic, however, the government has decided to build a new "beltway" highway encircling the downtown area. The City's plan for the beltway has plotted the highway to run right through the middle of Gerald's farm, rendering it far less usable as a a farm. In addition, the city plans to take the part of Gerald's property that will be "inside" the beltway through eminent domain in order to have Excel Pharmaceuticals build a corporate headquarters office park there. The office park will not only include office space, but also an upscale restaurant, a deli/coffee shop, and public "open space." Gerald objects to both takings (the highway plan and the office park plan). Can Gerald successfully claim that either proposed taking exceeds the power of the government to seize land? 1. Yes. Neither taking would be authorized because Gerald's personhood and autonomy would be destroyed by allowing the conveyance. 2. Yes. But only the office park taking would be prohibited, because it is not proposed to be allocated to a public use. 3. No. Neither taking would be prohibited because the government has acted according to a plan. 4. No. The highway taking will be held by the government for use by the public, and the office park will generate additional tax revenue. 5. No. There is no limitation to what a government can seize, only a requirement regarding what a government must pay.

4. No. The highway taking will be held by the government for use by the public, and the office park will generate additional tax revenue.

Tenant signed a lease with Landlord for a one-year term, ending on August 31. The lease provided for monthly rental payments of $500. On September 1, without vacating the premises, Tenant sent Landlord a check for $500. Landlord cashed the check. On September 15th, Landlord informed the Tenant that the premises had been rented to another party and that Tenant must vacate by September 30 or face eviction. Assuming Tenant will not voluntarily leave, when is the earliest that Landlord will be able to remove Tenant from the premises? 1. Immediately, because Tenant has a tenancy at sufferance and Landlord has indicated that he wishes to reclaim possession. 2. September 30, because Tenant has a tenancy at sufferance and Landlord has indicated that he wishes to reclaim possession. 3. September 30, because Tenant has a month-to-month periodic tenancy and Landlord has indicated that he wishes to terminate. 4. October 31, because Tenant has a month-to-month periodic tenancy and Landlord has indicated that he wishes to terminate. 5. August 31 the following year, because Tenant has effectively renewed the term of years tenancy.

4. October 31, because Tenant has a month-to-month periodic tenancy and Landlord has indicated that he wishes to terminate.

Ben owns a 0.75-acre lot in the City, which is more than twice the size of most improved lots in the neighborhood ("improved" = lots w/homes on them). Ben applied for a subdivision approval to divide his property into two lots (so he could sell one and build on the other). Although the neighborhood in which Ben's lot is located has for years had a minimum lot size of 0.33 acres, homeowners in the community had begun to put pressure on the local officials to downzone the neighborhood (change the zoning to mandate lower density). While Ben's application was pending, the City bowed to popular pressure and downzoned the neighborhood, requiring that all lots be a minimum of a half-acre in order to be improved. According to this new zoning standard, Ben cannot divide his 0.75-acre lot into two build able lots. The new zoning laws applied to the entire neighborhoods, but all smaller-than-a-half-acre improved lots were granted variances. Which of the arguments below is most likely to help Ben avoid having the down-zoning limit his development plans? 1. The down-zoning is a disguised taking without fair compensation because it lacks an essential nexus with the stated public purpose. 2. The down-zoning is a violation of due process because there is no valid reason to change the minimum lot size. 3. The down-zoning change is impermissible because it singles out Ben 4. The down-zoning interferes with Ben's vested rights because he had already applied for subdivision under the old zoning standard.

4. The down-zoning interferes with Ben's vested rights because he had already applied for subdivision under the old zoning standard.

X and Y are neighbors. They entered into a written agreement saying that "X and his successors and assigns" could harvest "one bushel of apples" from Y's apple tree each September. Is this agreement enforceable by X and future owners of X's property against Y and future owners of Y's property? 1. Unless this agreement was recorded, it likely would be unenforceable as against Y. 2. Even if this agreement was recorded, it would not be enforceable at law against future owners of Y's land because X and Y lacked horizontal privity. 3. Because of the "successors and assigns" language, X can freely assign this agreement to any party he wishes, even without selling his land. 4. This agreement will bind future owners of Y's land who know about this arrangement.

4. This agreement will bind future owners of Y's land who know about this arrangement.

Mortgagor

A borrower in a mortgage loan transaction.

Conversion/Trover

A cause of action in which the owner of property sues for the value of his/her property

Life Tenant Obligation

A life tenant is responsible for paying taxes on the property. A life tenant is also responsible fore paying the interest on the mortgage. They are not responsible for paying the principal.

Owner owned two parcels of land, A and B. B was located just north of a public highway and A was located north of B and had no direct access to a public road. Owner built a home on A and paved a driveway across B to the home on parcel A. Owner then sold parcel B to Buyer. The deed said nothing about the path across parcel B, but Owner continued to use the driveway. A year after the conveyance, a new public road was built along the northern boundary of parcel A. Can Owner lawfully use the paved driveway across parcel B? 1. No, Owner never had any legal right to cross parcel B because she landlocked herself 2. No, Owner previously had an implied easement across parcel B, but this easement terminated when the new public road was built 3. No, Owner does not yet have, but could eventually acquire, a prescriptive easement across parcel B 4. Yes, Owner had and still has an implied easement across parcel B 5. Yes, although Owner has a mere license right to cross parcel B and this can be terminated at Buyer's option

4. Yes, Owner had and still has an implied easement across parcel B

Notice Required Before Eviction Action Filed

5 Days

Statute of Limitations on Fraudulent Concealment in IL

5 Years from the time the buyer discovered the defect.

Statute of Limitations on Discovery Rule in IL for chattels

5 years (but is tolled by the true owner's due diligence to find the current possessor)

K filled out a rental application for half of a duplex and gave it to the landlord, L, who lives in the other half of the duplex. "I really hope this works out," said K. "My partner's work is just around the corner from here, and since we're going to be having a baby soon - her egg in my body - we want to be in a safe, family neighborhood." If L refuses to rent to K, will L have violated the Fair Housing Act? 1. Yes, L will have violated the Fair Housing Act if he refused to rent to K because of her sexual orientation 2. Yes, L will have violated the Fair Housing Act if he refused to rent to K because of her pregnancy 3. Yes, L will have violated the Fair Housing Act unless he can prove that he has a religious objection to homosexuality 4. Both A and B. 5. None of the above

5. None of the above

Under what authority does the Fed. Gov have Eminent Domain Authority?

5th Amendment

In 2000, Testator conveyed Tealacre, "to Andrew for his life, and then to Beryl's then-alive children for their lives, and then to their surviving spouses, if any." Testator left all of his remaining property "to the Red Cross." In 2001, Beryl died, leaving two children, Charlie and Dawn.Beryl's will left all her property to her boyfriend, Jim. In 2008, Charlie died. Charlie's will left all his property to his girlfriend, Kim. In 2009, Andrew died. Andrew's will left all his property to his widow. In 2015, Dawn died, leaving her husband, Edward a widow. Dawn's will left half her property to Edward and half to the Red Cross. In 2016, who holds what interests in Tealacre? 1. Edward holds Tealacre in fee simple absolute. 2. Edward and the Red Cross each hold a fee simple absolute interest in Tealacre. 3. Andrew's widow holds a fee simple absolute interest in Tealacre. 4. Kim and Edward each hold a fee simple absolute interest in Tealacre. 5. Jim holds a fee simple absolute interest in Tealacre. 6. The Red Cross holds a fee simple absolute interest in Tealacre. 7. The interest in Tealacre is still contingent and therefore void. 8. The interest in Tealacre is still contingent, but if USRAP applies, the contingent interest remains valid until 2090.

6. The Red Cross holds a fee simple absolute interest in Tealacre.

Gordon Ross devises Blackacre "to Dwight for life, and then to those of his children who pass the state's bar exam." Fifty years later, Dwight died at the age of 98. Dwight had two children, Susannah and Caleb. Susannah, a 60-year-old lawyer at her father's death, had passed the state's bar decades earlier. Caleb was a 55-year-old elementary school teacher when his father died with no intention of ever going to law school or taking the bar. At Dwight's death, who holds what interests in Blackacre? 1. Susannah and Caleb hold a contingent remainder as tenants in common in fee simple absolute. 2. Susannah and Caleb hold a contingent remainder as joint tenants in fee simple absolute. 3. Susannah and Caleb hold an executory interest as tenants in common in fee simple absolute. 4. Susannah holds fee simple title that she may eventually be forced to share with Caleb. Caleb has an executory interest. If Caleb's executory interest ever becomes possessory, he and Susannah will hold Blackacre as tenants in common. 5. Susannah holds fee simple absolute title. Caleb has no interest. 6. The property now belongs to Gordon Ross's estate.

6. The property now belongs to Gordon Ross's estate.

Shelley v. Kraemer

A 1948 Supreme Court decision that outlawed restrictive covenants on the occupancy of housing developments by African Americans, Asian Americans, and other minorities. Because the Court decision did not actually prohibit racial discrimination in housing, unfair practices against minority groups continued until passage of the Fair Housing Act in 1968.

O to A and his heirs, but if the land is used for commercial purposes, then to B.

A = FSA

O to A and his heirs until the land is used for commercial purposes, then to B.

A = FSD O = POR (FSA)

O to A for life, then to A's first child for life, then to O's grandchildren. (A has no children and O has 2 grandchildren at the time of the grant).

A = LE A's first child = Cont. Rem. (LE) O = Reversion (FSA)

O to A for life, then to A's widow for her life, then to A's children who survive A's widow.

A = LE A's widow = Cont. Rem. (LE) O = Reversion (FSA)

O to A for life, then to A's youngest child for life, then to A's other children who are still alive. (A has 3 children at the time of the grant)

A = LE As youngest child = Cont. Rem (LE) O = Reversion (FSA)

O to A for life and then to A's children who reach age 30 (At the time of the grant, A has two children, B who is 18 and C who is 28).

A = LE O = Reversion (FSA)

O to A for life, then to B's first child to earn a J.D.

A = LE O = Reversion (FSA)

BFP

A BFP is a purchaser who takes land without notice and for consideration. Donees, heirs, devisees are not BFPs b/c no consideration.

Escrow

A bond or deed that is kept in the custody of a third party taking effect only when a condition is fulfilled.

Joint Tenancy & Tenancy by the Entirety

A conveyance by both husband and wife do not affect their joint tenancy as to the reminder of the land.

Notice Statute Langauge

A conveyance of an interest in land shall not be valid against any subsequent purchase for value without notice there of unless the conveyance is recorded. Under a notice statute, one who takes for valuable consideration and without actual, record or inquiry notice prevails over a prior grantee who fails to record.

Fee Simple Subject to Condition Subsequent

A conveyance of property subject to a condition agreed upon that allows for grantor's right of entry if/when the condition is violated. NOT IMMEDIATE. Owner must affirmatively act to take back the land. Has 7 years to file ejectment action.

Fee Simple Defeasible

A conveyance of property with conditions placed upon it.

Warranty Deed

A deed in which the grantor makes formal assurance as to quality of title.

Deed of Trust

A deed of trust is a security interest in land by which the debtor (trustor) tenders title to the land to a third party (trustee) acting on behalf of the lender (beneficiary). In the event of default, the lender instructs the trust to foreclose the deed of trust by selling the property.

Disabling Restraint

A disabling restraint is one that renders any attempted transfer ineffective. All disabling restraint on legal interests are void.

deed

A document that transfers ownership of property from one party to another inter vivos.

Fee Simple Determinable

A fee simple determinable is an estate that automatically terminates upon the happening of a stated event and does back to the grantor. The interest in the grantor is a possibility of reverter.

Fee Simple Determinable

A fee simple estate qualified by a special limitation/condition. Grantor holds future interest (possibility of reverter) in which upon violation of the limitation/condition the title reverts immediately back to the grantor.

Fee simple subject to an executory interest

A fee simple subject to an executory inters is an estate that automatically divests in favor a third person.

Foreclose & Mortgages

A foreclosure sale wipes out all junior mortgages (this that came later than the mortgage that was foreclosed) but does not wipe out senior mortgages (those that came earlier).

Right of Entry

A future interest associated with the fee simple subject to a condition subsequent in which the grantor may elect to end the interest after the grantee breaches a condition under which it was granted.

Contingent Remainder

A future interest that depends on the occurrence of an uncertain event. ex) if A has children, blackacre is willed to A's children

General Warranty Deed

A general warranty deed contains covenants for title though which the grantor warrants against title defects created by herself and prior land owner.

Gift Causa Mortis

A gift made in contemplation of death. If the donor does not die of that ailment, the gift is revoked.

Willard Case

A grantor may reserve an interest in the land for use by a third party

Doctrine of Destructibility

A interest must vest at or prior to the expiration of the preceding estate. An interest which does not vest will be destroyed.

Partition in Kind

A judicial order to divide the property physically and place each undivided owner in sole ownership of 100% of a portion of said property

Landlord Duty

A landlord is not liable for latent defects unless the landlord knew or had reason to the know of the defects.

Lateral Support

A landowner has a right to have her land supported in its natural stated by adjoining land. If however, the land has buildings on it, an excavating neighbor will be liable for damages to the buildings caused by the excavation of: (1) the excavating landowner was negligent (2) excavation would have caused land to subside even in its natural state

Excavation

A landowner has a right to have his land supported in its natural state by adjoining land. If however the land has building on it, an excavating landowner will be liable for damages to the building caused by the excavation only if the excavation would have caused the land to subside even in its natural state. They may also be liable for negligence.

Magical Words Problem

A lawyer messed up the deed, will, etc. and so the words don't match up (or are missing all together) with the supposed intent

Utility Easement

A legal right-of-way enabling a utility company to run service lines over/under private property.

Will

A legally enforceable declaration of how a person wishes his or her property to be distributed after death

Mortgage and Note

A mortgage is a security interest in real estate that secures an obligation usually a promise to repay a loan which is represented by a promissory note. Debtor/mortgagor gives the mortgage and note to the lender/mortgage. The mortgage follows the note.

Slayer Statute

A murderer cannot gain any inheritance from the person they murdered. Joint tenancy questions vary per state. (Duncan v. Vasseur-- in Oklahoma, a murder turns a joint tenancy into a tenancy in common)

O executes and delivers a valid deed conveying Blackacre to herself and to A as joint tenants. The deed is not recorded. A accepts the deed, then changes his mind and says he wants B to have his interest, and O agrees. O simply alters the original deed using white-out to change "A" to "B," and then records the deed. O dies. Who owns Blackacre?

A owns by right of survivorship. The initial O-A transfer was valid under the Statute of Frauds, but the second attempted transfer from O-B was not (transfer not accompanied by valid signatures).

Partial Forfeiture Restraint

A partial forfeiture restraint on alienation occurs when an attempted transfer forfeits the interest, is valid if reasonable.

Periodic Tenancy

A periodic tenancy is a tenancy that continues from prior to period until terminated by proper notice by either the landlord or the tenant.

Easement by necessity

A person cannot hold an easement on her own land. an easement is extinguished if the dominant and servient estate becomes owned by the same person. Note: Easement terminated by unity of ownership will not be renewed if the estate is later separated.

Finder

A person who finds property that has superior property interest to all but the true owner

Grantee

A person who receives a conveyance of real property from a grantor.

Freehold Estate

A possessory and ownership estate in real property; either a fee simple or a life estate. The holder of a freehold estate has title.

Life Estate

A possessory interest in real or personal property that is limited in duration to the lifetime of its owner or some other designated person or persons.

Life Estate

A possessory interest in real property conveyed by a grantor for the lifetime of the grantee.

Possibility of Reverter

A possibility that title to land will revert back to the grantor if the grantee breaches a condition placed on the title by the grantor in a Fee Simple Determinable.

Intestate Succession

A process of law by which the state lays out the correct succession of inheritance when a person dies without leaving a valid will.

Profit

A profit is a non-possesory interest in land. The holder of a profit has the right to go upon the land of another and take soil or substance of the soil (minerals)

Profit

A profit is a nonposessory interest in land, allowing the grantee to enter the land and remove the resources from the land.

Equitable Servitude

A promise between landowners that equity will enforce against successors. Accompanied by injunctive relief.

Setback Requirements

A provision requiring a certain distance a building must be from neighboring land.

Purchase money sercuity interest

A purchase money security interest in an affixed chattel prevails over a prior recorded mortgage on the land, as long as the chattel interest is recorded within 20 days after the chattel is affixed to the land.

Real Covenant

A real covenant is a written promise to use or not use land in a certain manner and does not confer a right to possess the land on the conventee

Lis Pendens

A recorded legal document giving constructive notice that an action affecting a particular property has been filed in either a state or a federal court. (Latin for Litigation Pending)

Doctrine of Worthier Title

A remainder in the grantor's heirs is invalid and becomes a reversion in the grantor. - an inter vivos conveyance of land.

Remainder

A remainder is a future interest created in a transferee that is capable of taking in present possession on the natural termination of the proceeding estate in the same disposition. Note: Remainders always follow life estates

Contingent Remainder

A remainder will be classified as contingent if its taking is subject to a condition precedent or is created in factor of unborn or unascertained persons.

Right of refusal

A right of refusal is typically not assignable and not jubject to the RAP. Howver, if assignable, subject to the RAP. Because will vest beyond 21 years.

"A trap for the Unwary"

A rule that is so easy to get around that it "traps" people unfamiliar with the lingo. Two schools of thought: (1) it is so easy that you should have done your homework or (2) should not punish the drafter for not doing it when it is only a formality anyways.

Use of proceeds at closing

A seller is obligated to transfer title free of encumbrances. A mortgage qualifies as an encumbrance. However, a seller may use proceeds paid by the buyer at closing to pay off mortgages, and deliver clear title to the buyer.

Shifting Executory Interest

A shifting executory interest is one that divest the interest of another transferee. It just short the prior estate created by the same conveyance.

Failure of Issue

A situation in which a property-holder dies without leaving children who could have inherited their property.

Statutory Redemption

A statutory right of redemption give the borrower a right to redeem for the foreclosure price after the foreclosure sale.

O executes and delivers to A a valid deed conveying Blackacre. The deed is not recorded. Later, O decides he wants the land back, and A—for reasons unknown—hands back to O the deed and says "now the land is yours again." O then tears up the deed. Who owns Blackacre?

A still owns. The initial O-A transfer comports with the Statute of Frauds (written instrument signed by party to be charged). The second A-O transfer does not.

Covenant / Benefit

A successor in interest to the original promisee may enforce the covenant (enjoy the benefit) if there was: (1) writing (2) intent (3)touch and concern the land (4) vertical privity WITV

IL Elective Share Statute (Renunciation of Will)

A surviving spouse of the testator has the right to renounce a will, whether or not the will contains any provision for the benefit of this spouse; and is then entitled to statutory share • *Different fractional interest than intestate succession* • 1/3 of the entire estate if the testator leaves a descendant • 1/2 of the entire state is the testator leaves no descendant • Descendants can be disinherited by the surviving spouse alone A. Unless there was a prior prenuptial agreement that says the surviving spouse cannot renounce the will under this statute. The court will uphold this agreement and interpret it as the spouse waiving his or her rights to inheritance

Non freehold Estate

A temporary possessory interest in real property, could be estate for years, periodic tenancy, tenancy at will or sufferance

Tenancy for years

A tenancy for years is a tenancy that continues for a fixed period of time and ends automatically on its termination date.

Tenancy by the Entirety

A tenancy in which the owners must be husband and wife. Each has equal, undivided intrest, each owns the entire estate.

Chattel & Tenancy

A tenant must remove annexed chattels before the termination of the tenant or they bemuse the property of the landlord.

Sublease

A transfer of less than all of a tenant's interest in a leased property (the original tenant will return). The transfer when the original lessee retains a reversion. Primary liability remains with the original lessee.

Tenancy in Common

A type of co-ownership in which each owner has the right to sell his or her interest without the consent of the other owners, may own an unequal share of the property, and may have a creditor attach his or her interest.

Noncomforming use

A use of property that is permitted to continue after a zoning ordinance prohibiting it has been established for the area. (Grandfathered in)

Will's Effectivness

A will has no effect until the testator's death!

O sells to A and B, both as BFPs. B records, then A records. B then mortgages the property to D. Finally, B sells to C, who sees the prior transactions involving A and D when searching title but purchases anyway. A and D seek to assert their claims. Will they win?

A will lose b/c C enjoys BFP status with respect to the early sale D will win because C does not enjoy BFP status with respect to the mortgage

A and B are neighboring landowners and execute an agreement mutually restricting their lot to single-family residential use. The agreement is recorded. B sells to C. C builds an apartment on the lot. A sues C seeking to enjoin the construction. Assuming that the agreement was meant to bind future acquirers, what result?

A will prevail; all elements are met for the burden of the equitable servitude to run with the land

Lien

An interest placed upon a house to secure debt owed.

Police Power

Ability of government to regulate for health, safety and general welfare.

Fraud (in Deed context)

Actual signature of GRANTOR is on the document, but they were tricked or coerced into unknowingly conveying more than what they had originally agreed to. VOIDABLE-- not immediately VOID.

A asks B whether A can create a path across B's adjacent property to access a service road. B refuses, but A creates a path over B's land and uses it every day. B glares at A the whole time but never does anything to stop him. Finally, fifteen years later, B gets fed up and puts up a fence blocking A from the path. Does B have an easement? If so, what kind? If you're not sure, what facts would help you be more certain?

Actual use Yep, easy case Open and notorious use Yes, seems highly visible Adverse and hostile Yes, not permissive Continuous for statutory period Seems continuous but stat period unclear Exclusivity? To the extent relevant, hard to say

Cook County Fair Housing Act

Adds "income source" and "housing status" to the protected classes under the IL Fair Housing Act.

Chicago Fair Housing Act

Adds "military status" to list of protected classes for Fair Housing.

Prescriptive Easement

Adverse Possession-ish

Proceeds from Foreclosure Sale

After paying the expenses of the sale, attorneys' fees and court cost, the proceeds of a foreclosure sale go toward the loan that was foreclosed. Then any remaining proceeds are applied to paying off junior client in their order of priority.

: A conveys Blackacre to B (who does not take possession), and then to C, using a general warranty deed each time. C occupies Blackacre without any knowledge of the A-B transaction, then conveys to D via special warranty deed. Shortly thereafter, B shows up and kicks D off the land. B and C were both bona fide purchasers, and C sold to D without knowledge of any superior interests (nor did D have any such knowledge). What are D's options for suits for violation of the covenant of general warranty against A, B, and C?

Against C? No, because C is not at fault for D's dispossession, and so not liable under the special warranty deed Against B? No, no deed-based relationship Against A? Probably—A's GWD to C carries over to subsequent purchasers like D because it relates to a future covenant

Implied Easement of Necessity

Allows an owner of a landlocked parcel to cross over another's land to access a public road. Easements by necessity are known as appurtenant. This means that they benefit a particular piece of land, rather than an individual person.

Ameliorative Waste

Amelitorative waster is the destruction of improvements on the life estate that increase the value of the property.

Abandonment of an Easement

An abandonment terminates an easement and requires a physical act by the easement holder that manifest an intent to permanently abandon the easement. Physical act + Intent= Abandon

Accession

An addition to property through the efforts of man or by natural forces.

Affirmative Easement

An affirmative easement is a non-posserty right to use someone else's land.

Assignment & Assignee liablity

An assignee owes the rent directly to the landlord. If the assignee re assigns the leasehold interest, his privity of estate ends and he is generally not liable for the subsequent assignee's failure to pay rent in he absence of a specific promise to the landlord.

Easement appurtenant

An easement appurtenant is a nonpossessory right to use someone else land - the servient estate- in a way that directly benefits the holder in her possession of her own land (dominant estate).

Easement

An easement is non-possessory interest in land. The holder of an easement has a right to use another's land but has not right to posses and enjoy the land.

Implied Easement

An easement may be implied from existing use when (1) before tract divided an apparent and contiuous uses exists on the servient part (2) the use is reasonably necessary for the enjoyment of the dominant party (3) the court finds that the parties intended the sue to continue after the property was divided.

Implied easement

An easement may be implied if prior to the tract is divided, a use exists on the servient part that is reasonably necessary for the enjoyment of the dominant part and the court determines that the parties intended the use to come after the division of the property. Easement appurtenant- apparent and continuous at time tract is divided.

Easement in Gross

An entity's personal right to use property. The receiver DOES NOT own the adjoining property. Example: utility easement. Note: not recognized in common law of England

Equitable mortgatge

An equitable mortgage requires foreclosure by judicial action. A seller needing to raise money may sell the land to a person who pays cassh and may give the lender an absolute deed rather than a mortgagor. If the court concludes that the deed was a security interest, it will treat it as as an equitable mortgage.

Equitable Servitude

An equitable servitude is a convent that regardless of whether it runes with the land at law, equity will enforce against the assignees of the burdened land who have notice of the covenant Writing, intent, touch and concern land, and notice.

Fee Simple with Condition Subsequent

An estate in real estate that prohibits a specific condition on the property. Grantor has the right to re-enter the property and reclaim ownership through legal proceedings.

Dominent Estate

An estate that derives BENEFIT from another estate (servient estate) as in an easement.

Fee Simple Determinable

An estate which has been created to exist only until the occurrence or nonoccurrence of a particular event. Returns automatically.

Life Estate

An interest in real or personal property that is limited in duration to the lifetime of its owner or some other designated person or persons.

Adverse Possession & Permission

An occupier who initially has the true owner's permission to enter the land may acquire land by adverse possession if the occupier communicates hostility and satisfies the other elements of adverse possession.

Race Notice

Any conveyance of an interest in land shall not be valid against any subsequent purchaser for value without notice thereof of whose conveyance is first recorded.

waste

Any damage/misuse to real property by a tenant that can lessen is value

Partition

Any tenant in common has a right to judicial partition of the property, either in sale and division of the proceeds or by kind. When co-tenanys are squabbling and cannot come to an agreement, the remedy of partition terminates the co-tenancy.

Easement by Express Reservation

Arises when owner (present possessory interest-holder) of a tract of land conveys title but reserves right to continue to use tract for special purpose after conveyance & can be reserved ONLY for grantor

Fair Housing Act of 1968

As made applicable by section 3603 of this title and except as exempted by sections 3603 (b) and 3607 of this title, it shall be unlawful— (a) To refuse to sell or rent after the making of a bona fide offer, or to refuse to negotiate for the sale or rental of, or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin. (b) To discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith, because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin. (c) To make, print, or publish, or cause to be made, printed, or published any notice, statement, or advertisement, with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin, or an intention to make any such preference, limitation, or discrimination. (f)(1) To discriminate in the sale or rental, or to otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any buyer or renter because of a handicap of— (A) that buyer or renter, [1] (2) To discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection with such dwelling, because of a handicap of— (A) that person; or (3) For purposes of this subsection, discrimination includes— (A) a refusal to permit, at the expense of the handicapped person, reasonable modifications of existing premises occupied or to be occupied by such person if such modifications may be necessary to afford such person full enjoyment of the premises except that, in the case of a rental, the landlord may condition permission for a modification on the renter agreeing to restore the interior of the premises to the condition that existed before the modification, reasonable wear and tear excepted. (B) a refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford such person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling;

A owns a two-acre parcel. A subdivides equally and sells one acre to B. A and B execute an agreement, never recorded, that they will not build any structures on their land over two stories tall. A and B intend that the agreement bind future acquirers. Neither party builds on the land, instead selling it; A sells a life estate to A1, and B sells to B1 in fee simple absolute. Both A and B tell the purchasers that the land is subject to the restrictive covenant. B1 begins to build a three-story house on her land. A1 sues B1, seeking both money damages and injunctive relief. What result? A owns a two-acre parcel. A subdivides equally and sells one acre to B. A and B execute an agreement, never recorded, that they will not build any structures on their land over two stories tall. A and B intend that the agreement bind future acquirers. Neither party builds on the land, instead selling it; A sells a life estate to A1, and B sells to B1 in fee simple absolute. Both A and B tell the purchasers that the land is subject to the restrictive covenant. B1 begins to build a three-story house on her land. A1 sues B1, seeking both money damages and injunctive relief. What result?

Ask: do burden and benefit of equitable servitude run with land? Writing (not a common plan) Intent Touch and concern Burden only: notice These elements are met; the equitable servitude runs with the land Shortcut: if a real covenant runs with the land, so does the related equitable servitude

Assumption v. Subject

Assume: Personally liable Subject: Not personally. Note, however, that the the bank can still foreclose and/or sue the original buyer.

In 2004, A purchases a house, financed by a $500k loan from Bank that is secured by a mortgage agreement and promissory note held by Bank. In 2006, A takes out a second mortgage against the house from LoanCo for $100k. In 2007, Bank transfers A's mortgage to HedgeCorp, a New York hedge fund. In 2010, A stops making payments on either mortgage. He owes $300k on the first mortgage and $50k on the second. A's house is worth only $200k at the time of his default. Assume all mortgages and transfers recorded. What are his creditors' options, and what will the outcome be?

Because A has defaulted, both HedgeCorp (as the holder of A's promissory note on the first mortgage) and LoanCo (as the holder of the note on the second) can begin foreclosure proceedings. HedgeCorp has priority in such proceedings because it is the senior lienholder. If it forecloses, though, there will be a shortfall of $100k for which A will be personally liable. LoanCo, as the junior lienholder, will have its interest in A's land extinguished by HedgeCorp's foreclosure. A will remain personally liable to LoanCo for the outstanding $50k.

Implied Easement by Prior Use

Before and up to the time the grantor transferred part of the land to the grantee, the grantor had been using one of the parts to benefit the other part in a way that would be an easement if the parts were separately owned. For example, a water line passes under the land to a house on the land.

Variation: B later tries to sell to C. A learns of the potential sale, and tells C, "Don't buy from B, I'm the real owner!" C ignores A, and purchases Blackacre from B. A then sues to quiet title in Blackacre.

Between A and C, who wins? C: shelter rule means she takes thanks to B's status

A and B are neighboring landowners and execute an agreement mutually restricting their lot to single-family residential use. The agreement is recorded. B sells to C. A builds an apartment on the lot. C sues A for damages. Assuming that the agreement was intended to bind future acquirers, what result?

C can recover damages against A on a real covenant theory; benefit of the real covenant runs with the land

A and B are neighboring landowners and execute an agreement mutually restricting their lot to single-family residential use. The agreement is recorded. B sells to C. A builds an apartment on the lot. C sues A for damages. Assuming that the agreement was intended to bind future acquirers, what result? What, if anything, would be different if C merely acquired a life estate from B?

C may not be able to recover damages from B; w/r/t vertical privity of estate, conveyance needs to be same estate

A and B are neighboring landowners and execute an agreement mutually restricting their lot to single-family residential use. The agreement is recorded. B sells to C. A builds an apartment on the lot. C sues A, seeking an injunction to prevent the building. Assuming that the agreement was meant to bind future acquirers, what result?

C will prevail; all elements are met for the benefit of the equitable servitude to run with the land What if agreement not recorded? C will still prevail; notice is necessary only for burden, not benefit, of covenant to run with land

A owns a two-acre parcel. A subdivides equally and sells one acre to B. A and B execute an agreement, never recorded, that they will not build any structures on their land over two stories tall. A and B intend that the agreement bind future acquirers. Neither party builds on the land, instead selling it; A sells a life estate to A1, and B sells to B1 in fee simple absolute. Both A and B tell the purchasers that the land is subject to the restrictive covenant. B1 begins to build a three-story house on her land. A1 sues B1, seeking both money damages and injunctive relief. What result?

Can A1 sue B1 for money damages? Must ask: do burden and benefit of real covenant run with the land? Notice Burden Benefit Intent Writing Touch and concern Privity Burden Benefit A1 can recover damages from B1

Policy Implications of Zoning Laws

Can be used in suburban communities to exclude certain types of developments that may discriminate certain socioeconomic classes of people.

Condemnation Action

Cause of action the federal government pursues to remove a private land owner from their own throughout the process of eminent domain.

Ejectment

Cause of action to legally remove someone from real property

After S purchased the house, she accidentally discovered that it rests on a thin layer of rock perched over a vast cavern, which was produced by underwater streams; a geologist advised her that it might fall into the cavern at any moment. There is no indication in the house or on the grounds that the cavern exists, so B did not find it when he inspected. Duty to disclose?

Clearly duty to disclose under majority approach. Condition is known to seller, obviously material, not at all obvious.

The previous owner of A's house died of AIDS. A was aware of this fact. There is no chance that one can contract HIV simply by living in A's house. A enters into a contract to sell her house to B. B then discovers during the pendency of the sales contract how the previous owner died.

Clearly not an obvious/patent condition; Is this a condition warranting disclosure? Certainly not a physical condition of property; Regardless, If test is objective, law would be unlikely to uphold irrational fear of disease (materiality); If test is subjective, different result would obtain May be subject to state regulations. E.g., TPC 5.008(c) (no duty to disclose deaths on property by natural causes, HIV/AIDS, suicide or accident unless related to condition of property)

S claims title to the land by adverse possession. During executory period, P, the original owner, brings a quiet title action against S. S tells B: "Don't worry! There's no chance that our side will lose the case. Go ahead and close the deal."

Clearly not marketable title. Reasonable doubt that S does not have title. Some jurisdictions might say no warranty breach if B knew about contrary claim prior to execution of sales contract.

S knows that the electric wiring in the house is old and brittle. Twenty years ago, while S owned the house, there was a small fire caused by a frayed wire in a light switch. B is an experienced electrician. Duty to disclose?

Clearly yes. This is a known, material, and nonobvious defect. B status as electrician does not change matters. Reasonable buyer standard always applies. How different under Stambovsky?

Co - Tenants

Co Owners of land who share an undivided interest that cannot be separated from the whole.

Statute of Frauds

Courts in most states will enforce an oral contract in equity under part performance if the buyer has performed at least two of the following: (1) payment (2) possesion (3) improvements

"To A"

Common law -- not absolute Modern law -- could be absolute

Fee Simple Absolute

Complete ownership of property/ holding clear title to property

Consideration

Consideration is not required to render a deed valid.

X just lost his job and went through bankruptcy, and he has very little money. He asks Y, the owner of a half-empty building near his former home, if he can rent an apartment "cheap." Y tells X that most of the apartments in the building "aren't ready to be rented." Y had to stop a major renovation partway through for financial reasons, so some of the apartments have exposed wiring and pipes and are missing essential things, like a toilet. X asks Y if he can stay in one of these unfinished apartments for $25 a month. "I can't afford more," explains X, "and it is better than living on the street." Y agrees and they sign a written lease. What is true regarding the legal status of X's obligations under the lease? A. X may be able to avoid the lease as illegal B. X may be able to obtain a reduction of his rent even below $25 a month C. If drafted properly, with clear disclosures, this arrangement is enforceable D. Both A and B. E. None of the above

D. Both A and B.

Quitclaim Deed

Deed where Grantor makes no promises regarding title.

What happens if the mortgagor fails to answer the foreclosure complaint?

Default Judgement entered against them. (if DJ is entered within the 90 day reinstatement period, can still do reinstatement)

Neighbors A & B agree that they will not paint their houses any color other than brown.

Definitely: relates to development/upkeep of property

Commercial

Determined by the prior tenancy, but if it is more than one year (i.e., 6 years), will result in a year to year tenancy

Berg v. Wiley

Facts- -D executed lease with P that specified that P make no changes to building structure without written authorization; P attempted to remodel restaurant without procuring written permission and it was supposedly in violation of health code -D sent P letter informing her of lease violations, demanded remodeling within 2 weeks or D would retake possession; At end of two weeks, P closed for remodeling but D came to property and dispute arisen which eventually led D to lock tenant out ; P sued for wrongful eviction Rule- Landlord may rightfully use self-help to retake leased premises without incurring liability for wrongful eviction if 1)Landlord is legally entitled to possession, where tenant is hold over or breaches lease containing re entry clause 2)AND landlord's means of reentry are peaceable Basically removes CL, and requires landlord use judicial system to evict instead of self help

Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roomate.com LLC

Facts- -D is an internet based business that helps roommates find others; users must answer questions about sex, sexual orientation, and whether children will be living with them and are asked about preferences regarding those things -P sued alleging these questions violate FHA Rule- -Government should not be able to regulate individual's ability to pick a roommate -No indication that Congress intended to interfere with personal relationships inside the home; doubtful that congress intended the FHA to apply to an arrangement between two people sharing living space

JMB Properties Urban Co v. Paolucci

Facts- -D opened store and complained to landlord about noise from neighbors; eventually neighbors left; P began managing mall and negotiated new lease with tenants; D entered into new lease which prevented them from operating store within 5 mile radius -D failed to pay rent, vacating the premises and moved to new location within 5 miles; Sued and D claimed they were constructively evicted Rule- Constructive Eviction results from landlord's failure to keep premises in tenantable condition -Untenantability- when interference is of such nature that property cannot be used for purpose it was rented -If tenant fails to vacate within a reasonable time, the tenant is considered to have waived landlords breach

Fidelity Mutual Life Insurance v. Kaminsky

Facts- -D rented property from P; D is doctor that performs elective abortions; Anti-abortion protesters picketed the building and their repeated and increased demonstrations led D to vacate premise and stop paying rent -Lease- Quiet Enjoyment Covenant Rule- Landlord is not responsible for actions of third parties only when landlord does not permit the third party to act When tenant leaves leased premises due to conduct by landlord which materially interferes with tenant's beneficial use of premises D ignored complains on several occassin, protestors blocked entrances

Neithamer v. Brenneman Property Services

Facts- -P is gay and HIV positive, was denied rental because his "credit report": P explained poor credit score was due to paying for lovers medical bills who had AIDS: P offered to pre-pay one year's rent but it was rejected -P brought suit against D under FHA for discrimination because of his sexual orientation and medical disability Rule- Prima Facie Case of Discrimination under FHA -He is a member of protected class and D knew or suspected this -He applied for and was qualified to rent property in question -D rejected application -Property remained available Once P establishes this, Burden shifts to D to articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason- P has a chance to argue this is pretext

Kajo Church Square Inc. v. Walker

Facts- -Walker transferred ownership to church; part of transfer was gift, part was sale; Church leased part of land back to appellees until the date of the lessees death -P purchased church and notified Walker that they were terminating lease; Lawsuit ensued Rule- Written Instruments- give effect to the intention of the parties expressed by language used by them in the instrument -When deed plainly and clearly disclose intention- ascertained from writing; no extrinsic evidence A lease that terminates upon death of lesee is tenancy at will rather than tenancy for life; leasehold for life is not recognized

Wade v. Jobe

Facts- D rented a home from P; after she took occupancy she noticed several defect and within a few days had no water because flame of water heater had been extinguished by accumulation of sewage that flooded house followed by foul odor; D informed P that she would withhold rent until problem was solved permanently Rule- Warranty of Habitability- -Depends on individual facts of the case -Does not require landlord to maintain premises in perfect condition nor does it preclude minor housing code violations; will not be liable for defects caused by tenant -Landlord must have reasonable time to repair material defect -Requires landlord maintain bare living requirements and that premises are fit for human occupation -Failure to supply heat or hot water breaches If breached, tenant may withhold rent, repaird and deduct, sue for damages

Keydata Corp. v. United States

Facts- -P and NASA were both leasing space from Wyman; All parties came to agreement that NASA would rent a room from P and P would surrender room on designated date; Under agreement, Wyman spent 39,000 on improvements that government promised to pay back -P had not vacated property by date and NASA cancelled acquisition; Rule- American Rule- landlord merely covenants that possession will not be withheld by himself or by one having paramount title English Rule-Unless otherwise agreed upon, there is a breach by landlord if a third person improperly is in possession of leased property on date tenant is entitled to possession and landlord does not act promptly to remove and does not in fact remove him within a reasonable period

Hillview Associates v. Bloomquist

Facts- Tenants at P's mobile home park began meeting to discuss condition of trailers and increases in rent; relationship between tenants and P got worse; After intense meeting, P served ultimatums requiring them to sign or be evicted; many members of association were served with eviction notice Rule- State law prohibits retaliation by landlord by increasing rent or failing to renew rental agreement for tenants that complain to government, landlord or formed an association -Evidence of a complaint within 6 months prior to alleged act creates presumption of retaliation -Landlord then can produce legitimate non retaliatory reasons and tenant can demonstrate pretext Retaliation for those who did not participate in violence, non retaliation for those thad did

Does a future interest have to be implied or expressed?

Fee Simple Determinable -- can be implied as long as correct verbiage is used. Cannot be waved. Fee simple subject to a condition -- required to be expressed & can be waved / extended.

"A and his heirs for the use a school only"

Fee simple absolute (Roberts v. Rhodes)

"A and his heirs so long as no liquor is sold on the land"

Fee simple determinable + possibility of reverter

"A and his heirs but if liquor is ever sold on his land, the grantor and his heirs shall have the rights to reenter and repossess the land."

Fee simple subject to condition subsequent

"to A and the heirs of her body"

Fee tail

Indefinite Failure of Issue

Fee tail. Ask at the end of each person's death of the chain if the original person has living heirs. You will never have a definite "yes" because people keep dying. If ever "no," then the land goes back to the grantor's heirs Note: most states either don't allow this or will say it can only go on for two-three generations then it is a fee simple absolute.

Assume mortgage

For a grantee to assume a mortgage means the grantee becomes primarily liable to the lender.

Reinstatement

For the 90 days immediately after service of complaint, borrower has the right to reinstate the mortgage by making up the monthly payments missed plus any ancillary costs incurred by the borrower to begin the foreclosure process (Making up in arrears what you missed.)

Property Description

For the description of land in a land sale contract to be deem to be adequate, it must accurately identify the property. As long as it is clear what property is the subject of the contract, the description is acceptable, even though it may contain errors.

Executory Interest

Future interest created in a transferee (3rd party) which is not a remainder and which takes effect by either cutting short some interest in another person (shifting) (Ex: Dr. Evil) or in the grantor or his heirs (springing) (kid getting married)

Prospective Relief

Future relief to prevent future occurrences of this nuisance happening again, but does not necessarily directly impact the current plaintiff.

Time at Closing

Generally courts assume that time is NOT of the essence in real estate contract. This means that the closing date stated in the contract is not absolutely binding in equity, and that a party, even though late can still enforce the contract if she tenders within a reasonable time after the date. Note that court finds 1 month beyond closing to be ok.

Natural Resources (Life Tenant)

Generally, a life tenant can only maintain the property and not sell off the natural resources. There is an exception for existing exploitation of these sources under the open mines doctrine.

Time & Land Sale Contract

Generally, a party who fails to tender performance on the closing date has a reasonable time of performance stated in a land sale contract is not absolutely binding.

Gift Intervivos

Gift given during life

Recorder's Office

Government office within the state in which all wills, deeds, liens, mortgages, etc. are recorded to "put the whole world on notice"

Vertical Privity

Grantor/Grantee relationship exists between two parties

Rules of Construction

Guiding principles when interpreting the testator's intent

"No one may watch television at New Village."

Hard case. It's a use restriction with some connection to life in New Village (noise reduction perhaps?). And no right to watch TV. But burden seems high; benefits seem thin; and conduct takes place entirely within unit.

Unity of Title

Have to acquire interest via same instrument (i.e. document).

Maude conveys to Harold; however, if Charlie ever recants his belief in predestination, then to Charlie. (Charlie dies 8 years later, having never recanted).

Initially, H = FS/EL and C=EI (FSA) Now, H = FSA

A housing developer in a racially diverse area distributes marketing materials that show only white people out of hundreds who are depicted living in the future development. When the development is full, there are no non-white people living there, despite the racially diverse local demographics.

How does this one come out after Tex DHCA? Clear statistical evidence of DI, but is there: Causation? Less discriminatory alternative? Any legitimate business justification? Hard to see one on these facts, but what might there be?

D and E purchase homes in a 20-lot subdivision. D's property and 16 of the other lots contain express restrictions in their chains of title that all houses in the subdivision "shall be painted in earth tones, such as beige or brown." The restriction is not in E's chain of title. All houses in the subdivision are painted beige or brown. E now leases her property to F for a 99-year term, without telling her about the restriction. F plans to paint the house bright blue. D sues F for money damages and an injunction. Will D win?

How might E be subject to this restriction? Common plan rule: Conveyance by developer that seeks to create common plan is enforceable against all developer's land included in the general plan (i.e., regardless of record notice in specific chain of title). 17/20 lots seems to indicate desire for common plan, likely enforceable on this theory against E. Inquiry notice Every single house happens to be painted one of the same two earth tones. This might suffice to put E (and F) on notice of the common plan restriction regardless.

O --> A (but O has been tricked into signing over more than what they intended) A-->B In what context is the original deed voidable?

If O learns of the fraud and sues A before A conveys the property to B. (So long as B was a Bona Fide Purchaser) WHY? -- because O is the less innocent party because they should have taken better precautions to prevent this from happening.

Will Creating Class Gift

If a class gift is created by will and a person subject to the class dies before the testator, their gift drops out. Remember, the triggering event is the death of the Testator.

Rule of Dumpor's case

If a landlord consents to one transfer that violates a convenant against assignment or sublease he waive the right to avoid future transfers.

Mortgage obligated future advancements

If a mortage obligates the lender to make future advances of funds after the mortgage is executed, those future advances will have the same priority as the original mortgage. Even if 2nd mortgages on the property before advance is made, the advancements will have priority.

Deficiency judgment

If a sale of foreclosed property is not enough to satisfy the mortgage debt, the mortgagee/lender can bring a personal action against the mortgagor for the deficiency.

Mortgage optional advances

If a senior lender with notice of a junior lender later made an advance that were merely optional, the optional advance would lose priority over the junior lender.

Latent Defects

If at the the lease is entered into, the landlord knows of a dangerous condition that the tenant could not discover upon reasonable inspection, the land lord had a duty to disclose the dangerous condition. Note: The landlord will be liable for injuries caused by dangerous conditions.

Serial Damages

If the court does not want to order an injunction - due to social value of nuisance, might be like "paying" other party perpetually to balance things out.

Mortgages & Notice

If the mortgage meest the recording statute, it becomes the senior lien! Note that mortgages are also subject to the recording statute

Amount owed & Holdover Tenancy

If the tenant is notified of the rental increase before the end of the lease, the new amount will apply

IL Fair Housing Act

Il State law protection expanding upon the federal FHA-- adds the protected classes of: - sexual orientation (incl. gender ID) - ancestry - age - unfavorable military discharge - pregnancy - order of protection status

Reciprocal Negative Easements

Implied covenant restrictions based on common development scheme

Maude conveys to Harold, but if Harold ever professes a belief in predestination, then to Lizette. A year later, Harold dies, having never professed a belief in predestination.

Initially, H = FS/EL, L = EI (FSA) Now, H's estate = FSA

7 Years

In IL, The amount of time from the violation of a condition subsequent for the true owner to act upon their right of entry/file an ejectment action for the removal of the tenant. The same goes for upon violation of condition in a fee simple determinable if the tenant refuses to leave the premises.

Right of Survivorship

In Joint Tenancy, when a co-tenant dies, their ownership is extinguished, giving remaining tenant(s) full ownership of property.

Commercial v. Residential Leases & Holdover

In a commercial lease, where the original lease was for a year or more, a year to year tenancy results In residential leases, however, most court would hold that the tenancy is a month to month regardless of the original lease.

Assignment v. Sublease

In an assignment-the landlord can sue both the assignor and the assignee. In a sublease- the landlord can sue only the subleasor.

Installment land contract

In an installment land contract, the vendee signs a contract with the vendor agreeing to make regular installment payments until the full contract price has been paid. Only at that time will the vendor give a deed transferring legal title to the purchasers. Note: It may have a forfeiture clause where vendor can take back property.

Implied Covenant of quiet enjoyment

In every lease, there is an implied convenany that neither the landlord or a third party will interest with the tenant's convenant of quiet enjoyment and possession on the premises. Occurs when there is an actual or holdover tenant.

Easement

In general: A non possessory interest. Right to USE property for a specific purpose WITHOUT POSSESSION. Restatement of Property § 450 (1944) -- "an interest in land in the possession of another which (a) entitles the owner of such interest to a limited use or enjoyment of the land in which the interest exists; (b) entitles him to protection as against third persons from interference in such use or enjoyment; (c) is not subject to the will of the possessor of the land; (d) is not a normal incident of the possession of any land possessed by the owner of the interest; and (e) is capable of creation by conveyance." Restatement (Third) of Property: Servitudes § 1.2 (2000) -- "creates a non possessory right to enter and use land in the possession of another and obligates the possessor not to interfere with the uses authorized by the easement."

Permanent Damages

In lieu of injunctive relief, the plaintiff receives a one-time monetary reward for the nuisance. Prohibits any future owners of the land from bringing the nuisance suit.

General Warranty Deed (in General)

In this document, seller promises that there are no encumbrances that were created while the seller owned the property, or at any time before the seller owned the property.

Maude conveys to Harold for life, then to Charlie if Charlie recants his belief in predestination before he reaches the age of 50. One year later, Harold dies. Charlie is 30 years old and has not (yet?) recanted.

Initially, H = LE, C = Cont Rem (FSA), O = Reversion (FSA) Now, O = FS/EL, C = EI (FSA)

Maude conveys to Harold for life, and then to Charlie if Charlie has recanted his belief in predestination by then, and otherwise to Lizette. Immediately upon learning of the conveyance, Charlie recants.

Initially, H = LE, C = Cont. Rem (FSA), L = Cont. Rem (FSA) Now, H = LE, C = Vst Rem (FSA)

Maude conveys to Harold for life, then to Charlie for life; however if Charlie has not conveyed his belief in predestination by Harold's death, to Lizette. Upon learning that Harold has fallen ill, Charlie recants.

Initially, H = LE, C = Cont. Rem. (FSA), L = Cont. Rem. (FSA) Now, H = LE, C = Vst. Rem. (FSA)

Maude conveys to Harold for life, then to Charlie for life; however if Charlie has not recanted his belief in predestination by the time Harold dies, then to Lizette. The next week, Lizette dies.

Initially, H = LE, C = Cont. Rem. (LE), L = Cont. Rem. (FSA), O = Reversion (FSA) Now, H = LE, C = Cont. Rem. (LE), L's estate = Cont. Rem. (FSA), O = Reversion (FSA)

Maude conveys to Harold for life, then to Charlie for life if Charlie has recanted his belief in predestination, then to Lizette. Two years later, Harold has a fight with Charlie and conveys his life estate to Lizette.

Initially, H = LE, C = Cont. Rem. (LE), L = Vstd Rem (FSA) Upon the conveyance from H to L, L = LE (life of H), C = Cont. Rem. (LE), L = Vstd Rem (FSA) Now apply the doctrine of merger. Then you get: L = FSA

Maude conveys to Harold for life, then to Charlie. A year later, Charlie conveys his interest to Maude.

Initially, H = LE, C = Vst Rem (FSA) Now, H = LE, M = Vst Rem (FSA)

Maud conveys to Harold for life, then to Charlie for life, then to Charlie's children. Charlie dies the next day, leaving one child, Mary.

Initially, H = LE, C = Vstd Rem (LE), C's children = Contingent Rem (FSA) (or, if we know that C already has one child, Vst Rem subj. to open (FSA)) Now, H = LE, M = Vstd Rem (FSA)

Maude conveys to Harold for life, then to Charlie for life if Charlie has recanted his belief in predestination before Harold dies, then to Lizette. A year later, Charlie recants. Six months thereafter, Harold conveys his estate to Lizette.

Initially, H = LE, Ch = Cont. Rem (LE), L = Vst Rem (FSA) When C recants, H = LE, C = Vst. Rem. (LE), L = Vst. Rem (FSA) When H conveys to L, we have: L = LE, C = Vst Rem (LE), L = Vst. Rem (FSA). Merger DOES NOT apply here because we have an intervening VESTED remainder.

Maude conveys to Harold for life. A year later, Maude conveys her interest to Charlie.

Initially, H = LE, M = Reversion (FSA) Now, H = LE, C = Reversion (FSA)

Maude conveys to Harold for life. A year later, Harold conveys his interest to Charlie.

Initially, H = LE, O = Reversion (FSA) Now, C = LE (life of H), O = Reversion (FSA)

Repugnance

Internal inconsistency in a deed that renders that section to be treated as if it was never written.

O owns Blackacre. O conveys an easement to A on June 1; A does not record and never uses the easement. On July 1, O mortgages his property to B; B immediately records. Finally, on August 1, O conveys fee simple absolute in Blackacre to C, a purchaser for value. B then forecloses on Blackacre. This all takes place in a notice jurisdiction.

Is C's purchase superior to A's easement? Yes, C is a BFP for value—no actual or constructive notice of A's easement Are B's interests superior to A's easement? Yes, B is BFP (acquirer)—no actual or constructive notice of A's easement Are B's interests superior to C's purchase? Yes, C was on constructive notice of B's interest so cannot be a BFP (as mortgagee) Result: B owns in FSA

Contingent Remainder

It is created in as yet unborn or unascertained persons or is subject to a condition precedent

What does a Foreclosure Default Judgement typically trigger?

Judicial Sale of the Home & Court Approved Eviction

Privity

Judicial recognition of the need for some reasonable connection between successive occupants of real property so as to raise the claim of right above the status of the wrongdoer or trespasser.

Horizontal Privity

Land has to have been conveyed with the promise from one party to the other.

Landlord liability - Short Term Lease

Landlords are liable for latent defect even if they neither knew or should have known of the defect if the lease is for a short term and the property is furnished.

Commercial Easement in Gross

Lasts forever and is transferable. Note, does not exist in common law.

Caveat Leasee:

Latin for "tenant beware" Tenant accepted the conditions of the premises no matter what conditions they were in and were required to repair all broken things--no longer the law, but was up until 50 years ago.

Quiet Title Action

Legally determines ownership. Sort of a lawsuit against everyone. No one can bring a claim once court decides. Typically occurs with a really old deed that does not have the "correct" verbiage to make it a proper deed and the owner wants to sell the property with marketable title (title that isn't going to be questioned later).

A says to B, "Hey, if you want some apples, you can come pick them from my orchard anytime next week."

License

A says to B, "No one is staying in my vacation home this summer. You are welcome to stay there if you like."

License

P owned a large parcel of rural land adjoining a lake. He developed a vacation home subdivision on the property and sold all the lots. But P retained title to the 100-foot-wide strip of land between the houses and the lake. P still lives in one of the homes in the subdivision. H and other owners in the subdivision have often crossed the strip in P's presence to swim in the lake, and P never objected. Recently, without asking P's permission, H spent $5000 for lumber to build a dock at the water line that has its pilings partly on P's land and partly on the lake bed (which is public property). Throughout H's construction of the dock, P saw him regularly, and always said a polite hello. After the dock was finished, though, P fenced off the 100-foot strip, posted "no trespassing" signs, and began to use the new dock exclusively himself. Does H have an easement-based theory under which he can access the dock?

License? Maybe—wd have to be implied. Reasonable reliance by H on license? Is P's "polite hello" enough? P knowledge? Certainly yes Equities favor H? Not clear. Consider H access to lake; expectations about residents' lake access; H presumptuousness; why P was smiling; unjust P enrichment. Other theories Easement by necessity; by public necessity?

Doctrine of Merger

Life estate and next vested estate in Fee Simple. (the lesser estate (LE) is merged in the larger estate (FS).

"While on the New Village property, all residents must wear clothing made from natural fibers to help preserve our environment."

Likely invalid as arbitrary and unrelated to land; not a use restriction in any sense

"No animals shall be kept at New Village." Unit owner X has become blind and needs a guide dog.

Likely valid under Nahrstedt general-purpose test But might be public policy against disability discrimination; and could be illegal under FHA

"Only college graduates may live at New Village."

Likely valid way of assuring that population is adult and well-educated population Non-college educated are not protected class

C has the benefit of an easement dating to 1880s providing "access for wagons" across D's servient land. Can C drive a car across the easement?

Likely yes. Restatement 4.10 allows intensification and change of use with technological developments so long as consistent with purpose. The purpose here appears to be transportation, which is furthered by cars and wagons alike.

In 2004, A purchases a house, financed by a $500k loan from Bank that is secured by a mortgage agreement and promissory note held by Bank. In 2006, A takes out a second mortgage against the house from LoanCo for $100k. In 2007, Bank transfers A's mortgage to HedgeCorp, a New York hedge fund. In 2010, A stops making payments on either mortgage. He owes $300k on the first mortgage and $50k on the second. A's house is worth only $200k at the time of his default. Assume all mortgages and transfers recorded. What are his creditors' options, and what will the outcome be? except assume that A defaulted on his second mortgage (from LoanCo) but not his first. How does this change matters?

LoanCo is entitled to foreclose, but Their interest remain subject to HedgeCorp's senior interest. To avoid this, most modern mortgage agreements have a cross-collateralization agreement that allows all mortgagees to foreclose when the mortgagor defaults on one.

Ike to Mamie for life, then to Mamie's heirs.

M = FSA

Ike conveys to Mamie for life, then to Albert for life if Albert survives Mamie, then to Ike's heirs.

M = LE A = Cont. Rem (LE) I = Reversion (FSA)

Ike conveys to Mamie for life, then to Albert for life if Albert is then married, then to Mamie's heirs. (Albert is married at the time of the grant)

M = LE A = Cont. Rem. (LE) M = Vst. Rem. (FSA)

Ike to Mamie for life, then to Albert for life, then to Mamie's heirs.

M = LE A = Vst. Rem. (LE) M = Vst. Rem. (FSA)

Ike conveys to Mamie for life. The next day, Ike records a deed conveying his interest "to my heirs" (Ike is still alive).

M = LE I = Reversion (FSA)

Ike to Mamie for life, then to Ike's heirs.

M = LE I = Reversion (FSA)

I conveys to Mamie for life, then to Ike's children.

M = LE I's children = Cont. Rem. (FSA) I = Reversion (FSA)

Ike conveys to Mamie for life, then to Mamie's issue.

M = LE Mamie's issue = Cont. Rem. (FSA) I = Reversion (FSA)

A and B are neighboring landowners and execute an agreement mutually restricting their lot to single-family residential use. The agreement is recorded. B sells to C. C builds an apartment on the lot. A sues C for damages. Assuming that the agreement was meant to bind future acquirers, what result?

Many jurisdictions: Depends if A/B in horiz privity. If not, A could not recover damages against C; all elements of real covenant theory of recovery met except horizontal privity Another view: horizontal privity not necessary, so on that theory A could recover against C How, if at all, would the result change if C acquired from B only a life estate interest? A would not recover damages: lack of vertical privity of identical estate

S is selling a condominium to B. S knows that T, his former tenant, was sexually assaulted while T lived in the unit, even though it has a state of the art security system. B informs S that she is buying the unit because two burglaries occurred at her prior house.

Materiality? Subjective v. objective approaches matter. Probably latent (why?). Possible state-law "stigma" regulations may apply (see also: death on premises, AIDS, suicide).

A sells to B without telling B that a registered sex offender lives three doors down, a fact of which A was actually aware. B discovers this fact during the pendency of the sales contract.

May depend on whether applicable law makes information available (notice or inspection); Regardless, off-site condition unrelated to land very unlikely to be regarded as material defect in A's property.

Adverse Possession and Marketablity

Mere satisfaction of the elements of adverse possession is not enough to make title marketable. The adverse possessor must quiet title in a court action.

Residential & Holdover

Month to month tenancy results after holding over

Promissory Note

Mortgagor's (borrower) promise to pay back the principle plus an agreed upon amount of interest within a designated time frame.

Tenants in the Entirety

Most states do not recognize this but IL does --- only applies to married persons -Can only be & MUST be assigned to the principal residence -Must be MARRIED - and STAY MARRIED -RIGHT of SURVIVORSHIP -Neither can convey their interest inter vivos alone must be done together -CANNOT seek partition -Creditors CANNOT go after the entire property based on one tenant's debt. -Provides an insulation to the principal residence of a married couple from being diluted by the creditor of a single spouse BUT - can be reached by JOINT creditors -Divorce ownership defaults to TENANTS IN COMMON

Foreclosure & Notice

Must give notice to everyone after the foreclosing party (i.e., junior creditors)

Adverse Possesion

Must quiet title to convey good and marketable title.

Abandonment

Need an affirmative act by the easement holder. Note that non-use is not enough to abandon the easement.

Rule of Perpetuities

No interest in property is valid unless it must vest, no later than 21 years after a life in being when interest created.

A sells to B land that has always been used as a farm. B knows that the farmland lies on top of a rich vein of gold, but does not tell A. A learns of the gold only when B takes possession of the land pursuant to the sale, creates a mine, and becomes fabulously wealthy. A then sues B for failing to disclose the information B had about the gold. Will A win?

No. Courts have held that there is no buyer's duty to disclose, absent some fiduciary relationship.

A sells his land to B on the condition that whoever owns the lot always keep up a fountain located on the lot. A dies, leaving entire estate to D. B then sells to C, who seeks to raze fountain. Assume covenant is written/signed, intended to run with land, and that C knows about it. Can D enjoin C?

No. While burden of the covenant would run to C on an equitable servitude theory, the benefit does not run with the land bc personal to A, and thus cannot run to D. There's no land for it to run with! If A still owned, it would be a different story. Why?

Next door to A live a bunch of rowdy partiers who keep him up all night. A sells to B without telling B about the neighbor issue. B has visited A's house any number of times during the day before execution of the contract but has never visited at night.

Nope. May be objectionable but not a salient condition of the property itself. Some off-site conditions actionable but only if "rooted in the land" (Strawn, N.J. 1995).

Neighbors A & B agree that A come to B's house to help with IT issues, and B will pay A $50/month in exchange.

Nope. Personal promise unrelated to land.

After signing sales contract, B learns that land is worth less than he promised to pay because it is located in a flood zone.

Not a breach. Warranty is only about legal title to land, not condition or value of land generally.

A has an easement to cross B's waterfront land to access the ocean. A does not use the easement for five years, during which time the path becomes overgrown, though not impassable, with weeds.

Not abandoned: there is non-use but no evidence of abandonment by A.

A and B own adjacent vacant lots in a residential subdivision. They enter into a written agreement promising "on behalf of ourselves and our successors" that no structure higher than 30 feet may be built on either lot; they sign and record the agreement. B sells her lot to C, who plans to build a 35 foot home. A plans to sue C for money damages and injunctive relief. Will A win?

Notice Yes: record notice Writing Yes: "written agreement" Intent to run Yes: "on behalf of ... our successors" Touch & concern Yes: use restriction Vertical privity Yes, between B and C (sale of lot) Horizontal privity No; at least not on these facts What is the legal issue? Does the burden run to C? Does it Real covenant theory: possibly not (no h-privity) Equitable servitude theory: definitely yes

TENANTS IN COMMON

O --> A & B *THIS IS THE DEFAULT FOR ALL CO-OWNERSHIPS* 1. Each individual tenant in common can convey their interest inter vivos without the permission of the other. 2. Can also convey interest after death through a will. If tenant dies without will (intestate) -- fractional interest passed on through intestate succession. 3. Creditors pursuing either tenant can force the sale of the entire property

Recording of Deeds at Common Law

O owns Blackacre and conveys it to A (delivering the deed to A) Later on, O conveys Blackacre to B (after already delivering the deed to B) At common law, A has the superior interest in over B because O had no right to convey the land to B

O devises "to A, effective upon reading my will."

O's estate = FSA

Abandonment

Occurs when tenant vacates leased property without justification and without any present intention of returning and he defaults on payments of rent

Mesne conveyance

One occupying an intermediate position in a chain of title between the first grantee and the present holder.

heirs

One who acquires property upon the death of another, based on the rules of descent and distribution.

Definite Failure of Issue

Only have to asked once if at the person's death, if they left any heirs

Dominant Estate

Party benefitting from a covenant

Serviant Estate

Party on which the burden of a covenant lies

Temporary Damages

Retrospective damages paid for things suffered in the past.

Tacking (in terms of adverse possession)

Person A was NOT on person B's land for over 20 years and passed the land onto person C, who continues to "adversely possess" the land and then owns it after 20 years total. A + C = 20 years total on Bs land, but A and C do not =20 on their own. If there is privity (legal relationship), then C owns it. If there is not privity, B still owns it. Purpose: to prevent temporary squatters from combining each other's time on the land to adversely possessing it.

Devisee

Person named in a will to inherit real estate

Partition by Sale

Physical attributes make partitioning impracticable or inequitable - Interests better served by sale

Locus in Quo

Place where the item is found.

Common Development Scheme

Plan for subdividing land which intends that all parcels be subject to a restriction, which may be evidenced by a recorded plan, a general pattern of restrictions, or oral representations to early buyers

Eminent Domain

Power of a government to take private property for public use.

Straw Man

Prior to UNILATERAL SELF CONVEYANCE, lawyers would have co-owners convey their interest to a third party (temporarily) in order to sever the JOINT TENANCY and then immediately convey the property back to the owner.

S suspects that the prior owner of the house used lead paint when she repainted the living room, but S has never done any testing to confirm this suspicion. S knows that B as a five-year-old son.

Probably. "Strong suspicion" seems close to knowledge, lead paint not obvious to B, and material defect. State statutes may also regulate. How different under Stambovsky?

Neighbors A & B agree that there will be a party at the houses they currently occupy every week.

Probably. Party must be at the houses, not anywhere so limits use by requiring particular use.

A says to B, "Anyone who owns your land may pick apples from my property for perpetuity."

Profit (easement for productive use of land)

Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment

Promise by the GRANTOR that the GRANTEE enjoyment of ownership will not be disturbed due to lawful assertions of encumbrances.

Covenant of Future Assurances

Promise by the Grantor that they will come back and sign any and all relevant documentation to assure the property remains in good title.

Covenant of Right to Convey

Promise by the grantor that he/she has the legal authority to convey the property to the grantee. (ex. in IL trustees would not have this right, it would require the beneficiary of the trust)

Covenant of General Warranty

Promise that the GRANTOR will protect the GRANTEE from any and all future lawful encumbrance actions, to represent the GRANTEE and reimburse them for all expenses incurred due to the discovered encumbrance.

O conveys to A. O then conveys for value to B, who did not know of the conveyance to A. Then A records, then B records. Who prevails between A and B?

Race jurisdiction? A: B did not record first, so FTFR prevails Notice jurisdiction? B: B is the most recent BFP Race-notice jurisdiction? A: B is BFP, but A won race to courthouse

O conveys to A, who does not record. B knows this and gets O to convey to him later, then B records. Who prevails in conflict between A and B?

Race jurisdiction? B: B won the race to the courthouse Notice jurisdiction? A: B was not a BFP Race-notice jurisdiction? A: B was on notice of prior conveyance

Recordation of Deed

Recording a deed that has been acknowledged before a notary is such an action that is presumed to carry the intent of delivery. Even without the knowledge of the grantee, delivery of the deed to the recorder's office will satisfy the delivery requirement.

Reformation

Reformation is an equitable action in which the court rewrites the deed to make it conform to the intent of the parties. This occurs when (1) deed does express agreement due to mutual mistakes and (2) when unilateral mistakes due to misrepresentation.

Vested Remainder Subject Open

Remainder is vested in a group of takers, at least one of whom is qualified to take (open group can get bigger, dividing the pie)

Rule of Shelly's Case

Remove the heirs and replace with 'A's' entire present and future one.

Comprehensive General Plan

Required plan for future land use prior to zoning

Independant Convenant

Required, some are implied (Ex, habitability or quiet of enjoyment)

American ("law) rule

Requires privity between the possessors

Fixtures

Residential: Must look to the damage cause by the removal Commercial: Trade fixture- prior to expiration of the lease, can remove trade fixtures. Note, accession, structural additional cannot be removed.

A and B own adjacent vacant lots in a residential subdivision. They enter into a written agreement promising "on behalf of ourselves and our successors" that no structure higher than 30 feet may be built on either lot; they sign and record the agreement. B sells her lot to C, who plans to build a 35ft house. A plans to sue for money damages and injunctive relief. Will he win under the Restatement approach?

Restatement looks to Intent Statute of Frauds compliance Substantive legality Notice (where, as here, burden runs) A would be able to enforce on a Restatement theory. How about a common law theory? Equitable servitude, yes Real covenant, harder case—depends on horizontal privity

Restrictive Covenants

Restrictive covenants on all lots in a subdivision can be voided if changed condition have made the property unusable for the specified use, and this means that the entire subdivision must have changed so significantly that enforcement of the restriction would be inequitable.

Disclosure Common Law of Fraudulent Concealment

Sellers must affirmatively (without prompting) provide information to buyers that are material to the purchase of the property even if that information is negative and might reduce the value of the property when those facts are not openly observable.

Unity of Interest

Shares have to be of equal duration. (i.e. A,B,C,D=25% of Blackacre and interest must be measured the same ~ all that's required is the same duration).

Excavation

Show (1) either the subsistence would have occurred even if the land had been unimproved or (2) negligence

Before signing sales contract, B sees electric lines crossing part of the land. After signing, B learns that the local electric company has an easement across the property for these lines.

Some jurisdictions: no breach, B knew about the wires and should have done due diligence to learn about the easement. Other jurisdictions: breach because B knowledge irrelevant to warranty.

Landlord Mitigation Requirement

Some states require that if the tenant breaches, the landlord must make reasonable efforts to mitigate (try to find another tenant)

Forgery (of Deed)

Someone pretending to be O conveys to A, signing the deed as if they were O. -A conveys to B. -Original conveyance is VOID -O still owns in fee simple.

Bona Fide Purchaser

Someone who takes title in good faith, unbeknownst to any prior fraud or bad title.

What happens after the Notice of Acceleration?

The Mortgagee files the official foreclosure complaint to the court and then serves the Mortgagor.

Rule against perpetutites

The RAP provides that certain interest in property are void if there is any possibility, however remove, that they will vest more than 21 years after some life in being at the creation of the interest.

encroachment

The act of building a structure which is in whole or in part on a neighbor's property

Adverse Possession

The actual, open, notorious, hostile, exclusive and continuous possession of another's land under a claim of title. Possession for a statutory period may be a means of acquiring title. (20 years in IL)

Transfer of the dominant tenemant

The benefit of an easement appurtenant passes with the transfer of the benefited land regardless if the easement is mentioned in the conveyance. All who posses or subsequently suceed to title to the dominant tenement are entitled to the benefit of the easement.

descendants

The children, grandchildren, nieces/nephews, etc. that become heirs in the case of intestate succession

Privity

The contractual relationship between the buyer and the seller is often considered confidential and secret.

Rule of Reason

The criterion used to determine whether a particular action was illegal ("unreasonable") or legal ("reasonable") within the terms of the Sherman Act

Revocation of delivery of a deed

The deed once delivered, merely evidenced title to the property and its destructoin has no effect on the title.

Home Equity

The difference between the current market value of your home and the amount you still owe on the mortgage

Personal Easement in Gross

The easement stops when the person who was granted the easement dies.

Undivided Interest

The element of ownership by two or more persons that gives each the right to use the entire property

Equitable Redemption

The equity of redemption give the borrower the right to free the land of the mortgage by paying off the amount plus any accrued interest at any time prior to the foreclosure sale. Note: If the borrower has an acceleration clause, he must pay the full balance in order to redeem

Failure to record easement

The failure tor record easement does not effect the validity of the easement. Recordation is not essential to the validity of the deed, but only serves to protect the interests of a grantee against subsequent party. Provides notice to the burdened party!

Fair Housing Act

The federal law that prohibits discrimination in housing based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, and national origin

Race Statute

The first party to record, regardless of the date of conveyance wins under a race statute.

Unity of Title

The grant to all joint tenants must be by the same instrument.

Right to Exclude

The legal right to keep others off the property and to prosecute trespassers.

Possession

The majority view imposes on the landlord to deliver actual possession. The minority view is to give the tenant legal right to possesion

Who is responsible for the upkeep of the easement?

The owner of the easement. Note, this is limited.

Bailor

The owner of the personal property in a bailment.

Bailee

The party temporarily possessing the personal property in a bailment. This person owes a duty of reasonable care to the property they possess.

Life Tenant

The party with possessory interest of a life estate for the duration of their lifetime.

Remainderman

The person to whom a life estate goes upon the death of the life tenant

Locus Owner/ Owner of the Locus in Quo

The person who owns the location in which the disputed property was found. Holds the superior interest to all but the true owner when an object has been mislaid on their property.

Probate Proceedings

The process of distributing the estate of a person who died testate or intestate; includes all other matters over which probate courts have jurisdiction.

Future Interest

The right to receive either real property or personal property some time in the future, either upon a particular date or upon the occurrence of an event.

Elements of Fraudulent Concealment in IL

The seller: (1) concealed or suppressed a material fact; (2) had knowledge of this material fact; (3) that this material fact was not within reasonably diligent attention, observation, and judgment of the plaintiff

Servient Estate

The tract of land BURDENED by an easement.

Testamentary conveyance

The transfer of ownership of property as assigned in a will. Only valid upon the death of the testator/trix

conveyance

The transfer of real property ownership whether by deed inter vivos or by will after death

Bonafide Purchaser

The two criteria that must be satisfied to be a bonafide purchaser include: 1) B had to purchase for value, meaning substantial pecuniary consideration; and 2) at the time of his purchase, B had to be without [AIR= Actual, Inquiry & Record] notice that another, e.g., A, got there first.

Mortgage

The type of lien placed upon a house being purchased to be used as collateral by the MORTGAGEE in case of default by the MORTGAGOR.

Remaindermen

Those designated by will of the grantor to inherit future interest of property upon grantor's death

Title Commitment

Title insurance company says: A.) We have ID'd encumbrances XYZ and are willing to insure, but if the two parties don't settle the issue, are incentivized to clear this up b/c the title insurance company will not insure against it. B.) IF the title insurance company misses the encumbrance, they buyer can recover from the title insurance company for the cost of the encumbrance

Adverse Posses/ Prescriptive Easement

To acquire a prescriptive easement on property, the claimant's use must be open and notorious, adverse and continuous for the statutory period.

Valid Deed

To be valid, a deed must be delivered which means that the grantor must take some action (not necessarily a manual handing over of the deed) with the intent that it operate to pass immediately.

Adverse Possession Elements

To establish adverse possession, the occupier must show: (1) actual (2) open and notorious (3) adverse/hostility (4) continious for the statutory period

McDonnell Douglas

Under this framework, Plaintiff must establish a prima facie case of discrimination by showing: (1) that he is a member of a protected class and Defendants knew or suspected that he was; (2) that he applied for and was qualified to rent the property in question; (3) that Defendants rejected his application; and (4) that the property remained available thereafter. Plaintiff must provide sufficient evidence to show that he was "rejected under circumstances which give rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination." Once Plaintiff establishes a prima facie case, the burden shifts to Defendants to articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for their rejection of Plaintiff's application. Id. If Defendants satisfy this burden, Plaintiff must show either that Defendants' reasons are pretext, id., or that material facts are disputed, precluding summary judgment.

Constructive Eviction

Vacate the premises terminate the lease sue for damages

What is needed for benefit to run?

Vertical Privity

Statute of Frauds

Virtually all states have adopted a Statute of Frauds which mandates that a lease of real property for a term of more than 1 ear cannot be enforced unless it's in writing. In order to meet this tandard, the lease or another document must contain the key lease terms (parties, property, duration, and rent) and be signed by the party against whom enforcement is sought.

Market Value Theory of Damages (IWH)

What is the fair market value of an apartment in this condition? Ex) The apartment that they lived in had zero value, because no one in the private rental market would have agreed to live there under these conditions.

Co-ownership

What it is called when property is owned by more than one person.

R owns two adjacent parcels, Redacre and Greenacre. She sells Greenacre to S for $200k. Greenacre is divided by a deep canyon that could be bridged at a cost of $75k. The portion of Greenacre that adjoins Redacre has no access to a public road; the other part of Greenacre adjoins a public road. A public road runs through Redacre. Is S entitled to an easement? If so, what kind and where would it likely be located?

What kind of easement? Easement by necessity Condition at time of subdivision Seems so, despite "separate parcels" language Strictly necessary? Tough call. Bridge can be built for $75k. That's inconvenient but not virtually impossible. Consider: applicable standard (strict v. reasonable necessity), and whether "access" means all land.

D owns a mansion on fifty forested acres; a public highway runs along the eastern border of D's parcel. A gravel road goes across D's land from the public highway to his mansion, which is located on the west side of D's property. A thin black telephone cable runs from a pole next to the highway, through trees, and connects to the mansion's telephone system. The line is concealed by foliage but could be seen by a careful observer. D conveys the west half of her land to E. The deed gives E access to the property via an explicit easement along the gravel road, but says nothing about the line or telephone service. D wants to cut the line. Does E have an implied easement permitting her to keep the line over D's objection? If so, what kind?

What kind of easement? Implied by prior use Did condition exist at time of subdivision? Yes, phone line was already there Was the condition apparent? Visibility v available inferences? Cf. Van Sandt Was the use continuous? Yes—phone line was there the whole time Is the use reasonably necessary? Harder call in age of cellphones Consider Russakoff (Va. 1991) (owners had implied easement to access artificial lake for recreation)

Exception to Caveat Emptor

a seller could not affirmatively misrepresent a fact. (ie. Cannot lie about a fact)

partial intestacy

When a decedent only wills a portion of the estate, leaving portions to be dealt with by intestate succession.

Lock-Out

When a landlord changes the locks on a tenant so they no longer have access to the premises

Constructive Eviction

When a landlord fails to maintain a livable space that the tenant is renting and the tenant chooses to vacate the premises and pay no further rent. (Very risky move for tenants)

Taking subject to mortgage

When a mortgagor transfers title to another and the transferee takes "subject to" the mortgage, that means that the transferee will not be liable to the mortgagor on the promise underling the mortgage. So the third party cannot be used on the underlying debt. The mortgagee, however, may foreclose on the debt.

Self-Help

When a person takes the law into their own hands and does not rely on court process to pursue legal grievances

Earnest Liquidated Damages

When a sales contract provides that a seller may retain the buyer's earnest money as liquidated damages, court routinely uphold the seller's retention of the money upon breach if the amount appears reasonable in light of the seller's anticipated and actual damages.

Holdover tenant & Amount to be paid

When a tenant continues in possession after termination of her rights to possession, the landlord may bind the tenant to a new periodic tenancy. While the terms and conditions of the expired lease generally apply to the new lease, if the landlord notifies the tenant before termination that occupancy will be at an increased rent, the tenant will be held to that increased amount. Even if she objects to the increased amount.

Failure to vacate after tenancy

When a tenant fails to vacate after the termination of the tenancy, the land lord may: (1) trat the holder as a trespasser and sue for damages (2) bind the tenant as a new periodic tenancy

Holdover

When a tenant wrongfully holdover after the exipration of a lease, the landlord has two choices: (1) Treat the tenant as a trespasser and sue for damages and possession (2) Impose a new teensy on the holdover tenant

ROL & Buyer

When a transfer of land is preceded by a contract for sale, the risk of loss to the property during that time interval is implied on the buyer in most jurisdictions.

Animus Revertendi

When an animal returns to your property frequently it is considered to be your property.

Foreclosure

When an interest if foreclosed, after the expenses and fees are paid, the proceeds of the sale are used in this order: (1) expenses and feeds (2) principal and accrued interest (3) junior liens (4) remainder to mortgagor Note that senior loans are not effected.

Closing

When both legal and equitable title merge in the buyer. When parties tender performance of the contract. This is when the parties exchange the purchase price and deed.

Color of title

When someone occupies land but has a defective deed .

Nuisance

When someone's use of their land substantially interferes with the use of another's land (does not have to border) can sue for this.

Notice of Acceleration

When the bank is allowed to call the entire owed principle of the mortgage immediately due to failure to make proper payments.

When does title transfer occur?

When the deed is physically delivered to the grantee

Assumption of a mortgage

When the mortgagor sells the mortgaged property and gives a deed, the grantee takes subject to the mortgage, which remains on the land. Assuming grantee is liable. (Assumption-Grantee liable; mortgagor secondarily liable) If the grantee doesn't sign an agreement to assume the mortgage, he does not become personally liable on the loan and the original mortgagor remains liable. (Subject- Grantee not liable)

Bailment

When the owner of a chattel entrusts the property to a third party temporarily for a particular reason/circumstance

Constructive Eviction in IL

When the tenants moved out. A landlord in IL has a DUTY to mitigate the damages. Even if the tenants had unlawfully vacated the apartment. Landlord has DUTY to PROVE they attempted to mitigate the damages. (Burden of Proof)

Class Closing Rule

Whenever a member of the class is entitled to a distribution, the class closes and distribution is then made. Any late arrivals to the class lose out entirely.

Waiver of performance

Where a vendor has established a pattern of accepting late payments from the vendee, he cannot insist on strict on time payment and declare a forfeiture if such payment is not forthcoming.

S conveys to B, who does not record S conveys to C, who does not record S conveys to D, who does not record C records

Who is claiming the property? B, C, and D Race C Notice D Race-notice C

S conveys to B, who does not record S conveys to C as a gift C records B records

Who is claiming the real property? B and C Race B Notice B Race-notice B

S conveys to B, who does not record S conveys to C C records B records

Who is claiming the real property? B and C Race C Notice C Race-notice C

S conveys to B, who does not record S conveys to C, who does not record C conveys to D, who knows about S-B deed C records B records D records

Who is claiming the real property? B and D Race D Notice D Race-notice D

S conveys to B, who does not record S conveys to C C records B records C conveys to D, who knows about the S-B deed D records

Who is claiming the real property? B and D Race D (shelter rule thanks to C, who recorded before B) Notice D (shelter rule thanks to C, who was a BFPV w/r/t the S-B transaction) Race-notice D (checks both boxes)

O owns Blackacre. O conveys a mineral lease to D on June 1; D does not record. On July 1, O executes a residential lease in favor of E, who neither records nor takes possession of Blackacre. On July 15, D finally records his mineral lease. Finally, on August 1, O conveys title to Blackacre to F, a purchaser for value, who records. E then records. In a race-notice jurisdiction, who owns what interests in Blackacre?

Who prevails between D and E? D: D recorded first, so E cannot claim R-N exception to FTFR Who prevails between E and F? F: F recorded first and was a BFP for value, so R-N exception to FTFR applies Who prevails between D and F? D: F was on constructive notice of D's mineral lease by virtue of recording Result: F owns subject to D's mineral rights

Wild Deeds

Wild deeds are out side of the chain of title.

Constructive Eviction

Wrongful conduct by landlord that substantially interferes with tenant's beneficial use and enjoyment of leased premises

If you sell property with a noncomforming use, can the new owner still maintain?

Yes, as long as the NCU does not become blighted.

A & B are neighbors. A(dom) B (serv) A makes B promise he will not build a factory on his property. 1. A sells to D 2. B builds factory What can D do? Did the benefit run to D to enforce this against B?

Yes, because Vertical privity existed between A&D

A mortgages Blackacre. A then sells Blackacre to B pursuant to a special warranty deed without disclosing the mortgage. Shortly after moving in, B learns that A's predecessor in title, C, granted an easement across the back acre of the land to the city for future use as a roadway. B sues A for violating the covenant against encumbrances. Will B prevail?

Yes, but only with respect to A's mortgage. What, if anything, would change if A had granted the land to B via general warranty deed? In that event, B would have causes of action regarding both the mortgage and the easement. What, if anything, would change if A had granted the land to B via quitclaim deed? In that event, B would have no cause of action against A (though he might have causes of action against earlier owners).

Adjacent lot owners A & B agree that they will not build a structure higher than 25ft on their respective land.

Yes, easy case: Limit on development of land.

Caveat emptor

a tenant had a duty to inspect the premises to determine their safety and suitability for the purposes for which they were leased before entering a lease

E's land is benefited by an easement providing a "right of way" across F's servient land. Can E install underground electric lines in the right of way?

Yes. "Right of way" is broad language that contains little purposive limitation. "Across" may complicate matters, but likely not enough to limit E's desired use.

What right do the states have included in Police Power to anticipate and prevent conflicting land uses?

Zoning

Covenant of Warranty

a convenient of warranty is a future covenant for title

Ray Brown Rule

a finder of lost property prevails as against all but the true owner or prior possessor.

Mortgage: Majority Rule: (Lien Theory)

a joint tenant(s) execution of a mortgage on his interests in the join tenancy does NOT have effect.

Fiduciary Relationship

a legal duty or responsibility one party owes to another when the parties are in certain relationships with each other. Examples: trustee/ beneficiary, attorney/ client, or principal/ agent.

Parol License

a license given orally

Executor/Executrix

a person appointed by the testator to carry out the directions and requests in his or her will. Maintains possession of decedent's estate during probate proceedings.

Testator/Testatrix

a person who makes a will

Handicap

a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more of the (handicapped people(s)) major life activities.

Implied covenant of quiet enjoyment

a promise by the LL that he would not wrongfully interfere w/ the tenant's possession. It's present in residential and commercial leases

Restraint on Alienation

a provision in an instrument of conveyance that prohibits the grantee from transferring the property that is the subject of the restraint— courts will typically not enforce and find them void

What are real covenants and equitable servitudes?

agreements, promises or deed provisions that relate to real property. They bind subsequent owners too.

Unilateral Self Conveyance

allowing the person to convey their share of a co-owned property to themselves in order to break a JOINT TENANCY into TENANCY IN COMMON. State of IL recognizes this as OK.

Replevin

an action to recover possession of personal property

Tacking

an adverse possessor can establish continuous possession by tacking onto his own period of possession and period of adverse possession by predecessors if there is privity of estate.

Merger (of promises)

any promises about title that are made in the contract, merge with promises in the deed about title. It's the promises in the deed that the court will enforce. Not the ones in the contract for sale. • Any promises in the contract that are not included in the deed will be lost.

Encumbrance

anything within the chain of title that renders title not marketable.

Fractional Interest

based on amount invested into the property, would all still have undivided interest in terms of use, but upon sale/split, the ownership pieces will be divided proportionally

The burdened estate

bound by a covenant to act or not act

Caveat Emptor

buyer beware - Seller need not affirmatively disclose negative facts about the property they are attempting to sell (prior disclosure law)

Testate

dies with the will

DEED:

document that actually transfers ownership from seller to buyer

Intestate

dying without a will

Joint Tenants

each own an undivided interest in the whole. Joint tenants enjoy a right of survivorship, meaning a deceased joint tenant's interest passes to the surviving joint tenant(s), instead of the interest passing to the deceased's heirs.

How to terminate tenancy at will

either party need to provide at least 30 days.

tresspass

enter the owner's land or property without permission

Periodic tenancy

fixed term for successive periods. (day-day, month-month, etc).

Law of Fixtures

fixture is ONCE MOVABLE chattel that, by virtue of tis annexation to reality OBJECTIELY SHOWS the intent to permanently improve the realty (ex furnace, custom storm windows, certain lighting fixtures, heating). T MUST NOT remove a fixture, no matter THAT SHE INSTALLED IT.

Escheat

forfeiture of a decedent's property to the state in the absence of heirs

Reversion

going back to owner

Damages for breach in equitable servitude

injunction only

Unity of Time

interest of all must be acquired or vest at the same time.

What happens when a nonconforming use becomes blighted?

it will be torn down/eliminated.

English ("law") rule

keeps the statute running against the owner whether there is privity between the possessors or not.

Fee Simple Subject to an Executory Limitation (FSSEL)

left to a 3rd party (condition to 3 party)

Tenancy at will

no fixed anything just need to agree.

Rule Against Perpetuities (RAP)

no interest is good, unless it must vest if at all, not later than 21 years after some life being at the creation of the interest.

Lien Theory of Mortgages

no title passes to mortgages, but just a lien to secure payment of debt. (Ex: AB have a JT -> C (the creditor).

Does a lease need to be in writing?

no, only if it is a year or longer.

Social Value of Nuisances in Modern Courts

o If the social value outweighs the nuisance to the π - most likely not to intervene o Whenever a lawsuit for nuisance is filed, it is typically recorded in chain of title. o When doing analysis think of what your client would want, and go with what damages you believe are best based on what their goals are.

Ouster

occurs if one tenant wrongfully excludes another from possession of the premises. Note, cannot oust a minor without a court appointed guardian (not just a parent)

Doctrine of Estoppel

one neighbor makes representations about the location of a common boundary, and the other neighbor then changes her position in reliance on the representations or conduct. The first neighbor is estopped from denying the validity of the statement(s).

Finder

one who take possession of (lost) property that is owned by another without permission.

Ratione Soli

owner of land has constructive possession of anything that wanders on land. Once it leaves property, ownership leaves with it.

Rent Reimbursement

pay rent, sue the landlord for paying too much for rent for substandard conditions

Laughing Heirs

persons so distantly related to the decedent as to suffer no sense of bereavement, laughing all the way to the bank

Fee simple determinable is followed by ________.

possibility of reverter

Fee simple subject to a condition is followed by _____.

power of termination / right of entry

Mislaid Property

property that is intentionally placed somewhere but then forgotten

lost property

property which the owner unknowingly leaves somewhere or accidentally drops

Lien

the creditor must act to enforce the lien, typically by foreclosure.

Title

the creditor owns the property with the other co-tenants, but it is subject to the Debtors/JT's right of redemption.

Right of Redemption

the debtor (or debtor's successors) has a right to "redeem" (get ownership) the title back from the creditor. (get ownership back once the debt has been repaid).

Grantor

the individual who conveys the ownership rights of real property

Doctrine of Agreed Boundaries

when parties are uncertain about a true boundary they set out an agreement to discuss and the matter is normally enforceable if the neighbors subsequently accept the line for a long period of time.

Rule of Capture

wild animals belong to no one unless they are reduced to possession.

Ownership

you have title and it's completely yours with some type of proof.

Bundle of sticks

your right of property

Requirements of a General Warranty Deed

• Names of the grantor/grantee • Must be a conveyance in the language • Legal description of the land being conveyed • 6 Covenants* • Date • Signature of the GRANTOR (GRANTEE does not need to sign) • Signature must be ACNKOWLEDGED ---witnessed by a notary public. • Deed becomes legally effective when it is physically delivered to the GRANTEE @ that time transfer of title occurs.