Property Midterm
Leroy owned a four-story apartment building, painted light blue. He leased the units on the lower three floors to tenants, but retained the fourth floor penthouse as his personal residence. Leroy extended the penthouse balcony outward for 20 feet in order to install a new hot tub; the extension was painted light blue to match the rest of the building. Although Leroy did not realize it, 10 feet of the new balcony extension protruded into airspace over a vacant lot owned by Bill. Leroy used the hot tub once, did not like it, and never used his balcony again for the next four years. Leroy then sold the building to Abby, who immediately occupied the penthouse apartment and used the hot tub daily for the next two years; Abby did not notice that any part of the balcony extended into Bill's airspace. Bill never visited his lot after the balcony extension was built. The period for adverse possession in the jurisdiction is five years. Who owns the airspace occupied by the outermost 10 feet of the balcony extension in most jurisdictions?
A. Abby, because the adverse possession elements are satisfied. Correct: The best answer is that the adverse possession elements are satisfied. The balcony extension owned by Leroy/Abby physically occupied the airspace; this occupancy was exclusive; it was open and notorious because the extension could have been seen from the ground surface; it was adverse and hostile under the good faith test because neither Leroy or Abby knew the balcony extended into Bill's airspace, and under the objective test their conduct satisfies the other adverse possession requirements; the balcony extension continually occupied the airspace; and Abby can tack her two years of possession onto Leroy's four years of possession to meet the six year period because Leroy's conveyance to Abby created privity between them.
Ashley found a wonderful antique brooch at her local flea market. She treasured the brooch and kept it in a jewelry box beside her bed. She often put it on while she was in her house and wore it as she did her daily chores. Sometimes when Ashley attended a social function, she would proudly wear her brooch. Over a three-year span, Ashley wore the brooch to several functions. Shortly thereafter, while at the opera, Emily noticed the brooch on Ashley's blouse and thought it looked strangely similar to one her grandmother had given her. It turned out that Emily's sister had taken the brooch out of Emily's bureau and sold it to Ashley at a flea market. Both Ashley and Emily now claim the brooch. The statutory period for the adverse possession of chattels is two years. Emily argues that, at minimum, Ashley has not met the open and notorious requirement for adverse possession of personal property. Which of the following is correct?
A. Ashley met the open and notorious requirement because she used the brooch as an ordinary owner would. Correct: Although ordinary use may provide little notice to the owner, it makes sense not to require the adverse possessor to go above and beyond what a normal user of the property would do in the circumstances. Ashley used the brooch as the normal owner would and therefore has met the open and notorious requirement.
Driving home from work, Ben noticed a chrome hubcap laying in the middle of the street. Ben stopped, grabbed the hubcap, and threw it in the back bed of his pickup. Ben's route home included a dirt road along which were a number of potholes. Hitting one pothole extremely hard, the pickup bounced violently and the hubcap fell out of the truck's bed onto the road. A few minutes later, Cale came upon the hubcap while on his evening jog. Cale picked up the hubcap and carried it home with him. That weekend, Ben went to the local swap meet and discovered the hubcap sitting on a vendor's (Cale's) table. When Ben asked the Cale where he got the hubcap, Cale replied that he had found it on a local dirt road. Ben immediately screamed that the hubcap was his and that he had lost it on that very road when it had fallen out of his pickup. Who has the best property right to the hubcap, Ben or Cale?
A. Ben, because he was a prior possessor of the hubcap. Correct: Title is relative. All finders have better rights to items they find except for any prior possessors of the items. Both Ben and Cale were finders. Ben was a prior possessor of the hubcap and as such has better property rights in it than Cale, a later finder.
Ace Gas Company stores natural gas from several of its wells around the country in a large, natural underground reservoir in State X. A small portion of the reservoir is located under Bess's land, and some of the natural gas migrates there. Bess sinks a well and starts to extract the natural gas. Assume State X has no specific statute regarding ownership rights to natural gas. Applying the rationale of Pierson v. Post, which of the following is true?
A. Beth owns that gas that she extracts from the reservoir.. Correct: Under the Pierson logic, Ace losts its rights when it voluntarily released the gas into the reservoir, and Beth was the first person to capture it.
Bill owned a 10-acre tract of mountainous land that adjoined a public hiking trail, but did not border a public road. In 2010, Cara hiked down the trail and noticed some unusual volcanic rocks on Bill's land. They were bright blue and covered with shimmering crystals. Cara entered Bill's land, removed four of the rocks, put them in her backpack, and hiked back to her car. A few days later, Cara sold the rocks to a collector for $500 each. She then posted three large signs on Bill's land that read: "I claim these rocks! Cara." When Cara next visited the land in 2011, she had to walk far onto Bill's land to find similar rocks; she took three of the rocks, which she sold to another collector. Cara did exactly the same thing on a visit in 2019. Bill picnicked on the land in 2014 and 2020, but did not see the signs because he stayed on the edge of the parcel. In 2021, Cara sued Bill for a declaratory judgment that she owns the land. Assume that the period for adverse possession is 10 years. Who will win the lawsuit?
A. Bill, because Cara did not have continuous possession. Correct: Cara's possession was not continuous, assuming that Cara had possession at all. She entered the land on only threer occasions, presumably just long enough to steal the rocks—perhaps 30 minutes each time.
Brianna and Lillian planned to attend the opening of a new exhibit at a local museum. Lillian drove to Brianna's to pick her up. While waiting for Brianna in Brianna's bedroom, Lillian accidently broke the necklace she was wearing. Lillian became very upset, but Brianna calmed her and said: "Don't worry my friend. I'm going to make you a gift of one of my necklaces." In which of the following situations has Brianna effectively delivered a necklace to Lillian?
A. Brianna tosses a necklace into Lillian's lap. Correct: Generally, manual delivery of a gift is required if possible and practicable. Manual delivery occurs when the donor physically transfers possession of the item to the donee. When Brianna tosses the necklace into Lillian's lap, she releases her dominion and control over the item, and makes an effective delivery.
Kate just celebrated her 90th birthday. She is extremely frail, takes copious amounts of prescription drugs, and is often very sickly. Yesterday, Kate felt terrible. She phoned Eduardo and asked him to come by her house. When he arrived, Kate called him to her bed and softly whispered: "I'm feeling bad today. God only knows how much time I have left on this earth. I'm not sure when I will see you again, so here, take this amulet. It's my most prized object and it will bring you good luck." Kate handed the amulet to Eduardo. He thanked her profusely, put the amulet in his pocket, and left. Two weeks later, Kate regained her strength. She called Eduardo, explained that she needed her good luck charm back, and demanded that he return the amulet. Who has the better claim to the amulet?
A. Eduardo, because Kate made a valid inter vivos gift. Correct: A donor must fear imminent death from a specific cause in order to make a valid gift causa mortis. Even though Kate is extremely old, sickly, and feeling bad, there is no indication that she feared death was imminent. Taken as a whole, her statements to Eduardo regarding her health do not demonstrate that she feared her death was at hand. Here, Kate made a valid inter vivos gift, not a gift causa mortis. Generally, inter vivos gifts are irrevocable. Eduardo owns the amulet.
Fred finds a diamond ring in a field and places it in his pocket. As Fred walks home, the ring falls out of his pocket and onto the street. Kaya, a passerby, finds the ring. As Kaya admiringly holds it up to the sun, Loni grabs the ring from Kaya's hand and runs away. Fred, Kaya, and Loni bring an action to determine who has the best title to the ring. In whose favor should the court rule?
A. Fred. Correct: Fred has the better property right because he is the prior possessor of the ring.
Freda provides housing on her farm for farmworkers during the harvest season. George, a neighboring farmer, seeks to enter Freda's land in order to induce them to quit their jobs on Freda's farm and instead work on George's farm. Harry, the cousin of a farmworker living on Freda's farm, also wants to enter to visit his relative. Which of the following is correct under State v. Shack?
A. Freda may only exclude George. Correct: Freda has a legitimate interest in excluding a competitor like George who seeks to interfere with her farming activities by luring away her employees.
Bob's hobby is flying radio-controlled model airplanes in the backyard of his suburban home. Each airplane has a wing span of three feet and is propelled by a battery-powered motor. Every Saturday afternoon, Bob flies one of his airplanes over the homes owned by his neighbors, usually at an altitude of 50-80 feet. Bob's neighbor Gina complains about the model airplanes flying over her house, but Bob continues his conduct. Gina then sues Bob for trespass. Who will win the lawsuit based on the reasoning in United States v. Causby?
A. Gina, because Bob's airplanes flew through Gina's airspace. Correct: In Causby, a taking was found where airplanes flew 83 feet over plaintiffs' farm; the implication of Causby is that a landowner owns at least this portion of the airspace above his property, so this is the best answer.
Irma, an inventor, purchased a two-acre parcel of country land so that she could it use while developing new inventions. Because many of Irma's inventions could be tested only under conditions that minimized the effect of solar radiation, she decided to have a cave dug on her land so that she could conduct underground testing. Irma hired Cal to dig a cave located 30 feet below the surface of her property, which ran parallel to the surface for 100 feet. Cal inadvertently built the cave in the wrong place, so it extended 40 feet into the soil beneath the house owned by Nancy, Irma's neighbor. When Cal learned about the error, he explained the situation to Nancy, apologized to her, and told her that Irma would be using the tunnel for testing inventions; but Cal never told Irma about his mistake. Irma used the portion of the tunnel beneath Nancy's house once a month for the next six years. There was no visible indication on the surface of Nancy's land that there was a tunnel below it; nor did Irma's testing in the tunnel produce any noise or odors which a person on Nancy's land would have noticed. Irma and Nancy never discussed the tunnel. The period for adverse possession in this jurisdiction is five years. Who owns the portion of the tunnel beneath Nancy's land in most jurisdictions?
A. Irma, because the adverse possession elements are satisfied. Correct: The best answer is that all adverse possession elements are satisfied here. Irma used the tunnel area in a more intensive manner than a reasonable owner would do, which meets the actual possession element; her possession was exclusive because Nancy never used the tunnel; her possession was open and notorious because Nancy had actual knowledge of it; her possession was adverse and hostile under the good faith and objective standards; her possession was sufficiently continuous because she used the tunnel every month, more often than a reasonable owner would do; and her use continued for six years, longer than the required five-year period.
Ron wrote his son Jeb, who was studying in Brazil, the following letter: "Son, Happy Birthday! As your present, I give you my Picasso painting, which is in my Chicago bedroom. Love, Dad." Jeb never took possession of the painting, and Ron kept it in his home. Ron died last week, survived by Carla, his wife, and Jeb. A court will most likely find:
A. Jeb has the best claim to the painting because Ron made a valid inter vivos gift. Correct: Ron made an immediate transfer of a property right—a present transfer of a future interest. Ron is not required to manually deliver the painting if manual delivery is impossible or impracticable—as it is when Ron is conveying a future interest.
Jim owns a ranch on which he raises a large herd of sheep. Jim's neighbor, Logan, is a dairy farmer. Logan's farm includes large areas of natural grassland. Several of Jim's sheep wandered off his ranch onto Logan's farm. Logan caught the sheep while they were grazing in his meadows and placed them in his barn. Logan refuses to return the sheep to Jim. Who has better right to the sheep, Jim or Logan?
A. Jim, because sheep are domesticated animals. Correct: In order to encourage investment in domesticated animals, the law recognizes an exception to the rule of capture. When a domesticated animal escapes, the owner retains his property rights in the animal. Thus, the law makes a distinction between animals with animus revertendi (those with a "habit of returning") and ferae naturae (wild animals). Jim still owns the sheep (domesticated animals) even though he lost certain control of them. However, if Jim captured a wild cougar and it later escaped onto Logan's land, Logan would have better property rights under the rule of capture.
Joshua lives in a beautiful gated community. However, one day last month, Joshua noticed that a valuable Waterford vase he had brought back from one of his trips to Ireland was missing. Lily, a friend of Joshua's son, had stolen the vase. A few days later, Lily sold the vase to Sophia for $2,000. Sophia took the vase to a local jeweler, Ryan, to have it appraised. Unfortunately, one of Ryan's salespersons mistakenly sold the vase to Ella, a customer and, serendipitously, a colleague of Joshua's. Last week, Joshua went to a housewarming at Ella's and discovered his vase sitting on Ella's fireplace mantle. Who has better right to the vase?
A. Joshua, because he was the original owner of the stolen vase. Correct: Joshua maintains his title to the vase. Because Lily was a thief, neither Sophia nor Sophia's bailee Ryan received any property rights that trumped Joshua's rights. When Ella purchased the vase from Ryan, Ella received only the rights that Sophia had—and Sophia had none.
Zane owns a 10-acre tract of land (Forestacre), most of which is undeveloped forest. Zane only occasionally visits Forestacre, usually to fish in a small stream that runs through the southeastern portion of the parcel. Khole owns a small alpaca farm that abuts the northwest boundary of Forestacre. Because of a surveying error, Khole mistakenly thought that he also owned a 100-foot strip of Forestacre that bordered his farm. For the past ten years, Khole has entered this forested area and cut leaf-filled branches to feed his alpacas. Khole also regularly cleared the brush from the area and sometimes cut down trees for firewood. He even put up a small sign that read "Alpaca feeding zone." Zane recently discovered Khole's presence on Forestacre and instituted a quiet title action. Khole counterclaimed, seeking to have title to the 100-foot tract quieted in him. Which of the following is correct?
A. Khole met the open and notorious element of adverse possession by his regular use of the 100-foot strip. Correct: Khole's actions taken as a whole provide sufficient notice of his claim of title. The nature and frequency of his use of the land (cutting branches, clearing brush, cutting timber) as well as the clearly posted sign should have made Zane aware of Khole's adverse claim if Zane had made a reasonable inspection of Forestacre.
Ollie is relaxing on a chair in his forested backyard, watching an enormous squirrel bury acorns. Paul, a squirrel hunter, accidentally wanders onto Ollie's property. Seeing this "trophy" squirrel, Paul silently sneaks behind it. Just as Paul is about to grab the squirrel, Ray, a dealer in wild animals, jumps from behind a tree and snatches it with his hands. Ray places the squirrel in a cage and runs from Ollie's backyard back to his shop. When one of Ray's favorite customers, Sean, arrives and marvels at the size of the animal, Ray makes Sean a gift of the squirrel. Who has the best right to the squirrel?
A. Ollie. Correct: Even though Ollie never exerted certain control over the squirrel, he had constructive possession of the animal vis-a-vis any trespasser on his land. Both Paul and Ray were trespassers, and both will lose against Ollie. Even though Sean had no notice of Ray's trespass, his rights are based on Ray's rights.
Pedro was a successful professional baseball pitcher due to his unusually-shaped right hand. During a game, Pedro's right hand was struck by a hard-hit baseball, which almost severed it from his arm, leaving it hanging by only a bit of skin. Pedro was taken to the hospital unconscious, where doctor Darla removed the hand. One hour later, Darla transplanted the hand onto the arm of another patient. Pedro sued Darla for conversion. Under Moore v. Regents of the University of California, who will win the lawsuit?
A. Pedro, if the hand could have been successfully reattached to his arm. Correct: This is the best answer because of the key factual differences—and thus policy differences—between this situation and Moore. Notice that Pedro was unconscious after being struck by the ball, so he had no idea that he was even having an operation, unlike Moore who knew his spleen was to be removed. Most importantly, imposing conversion liability here does not impair medical research (there is no indication that Darla is doing such research), so the key policy concern that underpins Moore is absent.
Twenty years ago, Sam constructed a five-story apartment building on a city lot. Part of the building roof protruded six inches into the airspace over the adjacent lot owned by Lila. Lila now discovers this problem and demands that Sam remove the protrusion. What should Sam do?
A. Refuse because he has acquired title to the airspace by adverse possession. Correct: Sam has met all elements for adverse possession in most states.
Ethan threw his large fishing net into unowned waters of the Pacific Ocean. After several hours, four large fish swam into the net. While it was not absolutely impossible for fish to escape Ethan's net, under normal circumstances only a few, if any, fish escape. Emma also was fishing in the area on her own boat. Just as Ethan was about to raise his net and bring the fish onto his boat, Emma reached over the net and with a large spear (never touching the net) stabbed two of the more prized fish and lifted them into her boat. In a suit to regain the fish, Ethan will be...
A. Successful, because the fish were safely secured in Ethan's net. Correct: The law does not require absolute certainty against the possibility of escape. Given that the probability of escape was minimal, Ethan demonstrated the degree of certain control required by the rule of capture
Xao owns a herd of domesticated horses that roam free on his ranch. One of Xao's horses wandered onto the adjoining property owned by Yarin. Yarin decided he wanted to ride the horse and began to pursue it with a rope. Just as Yarin was about to lasso the horse, Zeb, who was trespassing on Yarin's land, jumped out and wrestled the horse onto the ground. Hearing the commotion, Xao ran over and demanded the horse's return. However, both Yarin and Zeb also claim they own the horse. Who owns the horse?
A. Xao owns the horse because it is a domesticated animal and belongs to Xao, even though it wandered onto Yarin's land and even though a subsequent party exercised control over it. Correct: A prior owner retains title to her domestic animals (who have animus revertendi) even if they roam at large and are captured by a subsequent party.
Carl owns a 10-acre tract of unfenced, rural land, where he lives in a small cabin. Don walks up to Carl's front door to try to sell him a set of encyclopedias. The next day, while researching an endangered species of frog, Ella walks across Carl's land, believing in good faith that it is public land. Who is liable for trespass?
B Only Ella. Correct: Good faith is not a defense to trespass liability. Ella intentionally entered land that, in fact, was privately owned; this is enough to subject her to liability.
Catalina owned Desertacre in 2007 when Mira took possession. Catalina was mentally incompetent at the time Mira began her occupancy. In 2009, Catalina died intestate never having regained mental capacity. Her sole heir was her brother Felipe who was also mentally incompetent. Felipe regained mental competency in 2027. The statutory period in this jurisdiction in 10 years. A statute in this jurisdiction also provides: "If a person entitled to bring an action in adverse possession is, at the time the cause of action accrues, within the age of minority or of unsound mind, the person, after the expiration of 10 years from the time of the cause of action accrues, may bring the action within five years after the disability is removed." When is the earliest that Mira can perfect title by adverse possession?
B. 2017 Correct: The earliest Mira can perfect title is in 2017. At minimum, she must always occupy the property for the standard statutory period, here 10 years. While Catalina's disability does not provide her (or her heirs) any additional time beyond the statutory period, it can never shorten the statutory period.
In most jurisdictions, which of the following is not a correct statement about gifts causa mortis?
B. A gift causa mortis may be made for both real and personal property. Correct: This is an incorrect statement. A gift causa mortis is a gift of personal property made by a living person in contemplation of death. A gift causa mortis cannot be a gift of real property.
A bailment is a rightful possession of goods by someone who is not the owner. A bailee has the duty to return the item to the bailor and typically owes some level of care in her handling of the item. Which of the following situations correctly identifies the duty of care of the respective bailee?
B. A person who borrows her neighbor's lawnmower must pay to have a broken wheel fixed even if she was not negligent when using the lawnmower. Correct: When the bailment is for the primary benefit of the bailee (use of the lawnmower), the bailee must use extraordinary care. The individual who borrows her neighbor's lawnmower must return it in the same condition that she received it.
Carla, a biochemist, discovered that certain cells in Dan's body contained a liquid which could cure brain cancer. Carla begged Dan to let her remove some of his cells so that thousands of patients could be cured each year, but Dan refused because Carla was unwilling to pay him what he thought was a fair price. On a dark night, Carla saw Dan walking in a park, stunned him with a punch in the jaw, quickly cut away a small bit of Dan's skin that contained some of the valuable cells, and ran away. Carla then sold the cells to Elsa, a scientist who plans to use them to create a cell line that will generate the life-saving medicine. Which of the following is correct?
B. Dan owns the cells even though they were excised from his body. Correct: The best answer is that Dan owns the cells even though they were removed from his body, because the removal was a wrongful act. Moore v. Regents of the University of California might suggest a contrary conclusion. But Carla's conduct here violates a fundamental public policy that was not at issue in Moore: the prohibition of criminal conduct. Carla committed a crime by removing Dan's cells without his consent. Because of this policy difference, Moore can be distinguished.
When considering the effect of disabilities on the statutory period for adverse possession, which of the following is not correct?
B. Disabilities may be tacked. Correct: This is an incorrect statement. Disabilities cannot be tacked. Only disabilities of the owner that exist when the adverse possessor enters the property can be taken into account. If a "disabled" owner conveys her property to a "disabled" successor during the statutory period, the disability of the successor is not considered.
Frank owned a 50-acre farm in an agricultural region which he used to grow carrots, lettuce, and other crops for many years during the summer growing season. All the properties in the region were used to grow similar crops. Frank decided to retire and give his land to his nephew Ned and Ned's wife Wilma. As a gift, Frank executed and delivered a deed that purported to convey title to the farm to Ned and Wilma as joint tenants. Frank, Ned, and Wilma were not aware that the deed was legally defective, and that Frank accordingly still owned the farm. Ned, Wilma, and their three children visited the land almost every day each summer for six years. They often invited Frank to join them on their trips to the land, and he frequently did. On each visit, they would have a picnic, hike on the land, watch birds, and generally enjoy being outdoors. Seven years after the deed was created, Frank's attorney found it while reviewing records for a lawsuit. When the attorney mentioned to Frank that the deed was a nullity, Frank exclaimed: "Well, I'm going to take my farm back now. Ned and Wilma were never grateful for my gift." The adverse possession period in the jurisdiction is five years. Who owns the land?
B. Frank, because Ned and Wilma did not have actual possession. Correct: The actual possession element requires that the claimant physically use the land in the manner that a reasonable owner would, given its character, location, and nature. The land at issue is a farm, located in a farming region. The reasonable owner of such a farm would use it to grow crops as Frank did. Ned and Wilma could have satisfied the actual possession element if they had used the land as a farm or if they had used it for a more intensive purpose (e.g., operating a factory). But Ned and Wilma used the farm only for recreation, which is a much less intensive use than farming. Most courts would accordingly hold that they did not have actual possession.
Jasmine purchased an older, furnished house. Although she lived in a neighboring state, Jasmine purchased the house with the intent to move there when she retired. To help her make her mortgage payments on the house, Jasmine immediately rented it to her friend Hanna. Hanna had lived there for over 10 years when she decided, with Jasmine's permission, to repaint the interior. When moving a dresser in the upstairs bedroom, Hana found a dusty antique ring resting on the floor. Hanna was joyous about her find. She immediately called Jasmine to tell her the good news. To Hanna's amazement, Jasmine was not supportive and claimed that the ring should be hers since it was found in her house. Who has the best right to the ring?
B. Hanna, because she found the ring, and Jasmine did not reside in the house. Correct: Finders usually have a better right to the lost item against all except prior possessors. However, where the find is made in a residence, other policies must be considered. If the owner resides in the house, the owner's expectations regarding found objects are high. Generally, these expectations are deemed to outweigh any interests in the finder. However here, because Jasmine was an absentee owner, her expectations are low. The policies of rewarding the finder and encouraging honesty outweigh Jasmine's expectations, and consequently Hanna has the better right to the ring.
Jack bought a one-of-a-kind gold carbon-framed Bianchi bicycle. Unfortunately, Owen immediately stole Jack's bicycle. Owen rides the bicycle to work each day, locks it outside of his work in plain view, and stores it in the front window of his house. If this jurisdiction applies the discovery rule to the adverse possession of chattels, the statutory period begins when:
B. Jack discovers, or by exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered, the location of the bicycle or the identity of Owen. Correct: As long as Jack continues to use due diligence to recover his bicycle, the statutory period will not begin. The period commences once Jack discovers where his bicycle is located or that Owen possesses it.
Lance owned Greenacre in fee simple absolute. In 2005, Lance conveyed Greenacre to Julian by a valid deed which read "to Julian for life." In 2007, Kobe entered Greenacre and began to adversely possess it. Kobe occupied Greenacre for the next 13 years. In 2020, Julian died. Julian's will provided that his son, Rick, receive all his assets. In 2021, Kobe married Ada and made the following oral declaration: "I give Greenacre to my beloved wife Ada." The statutory period for adverse possession in this jurisdiction is 10 years. In 2021, who owns fee simple absolute in Greenacre?
B. Lance Correct: Lance regained fee simple title to Greenacre upon Julian's death in 2020. Remember, Lance only conveyed a life estate to Julian, retaining a reversion in himself. Kobe merely adversely possessed the life estate held by Julian. When Julian died, Kobe's title ended and Lance regained the fee simple.
Mia lived in a very remote area. Walking home, Mia took a shortcut over the back 10 acres of Liam's farm. Mia noticed a wild turkey next to a small stream that flowed through Liam's property. Throwing a rock, she stunned the turkey, brought it home, and placed it in a cage in her backyard. A few days later, Aiden, a lost and hungry hiker, wandered onto Mia's land, saw the turkey, grabbed it from its cage, and wandered back into the woods. When Mia noticed that the turkey had been taken, she traced Aiden's steps and found him with the turkey. Between Mia and Aiden, who has better claim to the turkey?
B. Mia, because Aiden trespassed on her land to acquire the turkey. Correct: Mia's possession is protected against the unlawful acts of Aiden, even though Mia may have gained possession of the turkey unlawfully. The law protects Mia's possessory rights against a later wrongdoer in order to avert an unending series of trespasses.
For the past 10 years, Ana rented a house she owned to Nia. The lease created a periodic tenancy, with rent payable on January 1st of each year. From the beginning, Nia demonstrated great hostility toward Ana and often refused to speak with Ana or answer inquiries about the house. Each year, Nia would leave for Europe and spend several weeks visiting museums and touring the Alps. These vacations caused Ana some concern since the house was vacant and susceptible to waste. Shortly after Nia missed making her rental payment for the current year, Ana went to Nia to demand the payment. Nia asserted that she did not owe Ana any rent. Nia claimed that she now owned the house because she had adversely possessed it. The jurisdiction has a 10-year statutory period for adverse possession. Which of the following is correct?
B. Nia did not obtain title as an adverse possessor because her possession was not adverse and hostile. Correct: In order to be an adverse possessor, all jurisdictions require that the possession be "adverse and hostile" for the statutory period. And all jurisdictions agree that when possession is authorized by the owner it is not "adverse and hostile." A tenant occupies with the consent of the landlord. Since Nia was a tenant in Ana's house for the previous 10 years, she failed to meet this element.
Amy owned Cactusacre, a 100-acre tract mainly occupied by cacti; she lived in the home which was located in the northwest corner of the tract. In 2010, Amy died after being bitten by a rattlesnake. Amy's son Sid quickly found what appeared to be Amy's valid will, which left Cactusacre to Amy's niece Nina. Nina immediately moved into the home on Cactusacre, and used it as her residence until the present; but Nina has never visited or used any other part of Cactusacre. Last week, Sid discovered that the will was invalid due to a technicality and, accordingly, that he should have inherited Cactusacre under state law as Amy's closest relative. Assume that the adverse possession period is 10 years. Sid sued Amy for a declaratory judgment that he owned Cactusacre. How should the court rule?
B. Nina owns all of Cactusacre. Correct: By using the home as her residence for more than 10 years, Nina has satisfied all adverse possession elements. The invalid will is a form of color of title, so Nina's possession of the Cactusacre home gives her constructive possession of all of the property.
Mary was a sickly individual and was regularly hospitalized. During one of her hospital stays, Mary wrote a valid will leaving all of her property to her boyfriend, Kyle. A few weeks later, Mary became seriously ill and was once again hospitalized. The attending doctors doubted that Mary would survive the night. Her good friend Ruby visited her in her hospital room. Mary called Ruby next to her, reached under her pillow, and placed a small object in Ruby's hand. Mary folded Ruby's fingers over the object and said: "Ruby, I'll likely die tonight and this is for you. It's the most precious and valuable thing I own. It's my great-grandmother's gold brooch. Remember me when you wear it." Observing what had happened, Kyle became upset. He dearly wanted the brooch since it was worth more than $20,000 and, besides, Mary had given it to him in her will. Before he could speak, Mary fell into a deep sleep. Who owns the brooch?
B. Ruby Correct: A gift causa mortis is immediately effective when it is made. Even though it is revocable at any time before death, Mary made a valid gift causa mortis to Ruby.
Tripp was walking along a trail on unowned land when he noticed a shiny object on the ground. He picked up the object, which turned out to be a lost Rolex watch. Noticing that the Rolex was not working, Tripp took it to a local jeweler to be repaired and explained to the jeweler that he found the lost watch while on his daily walk. The next day Tripp went to the jeweler to retrieve the watch. The jeweler refused to return the Rolex, simply saying: "Hey, it isn't your watch." Tripp brings an action in replevin. Which statement is correct?
B. Tripp will be successful in his suit although he is not the owner of the watch. Correct: The basic rule of finders law is that a finder of a lost item has better possessory rights to the item against everyone but a prior possessor. Here Tripp possessed the watch before he gave it to the jeweler. Therefore, Tripp's rights are better than the jeweler's rights.
The labor theory of property is reflected most directly by:
B. White's victory in White v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. Correct: In White, White's celebrity status—the property right at issue—arose almost exclusively through her labor.
Movie star Mina is a tenant in Oliver's apartment building. Seeking to sell the building, Oliver places an advertisement in the local newspaper which reads: "$2,500,000. Luxury 3-unit apartment complex. Home of famous movie star Mina. Call 333-3333." Has Oliver violated Mina's right of publicity?
B. Yes, because Oliver used Mina's name in order to gain a commercial advantage. Correct: As White v. Samsung Electronics America illustrates, the common law right of publicity is violated when a person appropriates a celebrity's name or likeness to his advantage, unless the celebrity consents. Here, Oliver seems to be using Mina's name in order to help sell his building, almost as if Mina were endorsing a product.
Zelda owns a 500-acre farm. She installs an extensive network of wells to extract groundwater so that she can sell the water to the residents of an expanding city located 20 miles away. As a result of Zelda's pumping, the wells located on her neighbor Ned's land went dry. Under these circumstances, may Zelda continue pumping groundwater?
B. Yes, if the state follows the absolute ownership rule. Correct: A landowner may generally withdraw as much groundwater as he wishes under the absolute ownership rule.
Evan owns an apartment in a high-rise condominium. His most valued possession, a Picasso painting, hangs on his living room wall. Evan is currently visiting a distant city and has met Juan, his closest friend. A few years earlier, Juan had graciously helped Evan when he was down on his luck. Evan feels greatly indebted to Juan for his past kindness and is thinking about making a gift of his Picasso painting to him. Which of the following statements by Evan) would result in a valid inter vivos gift of the painting?
C. "Juan, I want you to have my Picasso painting now, but I want to keep it until I die." Correct: Evan intends to give Juan rights in the painting now. Juan receives a vested remainder in the painting and Evan retains a life estate in the painting.
Abe owned a residential condominium unit on the 12th floor of a highrise tower in a large city. But Abe never used the unit because he lived in Switzerland. Abe's daughter Beth bribed the building superintendent to give her a key to the unit; over the next seven years, she spent 12 hours each day practicing the cello there. When Beth decided to move to Japan, her cousin Connie asked if she could use the unit to compose songs; Beth replied "Of course. Here's the key." Connie visited the unit every Tuesday for 10 hours to write songs. When Abe returned four years later, Connie claimed title by adverse possession. Assume that the period for adverse possession in the state is five years. Connie sued Abe for a declaratory judgment that she owned the unit. Who will win the lawsuit?
C. Abe, because Connie cannot tack on Beth's period of possession. Correct: The privity required for tacking usually arises from a deed; here, the only arrangement between Beth and Connie was a brief conversation. Even under the liberal standard in Howard v. Kunto, privity is not present. There is no "reasonable connection" between Beth and Connie which raises Connie's claim "above the status of the wrongdoer or the trespasser."
Which of the following statements is not correct?
C. Adverse possession applies exclusively to real property. Correct: This is an incorrect statement. Adverse possession applies equally to both real and personal property. While traditionally real property was the more important category, title to personal property may also be obtained by adverse possession.
Tom rented a storage container at a commercial facility. Tom placed $8,000 in cash and a diamond necklace in the container. One day, Tom told his brother, Nick: "I want Sam to have the contents of my storage container." Tom gave Nick the key to the container and instructed Nick to give the key to Sam. A few days later, Tom died. In which of the following circumstances was there no effective gift?
C. At Tom's request, Nick returned the key to Tom, rather than giving it to Sam. Correct: Even though Tom initially had donative intent, there was no effective delivery. Although the key was placed in Nick's hand, Nick was Tom's agent, not Sam's. Therefore, an element necessary for an effective gift (delivery) was never met.
In which of the following situations does Cal acquire title to the final product under the doctrine of accession?
C. Cal mistakenly uses grapes owned by Darla, believing them to be his own, in making wine. Correct: Acting under the good faith belief that he owned the grapes, Cal used his labor and equipment to transform them into wine, something qualitatively different from the raw materials.
Allen owned Pearacre, a 500-acre tract of pear trees which included a small house in its southwest corner. When Allen died, his only living relatives were his daughter Betty and his niece Carrie. When Betty and Carrie looked through Allen's records, they discovered a document which appeared to be Allen's will; it provided in part: "I devise Pearacre to Carrie." The document was signed by Allen. Betty and Carrie both assumed that this paper was a valid will, but under state law it was invalid because no one witnessed Allen's signature; indeed, under state law Betty had automatically received title to Pearacre when her father died without a valid will. Carrie moved into the Pearacre house. Because she disliked pears, however, she never visited or used the rest of the Pearacre property. Two days after Carrie occupied the house, Betty drove a small green travel trailer onto the northeast corner of Pearacre and built a foundation around it; she occupied it each weekend as a vacation retreat from her city job. When Carrie drove down the public road in front of Betty's trailer on weekends, Betty shouted at her: "You robbed me of my inheritance!" Carrie and Betty continued the conduct set forth above for 15 years. The period for adverse possession in this jurisdiction is 12 years. Which of the following statements is correct in most jurisdictions?
C. Carrie owns all of Pearacre except for the northeast corner. Correct: Carrie owns the Pearacre house because she satisfied the elements for adverse possession by her 15 years of continuous occupancy. In addition, because Carrie had color of title to all of Pearacre pursuant to the invalid will, she obtained title to all of Pearacre except for the northeast corner, which was actually occupied by Betty, the true owner.
In 2006, Rosa entered Greenacre, a five-acre parcel owned by Dana. Rosa met all the elements for adverse possession for the next 15 years. Dana was mentally incapacitated during the first three years of Rosa's occupancy. In 2021, Dana entered Greenacre and told Rosa to leave. Rosa brought suit to quiet title. The statute of limitations for this jurisdiction is 15 years. A state statute also suspends the running of the statutory period until the disability is removed. Which of the following is correct?
C. Dana is the owner of Greenacre because Rosa did not meet all the required elements for the statutory period. Correct: In this jurisdiction, the statute of limitations is suspended until the disability is removed. Because Dana regained mental capacity in 2009, the 15-year statute of limitations only began at that time. Therefore, Rosa had not gained title in 2021. The earliest she could gain title would be 2024.
Joe purchased a two-bedroom condominium, intending to move into the unit when he retired. The condominium was located in a state far from his current residence. Unbeknownst to Joe, Skyla immediately moved into Joe's unit and occupied it for three years. Skyla knew that someone else owned the unit, and often commented to her friends: "Hey, if the owner isn't going to use it, I might as well use it." When Skyla needed to leave the unit because of a job transfer, she conveyed all interest she had in the condominium unit to a coworker, Danica, for $175,000. Danica occupied the unit for nine more years, at the end of which Joe appeared, having recently retired. The jurisdiction has a 10-year statutory period for adverse possession and applies the modern rule on intent. In a suit to quiet title, how should a court rule?
C. Danica owns the condominium unit because there was privity between Danica and Skyla. Correct: Most jurisdictions allow tacking if the successive possessors are in privity. The privity requirement is met when a prior occupant transfers all her rights in the property to her successor. Here Skyla transferred her rights in the condominium unit to Danica and therefore Danica could tack onto Skyla's 3-year occupancy. Three years plus 9 years equal 12 years—consequently, the 10-year statute of limitations has been met.
The best explanation for the Supreme Court's ruling in Johnson v. M'Intosh that Native Americans did not have the authority to transfer their ancestral lands to private buyers is that the Native Americans:
C. Did not have the right to transfer under the laws of the United States. Correct: Johnson reflects legal positivism. Under the laws of the United States, the Native Americans did not have the right to transfer title to their ancestral lands, as the Court stated: "All our institutions recognise the absolute title of the crown, subject only to the Indian right of occupancy." As the successor to the crown's rights, the United States obtained the right to transfer title. Accordingly, "[c]onquest gives a title which the Courts of the conqueror cannot deny."
Anna owns a 100-acre tract of farmland. In which of the following situations did a trespass not occur?
C. Elmer has to land his hot air balloon on Anna's land. Correct: The best answer is that Elmer did not trespass because he entered Anna's under a privilege arising from necessity. A hot air balloon can only remain aloft for a short period of time and cannot be steered in any particular direction. Thus, the pilot of a hot air balloon has little choice about when or where to land. The facts here indicate that Elmer "has to" land on Anna's land, which implies that the landing was due to necessity rather than choice.
Roy conveyed Greenacre and Meadowacre (two five-acre contiguous parcels) to Farrah. Farrah paid $140,000 for both parcels and received a general warranty deed from Roy. Farrah immediately moved onto Greenacre and constructed a two-story house. She cleared most of the rocky terrain immediately surrounding the house and planted a large garden next to the back door. Farrah rarely wandered anywhere on Greenacre outside of her house or garden. Farrah also never ventured onto Meadowacre. She was an environmentalist and wanted to preserve the pristine nature of that parcel. Twelve years after the conveyance from Roy to Farrah, Jaxen appeared and told Farrah that he owned both parcels, having validly purchased Greenacre and Meadowacre in 2005. After some investigation, the following facts were established: (i) Roy never owned either parcel; (ii) the deed from Roy to Farrah was invalid; and (iii) Farrah had no knowledge of Roy's fraud and had always acted in good faith. The statutory period for adverse possession in this jurisdiction is 10 years. Which of the following is correct?
C. Farrah owns Greenacre, and Jaxen owns Meadowacre. Correct: Farrah has met the elements to adversely possess Greenacre. Color of title provides her with title to the entire parcel even though she may not have occupied large portions of it. However, Farrah never occupied Meadowacre, a separate parcel. Color of title will not extend the fiction of constructive possession to a parcel the adverse possessor has not even partially possessed.
Harriet owned Desertacre, an unfenced and unimproved tract of desert land that covered four square miles, located 20 miles from the nearest town; the land was covered with wild cactus plants. The west side of Desertacre adjoined Highway 47 for one mile. Each year, Harriet visited the land once a year to hike for a few hours. When Harriet died, her will devised Desertacre to her son Ivan. Two years after Ivan received title, Julie, a cactus expert driving past Desertacre, noticed that some of the plants growing there were rare and valuable. She stopped and dug up two cactus plants, each about 10 inches high, which she subsequently sold to a collector. Over the next 11 years, Julie visited Desertacre on nine more occasions. Each time she removed between two and four cactus plants from different portions of the property; the plants she took ranged in height from 7 to 15 inches. Julie sold the plants to collectors. Ivan never walked on Desertacre. But once a year for 14 years after receiving title, Ivan drove past the land slowly on the highway, making a visual inspection. During these inspections, he never noticed any evidence of Julie's activities. The period for adverse possession in this jurisdiction is 10 years. Who owns Desertacre?
C. Ivan, because Julie did not have open and notorious possession. Correct: A use must be visible and obvious, such that an owner who made a reasonable inspection of the land would become aware of the adverse claim. Ivan did not make a reasonable inspection because he could only see a small part of the land from the highway. However, even if he had made a careful inspection, it is unlikely that he would have noticed any evidence of Julie's activities. Over 12 years, Julie removed fewer than 40 small cactus plants from four square miles of land. Given the huge size of the tract, a reasonable owner would not have noticed that the plants were missing. Although Julie's actions would have left a small hole when each plant was removed, these holes would not have put an inspecting owner on notice due to size of the tract.
Kelly owned a 10-acre horse ranch. Over the years, the nearby large city slowly expanded until urban development surrounded the ranch. Because of traffic congestion, the city decided to install a light rail train system. The city initially planned to run the tracks across the surface of Kelly's land, but Kelly objected to any use of his property. The city planner then told the city council: "We can elevate the tracks so they run on a bridge 200 feet above Kelly's land; we won't need to have any of the bridge towers touch his land. Or we can run the tracks in a tunnel 500 feet under Kelly's land." Which of the following is correct in most jurisdictions?
C. Kelly owns both the airspace 200 feet above his land and the subsurface 500 feet below his land. Correct: The best answer is that Kelly owns both the airspace and the subsurface at issue, although some jurisdictions are moving away from this view.
Leonard owned a house which he rented to Tyler for a one-year term. In which of the following situations did a trespass occur?
C. Leonard enters the house in Tyler's absence to show it to a prospective buyer. Correct: As a tenant, Tyler is normally entitled to exclusive possession of the house. Therefore, Leonard's entry into the house without Tyler's permission is a trespass.
Sara owns a 2,000-acre ranch in a remote, undeveloped part of a western state which she uses for grazing cattle. An oil company now wants to install a pipeline that will run 500 feet underneath Sara's land; this will be one link in a 200-mile pipeline system. Construction and use of the system will not interfere with Sara's cattle grazing. Under the standard in Chance v. BP Chemicals, will Sara be able to bar the pipeline?
C. No, because it will not adversely affect Sara's use of the property. Correct: Chance allows the surface owner to prevent a subsurface trespass if it would "actually interfere" with his "reasonable and foreseeable use of the subsurface." Here Sara has no reasonable and foreseeable use for the subsurface.
While sitting in his backyard, Noah noticed a squirrel (whose nest was in a neighboring yard) slowly moving over his grass looking for nuts. Suddenly, a stranger, Ava, jumped over Noah's fence, grabbed the squirrel, and ran away. If Noah sues Ava to recover the squirrel, who will win?
C. Noah, because Ava was a trespasser. Correct: Noah has best rights to the squirrel even though he never gained certain control. In order to discourage trespassing, the law gives Noah constructive possession of wild animals on his property against any trespasser. It is important to note that Noah did not gain any ownership rights in the squirrel while it was simply moving over his grass. However, when a trespasser grabs the wild animal, the law will protect the landowner against the unlawful acts of a trespasser.
Molly just learned that her application to the Peace Corps was approved and that she would be leaving for Mongolia in four days. She jumped into her car and drove 200 miles to her best friend's (Josie's) apartment. After telling Josie the good news, Molly exclaimed, "Josie, I want you to have the silver Couture watch I am wearing and the Xbox One console that is in my apartment." Molly took a paper towel from Josie's kitchen and wrote, "I, Molly, make an irrevocable gift of my watch and Xbox One console to my best friend Josie." When she had finished writing, Molly gave the paper towel to Josie. She also simultaneously shouted, "Josie, I also want you to have my car. Here are the keys. Catch!" Molly threw the keys to Josie (which landed next to Josie's feet). Molly made a valid gift of which item(s)?
C. Only the Xbox One and the car. Correct: Symbolic delivery is allowed if manual delivery is impracticable or impossible. Since the Xbox One console was in Molly's distant apartment, manual transfer was impracticable. Consequently, the written note was an acceptable form of delivery. Likewise, constructive delivery is allowed where manual delivery is impracticable or impossible. Cars are too heavy to physically hand over. Providing Josie with the keys gave her access to the car and therefore satisfied the delivery requirement. Molly made a valid gift of both the Xbox One and the car.
Oscar owned a Stradivarius violin worth $1.5 million. Dean, a dealer who sells and restores stringed instruments, stole the violin after one of Oscar's concerts. Four months later, Dean sold the Stradivarius for $2 million to Fay, who had no idea of the violin's history. A few weeks later, Oscar discovered that Dean had sold his violin to Fay and demanded its return. Fay claims the violin is hers. Who has the best title to the violin?
C. Oscar, because he never transferred any interest to Dean. Correct: A thief gains no title and cannot pass valid title to another—unless the thief gains title by adverse possession. Even though Fay was a good faith purchaser, Dean had no title to pass to her.
Ned sits in a booth at a small family-run restaurant and discovers an old wallet lying on the table top. The wallet has no identification in it, but contains $500. Ned gives the wallet to Peter, the restaurant owner, and tells Peter to hold the wallet until the owner comes back for it. One year passes, and the owner of the wallet never returns. When Ned asks for the wallet and the money, Peter gives him the wallet but keeps the money. Who has the better right to the $500?
C. Peter because mislaid articles belong to the owner of the place in which they were found. Correct: Given the type of property and its location, the court will probably presume that the $500 was intentionally placed there by a prior customer and forgotten. Mislaid articles belong to the owner of the locus in quo, not the finder, placing the item in the hands of the person who is most likely to ensure its return to the true owner.
Lia has lived in her Victorian home (Homely Manor) all her life. The house is an excellent example of American Victorian architecture. It was originally built by Lia's great-grandfather and has been handed down from one generation to the next. Lia has no children or close relatives and does not want Homely Manor to be inhabited by anyone outside her immediate family. In a legally valid will, Lia directed her executor to demolish the house. Following Lia's death, a group of neighbors brought suit to stop the demolition. They produced evidence that the destruction of Homely Manor would lead to a 25% reduction in their home property values. How should a court rule?
C. The court should enjoin the executor from carrying out Lia's testamentary directive because it would amount to the senseless destruction of resources and affect important interests of other members of the community Correct: While a personal normally has an unlimited right to destroy property she owns while alive , public policy can place restraints on the right to destroy once the individual dies . Courts often look to whether the destruction serves a validpurpose and whether it negatively affects the interests of others in the community. Here there is no evidence that Lia's directive serves some useful purpose, and property owners in the neighborhood will be severely injured if the will is followed.
The theory of property which best explains why the farmworkers in State v. Shack were entitled to receive visitors over the landowner's objection is:
C. Utilitarian theory. Correct: The sentiment in Shack that property rights "serve human values" and "are recognized to that end" reflects classic utilitarian theory.
In which of the following situations has Thomas made a valid gift of his tools (two screwdrivers, a wrench, and a hammer) to Adam?
C. Yesterday Adam asked Thomas if he could borrow a few of his tools. Thomas happily loaned Adam two screwdrivers, a wrench, and a hammer. Today was Thomas's birthday and his wife gave Thomas a complete set of new tools. Delighted by this present, Thomas called Adam and said: "Keep the tools. They're yours." Correct: Delivery is deemed complete if the gifted items are in the possession of the donee. The law does not require the donee to briefly return the items to the donor for the mere purpose of requiring him to redeliver them. Therefore since Adam was already in possession of the tools, the gift was complete when Thomas told him to "keep" them.
Willie, a minor, owned a small house called Greenacre. In 2007, when Willie was only five, , Sean moved into Greenacre and began to meet all the elements for adverse possession. The statutory period in this jurisdiction is 10 years. A state statute also suspends the running of the statutory period during the disability and for five years after the disability ends. The age of majority is 18. What is the earliest date that Sean could perfect title by adverse possession?
D. 2025 Correct: Willie's disability ended in 2020 (he was five when Sean entered and became 18 in 2020). Adding the additional five-year period that the statute grants an owner to protect his interest, the earliest Sean could gain title is 2025 (2020 + 5).
Will owned a mountain cabin that he used during summer vacations. He borrowed $50,000 from Bank, secured by a mortgage on the cabin. He then leased the cabin to Tina for a 10-year term pursuant to a written lease. Tina planned to use the cabin during her summer vacations, but she became so busy at work that she was unable to visit it. Abe noticed that the cabin was vacant, took possession, and lived there on a full-time basis for six years. Neither Will nor Tina ever visited the cabin during this period. The adverse possession period in the jurisdiction is five years. Assuming that Abe satisfied all adverse possession elements, what is the state of title to the property?
D. Abe has a term of years tenancy, Will has a reversion, and the property is encumbered by Bank's mortgage. Correct: Abe's adverse possession had no effect on Will's reversion or the Bank's mortgage because neither of them was entitled to present possession of the cabin. Abe received only Tina's term of years tenancy.
Aunt Betty loved her nephew, Louis. On Louis's 21st birthday, the family had a huge party, which Aunt Betty attended. Aunt Betty handed Louis a check for $2,100, saying: "You're my favorite nephew. This is for you. Have a great time." The next morning, Louis came home drunk. Aunt Betty was not overly understanding and immediately stopped payment on her uncashed check. If this jurisdiction applies the majority rule, which of the following statements is correct?
D. Aunt Betty did not make a valid gift.. Correct: The majority rule is that no gift occurs until the check is cashed because until then the donor retains dominion and control of the funds. Since Louis had not yet cashed the check, Aunt Betty simply made an unenforceable promise to make a gift.
Jay owned an expensive gold pen. When Jay became seriously ill, he wrote a will leaving all his property to his wife, Gene. Jay then summoned Aya to his bedside and handed her his pen, saying: "Take this. I want you to have it to remember me by." Aya took the pen, and Jay died shortly thereafter. Who has the better claim to the pen?
D. Aya because Jay made a valid gift causa mortis. Correct: Jay satisfied all the requirements for making a gift causa mortis. Jay made the gift in contemplation of death, had the necessary donative intent, manually delivered the pen, and Aya accepted his gift.
Bob owned a home on a large lot in a residential subdivision; the south side of Bob's lot adjoined a large vacant lot owed by Chad, but there was no fence between the lots. Bob and Chad disliked each other. Chad purchased an old school bus which was 9 feet high and 40 feet long, painted it an ugly orange color, and installed it along the north side of his lot right next to Bob's backyard. Chad did this in part because he knew that Bob hated the color orange, and Chad hoped that the bus would annoy him; but the main reason Chad had for placing the bus there was to shelter his lot from northern winds. Although the bus was entirely on Chad's land, Bob soon discovered that it cast a shadow onto the 12-foot wide portion of his lot closest to the bus, which prevented him from starting a garden in this area. Which of the following is mostly likely?
D. Chad is not liable to Bob. Correct: The best answer is that Chad is not liable to Bob. The most likely claim Bob could make is that the shadow was a nuisance. However, particularly given the small area covered by the shadow and the large size of Bob's lot, it would not be viewed as a substantial interference with the use of Bob's land, even if the other nuisance elements were satisfied.
Bob holds title to Redacre, a 100-year-old mansion. Over the objection of his family and his neighbors, Bob plans to demolish Redacre in a week. A group of Bob's neighbors file suit, seeking a court order to prevent the demolition. What is the most likely basis for obtaining such an order?
D. Demolition of Redacre would release asbestos particles that endanger public health. Correct: As a general rule, a landowner has a broad right to destroy property during his lifetime, absent direct harm to others. But here the demolition will be done in a manner that releases dangerous asbestos particles into the air, so the court would probably enjoin it as a nuisance.
In which of these examples has Wendy successfully given her pen to Vic, her partner? Wendy calls Vic into Wendy's bedroom.
D. Distracted by the television, Vic does not see Wendy place the pen in Vic's back pocket, although he does hear Wendy declare: "I want you to have my pen." Correct: Wendy manually transferred the pen to Vic and had the simultaneous intent to give the pen to him. Acceptance of a valuable item such as a gold pen is presumed.
Liana went to a nail salon to have a manicure. There she noticed a small purse resting on a side table by the entrance. Liana picked it up and discovered a large stack of $20 bills inside. She gave the purse and money to Ember, the salon's proprietor, telling Ember to give the items to the purse's owner if she should come back. After four months, Liana returned to the salon. When she discovered that no one had returned to claim the purse and money, Liana demanded that Ember hand over both items to her. Ember refused and Liana brought suit. In whose favor should a court rule?
D. Ember, because she was the owner of the salon in which an individual mislaid the items. Correct: Mislaid items belong to the owner of the locus in quo, not the finder. Ember was the owner of the salon and therefore has better property rights to the purse and money than Liana.
Oscar owned a 50-acre tract of desert, where the only viable economic use was grazing goats for six weeks each spring. Because Oscar was a committed environmentalist who wanted to preserve the natural vegetation on his land, he built a 10-foot-high fence around the parcel in order to exclude animals. Seven years ago, Fiona broke a large gap through the fence, and brought in her flock of 1,000 goats to feast on the spring vegetation for six weeks, the usual period when desert grazing is possible. Oscar first noticed the gap in July, and repaired it. This same pattern of fence breaking, grazing use, and fence repair occurred every year thereafter until the present. Assume that the period for adverse possession is five years. Fiona sued Oscar for a declaratory judgment that she had obtained title by adverse possession. Who will win the lawsuit?
D. Fiona because she meets all by adverse possession requirements. Correct: Fiona has met all the elements for adverse possession in most states.
Ella owned Swampacre, a wild and undeveloped tract of wetlands spanning 1,500 acres, which she used for hunting wild ducks a few weeks each year with her son Fred. When Ella died, Fred assumed that he had inherited Swampacre, because Ella had always promised to leave it to him. But instead her valid will transferred Swampacre to a local church. Fred never read the will; nor did anyone tell him that the church owned Swampacre. For the next 10 years, no one visited Swampacre except for Fred, who hunted ducks on every part of the land during duck season for two weeks each year. Fred built three small "duck blinds" on the land; each one consisted of a wooden floor surrounded by reed-like camouflage to hide Fred from passing ducks. Fred's hunting on the land was quite successful; each year, he was able to kill the maximum number of ducks allowed by law, though many of his shots missed their intended targets. Last week, a representative of the church visited Swampacre for the first time, saw Fred hunting there, and shouted: "Get off the church's land!" The period for adverse possession in the jurisdiction is 10 years. Who owns Swampacre in most jurisdictions?
D. Fred, because the adverse possession elements are satisfied. Correct: The best answer is that all adverse possession elements are satisfied here. Fred had actual possession of Swampacre, in that he used it as an ordinary owner would; his use was exclusive because nobody else used the land; it was open and notorious because the frequent shotgun blasts would be easily heard by an inspecting owner; it was adverse and hostile under both the objective standard and the good faith standard; Fred's use was sufficiently continuous given the nature, character, and location of the land; and the use continued for 10 years, the required statutory period.
Zoe purchased an electric guitar from Bella. Bella had stolen the guitar one week earlier. Zoe kept the guitar in her home, only taking it out when she went to her guitar instructor's studio for lessons. After a year, Zoe sold the guitar to her cousin Freda, a well-known musician. For the next year, Freda traveled around the state with the guitar, giving public concerts in over twenty cities. Assuming a two-year statutory period for adverse possession of chattels, the weight of authority would conclude:
D. Freda has title to the guitar. Correct: Freda owns the guitar since she can tack Zoe's period of possession to her own period of possession. The weight of authority allows tacking as long as there is privity between the possessors. Freda purchased the guitar from Zoe, and therefore privity exists.
Tenco Oil & Gas Co. (Tenco) owned large fields of natural gas. Once the gas was removed from the ground, Tenco needed to store the gas in anticipation of sale. Tenco owned a large tract of land under which was an immense natural cavern, ideal for storing gas. Tenco regularly injected much of its removed gas into this cavern. Unknown to Tenco, the natural cavern also extended a few hundred yards under Jamal's property, which was contiguous to Tenco's. In a jurisdiction that applies the traditional rule of capture to minerals such as oil and gas, a court would most likely hold:
D. Jamal does not have an action in trespass against Tenco for the natural gas invading his land. Correct: Because the natural gas is roaming freely under Jamal's land, it is no longer owned by Tenco. Therefore, Tenco is not liable for trespass. A forward-thinking Jamal might take this opportunity to drill under his property and extract the gas!
In 1980, Jon secretly took a small statue from his friend Greg's desk. Jon brought it home and placed it on his living room mantel, where it has remained since then. Greg had purchased the statue at a garage sale for $10. When he discovered it was missing several months later, Greg did nothing except complain to his friends that "someone stole my junky statue." For the past two decades, Jon's home has been included in the yearly "Tour of Historic Homes." Jon's home also has been featured in numerous home decoration magazines for the past decade, and pictures of the statue atop Jon's mantel have frequently appeared in these publications. While on a visit to his dentist, Greg read a magazine and noticed the picture of his statue on Jon's mantel. The statue is currently valued at $75,000. Greg sues Jon for the return of the statue. This jurisdiction applies a 10-year statute of limitations to the recovery of possession of property. It also applies the discovery rule. Who has the better right to the statue?
D. Jon because he adversely possessed the statue. Correct: Even though Jon is a thief, he can gain good title through adverse possession. Jon did not attempt to conceal the statue, and the yearly home tours and frequent magazine photographs likely would enable Jon to meet the elements for adverse possession of a personal property item. Also note that Greg did not pursue his property right with the degree of diligence that the discovery rule demands.
Justin was a renowned movie star. Because Justin's fame made his home a common target of overzealous fans, Justin employed Brent as a private security guard. One day while making his daily security sweep around Justin's estate, Brent found a small paper bag in the middle of a patch of tall grass. Brent picked up the bag and discovered a gold pendant inside. Both Brent and Justin now claim the pendant. Both have stipulated that the pendant was a lost item. Who has the better property right to the pendant, Brent or Justin?
D. Justin, because Brent found the pendant in the course of his employment. Correct: Because Brent discovered the pendant while he was performing his daily security sweep, he made the find during the course of his employment. Therefore, most jurisdictions would award the pendant to Justin on the theory that Bent's actions were performed on behalf of Justin.
Kim plants a row of young oak trees next to the fence that separates her residential lot from Lana's lot. Two years later, Lana installs a new swimming pool in her backyard. Over time, Kim's trees grow so large that they (a) occasionally cast shadows onto Lana's pool (making the pool water colder to swim in) and (b) drop some leaves into the pool (forcing Lana to clean the pool monthly). Lana sues Kim. Who will win the lawsuit?
D. Kim, because the trees are not a spite fence or a nuisance. Correct: Even assuming that the trees could be viewed as a "fence," here Kim did not plant the trees with malice, so they cannot be a spite fence. Turning to the elements of private nuisance, it seems unlikely that the level of interference with Lana's use is "substantial." Neighborhood trees routinely cast shadows and drop leaves. In any event, Kim's conduct is not "unreasonable." The utility of the trees (summer temperature reduction due to shade; aesthetic pleasure; etc.) is greater than the gravity of harm they cause to Lana.
Able owned a vacant lot located on a remote mountain lake. Each summer for many years, he pitched a tent on the lot for three months and lived there with his son Bob, enjoying the wilderness. Bob was only eight years old when this pattern began, and he grew to share his father's love of nature as time passed. During one of these trips, Able said to Bob: "I wrote my will two weeks ago. It says that this lot will go to you!" A few days after Bob reached age 21, Able was paralyzed in a car accident. When Bob told Able that he intended to camp on the lot during the coming summer, Able looked sad but said nothing. Bob spent the next six summers camping on the lot, just as he and Able had done in the past. Able then died. Bob discovered that Able's will devising the lot to him (Bob) was legally defective. Instead, under Able's last valid will, the lot was devised to the United Way, a national charity. Bob filed suit, seeking a declaratory judgment that he had obtained title to the lot by adverse possession. Assume that the adverse possession period in the jurisdiction is five years. Was Bob's possession of the lot adverse and hostile?
D. No, Bob's possession was not adverse and hostile. Correct: Bob was the son of Able, who owned the lot. Given the close family relationship between the two and their history of camping together on the lot, a court would most likely conclude that Able tacitly consented to Bob's use of the lot. Accordingly, Bob's use was not adverse and hostile
Rhonda owned an undeveloped tract of farm land, located 200 feet from a large river. Tim's barren and undeveloped 10-acre parcel was located immediately between Rhonda's land and the river. Three years ago, Rhonda installed a pipeline across the surface of Tim's land which Rhonda uses to bring water to irrigate her crops during the summer months. Which of the following is correct?
D. Rhonda has acquired a right to take water from the river under the prior appropriation approach. Correct: The best answer is that Rhonda was the first person to put the water to beneficial use, here farming, and thereby obtained a right to the water under the prior appropriation approach.
Rita notices a rare and valuable butterfly sitting on a leaf in a public park. As Rita moves forward with her hands outstretched to grab the butterfly, it begins to fly away and a brisk wind quickly pushes it 100 feet away from Rita. Susan springs up from behind a bush, nets the butterfly, and refuses to give it to Rita. Under which circumstances below would Rita own the butterfly based on the holding of Pierson v. Post?
D. Rita threw a rock that mortally wounded the butterfly before Susan netted it. Correct: The Pierson majority holds that property rights in a wild animal are acquired only through capturing or killing the animal, which seems to include mortal wounding. The butterfly is wild; Rita mortally wounded it, thus acquiring title, before Susan captured it.
Jacob tracked a small wild boar on unowned land. Jacob won a gold medal in shooting at the most recent summer Olympics and has never missed his target. Surprisingly, the boar came within three feet of Jacob. Jacob aimed his rifle, but just as he was about to press the trigger, Sophia jumped out of the bushes, screaming loudly. She immediately hit the boar with a large stick and then picked it up, walking away with the unconscious boar in her arms. Who has best rights to the boar?
D. Sophia, because she was the first to gain certain control of the boar. Correct: Sophie owns the boar as long as she maintains her bodily seizure of it. Under the rule of capture, a person owns a wild animal once she kills, entraps, bodily seizes, or "mortally wounds and pursues" the wild animal.
Xin, Yara, and Zayne were roommates in law school. After the summer of their first year, Xin and Zayne stayed on campus while Yara interned at a foreign law firm in Australia. On Yara's birthday, Xin wrote to Yara: "Dear Yara: I want you to have my painting, which has been delivered to your parent's home and awaits your return. Xin." Yara wrote back saying: "Dear Xin: Thank you for such a generous gift. I accept! Yara." A few days before Yara returned from her internship, she learned that Zayne objected to Xin's action, convinced Xin that Yara had no rights to the painting, and counseled Xin to get the painting back. Who owns the painting?
D. Yara, because Xin parted with dominion and control when the painting was delivered to Yara's parents, who acted as Yara's agents. Correct: Xin made a valid inter vivos gift to Yara: Xin's letter demonstrates donative intent, delivery is accomplished when Xin parts with dominion and control and gives the painting to Yara's parents (Yara's agents), and Yara expressly accepts. Generally, inter vivos gifts are irrevocable.
Ted works at the county tax assessor's office. One day he notices that no one is paying taxes on a 50-acre parcel of forest land, so he decides to adversely possess the land. He nails four small signs to trees on the land; each sign states: "Property of Ted." Each summer, he camps out on the land for two weeks; and every Christmas he comes to the property to cut Christmas trees for his family and friends. Assume that these activities continue for the 10-year period required for adverse possession and that no one else visits the land during this time. In most states, has Ted acquired title by adverse possession?
D. Yes, because Ted satisfied the requirements for adverse possession. Correct: The best answer is that Ted has acquired title by adverse possession. He had actual possession because he used the land for vacation purposes and harvesting trees. His possession was exclusive because no one else visited the land. The signs (and perhaps tree stumps) made his possession open and notorious. Ted's state of mind was irrelevant under the majority view, as long as he did not have the owner's permission to be on the land. Ted's use of the land was sufficiently continuous because owners of similar forest land would use it less frequently. And his possession continued long enough to meet the statutory period.