Property Wrong Answers

An uncle who owned a large tract of wooded land in fee simple had always opened his land to hunters from the local hunting club, and had often expressed the wish that they be permitted to continue to use it after he died. On his 75th birthday, he conveyed the land to his niece and nephew, who were members of the hunting club. The deed was a general warranty deed conveying the property in fee simple absolute. A few days later, the niece had a serious dispute with the nephew and the other members of the hunting club, and she quit the club. The uncle then executed a written agreement with the nephew stating that the conveyance of the land to the niece and nephew was in trust for the benefit of the local hunting club for a period of 10 years, with the niece and nephew as trustees, and then to the niece and nephew in fee simple. Several months later, the uncle died. When the next hunting season drew near, the nephew told the niece that members of the hunting club were once again planning to hunt on the property. The niece threatened to have anyone hunting on the property other than the nephew arrested for trespassing. The nephew brought an action for appropriate legal or equitable relief to establish his rights and the rights of the hunting club. What, if any, relief should the court provide? (A) Deny the nephew any relief, because the niece has done nothing that would constitute an ouster of the nephew. (B) Partition the land into two separate tracts so that the nephew may permit the hunting club to use his half. (C) Order the niece to permit the hunting club to hunt on the land, because the uncle created an inter vivos trust with the requisite formalities for the benefit of the hunting club. (D) Order the niece to permit the hunting club to hunt on the land, because the nephew is equally entitled to possession of all of it and can allow members of the hunting club to hunt on the property as his guests.

(B) Partition the land into two separate tracts so that the nephew may permit the hunting club to use his half. The court will presume that the devise to the niece and nephew gave them a tenancy in common. Hence, each of them has the right to possess all portions of the property; neither of them has the right to exclude possession of any part. However, any tenant in common has a right to judicial partition of the property, either in kind or by sale and divide the proceeds. When co-tenants are squabbling and cannot come to any agreement, the rememdy of partition terminates the co-tenancy and divides the common property. SInce the niece and nephew cannot agree on the use of the land by members of the hunting club, the court will probably partition the property. A. is wrong because he is entitlted to partition if they cannot agree even if he has not been ousted

A woman owned 400 acres of land, half of which was densely wooded and the other half of which was almost entirely occupied by a large gravel pit which supplied gravel for her small landscaping business. A small house located on the edge of the pit was in very poor condition and had been vacant for many years. The woman transferred the 400 acres to her son for life, with the remainder going to a local charity on the son's death. Now the son wants to increase gravel production and expand the pit by tearing down the house. He also wants to cut the trees on the wooded half and sell them for profit. The local charity, holder of the remainder, sues to enjoin the son from doing any of these things. How will the court likely rule? (A) The charity can stop both the gravel mining and the tree cutting and can block the destruction of the house. (B) The charity can stop neither the gravel mining nor the tree cutting but can block the destruction of the house. (C) The charity can stop the tree cutting but not the gravel mining or the destruction of the house. (D) The charity can stop the gravel mining and the tree cutting but not the destruction of the house because it is dangerous and unfit for use.

(C) The charity can stop the tree cutting but not the gravel mining or the destruction of the house. The charity would be suing the life tenant on a theory of waste. Both the gravel mining and the tree cutting could be voluntary waste. Generally, a life tenant can only maintain the property and not sell off any of the natural resources, such as trees and gravel. But there is an exception if there is an existing exploitation of these resources. Because the gravel mine was operating prior to the son's taking of the life estate, that preexisting use is protected and the son is not liable for continuing to mine the gravel. But the trees do not fall under this exception. Because the property had not been in use as a tree farm, the general rule applies and the cutting of the trees would be waste. The destruction of the house might be considered ameliorative waste. Generally, a life tenant cannot tear down improvements simply because the life tenant wants to make a more profitable use of the land. But an exception exists when changed conditions have made the destruction reasonably necessary. Here, the house was on the edge of the pit, vacant because of its poor condition. Changed conditions (the encroachment of the pit) have made the house reasonably unsuitable, so the life tenant can tear it down.

What is the SOL in VA for adverse possession of real property?

15 years

Under the Virginia Residential Landlord and Tenant Act, a landlord may not require a security deposit in excess of what amount?

2 months rent

Under the Virginia Residential Landlord and Tenant Act, if the landlord's written disclosure states that there is no visible evidence of mold in the dwelling unit, the statement is deemed correct unless the tenant objects in writing within ___ days after receiving the report?

5

Which of the following deeds is most likely to be set aside as against a bona fide purchaser? A. A forged deed B. A deed executed by a debtor with intent to defraud a creditor C. A deed executed under duress D. A deed executed by a minor grantor

A. A forged deed

In which of the following situations must the tenant continue to pay a portion of the rent? A. A paramount title holder takes possession of an unused barn on the leased premises and stores farm equipment in it. B. A paramount title holder obtains a judgment in an ejectment action against the tenant. C. The landlord takes possession of an unused barn on the leased premises and stores farm equipment in it. D. The landlord obtains a judgment in an ejectment action against the tenant.

A. A paramount title holder takes possession of an unused barn on the leased premises and stores farm equipment in it.

Until there is a foreclosure sale, who may protect their interests by paying off the foreclosing mortgagee? response - incorrect A. All parties junior to the mortgagee. B. All parties who have an interest in the property. C. Only parties whose interest was established within one year of the mortgagee's interest. D. Only parties whose interest was established within five years of the mortgagee's interest.

A. All parties junior to the mortgagee. The basis for this is that the mortgagee is only a creditor and should receive only the amount of her loan with interest. She is not entitled to a windfall

Which of the following acts will terminate an easement? A. Condemnation of the servient estate. B. Use of the easement beyond its legal scope. C. Nonuse of the easement for the statutory period. D. Voluntary destruction of the servient estate.

A. Condemnation of the servient estate. The easement holder may be entitled to compensation for the value lost. Use of the easement beyond its legal scope will not terminate an easement. Instead, the easement is surcharged, and the servient owner may sue to enjoin the use. Nonuse of the easement for the statutory period will not terminate an easement, it may only be terminated by the holder's physical act of abandonment. Mere nonuse, even for a long period of time, is insufficient to constitute abandonment of the easement. To terminate the easement, the nonuse must be combined with other evident of intent to abandon. Voluntary destruction of the servient estate will not terminate. On the other hand, involuntary destruction of the servient estate (fire or flood) will extinguish the easement

For which type of security interest in land does the debtor transfer title to a third party acting on behalf of the lender? A. Deed of trust B. Installment land contract C. Absolute deed D. Equitable mortgage

A. Deed of trust A deed of trust is a security interest in land by which the debtor (trustor) transfers title to the land to a third partee (trustee), such as the lender's Lawyer or title insurance company, acting on behalf of the lender (the beneficiary). In the event of default, the lender instructs the trustee to foreclose the deed of trust by selling the property. An equitable mortgage exists if a court concludes that a grantor transferred an absolute deed to serve as a security for an obligation. If the court so determines, the grantee must foreclose by judicial action, as with any other mortgage. The court will consider 1. the existence of debt or promise of payment by the grantor 2. the grantee's promise to return the land if debt is paid 3. whether the amount advanced to the grantor was much lower than the value of the property 4. the degree of the grantor's financial distress and 5. the parties prior negotiations. An installment land contract is a security interest in land in which the debtor (buyer) contracts with the seller to pay for the land in regular installments until the full contract price has been paid, plus interest. Only then will the seller transfer legal title to the buyer. The contract may contain a forfeiture clause providing that the seller may cancel the contract upon default, retain all money paid, and retake the possession of the land.

Which of the following statements is correct regarding covenants against assignment or sublease? A. If a landlord consents to one transfer that violates a covenant against assignment or sublease, he waives his right to avoid future transfers. B. If a tenant transfers her interest in violation of a covenant against assignment or sublease, the transfer is void. C. A covenant against assignment or sublease is an unreasonable restraint on alienation. D. A covenant against assignment prevents the tenant from subleasing her interest.

A. If a landlord consents to one transfer that violates a covenant against assignment or sublease, he waives his right to avoid future transfers. This is the Rule in Dumpor's Case. The landlord may reserve the right to avoid future transfers, but such reservation must take place at a time of granting consent. A convenant against sublease or assignment is not an unreasonable restraint. All jurisdictions permit and enforce such convenants. A convenant against assignment does not prevent the tenant from subleasing her interest. Convenants against assignments or sublease are strictly construed against the landlord. Thus, a convenant prohibiting assignment does not prohibit subleasing and vice versa. If a tenant transfers her interest in violation of a convenant against assignment or sublease, the transfer is not void. However, the landlord usually may terminate the lease under the lease terms or a statute or sue for damages.

Which of the following acts will terminate a profit but not an easement? A. Misuse of the interest B. Nonuse of the interest C. Oral release of the interest D. Written reconveyance of the interest to the landowner

A. Misuse of the interest The holder of a profit has the right to go upon another's land and take the soil or a substance of the soil but has no right to possess and enjoy. (D. is true for both)

Which statement regarding partial actual eviction is correct? A. Partial actual eviction by the landlord relieves the tenant of the obligation to pay rent for the entire premises B. Partial actual eviction by the landlord relieves the tenant of the obligation to pay rent for only the portion of the premises from which he was evicted C. Partial actual eviction by a paramount title holder does not relieve the tenant of any rent obligation D. Partial actual eviction by a paramount title holder relieves the tenant of the obligation to pay rent for the entire premises

A. Partial actual eviction by the landlord relieves the tenant of the obligation to pay rent for the entire premises Every lease contains an implied covenant that neither the landlord nor someone with paramount title will interfere with the tenant's quiet enjoyment and possession of the premises. This covenant is breached by total or partial evictions. However, if partial eviction is by a paramount title holder, this only results in rent apportionment

In a suit, who bears the burden of proof in establishing that what appears to be a deed absolute is, in fact, a mortgage? response - incorrect A. Putative mortgagor. B. Putative mortgagee. C. Either interested party. D. The party that initiates the suit.

A. Putative mortgagor. The result naturally follows from the fact that she is the one who would seek to redeem the property after paying the debt

If a mortgagee brings an action alleging waste, what is the standard that a court will employ to determine whether the mortgagor should be enjoined? A. The mortgagee can enjoin the mortgagor if the mortgagor's act would substantially affect the mortgagee's security. B. The mortgagee can enjoin the mortgagor if the mortgagor's act would affect the mortgagee's security. C. The mortgagee can enjoin the mortgagor if the mortgagor's act threatens to completely destroy the value of the property. D. The mortgagee can enjoin the mortgagor if the mortgagor's act would beneficially affect the mortgagee's security.

A. The mortgagee can enjoin the mortgagor if the mortgagor's act would substantially affect the mortgagee's security.

Two partners bought a commercial building from an owner. They paid cash for the building and took title as joint tenants with right of survivorship. Several years later, the first partner executed a mortgage on the building to secure a personal loan to a bank. The second partner had no knowledge of the mortgage to the bank. The state in which the commercial building is located recognizes the lien theory of mortgages. The first partner died before paying off his loan. He left all of his property by will to his daughter, his only heir. Who has title to the commercial building? A. The second partner has title free and clear of the mortgage. B. An undivided one-half is held by the second partner free and clear of the mortgage, and the other one-half is held by the daughter, subject to the mortgage. C. An undivided one-half is held by the second partner and the other one-half by the daughter, with both halves subject to the mortgage. D. The second partner has title to the entire property, with an undivided one-half being subject to the mortgage.

A. The second partner has title free and clear of the mortgage. Because the 2nd partner did not sign the mortgage, she would not be subject to it, regardless of whether she knew about it. The key to this question is whether executing the mortgage would cause a severance. If it did right of survivorship would not pass. Whether a mortgage causes a severance depends on the state. Lien theory is no severance, title theory means severance.

An elder grandfather who wanted to ensure that his property would remain in the family after his death included the following clause in his will: "I give my house in the city to my son, but if he ever tries to sell it while he is alive, I want it taken away from him and given to my grandson." The grandfather's will was promptly executed. When the grandfather later died, what interest did the son and grandson take in the property? A. The son took a fee simple B. the grandson took a fee simple C. the son took a fee simple subject to an executory interest and the grandson took an executory interest D. the son took a fee simple determinable and the grandson took a contingent remainder

A. The son took a fee simple The son received a fee simple in the property. The grandfather attempted to give his son a fee simple, but paced a restraint on alienation. Direct restraints on alientation of a fee simple are void. The grant simply reads as if it had been "O to A in fee simple." The grandson gets nothing.

When a mortgagee transfers a promissory note, which of the following is required for the transferee to become a holder in due course? A. The transferee must not have any notice that the note is overdue B. The note must not contain an acceleration clause C. The payee must indorse the original note or a copy thereof D. The note must provide for a fixed interest rate

A. The transferee must not have any notice that the note is overdue The primary benefit of holder in due course status is that a holder in sue course takes the note free of any personal defenses that the maker might raise and is subject only to "real' defenses, such as infancy, duress, and illegality. When a mortgagee transfers a promissory note, for the transferee to become a holder in due course: 1. the note must be in negotiable form (the note must be payable to the bearer or to the named payee and must contain a promise to pay a fixed amount of money and no other promises) 2. the named payee must indorse the original note--NOT a copy 3. the original note must be delivered to the transferee and 4. the transferee must pay value for the note and take it in good faith without notice that the note is overdue or has been dishonored or that the maker has any defenses to the duty to pay it

May a mortgagee validly transfer the note without the mortgage? A. Yes, but the mortgage will automatically follow the note B. Yes, but only with the mortgagor's consent C. No; a transfer of the note without the mortgage is void D. No, unless the mortgagee gives the mortgagor proper notice of the transfer

A. Yes, but the mortgage will automatically follow the note unless the mortgagee expresses a contrary intent. An exception exists where the mortgagee reserves the right to the mortgage but this rarely occurs. No separate written assignment of the mortgage is necessary, although the transferee customarily will obtain a record of an assignment of the mortgage. The transfer does not require the mortgagor's consent. Whether the morgagee gives the mortgagor proper notice of the transfer does not affect the validity of the transfer, but it may dictate whom the mortgagor is obligated to pay. If the original mortgagee transfers possession of a nonnegotiable note (many notes secured by mortgages are not negotiable), the mortgagor's payment to the original mortgagee is effective against the transfer if made before the mortgagor receives notice of the transfer. A transfer of the note without the mortgage is NOT void. In contrast, the transfer of the mortgage without the note is void in some states.

A court will never reform a deed that __________. A. has been relied on by a bona fide purchaser B. reflects the parties' mutual mistake C. reflects one party's unilateral mistake D. contains a drafting error

A. has been relied on by a bona fide purchaser reformation is an equitable action in which the court rewrites a deed to make it conform to the parties intentions. Reformation will be granted if the deed does not express what the parties agreed to for any of the following reasons: 1. reflects parties' mutual mistake 2. contains a drafting error 3. reflects one party's unilateral mistake, but only if that mistake was induced by the other party's misrepresentation or inequitable conduct. However, if property has passed to a BFP for value who relied on the original language of the deed, the court will not reform it

A landowner properly executed a warranty deed conveying her land to an animal shelter "So long as the premises are used for animal shelter purposes." The animal shelter promptly and properly recorded the deed. A few years later, the landowner died intestate, with her husband as her only heir. The following year, the husband conveyed by means of quitclaim deed "all of my interest" in the animal shelter land to his daughter from a previous marriage. The daughter promptly and properly recorded the deed. Last month, the animal shelter closed due to lack of funding. A domestic violence shelter wishes to use the land and petitions the court to allow it to take the animal shelter's place. If there is no applicable statute, the court should hold that title to the land is in which party. A. the daughter, because the land is no longer used for animal shelter purposes B. The husband, because the interest he holds in the land is not transferrable inter vivos C. The animal shelter, because no party has taken action to terminate its interest in the land D. the domestic violence shelter, because the court will likely apply cy pres.

A. the daughter, because the land is no longer used for animal shelter purposes A fee simple determinable is an estate that automatically terminates on the happening of a stated event and goes back to the grantor. The interest that is left in a grantor who conveys a fee simple determinable is a possibility of reverter, which in almost all jurisdictions is transferrable, devisable, and descendible. Here the animal shelter has a fee simple that is subject to automatic termination if the land is no longer used for animal shelter purposes. The landowner's possibility of reverter descended on her death to her husband, who subsequently transferred it by inter vivios conveyance to his daughter. Thus, when the land ceased to be used for animal shelter purposes, it automatically reverterd back to the daughter.

Which of the following statements is correct regarding covenants against assignment or sublease? A. A covenant prohibiting assignment prohibits subleasing, but a covenant prohibiting subleasing does not prohibit assignment B. A covenant prohibiting assignment does not prohibit subleasing, and vice versa C. A covenant prohibiting subleasing prohibits assignment, but a covenant prohibiting assignment does not prohibit subleasing D. A covenant prohibiting assignment prohibits subleasing, and vice versa

B. A covenant prohibiting assignment does not prohibit subleasing, and vice versa covenants against assignment or sublease are strictly construed against the landlord. absent such an express restriction, the T may feely transfer his interest, in whole or in part.

Regarding the delivery and acceptance of a deed, which of the following will courts generally NOT presume? A. A grantee accepts a deed if the conveyance would benefit her. B. A grantee's return of a deed is a reconveyance to the grantor. C. A grantee accepts a deed if she is a minor. D. A grantee's possession of a deed means it has been delivered.

B. A grantee's return of a deed is a reconveyance to the grantor Regarding the delivery and acceptance of a deed, courts will not presume that a grantee's return of a deed is a reconveyance to the grantor. A deed will not transfer an interest in land unless it has been delivered by the grantor and accepted by the grantee. Title passes to the grantee upon effective delivery, and returning the deed to the grantor has no effect. To effect a reconveyance, the grantee must execute and deliver a new deed. Courts generally will presume that a grantee's possession of a deed means it has been delivered. Unless the grantor clearly expressed his intent that tile pass to the grantee without physical delivery, the grantor's continued possession of the deed raises a presumption of nondelivery. Conversely, the grantee's possession of a properly executed deed raises a presumption of delivery. Regarding acceptance of a deed, courts generally will presume that a grantee accepts a deed if the conveyance benefited her. In most states, acceptance is presumed if the conveyance is beneficial to the grantee, regardless of whether the grantee knows of it. In other states, acceptance is presumed only where the grantee knows of the grant and fails to reject it. Courts also will presume that a grantee accepts a deed if she is a minor. In all states, acceptance is presumed if the grantee is an infant or incompetent.

A person whose interest in land gives him the right to use someone else's land independent of his ownership or possession of his own tract holds: A. An easement appurtenant B. An easement in gross C. A license D. A servient tenement

B. An easement in gross An easement gives the holder the right to use a tract of land but no right to possess it. The land burdened by the easement is called the servient tenement. AN easement appurtenant, by contrast, benefits its holder in physical use or enjoyment of his own land. The land benefitted by the easement is called the dominant tenement. Unlike an easement, a license is not an interest in land, but merely a privilege to go upon another's land.

G borrows $20,000 from A and gives A a mortgage on Blueacre to secure the $20,000 note held by A. Later, G sells Blueacre to L for $30,000, the fair market value, and L pays G $10,000 in cash and assumes the $20,000 mortgage. Who is liable for the debt? A. G alone remains liable as the original debtor. B. G remains liable as the original debtor, and L is liable because he agreed to assume the debt as a part of the purchase price. C. L alone is liable because he assumed the mortgage. D. G is liable as the principal debtor and L is liable only in the event that G defaults.

B. G remains liable as the original debtor, and L is liable because he agreed to assume the debt as a part of the purchase price.

When is parol evidence admissible to show oral conditions on the delivery of a deed? A. If the deed was given directly to the grantee B. If the deed was placed in escrow C. Always D. Never

B. If the deed was placed in escrow Parole evidence is not admissible if the deed is given directly to the grantee. It cannot be used to show that delivery of a facially unconditional deed was actually subject to a condition. However, it will be used to show that the grantor did not intend to deliver the deed or that it was merely security for an obligation

In most states, a buyer who has paid only part of the purchase price under an installment land contract: A. Is protected by recording acts as though he had purchased the property outright B. Is protected by recording acts only to the extent of payments made C. Does not qualify as a purchaser and thus is not protected by recording acts

B. Is protected by recording acts only to the extent of payments made Notice and race notice recording acts protect BFPs from prior unrecorded conveyances of the same property. In a dispute with a subsequent purchaser under and installment land contract and a prior claimant of the same land, the court may 1. award the contract purchaser a share of the property equal to the proportion of payments made as a tenant in common with the prior claimant 2. award the land to the prior claimant, but give the contract purchaser a lien on the property to the extent of the amount paid or 3. award the land to the contract purchaser, but give the prior claimant a lien on the property to the extend of the balance still owed. Thus, in most states a purchaser who has paid only part of the purchase price under and installment contract DOES qualify as a purchaser and is somewhat protected but he is NOT protected by recording acts to the extent if he would have purchased the property outright

In which of the following situations is L not liable to the injured party? A. L leases an apartment to T after installing carpet over rotted floorboards, and T is injured when she falls through the floor. B. L, who did not covenant to repair in the lease, orally promises to repair a light fixture in T's apartment but fails to do so, and the fixture falls and injures T. C. L leases a bookstore to T and informs T that the entrance steps are in need of repair, but T refuses to repair the steps, and a patron is injured on the steps. D. T is injured while climbing down a malfunctioning fire escape of L's office building during a fire drill.

B. L, who did not covenant to repair in the lease, orally promises to repair a light fixture in T's apartment but fails to do so, and the fixture falls and injures T.

What is the result of the sudden, perceptible change of a watercourse that serves as a boundary to real property? A. The newly formed land is divided in proportion to the owners' interests in the adjoining lands B. No change to the riparian landowners' property rights C. The boundary line shifts with the watercourse D. No change to property rights unless a riparian landowner would find himself landlocked

B. No change to the riparian landowners' property rights This process is known as avulsion and it does not shift the boundary line with the water course even if this results in a riparian landowner finding himself land locked. In contrast, accretion refers to a change in a watercourse due to the slow and imperceptible deposit of soil. Accretion does change the legal boundary; the slow erosion of the bank results in the owner losing title to that area, and the slow deposit belongs to the owner of the abutting land. When accretion builds up in an irregular pattern over the lands of several adjacent property owners, courts determine title to it as a "just and equitable manner." this means either 1. each owners property line is extended out into the water or 2. the newly formed land is divided in proportion to the owner's interests in the adjoining lands.

A landlord and tenant enter into a valid lease agreement in which the tenant covenants to repair the premises. If the leased premises are destroyed without the fault of either the landlord or the tenant, must the tenant undertake the repairs? A. No, because the landlord's warranty of habitability requires the landlord to undertake such repairs B. No, unless the covenant expressly includes such repairs C. Yes, if the covenant fails to expressly exclude such repairs D. Yes, regardless of whether the covenant addresses such repairs

B. No, unless the covenant expressly includes such repairs

If a mortgagee purports to transfer the mortgage without the note, which of the following is not a possible result? A. The transfer would be void B. Payment of the mortgage debt would become due in full C. The note would automatically follow the mortgage

B. Payment of the mortgage debt would become due in full Rather, that would be the effect if the mortgagor transferred land subject to a mortgage containing a due-on-sale clause. Such clauses benefit the morgagee, protecting it from the mortgagor's sale to a poor credit risk or to a person likely to commit waste. Mortgagees usually transfer their interests by indorsing and delivering the promissory note and executing a separate assignment of the mortgage. The note and mortgage must pass to the same person for a mortgagee's transfer to be complete. If a mortgagee purports to transfer the mortgage without the note, some states hold that the note would automatically follow the mortgage. Other states hold that, because the note is the principal evidence of the debt, the transfer would be void.

What is one effect of properly recording a deed to real property? A. Preventing third parties from acquiring title by adverse possession. B. Raising a presumption that the deed is authentic. C. Validating an improperly executed deed. D. Making a properly executed deed enforceable between grantor and grantee.

B. Raising a presumption that the deed is authentic. A deed need not be recorded to be valid. However, properly recording a deed has several advantages such as raising rebuttable presumptions that the instrument was validly delivered and is authentic. A significant effect of recording a deed is to give parties constructive notice of its existence and contents. Putting the world on record notice protects the landowner by preventing title from being taken by a BFP from the same grantor. Preventing 3rd parties from acquiring title by adverse possession is not an effect of properly recording a deed to real property. Recordation does not protect against interests that arise by operation of law, rather than from a recordable document. Because there is no instrument to record to perfect such interests, the recording acts do not apply. Making a properly executed deed enforceable is not an effect properly recording a deed to real property. Recordation is wise because it prevents a later grantee from being a BFP. However, recordation is not necessary for a valid conveyance; a deed is effective and enforceable without being recorded. Validating an improperly executed deed is not an effect of properly recording a deed. To be valid, a deed must be a writing, signed by the grantors, that identifies the land and parties. It is not effective unless delivered and accepted. While proper recording raises the presumption that a deed is authentic and was validly delivered, these presumptions are rebuttable.

List all of the remedies a landlord has under modern law when a tenant defaults on her rent obligation. A. Sue the tenant for rent or evict the tenant B. Sue the tenant for rent, evict the tenant, or deduct the unpaid rent from the tenant's security deposit C. Sue the tenant for rent, evict the tenant, deduct the unpaid rent from the tenant's security deposit, or seize the tenant's chattels without notice as security for the unpaid rent D. Sue the tenant for rent

B. Sue the tenant for rent, evict the tenant, or deduct the unpaid rent from the tenant's security deposit Seizing chattels is known as distress. Self-help distress is a minority rule abolished by most states (now requires notice and a hearing)

Which of the following acts will NOT sever a joint tenancy? A. Inter vivos conveyance by one joint tenant. B. Testamentary disposition by one joint tenant. C. In a title theory state, the execution of a mortgage by one joint tenant. D. Suit for partition by one joint tenant.

B. Testamentary disposition by one joint tenant. A will devising a JT's interest to another is inoperative as to JT when the testator dies (when the will becomes effective), his rights in the JT property are extinguished and the will has no effect on them. A suit for partition by one JT will server a JT. The court will either divide the tract into parcels (partition in kind) or sell the property and divide the proceeds among the JTs in accordance with their ownership (partition by sale). An inter vivos conveyance by one JT will server a JT. A transferee takes the interest as a tenant in common and not as a JT. In a title theory state, the execution of a mortgage by one JT will sever a JT. In states following the lien theory, a mortgage is regarded as a lien on title, and one JT;s execution of a mortgage on her interest does not by itself cause a severance. But in states following the title theory, a mortgage is regarded as a transfer of title, and the transfer destroys the unity of title and severs the joint tenancy.

A landowner owned a large parcel of land in a rural area. He built his home on the northern half of the property, and developed a large orchard of fruit trees on the southern portion. A county road ran in front of the northern portion. To service his orchard, the landowner built a driveway directly from the county road across the northern portion of the property to the orchard. To provide electricity to his house, the landowner ran an overhead power line across the orchard property to hook up to the only available electric power pole located on the far southern side of the property. Subsequently, the landowner conveyed the northern parcel to his brother and the southern parcel to his daughter, who said that she did not mind having the power line on the property. Recently, the brother has begun parking his car on the driveway, thus blocking the daughter's access to the southern parcel. Finding no recorded document granting an easement for the power line, the daughter has decided to remove it. If the brother is successful in preventing the daughter from removing the power line, what is the likely reason? A. The daughter knew that the power line ran across the land when she accepted the deed from the landowner. B. The brother's alternative access to power is much less convenient and would cost 100 times as much. C. The daughter told the landowner that she did not mind having the power line on the property. D. The daughter is acting in retaliation against the brother for blocking the driveway, and not in any good faith belief that she has the right to remove the power line.

B. The brother's alternative access to power is much less convenient and would cost 100 times as much. This helps to prove that there was an easement implied by operation of law (quasi-easement). An easement may be implied if, prior to the time the tract is divided, a use exists on the "servient part" that is reasonably necessary for the enjoyment of the "dominant part," and a court determines that the parties intended the use to continue after division. To give rise to an easement, a use must be apparent and continuous at the time the tract is divided. In this case, the landowner used the servient part of his property to run an overhead powerline to the dominant part of the property. Overhead wires are clearly visible and would be readily discoverable on reasonable inspection. The lines are, therefore, apparent. The use must also be reasonably necessary. Whether a use is reasonably necessary depends on many factors, including the cost and difficulty of alternatives. This use was reasonably necessary to the enjoyment of the dominant parcel because electricity is important and costs of alternatives are excessive. A. is wrong because actual knowledge is irrelevant when it is apparent D. is wrong because motive is irrelevant.

To satisfy a debt owed to a creditor, a son executed and delivered to the creditor a warranty deed to a large tract of undeveloped land. The creditor promptly recorded the deed. Shortly thereafter, she built a house on the property and has lived there ever since. The son never actually owned the land. It belonged to his father, but the father had promised to leave the property to the son. Later, the father died and his will devised the property to the son. Pressed for money, the son then sold the land to an investor by warranty deed, which the investor promptly recorded. Although the investor paid full value for the property, he purchased it strictly for investment and never visited the site. He therefore did not realize that the creditor was living there, and knew nothing of the son's earlier deed to the creditor. The jurisdiction in which the land is located has the following statute: "A conveyance of an estate in land (other than a lease for less than one year) shall not be valid against any subsequent purchaser for value without notice thereof unless the conveyance is recorded." Which of the following is the most likely outcome of a quiet title action brought by the creditor against the investor? A. The creditor prevails, because the son had no title to convey to the investor. B. The creditor prevails, because the investor was not a purchaser for value without notice of the creditor's interest. C. The investor prevails, because under the doctrine of estoppel by deed, title inures to the benefit of the original grantee only as against the grantor. D. The investor prevails, because under the recording acts, the deed from the son to the creditor was not in the chain of title and hence did not constitute notice to the investor.

B. The creditor prevails, because the investor was not a purchaser for value without notice of the creditor's interest. The creditor will prevail in a suit to quiet title because the investor had notice of the creditor's interest in the property and, thus, is not a bona fide purchaser for value. When a grantor purports to convey property that he does not own, his subsequent acquisition of title to that property vests in the grantee under doctrine of estoppel by deed. Most courts, however, hold that this is personal estoppel, which means that title inure to the grantee's benefit only as a grantor, not as a subsequent BFP. If the grantor transfers his after-acquired title to an innocent purchaser for value, the BFP gets good title. There is a split of authority as to whether the original grantee's recordation of the deed imparts sufficient notice to prevent a subsequent purchaser from being a BFP, but the majority view is that it does not because it is not in the chain of title

Which correctly states the order of priority for allocating mortgage foreclosure sale proceeds, from first to last? A. The foreclosing party, any senior lienors in the order of their priority, and then the mortgagor B. The foreclosing party, any junior lienors in the order of their priority, and then the mortgagor C. Any senior lienors in the order of their priority, the foreclosing party, and then any junior lienors in the order of their priority D. The foreclosing party, any senior lienors in the order of their priority, and then any junior lienors in the order of their priority

B. The foreclosing party, any junior lienors in the order of their priority, and then the mortgagor The order of priority for allocating mortgage foreclosure sale proceeds as follows, from first to last: 1. expenses of the sale, including attorney fees and court costs 2. the principal and accrued interest on the foreclosing party's loan 3. any junior lienors in the order of their priority and then 4. the mortgagor in many cases, no surplus remains after the principal debt is paid off. Senior lienors receive none of the proceeds. Because a senior lien remains on the property (may itself be foreclosed in the future) a senior lienor is not entitled to any money from the sale even if there is a surplus.

A deed generally must contain which of the following in order to be valid? A. The grantor's acknowledgment. B. The grantor's words of intent. C. The grantee's signature. D. The metes and bounds of the land.

B. The grantor's words of intent. A deed generally must contain the grantor's words of intent in order to be valid. A deed must demonstrate that the grantor intends to transfer realty. However, no particular technical phrasing is necessary. A deed generally need not contain the grantor's acknowledgement in order to be valid. Before a deed can be recorded under most recording statutes, it must be acknowledged by the grantor before a notary. However, the grantor's signature, without an acknowledgement, is sufficient for the deef itself to be valid. A deed generally need not contain the mete and bounds of the land in order to be valid. While a deed must identify the land, a metes and bounds description is only one of many ways property may be described. A description is sufficient if it provides enough information to identify the property in question. A deed generally need not contain the grantee's signature in order to be valid. Even if the deed contains covenants on the grantee's part, her acceptance of the deed is sufficient to make those covenants enforceable.

A tenant entered into a two-year apartment lease with a landlord on July 1. Rent was specified in the lease to be $850 per month, payable on the first of each month. On June 15, near the end of the two-year term, the landlord asked the tenant if he wanted to renew the lease for an additional term. The tenant said he would like to think about it, and the landlord agreed, but added that rent for the new lease would be $975 per month. The landlord never heard anything from the tenant. On July 10, the landlord found the tenant was still living in the apartment and told him he was imposing a new tenancy on the tenant for period allowed by the law under the circumstances. What tenancy can be imposed and at what rent? A. The landlord can impose a new periodic tenancy of month to month and the rent will be $850 B. The landlord can impose a new periodic tenancy of month to month and the rent will be $975 C.The landlord can impose a new periodic tenancy of year to year and the rent will be $850 D. The landlord can impose a new periodic tenancy of year to year and the rent will be $975 per month

B. The landlord can impose a new periodic tenancy of month to month and the rent will be $975 When a tenant wrongfully holds over after the expiration of a lease, the landlord has two choices: either treat the tenant as a trespasser and sue for damages and possession or impose a new periodic tenancy on the hold-over tenant. If the landlord chooses, as this landlord has done here, to impose the new periodic tenancy, most courts in residential situations would impose a month-to-month tenancy. While the rent (as well as other terms) of the new tenancy will generally be the same as the old tenancy, there is an exception whne the landlord has told the tenant of a future higher rent and that notification came before the expiration of the old lease. In that event, the landlord can impose the higher rent in the new periodic tenancy. Exam tip: the facts in this type of question may vary- be sure that the landlord told the tenant of the higher rent before the expiration of the lease. otherwise, the old, lower rent applies

Which of the following will preclude the mortgagee's right to foreclose upon the mortgagor's default? A. The mortgagor's tender of a deed of trust B. The mortgagee's acceptance of a deed in lieu of foreclosure C. The mortgagor's exercise of her statutory right of redemption

B. The mortgagee's acceptance of a deed in lieu of foreclosure A mortgagor who grants the mortgagee a deed to the property in lieu of foreclosure effectively gives the mortgagee her equity of redemption (right to free the land of the mortgage by paying it off). Acceptance of a deed discharges the mortgage and allows the mortgagee to take possession without a foreclosure sale. However, a mortgagee has the right to refuse the deed and proceed to foreclosure. The mortgagor's tender of a deed will not preclude the mortgagee's right to foreclose upon default. A deed of trust is a security interest in land by which the debtor transfers title to a third party as trustee for the lender. In the event of default, the lender instructs the trustee to foreclose by selling the property.

Under the Virginia Residential Landlord and Tenant Act (VRLTA), a landlord may not require a security deposit in excess of ____________________ months' periodic rent: A. One. B. Two. C. Three. D. Four.

B. Two. After termination of tenancy and delivery of possession, the landlord has 45 days to return the security deposit (less proper deductions) together with any accrued interest.

Must a junior mortgagee be named as a party to a senior mortgagee's foreclosure action? A. No, because foreclosure does not affect interests junior to the mortgage being foreclosed B. Yes, because it has the right to pay off the senior mortgage to avoid being wiped out by foreclosure C. Yes, because all those with liens on the property are necessary parties to a foreclosure action D. No, because foreclosure extinguishes interests junior to the mortgage being foreclosed

B. Yes, because it has the right to pay off the senior mortgage to avoid being wiped out by foreclosure Foreclosure destroys interests junior to the mortgage being foreclosed. Failure to join the junior mortgagee results in the preservation of its interests despite foreclosure in sale. By contrast, senior interests are not necessary because their interests are not affected by foreclosure. The buyer at the sale takes subject to senior interests which remain on the land.

A landowner and his neighbor purchased adjoining undeveloped lots. After both built homes on their respective lots, the landowner suggested to the neighbor that a common driveway be built where the two lots joined. The neighbor agreed. The landowner and the neighbor split the cost of constructing the driveway and entered into a written agreement to equally share the costs of its upkeep and maintenance. The agreement was recorded in the county recorder's office. Two years later, the neighbor built a new driveway located entirely on his lot. The common driveway, which the landowner continued to use but which the neighbor no longer used, began to deteriorate. The landowner asked the neighbor for money to maintain the common driveway, but the neighbor refused to contribute. Three years later, the neighbor conveyed his lot to a friend. The friend entered into possession and used only the driveway built by the neighbor. By this time, the common driveway had deteriorated badly and contained numerous potholes. The landowner asked the friend to pay half of what it would take to repair the common driveway. The friend refused. The landowner repaired the driveway and sued the friend for 50% of the cost of repairs. Will the landowner prevail? A. Yes, because easements run with the land. B. Yes, because the agreement between the landowner and the neighbor was recorded. C. No, because the neighbor abandoned use of the easement. D. No, because the landowner is not in privity of contract with the friend.

B. Yes, because the agreement between the landowner and the neighbor was recorded the recording of the agreement gave the friend constructive notice, thus preventing her from claiming the protection of the recording act as a defense to enforcement of the covnenant. A covenant at law will run with the land and be enforceable against subsequent grantees if: 1. the contracting parties intended it to run 2. horizontal privity between original parties and vertical privity between successors 3. the convenant touches and concerns the land 4. the burdened party has notice. If a common driveway owners agree to be mutually responsible, the burdens and benefits run to successive owners of each parcel. The implied cross-easements for support satisfy the horizontal privity requirement because they are mutual interests in the same property. Each promise touches and concerns the adjoining parcel. So here, where the friend was in vertical privity and had constructive notice, she will be found by the agreement to maintain the driveway.

A buyer entered into a written contract with a seller to purchase his commercial property for $100,000. The contract did not specify the quality of title to be conveyed, and made no mention of easements or reservations. The closing was set for November 25, three months from the signing of the contract. Shortly thereafter, the buyer obtained a survey of the property, which revealed that the city had an easement for the public sidewalk that ran in front of the store. Because this actually enhanced the value of the property, the buyer did not mention it to the seller. Subsequently, the buyer found a better location for her business. On November 1, the buyer notified the seller that she no longer intended to purchase the property. The seller told her that he intended to hold her to her contract. At closing, the buyer refused to tender the purchase price, claiming that the seller's title is unmarketable and citing the sidewalk easement as proof of that fact. In a suit for specific performance, will the seller likely prevail? A. Yes, because the contract did not specify the quality of title to be conveyed. B. Yes, because the buyer was aware of the visible easement and it enhanced the value of the property. C. No, because an easement not provided for in the contract renders title unmarketable. D. No, because the buyer gave the seller sufficient notice of her change in plans and yet he made no effort to try to find another purchaser.

B. Yes, because the buyer was aware of the visible easement and it enhanced the value of the property.

May the vendor of an installment land contract containing a forfeiture clause reinstate strict performance once she has waived it? A. Yes, by establishing a pattern of accepting on-time payments B. Yes, by giving the purchaser notice and a reasonable time to catch up on payments C. No; a vendor's waiver is permanent

B. Yes, by giving the purchaser notice and a reasonable time to catch up on payments In an installment land contract, the debtor contracts with the vendor to pay for the land in regular installments until the full contract price has been paid, plus interest. Only then will the vendor transfer legal title to the purchaser. The contract may contain a forfeiture clause providing that the vendor may cancel the contract upon default, retain all money paid, and retake possession of the land (instead of foreclosing). Because forfeiture is such a harsh remedy, courts have tended to resist enforce forfeiture clauses by, for example, finding a waiver of strict performance when a vendor has established a pattern of accepting late payments from the purchaser. To reinstate strict performance, the vendor must notify the purchaser of her intent to do so and must allow the purchaser a reasonable time to make up any late payments. Although establishing a pattern of accepting late payments constitutes waiver of strict performance, establishing a pattern of on-time payments does not automatically reinstate strict performance. However, a vendor's waiver is not permanent.

May a mortgagee validly transfer its mortgage interest? A. Yes, if the mortgagee gives the mortgagor proper notice of the transfer B. Yes, if the right to enforce the promissory note passes to the transferee C. No; mortgages are nontransferable D. No; only the mortgagor's interest is transferable

B. Yes, if the right to enforce the promissory note passes to the transferee Mortgagees usually transfer their interests by indorsing and delivering the promissory note and executing a separate agreement of the mortgage. The note and mortgage must pass to the same person for a mortgagee's transfer to be complete, but under the common law, still in effect in a majority of states, a transfer of the note will automatically transfer the mortgage along with it, so a separate assignment of the mortgage is not technically necessary. If the mortgage is transferred without the note, some states hold that the note will automatically follow it and other states hold that the transfer is void. Whether the mortgagee gives the mortgagor the proper notice does not affect the validity of the transfer, but it may dictate whom the mortgagor is obligated to pay. If the original mortgagee is effective against the transferee if made before the mortgagor receives notice of the transfer

When a watercourse or body of water forms the boundary of a parcel of real property, the legal boundary line is __________. A. changed by a sudden change in the watercourse B. changed by a slow, imperceptible change in the watercourse C. not changed by movement of the water alone D. changed by the encroachment of the body of water

B. changed by a slow, imperceptible change in the watercourse When a river or stream serves as a boundary, the slow erosion of the bank results in the owner losing title. Similarly, accretion of soil belongs to the owner of the abutting land. A sudden change does not change property rights. The boundaries remain where they were, even if this results in the landowner who had river access finding himself landlocked.

An oral attempt to create a perpetual easement results in the creation of a __________. A. quasi-easement B. license C. nonpossessory interest in land D. nonfreehold estate

B. license SOF require any duration greater than a year to be in writing. A license is not an interest in land so the SOF does not apply.

There is a ____________________ year statute of limitations on the right to foreclose, and the death of the mortgagee tolls the statute for ____________________ year(s). A. 10; 3. B. 5; 3. C. 10; 1. D. 5; 1.

C. 10; 1. The limitations period may be extended for 10 more years by filing a certificate in the circuit court before the period ends

Which of the following always is required in order to transfer legal title to real property? A. A competent grantor B. Manual transfer of a written deed C. A living grantee D. Consideration

C. A living grantee Property cannot be granted to a grantee that does not exist. If it is, delivery is void.

In which of the following situations must the tenant continue to pay a portion of the rent? A. The landlord takes possession of an unused barn on the leased premises and stores farm equipment in it. B. A paramount title holder obtains a judgment in an ejectment action against the tenant. C. A paramount title holder takes possession of an unused barn on the leased premises and stores farm equipment in it. D. The landlord obtains a judgment in an ejectment action against the tenant.

C. A paramount title holder takes possession of an unused barn on the leased premises and stores farm equipment in it. Every lease contains an implied covenant that neither the landlord nor someone with paramount title will interfere with the tenant's quiet enjoyment and possession of the premises. Partial actual eviction occurs when the tenant is excluded from only part of the leased premises. Partial eviction by the landlord relieves the tenant from the obligation to pay rent for the entire premises, even though the tenant continues in possession of the remainder of the premises. Partial eviction by a paramount title holder results in an apportionment of the rent.

Mae grants Goldacre "to Charlene and Hailey as joint tenants, and not as tenants in common." Under Virginia law, what type of estate has Mae conveyed? A. A tenancy by the entirety. B. A joint tenancy. C. A tenancy in common. D. A periodic tenancy.

C. A tenancy in common. the language required must be clear and "To A and B as joint tenants with right of survivorship." In VA the right of survivorship must be expressly specified. Without it, the grant is a tenancy in common.

Which of the following would render title to land unmarketable? A. A very slight encroachment onto an adjacent landowner's land B. A visible easement that benefits the property C. An existing violation of a zoning ordinance D. A mortgage that the seller is poised to satisfy at closing

C. An existing violation of a zoning ordinance Marketable title is title reasonably free from doubt, which a reasonably prudent buyer would accept. While it need not be perfect, it must not present the buyer with an unreasonable risk of litigation. This generally means an unencumbered fee simple with good record title. The mere existence of a zoning ordinance does not constitute an encumbrance. However, title to land that currently violates a zoning ordinance would be considered unmarketable. A visible easement that benefits the property does not render title unmarketable. In contrast, an easement that reduces the value or is unknown constitutes an encumbrance that renders title unmarketable. A very slight encroachment onto an adjacent landowner's land would not render title unmarketable. Regardless of whether an adjacent landowner is encroaching on the seller's land or vice versa, an encroachment will not render title unmarketable if 1. it is very slight (only a few inches) and does not inconvenience the owner on whose land it encroaches; 2. the owner encroached on has indicated he will not sue on it; or 3. it has existed for so long (many decades) that it has become legal by adverse possession (if the state recognizes adverse possession title as marketable). In contrast, a significant encroachment constitutes a title defect that makes title unmarketable.

A landowner conveyed her parcel of land to "my brother and my sister jointly, with right of survivorship." Shortly thereafter, the brother was in an automobile accident. The driver of the other vehicle sued the brother on a theory of negligence, and obtained a judgment in the amount of $250,000. Because the brother did not have insurance or enough cash to satisfy the judgment, the driver levied on the brother's interest in the land. What interest will the driver most likely take? A. None, because the brother's interest in the land cannot be partitioned. B. An undivided one-half interest, regardless of whether the brother and the sister's title to the land is construed as a joint tenancy or a tenancy in common. C. An undivided one-half interest, assuming the brother and the sister's interest is construed as a tenancy in common and not a joint tenancy. D. A contingent right of survivorship that will vest if the brother survives the sister.

C. An undivided one-half interest, assuming the brother and the sister's interest is construed as a tenancy in common and not a joint tenancy. Regardless, interest may be transferred without the consent of the other for a creditor to levy on the interest. In most jurisdictions, a lien would not sever.

When property is held in joint tenancy or tenancy in common, which of the following is not a co-tenant's right? A. Mortgage her interest B. Share in rents paid by third parties C. Compel contribution for the cost of improvements D. Possess the entire estate

C. Compel contribution for the cost of improvements Although a JT or TIC may have a right to contribution for costs of necessary repairs, taxes, and payments due on mortgages.

Which of the following acts will terminate an easement? A. Voluntary destruction of the servient estate. B. Nonuse of the easement for the statutory period. C. Condemnation of the servient estate. D. Use of the easement beyond its legal scope

C. Condemnation of the servient estate. Use of the easement beyond its legal scope will not terminate an easement. Instead, the easement is surcharged and the servient owner may sue to enjoin the use. Nonuse of the easement of the easement for the statutory period will not terminate the easement. An easement can be extinguished by physical abandonment. Mere nonuse is insufficient. Voluntary destruction (e.g. tearing down a building to erect a new one) will not terminate an easement.

"Power of sale" provisions generally apply to what type of security interest in land? A. Mortgages B. Promissory note C. Deed of trust

C. Deed of trust A deed of trust is a security interest in land by which the debtor (the trustor) transfers title in land to a third party (the trustee) such as the lenders lawyer or a title insurance company, acting on behalf of the lender (the beneficiary). In the event of default, the lender instructs the trustee to foreclose the deed of trust by selling the property. Many states many states allow the sale to either be judicial (such as a mortgage) or non judicial under a power of sale clause that authorizes the trustee to advertise, give appropriate notices, and conduct the sale personally. The nonjudicial sale is often permitted with deeds of trust but not with mortgages. Promissory notes are not a security interest in land. A security interest operates to secure some other obligation, usually a promise to repay a loan.

Which of the following statements is correct regarding covenants against assignment or sublease? A. If a tenant transfers her interest in violation of a covenant against assignment or sublease, the transfer is void. B. A covenant against assignment prevents the tenant from subleasing her interest. C. If a landlord consents to one transfer that violates a covenant against assignment or sublease, he waives his right to avoid future transfers. D. A covenant against assignment or sublease is an unreasonable restraint on alienation.

C. If a landlord consents to one transfer that violates a covenant against assignment or sublease, he waives his right to avoid future transfers. This is the Rule in Dumpor's Case. The landlord may reserve the right to avoid future transfers, but such reservations must take place at the time of granting consent.

If a mortgagor conveys mortgaged property, when does the grantee become primarily liable to the lender? A. If the grantee fails to object to the mortgage B. Never C. If the grantee assumes the mortgage D. If the grantee takes subject to the mortgage

C. If the grantee assumes the mortgage A grantee who signs an assumption agreement promises to pay the mortgage loan, thus becoming personally and primarily liable to the lender. The original mortgagor becomes secondarily liable as a surety. In the absence of an assumption agreement, the grantee takes subject to the mortgage and does not become personally liable on the loan. The original mortgagor remains personally and primarily liable. However, if the mortgagor defaults on the mortgage and the grantee does not pay, the mortgage may be foreclosed, thus wiping out the grantee's investment in the land. If the grantee fails to object to the mortgage, this does not affect his obligations. As explained, the grantee will take subject to the mortgage and is not personally liable on the mortgage unless he assumes it.

Which of the following is NOT a nonpossessory interest in land? A. Easement B. Real covenant C. License D. Profit

C. License A license is not a nonpossessory interest it is merely a privilege to go upon another's land. An easement is a nonpossessory interest because the holder of an easement has the right to use another's land but has no right to possess and enjoy the land. A profit is a nonpossessory interest in land because the holder has the right to go upon another's land and take the soil or substance but has no right to possess and enjoy the land. A real convenant is a nonpossessory interest in land. A real convenant is a written promise to use or not to use land in a certain manner, and does not confer a right to possess the land of the convenantee.

In residential leases, a tenant who holds over after termination of a year-to-year periodic tenancy may be held to a new periodic tenancy from __________. A. Week to week B. Year to year, with rent payable annually C. Month to month D. Year to year, with rent payable monthly

C. Month to month regardless of the term of the original lease. In contrast, tenants under a commercial lease for one year or more may be held to a new year-to-year. Week-to-week may potentially occur if the tenant is residential and paying week to week.

If the buyer of land determines that the seller's title is unmarketable, the buyer: A. May sue on the implied covenant of marketable title after closing B. Must take title to the land "as is" C. Must notify the seller and give a reasonable time to cure the defects D. May sue for damages for breach as soon as the defect is discovered

C. Must notify the seller and give a reasonable time to cure the defects If the buyer determines that the seller's title is unmarketable, the buyer may NOT sue for damages for breach as soon as the defect is discovered. The seller must be given time to cure defects. This may requiring extending the closing date, even if time is of the essence. If the seller fails to cure the defects, then the buyer may rescind the contract, sue for damages for breach, get specific performance with abatement of the purchase price, or (in some jurisdictions) require seller to quiet title. The buyer may not sue on the implied covenant after closing. This covenant applies at the K stage of a land-sale transaction, before the closing. The closing extinguishes the K. Then, absent fraud, the seller is no longer liable on this covenant and the buyer must rely on any assurances made in the deed.

Under Virginia law, a seller of one to four dwelling units ____________________ disclose any changes to the condition of the property that occur between the signing of the contract and the closing: A. Cannot. B. Need not. C. Must. D. Must, if failure to do so would violate a building code.

C. Must.

How much notice is required to terminate a tenancy for years? A. Six months' notice B. One year's notice C. No notice D. One month's notice

C. No notice end date is known. Compare period tenancy from year to year which needs six months and from month to month, one month's notice is needed.

If an installment land contract provides that the debtor forfeits her interest in the property on default, and the vendor sends notice that he is electing the forfeiture remedy, which of the following additional remedies can the vendor pursue? A. Damages B. Both damages and specific performance C. No other remedies D. Specific performance

C. No other remedies In an installment contract, the debtor (the buyer) contracts with the vendor to pay for the land in regular installments until the full contract price is paid plus interest. Only then will the vendor transfer full legal title to the buyer. The contract may contain a forfeiture clause providing that the vendor may cancel the contract upon default, retain all money paid, and retake possession of the land. Because forfeiture is such a harsh remedy, courts have tended to resist enforcing forfeiture clauses (by treating installment contracts as mortgages). A number of decisions allow for forfeiture of a debtors interests in property but require the vendor to refund the purchaser any amount his payments exceed the vendors damages. Hence, a vendor who pursues forfeiture cannot also pursue damages or specific performance.

A father gave his daughter marketable title to a five-acre parcel of undeveloped land that adjoined 200 acres of uninhabited forest owned by a neighbor. When she visited her property with her father, he mistakenly pointed out the boundary line. She subsequently staked out the boundary lines and built a log fence along what she thought was the boundary line. Approximately an acre of the neighbor's land was inside her fence. The daughter built a cabin and lived in it for 30 years until she had to sell the property for medical reasons. The daughter entered into a contract to sell the land. In accordance with the contract, the purchaser had a survey of the land done, which revealed the boundary discrepancy in the legal description. The purchaser contacted the neighbor, who said he knew nothing of the matter and did not consent to the daughter's placement of the fence on his property. The purchaser then refused to proceed with the purchase. The jurisdiction in which the parcel was located had a 20-year period of occupation to satisfy the requirements of adverse possession. If the daughter sues for specific performance of the land sale contract, will she prevail? A. Yes, because the daughter satisfied all elements required to make out adverse possession of the portion of the neighbor's property within her fence B. Yes, because the land sale contract was unaffected by the minor discrepancy in the legal description C. No, because the daughter's title to the land is not marketable D. No, because the fencing in the neighbor's property was not hostile, even if the neighbor had no knowledge of her actions.

C. No, because the daughter's title to the land is not marketable The daughter did satisfy all six requirements for adverse possession of the neighbor's property. But, even though she did acquire title by adverse possession, that title is not marketable until a judicial action is taken to quiet title. The law does not require purchasers to have to go to court to clearly establish title. Because the daughter has not done this, the title she contracted was not in fact marketable.

A tenant who goes into possession of the premises under an invalid lease and pays monthly rent is a: A. Tenant at will B. Tenant for years C. Periodic tenant D. Tenant at sufferance

C. Periodic tenant If a lease is invalid (e.g., because it does not satisfy SOF), but the tenant pays rent nonetheless, the periodic tenancy will be created by operation of law and will continue until one gives notice. A tenant at sufferance is when a tenant wrongfully remains in possession after expiration of a lawful tenancy and lasts until the landlord takes steps to evict. tenant for years would need an end-date by a writing

To record a deed in Virginia, it must be acknowledged by the grantor or ____________________: A. Acknowledged by the grantee. B. Disavowed by a subsequent bona fide purchaser. C. Proved by two witnesses. D. Filed under seal by the county recorder.

C. Proved by two witnesses Note: recording is not necessary to pass title

At common law, if a tenant defaulted on her rent obligation, the landlord could: A. Evict the tenant B. Choose to either sue the tenant for rent or evict the tenant C. Sue the tenant for rent

C. Sue the tenant for rent At common law breach only resulted in money damages. However, most modern leases grant the nonbreaching party the right to terminate, thus only under modern law may the landlord choose to sue or to evict

If the holder of an easement uses it beyond its legal scope, the easement is __________. A. Increased B. Terminated C. Surcharged

C. Surcharged This means that the servient owner may enjoin the excess use and possibly sue for damages if the land is harmed

If an adverse possessor uses land in violation of a recorded real covenant for the limitations period, she: A. Does not take title B. Takes title subject to the real covenant C. Takes title free of the real covenant D. Takes title free of the real covenant unless she had knowledge of it

C. Takes title free of the real covenant The nature of the title obtained through adverse possession depends on the occupier's activities on the land. If an adverse possessor uses the land in violation of a real convenant, she takes the title free of the covenant EVEN IF she had knowledge of it. However, if she complies with the covenant for the statutory period, she takes the title subject to the real covenant.In either case, if an adverse possessor uses land for the limitations period, she DOES take title to the land

Which of the following would not make title to land unmarketable? A. Evidence that a prior grantor lacked capacity to convey the property B. A significant variation in the description of property from one deed to the next C. The existence of a mortgage on which the statute of limitations has run D. The defective execution of a prior deed in the chain of title

C. The existence of a mortgage on which the statute of limitations has run Every land sale contract contains an implied convenant that the seller will provide marketable title at closing. While it need not be perfect title. It must not present the buyer with an unreasonable risk of litigation. Generally this means an encumbered fee simple with good record title. Title may be unmarketable because of a defect in the chain of title. Many courts hold that an ancient lien or mortgage on the record will not render title unmarketable if the seller has proof of its satisfaction or the SOL on the claim would have run under any possible circumstance, including tolling for disabilities.

Which of the following would charge a purchaser of realty with inquiry notice? A. Her grantor's use of a quitclaim deed B. An unrecorded instrument that refers to a prior transaction C. The fact that her grantor's deed is unrecorded

C. The fact that her grantor's deed is unrecorded The fact that her grantor's deed is unrecorded would charge a purchaser of realty with inquiry notice meaning the subsequent grantee is held to have knowledge of any facts that a reasonable inquiry would have revealed ,even if he made no inquiry. When a grantor's deed is unrecorded, the grantee is expected, at her peril, to demand a viewing of her grantor's titled documents at the time of the purchase and insist that they be recorded. Her grantor's use of a quitclaim deed would not charge a purchaser of realty with inquiry noticed because it releases whatever interest a grantor might have in the property and contains no covenants for title. Nonetheless, in a majority of states, grantees are not charged with inquiry notice from the mere fact that a quitclaim deed was used. An unrecorded instrument that refers to a prior transaction would not charge a purchaser of realty with inquiry notice because it makes reference to an unrecorded transaction, the grantee is bound to make inquiry and discover the nature and character of the unrecorded transaction. However, this duty to inquire does not extended to situations in which an unrecorded instrument refers to the prior transaction (unless the purchaser has actual knowledge of it). Note, however, that the purchaser is charged with inquiry notice when her grantor's deed is unrecorded

Which of the following best states the common law rule with respect to destruction of the leased premises without the landlord's or tenant's fault? A. The tenant may terminate the lease and cease paying rent. B. The tenant must continue paying rent if the landlord restores the premises. C. The lease remains effective and the tenant must continue paying rent. D. The lease remains effective but the tenant may cease paying rent.

C. The lease remains effective and the tenant must continue paying rent. this harsh rule has been modified in modern statutes that the lease would be terminated and tenant could cease paying rent.

Which of the following generally occurs when a mortgagee transfers a promissory note without a written assignment of the mortgage? A. The mortgagee retains the rights to the mortgage. B. The mortgage is separated from the obligation on the note. C. The mortgage follows the note. D. The mortgage is extinguished.

C. The mortgage follows the note. When a mortgagee transfers a promissory note without a written assignment of the mortgage, generally the mortgage follows the 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. The debtor (mortgagor) gives the mortgage and the note to the lender (mortgagee). The mortgagee who transfers her interest usually does so by indorsing the note and executing a separate assignment of the mortgage. While it is possible to transfer the note without the mortgage, the mortgage automatically will follow the properly transferred note. No separate written assignment of the mortgage is necessary. The mortgagee does NOT retain the rights to the mortgage when she transfers the note without a written assignment of the mortgage unless she expressly reserves the rights, which there would rarely be any reason for her to do so. Generally, the mortgage follows the note; the mortgage is NOT separated from the obligation on the note, and the mortgage is not extinguished.

A buyer purchased a parcel of land from a seller for $500,000. The buyer financed the purchase by obtaining a loan from the seller for $300,000 in exchange for a mortgage on the land. The seller promptly and properly recorded his mortgage. Shortly thereafter, the buyer gave a mortgage on the land to a creditor to satisfy a preexisting debt of $100,000 owed to the creditor. The creditor also promptly and properly recorded its mortgage. Within a year, the buyer stopped making payments on both mortgages, and the seller brought an action to foreclose on his mortgage. The creditor was not included as a party to the foreclosure action. The seller purchased the property at a public foreclosure sale in satisfaction of the loan. The creditor subsequently discovered the sale and informed the seller that it was not valid. Who has title to the land? A. The seller, because he gave a purchase money mortgage and the creditor's mortgage was for a preexisting debt. B. The seller, because the public foreclosure sale extinguished the creditor's interest. C. The seller, but he must redeem the creditor's mortgage to avoid foreclosure. D. The buyer, because the seller's foreclosure action was invalid without the inclusion of the creditor as a necessary party.

C. The seller, but he must redeem the creditor's mortgage to avoid foreclosure. As a general rule, the priority of a mortgage is determined by the time it was placed on the property. When a mortgage is foreclosed, the purchaser at the sale will take title as it existed when the mortgage was placed on property. Thus, foreclosure will terminate interest junior to the mortgage being foreclosed but will not affect senior interests. However, if a lien senior to that of a mortgagee is in default, the junior mortgagee has the right to pay it off to avoid being wiped out by its foreclosure action. Failure to include a necessary party results in the preservation of that party's interest despite the foreclosure and sale.

Which of the following is not required for the burden of an equitable servitude to run to successors in interest? A. The covenant touches and concerns the land. B. The successor in interest has notice of the covenant if she has given value. C. There is vertical privity between the covenantor and his successor in interest. D. The covenanting parties intended that successors in interest be bound by the covenant.

C. There is vertical privity between the covenantor and his successor in interest. An equitable servitude is a convenant (promise to do or not to do something on the land), that, regardless of whether it runs with the land at law, can be enforced in equity against assignees of the burdenedd land who have notice of the covenant. The burden of an equitable servitude will run to successors in interest if: 1. the covenanting parties intended that successors be bound 2. the successor in interest has notice of the covenant (if she has given value) and 3. the covenant touches and concerns the land. Horizontal and vertical privity are not required here.

If a grantor executes a deed but fails to deliver it during her lifetime, __________. A. Title passes on the grantor's death B. Title passes when the deed is executed C. Title does not pass D. Title is held in trust by the grantor's estate for the intended grantee

C. Title does not pass A deed is not effective to transfer an interest in realty unless it has been delivered by the grantor and accepted by the grantee. The delivery requirement is satisfied through words or conduct evidencing the grantor's intent that the title passed immediately and irrevocably. Without adequate delivery, there is no conveyance of title to the intended grantee. Thus, title does not pass on the grantors death or in trust for the estate to grant. Moreover, while a deed must be properly executed to be valid, title does not pass when the deed is executed, but rather upon delivery.

Which of the following creates a sublease from T to T2? A. one year into a five-year tenancy for years, T transfers his interests "to T2 for four years; however, if T2 breaches the original lease terms, T may reenter and retake the premises B. six months into a seven-month tenancy for years, T transfers his interest "to A for the balance of the leasehold term" C. Two years into a four-year tenancy for years, T "assigns my entire interest to T2 for one year."

C. Two years into a four-year tenancy for years, T "assigns my entire interest to T2 for one year." By the slight majority view, T's reservation of a right of reentry does not result in sublease, but rather is still an assignment

In most states, the reservation of an annual rent, payable monthly, in a lease with no set termination date creates a: A. Tenancy at will B. Tenancy for years C. Year-to-year periodic tenancy D. Month-to-month periodic tenancy

C. Year-to-year periodic tenancy A periodic tenancy is a tenancy that continues from period to period until terminated by proper notice by either the landlord or the tenant. It may be created by implication if a lease with no set termination date provides for the payment of the periodic rent. The majority view is that a lease at an annual rent, payable monthly, creates a periodic tenancy year to year and not month to month. A tenancy at will is a tenancy that continues only until the landlord or the tenant gives notice and time to quit. Although a tenancy at will can arise when a lease has no set termination date, a provision requiring annual rent payments will convert it to a periodic tenancy. A tenancy for years is a tenancy that continues for a fixed period of time and then ends automatically on its termination date. A lease with no stated duration is not a tenancy for years.

A landlord leased a house to a tenant for five years. Under the terms of the lease, the tenant was to pay a fixed monthly rent plus all taxes and reasonable maintenance charges for the upkeep of the house. Three years into the lease, the tenant assigned her lease to a friend by written agreement. Although the tenant properly set forth the terms concerning the rent and maintenance charges, she failed to properly state that the friend was liable to pay the taxes on the residence during the period of the lease. A year later, the landlord received notice that a tax lien would be placed on the residence unless the taxes were immediately paid. The landlord paid the taxes and brought suit against the tenant's friend for the amount. The suit extremely upset the friend, who abandoned the residence. Can the landlord successfully bring a suit against the tenant for this breach of the lease? A. No, because the tenant is no longer a tenant. B. No, because the tenant is no longer in privity of estate with the landlord. C. Yes, because the tenant's assignment to the friend did not terminate the tenant's obligations. D. Yes, because the tenant had caused the problem by failing to include the tax payment provision in her assignment.

C. Yes, because the tenant's assignment to the friend did not terminate the tenant's obligations. An assignee is in privity of estate with the landlord and is liable for all covenants that run with the land, including covenant to pay rent. The original tenant (assignor) remains in privity of contract with the landlord and is liable for the rent reserved in the lease if the assignee abandons the property.

May a mortgage be foreclosed by judicial sale? A. No, because mortgages require nonjudicial sale under a power of sale B. Yes, but only in a minority of jurisdictions C. Yes, in all jurisdictions D. No, because foreclosure sales must be conducted by auction

C. Yes, in all jurisdictions Foreclosure is a process by which the mortgagor's interest in the property is terminated. Almost all states require foreclosure by sale, in which the land is sold to satisfy the debt in whole or in part. All states, NOT ONLY a minority, allow judicial sale. About 1/2 also allow nonjudicial sale under a power of sale, but often only for deeds of trust and not for mortgages. Foreclosure sales ARE conducted by auction, with the highest bidder taking the property, even if they are judicial sales. The lender may bid at the sale, and in many cases the lender is the sole bidder.

If the government condemns __________ of the leased land, the tenant's liability for rent __________, and the tenant __________ entitled to compensation for the taking. A. part; is apportioned; is not B. all; continues; may be C. all; is extinguished; may be D. part; is extinguished; is

C. all; is extinguished; may be If the government condemns part of the leased land, the tenant's liability for rent is not extinguishes and the tenanyt may be entitled to have rent apportioned and may be entitled to compensation for the taking.

If L leases a residence to T "for as long as T desires," T most likely has a __________. A. license B. tenancy at will C. life estate determinable D. tenancy for years

C. life estate determinable B is wrong because the L could terminate that

A woman who owned a parcel of land had direct access to the main road by an unpaved driveway. However, she decided that it would be more convenient to use a paved driveway on an adjoining parcel, so she began doing so. The man who owned the adjoining parcel also used the driveway, but he did not discover that the woman was using the driveway until two years later. At that time, who wrote a letter to the woman protesting the use of the road. After she had used the road for a total of 20 yers, she filed an action for a declaratory judgement, claiming a prescriptive right to use the driveway on the west parcel. The time limit necessary to obtain an easement by prescription in this jurisdiction is 20 years. Which of the following is the most accurate statement with regard to the woman's use of the driveway now? A. the woman could not acquire a prescriptive easement in the west parcel because her original use was wholly trespassory and without any claim of right B. The prescriptive period began to run when the woman first began using the driveway because the woman was in open and notorious possession, despite the fact the man did not know of it C. the prescriptive period began when the woman first began using the driveway despite the fact that, at the time, she was sharing her use with the man D. the prescriptive period did not begin to run until two years after the woman began using the driveway, at the time her use of the driveway was contested.

C. the prescriptive period began when the woman first began using the driveway despite the fact that, at the time, she was sharing her use with the man There is no requirement of exclusive possession to obtain an easement by prescription. Exclusively its only required in cases of adverse possession. Adverse possession is not at issue here because the woman has not "possessed" any part of the west parcel and does not require title to continue her use of the property, which is all she seeks.

If a deed containing each of the following descriptions of land results in an ambiguity, to which will a court afford the most weight? A. "10 acres of land known as Blackacre" B. "East 45 feet to Grace Street" C. "North 25 degrees to Main Street" D. "From Moss Lake to the oak tree"

D. "From Moss Lake to the oak tree" A deed must identify the land to be conveyed. When a mistake or inconsistency leaves doubt in the exact location of the property, and the court otherwise lacks clear evidence of the parties' intent, the following rules of construction apply: 1. natural monuments (from moss lake to oak tree) prevail over all other methods of description, including artificial monuments, courses and distances, and quantity measurements 2. artificial monuments (stakes and buildings) prevail over all but natural monuments 3. course measurements (north 25 degrees) prevail over distance measurements (east 45 feet) and 4. all of the foregoing prevail over general descriptions such as names or quantity (10 acres known as black acre)

A purchase money mortgage, whether recorded or not, will have priority over __________. A. No other mortgages or liens B. A subsequent recorded non-pmm against the same mortgagor C. All other mortgages and liens D. A prior claim against the same mortgagor arising before the mortgagor acquired title.

D. A prior claim against the same mortgagor arising before the mortgagor acquired title.

Under which theory can the mortgagee take possession of the mortgaged property upon the mortgagor's default? A. The title theory only B. Either the lien theory or the intermediate theory C. The lien theory only D. Either the title theory or the intermediate theory

D. Either the title theory or the intermediate theory Under the title theory, followed in a minority of states, legal title is in the mortgagee until the mortgage has been satisfied or foreclosed. Thus, the mortgagee is entitled to possession upon demand at any time, which means the mortgagee can take possession as soon as the mortgagor defaults. The same is true in the few states that follow the intermediate theory, under which legal title transfers from the mortgagor to the mortgagee on default. Under the lien theory, followed in a majority of states, the mortgage is deemed to hold a security interest in the land and the mortgagor is considered the owner until foreclosure. Thus, the mortgagee may not take possession of the land before foreclosure.

A grantor hands a deed to a grantee and says, "I want you to hold on to this deed so you can have my land when I die." Will a court likely rule that delivery occurred? A. Yes, because delivery is presumed if a deed is handed to the grantee B. No, because the grantor's statement is admissible to show that delivery of the deed was conditional C. Yes, because the grantor's statement is not admissible to show that the deed was not delivered D. No, because the grantor's statement is admissible to show that the deed was not delivered

D. No, because the grantor's statement is admissible to show that the deed was not delivered Delivery is satisfied through words or conduct evidencing the grantor's intent, even if the possession is postponed until a future time. The parole evidence is admissible to prove the grantor lacked this intent.

Several decades ago, a square tract of 640 acres was subdivided into lots, streets were constructed, and utilities were installed. As the developer sold off each of the lots, each lot's deed contained a restriction limiting the lots to residential use only. The deeds were all recorded. Over the years, houses were constructed on all the lots. The property to the south, east, and west of the subdivision was initially forest, but gradually the city expanded to surround the development. Unfortunately, the city expansion was mostly industrial and some commercial property, but no residential property. The subdivision is now bounded on all sides by many industries that operate 24 hours a day. The combination of noise, dirt, fumes, and other pollution has made many of the houses in the subdivision unfit for residential use, yet each deed still stipulates "residential use only." Can the restrictions be voided under the doctrine of changed neighborhood conditions? A. Yes, the restrictions can be voided on all lots in the subdivision because changed conditions have made many of the houses unusable as residences. B. Yes, the restrictions can be voided under these circumstances, but only as to the lots that have actually been rendered unfit for residential purposes C. No, the restriction cannot be voided because in this circumstance the property remedy is the tort action of nuisance D. No, the restriction cannot be voided unless the entire subdivision is so seriously affected by the pollution that enforcement of the restriction would be inequitable.

D. No, the restriction cannot be voided unless the entire subdivision is so seriously affected by the pollution that enforcement of the restriction would be inequitable. restrictive covenants on all lots in a subdivision such as this can be voided if the conditions have made the property unusuable for the specified use, and this means that the entire subdivision must have changed so significantly that enforcement of the restriction would be inequitable. If some houses in the center of the subdivision are not affected by the pollution, then none of the restrictions can be voided; if all lots are affected, then all restrictions are voided. B. is incorrect because courts will not lift a restriction on the parcels affected by the change if doing so would change the conditions of nearby lots that were previously unaffected. To avoid this domino effect, the condition of the subdivision as a whole must be considered.

When may a mortgagee take possession of the mortgaged property? A. As soon as the mortgage is created. B. On default, in a lien theory state. C. Never under any circumstances. D. On default, in a title theory state.

D. On default, in a title theory state. The mortgagee will have a right to take possession before foreclosure only in the minority of jurisdictions where she is deemed to have legal title. In practice, this means the mortgagee can take possession as soon as default occurs. In a lien theory state, the mortgagee is deemed to hold a security interest in the land and not considered the owner until foreclosure.

A landowner died, validly devising her land "to my son for life, then to my brother and sister in fee simple." Without obtaining the brother and sister's consent, the son borrowed $20,000 from a bank, secured by a mortgage on the land, to make improvements to the land. Five years later, the son died. The brother and sister took possession of the land, but failed to make any mortgage payments. If the bank sues to recover the delinquent payments, the court should render judgment for: A. The bank, because a life tenant is obligated to make repairs. B. The bank, because the remaindermen are obligated to pay the principal of a debt. C. The brother and sister, because the son committed ameliorative waste. D. The brother and sister, because the mortgage does not encumber the fee simple.

D. The brother and sister, because the mortgage does not encumber the fee simple. A life tenant is entitled to all the ordinary uses and profits of the land, which includes encumbering his owner interest, but he cannot lawfully do any acts that would injure interests of remaindermen. Passive waste occurs when the life tenant allows the land to fall into disrepair or fails to take reasonable measures to protect the land. Although a life tenant is obligated to pay interest on any encumberances of the fee simple to the extend of the income or profits, he is liable for both the interest and the payments of any encumberances on the life estate alone. Here, because the son did not obtain consent or joinder of the remaindermen, it only attaches to his life estate. Thus, the brother and sister are not liable.

A man owned a tract of land in fee simple. Fifteen years ago, he built a barn on five acres that he believed were part of his property. One year later, the man discovered that the five acres on which he had built his barn were not part of his property. The five acres actually belonged to the woman who owned the adjoining property. The year following the discovery that the five acres belonged to the woman next door, the woman died, leaving all of her property to her one-year-old daughter. The man has brought a quiet title action against the now 14-year-old daughter. The statutory period for adverse possession in this jurisdiction is 10 years. The man has not paid any additional property taxes to account for the five acres for any of the past fifteen years. Who will prevail? A. The daughter, because the man did not pay the property taxes on the five acres. B. The daughter, because her status as a minor would tolls the - statute until she reached her majority. C. The man, because he honestly believed that the five acres were part of his land. D. The man, because he was in continuous possession of the five acres for the statutory period.

D. The man, because he was in continuous possession of the five acres for the statutory period. B. is incorrect because the disability of the woman's successor in interest will not keep the statute from running. For a disability to stop the clock, the disability must have been in existence on the day adverse possession began. Here, the daughter was not yet alive when the adverse possession began. Thus, her status as a minor will not stop the clock from running.

A rancher entered into a written contract to buy a farm from a farmer for $100,000. The contract stipulated for closing on September 30. In addition, the contract contained the following provision: "The taxes shall be prorated as agreed to by the parties at a later date." Upon the signing of the contract, the rancher gave the farmer a check for $10,000 as a down payment. On September 28, the rancher notified the farmer that he would not be able to close on the farm until October 2, because the closing on his current home, the proceeds from which were to be applied to his purchase of the farm, was unavoidably delayed due to his buyer's illness. Meanwhile, the farmer had difficulty finding a home she liked as well as the farm. She decided that she would rather not sell the farm and wished to avoid the contract with the rancher. On October 2, the rancher showed up at the closing with the $90,000 to tender to the farmer. The farmer did not show up. The rancher sues for specific performance. In whose favor will the court most likely rule? A. The farmer, because the tax provision is an essential term of the contract, and it is not specific enough to satisfy the Statute of Frauds. B. The farmer, because the rancher materially breached by not tendering performance on September 30. C. The rancher, because of the operation of the doctrine of equitable conversion. D. The rancher, because time was not of the essence.

D. The rancher, because time was not of the essence. In general, courts presume that time is not of the essence in real estate contracts. Thus, the closing date states in the contract is not absolutely binding in equity, and a party, even though late tendering his owner performance, can still enforce the contract if he tenders within a reasonable amount of time (one to two months is usually considered reasonable). Time will be considered of the essence only if 1. the contract states so 2. the circumstances indicate it was the parties' intention or 3. one party gives another notice that he intends to make time of the essence. The contract in this case made no mention that time was of the essence. The facts do not indicate any circumstance such as rapidly fluctuating prices or the need for money to close another critical transaction that would indicate that the rancher and farmer intended time to be of the essence. The farmer did not give the rancher reasonable notice before September 30 that she wanted to make time of the essence. thus, the court will not find time of the essence here. Because of this, the rancher is not in material breach and is entitled to specific performance

A landlord must disclose whether there is any visible evidence of mold in a dwelling unit. If the landlord's written disclosure states that there is visible evidence of mold: A. The statement is deemed correct unless the tenant objects in writing within five days after receiving the report. B. The landlord may require the tenant to temporarily vacate the dwelling unit for up to 30 days in order to perform mold remediation. C. The landlord must provide the tenant with either a comparable dwelling unit or a hotel room at no cost to the tenant. D. The tenant may terminate the tenancy or accept the dwelling unit, in which case the landlord has five business days to remediate the mold condition.

D. The tenant may terminate the tenancy or accept the dwelling unit, in which case the landlord has five business days to remediate the mold condition. If the landlord's written disclosure states that there is no visible evidence of mold, the statement is deemed correct unless the tenant objects in writing within 5 days after receiving the report. If the landlord's written disclosure states that there is evidence of mold, THE TENANT MAY TERMINATE THE TENANCY OR ACCEPT THE DWELLING UNIT IN WHICH CASE THE LANDLORD HAS 5 DAYS TO REMEDIATE THE MOLD CONDITION. If the mold condition materially affects the health or safety of any tenant or authorized occupant, the landlord may require the tenant to temporarily vacate the dwelling unit for up to 30 days in order to perform mold remediation. The landlord must provide the tenant with either a comparable dwelling unit or a hotel room at no cost to the tenant.

A man had rented a woman's home from her for seven years. When the time came to sign a new lease, the woman decided that because the man had always been a quiet tenant, she would continue to charge him only $350 per month rent instead of the $500 to $550 she could probably get otherwise. The new lease was for a period of five years, and by its terms, the man was specifically prohibited from assigning the lease without the woman's specific written consent. About a year later, the man got married and moved into his new wife's home. Instead of giving up his lease, the man sublet the property to a friend for $500 a month. The man did not get the woman's permission to sublease the property. If the woman brings an action to either eject the friend from the premises or to recover damages from the man for subletting the premises without her consent, what is the most likely result? A. The woman will be able to recover damages and to eject the new tenant. B. The woman will be able to eject the new tenant only, because she has suffered no money damages. C. The woman will not be able to eject the new tenant because, although the man did not have the right to sublet, he had the power, but she will be entitled to recover the full rent paid by the new tenant because it would be unfair to let the man profit from his wrongful act. D. The woman will have no cause of action for either ejectment or damages.

D. The woman will have no cause of action for either ejectment or damages. There are two ways for a tenant to transfer the right to possession under a lease: assignment (transferring entire period of time remaining) and sublease (transferring only a portion). Restraints on alienation are traditionally strictly construed. Thus, a covenant prohibiting assignment does not prohibit sublease and vice versa. Hence, this prohibition against assignment would not be read to include a prohibition against subleasing.

Typically, as the beneficial owner of the property, the mortgagor retains possession of the property, but if the mortgagee takes possession, she must account in equity to the mortgagor for the ____________________​ value of the property. A. Future. B. Present. C. Lost. D. Use.

D. Use

If an occupier initially has the true owner's permission to enter the land, may she acquire title to the land by adverse possession? A. Yes, unless the occupier believes she is on her own land B. No, because the statute of limitations will not begin to run C. No, because an adverse possessor must lack the true owner's permission to be on the land D. Yes, if the occupier communicates hostility

D. Yes, if the occupier communicates hostility Yes, an occupier who initially has the true owner's permission to enter the land may acquire title to the land by adverse possession if the occupier communicates hostility and satisfied the other elements of adverse possession. To establish title by adverse possession, the occupier must show: (1) actual entry giving exclusive possession that is (2) open and notorious (3) adverse (hostile) (4) and continuous throughout the statutory period. If the occupier enters with the owner's permission, her possession may become adverse only once she makes it clear to the owner that she is claiming it hostilely. This can be done by explicit notification, by refusing to permit the true owner to come onto the land, or other acts inconsistent with the original permission. The occupier's state of mind is irrelevant to whether she believes she is on her own land, knows she is trespassing, or has no idea who owns the land. While it is true that an adverse possessor must lack the true owner's permission to be on the land, a subsequent communication of hostility may cause initially permissive possession to become adverse. The SOL WILL begin to run if an occupier who initially had the true owner's permission communicates hostility.

twenty years ago, a nephew received a deed to a farm as a gift from his aunt. The aunt's deed was properly executed and delivered, and the nephew recorded. The nephew had no interest in farming, so he left the property alone for 10 years. At that point, he transferred all his rights in the farm by quitclaim deed to a neighbor who owned the adjacent land. The neighbor had a full-time job and did not farm the land but lived in the farmhouse for five years. He then took a job in a distant city for five years. When he returned, he learned that the aunt who made the initial transfer to her nephew had not in fact been the fee simple owner of the farm. The true owner of the property had just died and her daughter and sole heir demanded possession from the neighbor. The statutory period for adverse possession in the jurisdiction is seven years. In a quiet title action, how should the court rule? A. the neighbor takes clear title to the farm house and the entire farm by virtue of his adverse possession for over 10 years. B. the neighbor takes clear title to the farmhouse but not to the rest of the farm that was not actually possessed by him, which goes to the daughter C. the nephew takes clear title because he had record title to the farm for over 10 years, more than the statutory period D. the daughter is the fee simple owner of the farm.

D. the daughter is the fee simple owner of the farm. Because the aunt was not the legal owner at the time she transferred to her nephew, the nephew and any claimant through the nephew must rely on adverse possession to defeat the daughter's claim. The nephew did not get title by adverse possession, despite the fact that he recorded his deed, because he never possessed the property, and adverse possession requires actual possession. The neighbor did have possession of the house, although he not the rest of the farm, but his possession was interrupted by his five-year job in a distant city. He did not continually possess any part of the farm for seven years.

The elderly owner of a small furnished vacation cottage who had not used it for several years decided to rent it out to vacationers. His first tenants, a newlywed couple, agreed to pay $400 for a month stay. although the owner apologized that he had not been able to clean the cottage before renting it because he had not been there for several years. When they arrived at the cottage, the wife started carrying the luggage up the wooden steps of the house and one of the steps collapsed, seriously injuring her. On inspection it was revealed that the steps had rotted. Although no one had been aware of the defect, a reasonable inspection would have disclosed it. Is the owner liable to the wife for her injuries? A. No, because the owner neither knew nor had reason to know that the steps were rotted B. No, because the owner told the tenants that he had not been to the house for several years and so was not aware of its current condition, and the wife could have discovered the defect if she made a reasonable inspection C. yes, because a landlord warrants that the premises are free from latent defects D. yes, because the lease is for one month and the house is furnished

D. yes, because the lease is for one month and the house is furnished Landlords are liable for latent defects even if they neither knew nor should have known of the defect if the lease is for a short term and the property is furnished. This is an exception to the general rule that a landlord is not liable for latent defects unless the landlord knew or had reason to know of the defects.

Since 1880, the roanoke and southern railroad company (the R&S) has operated a railroad line in Franklin County, VA which crossed the land of Callway Farms, Inc ("Callaway"). In 2004, R&S stopped using the line, took up its tracks, and conveyed the property included in its right-of-way to Franklin County for use as a public trail. Callaway disputed Franklin County's right to use the property where the rail line had crossed its property, and erected barricades and "no trespassing" signs at the boundaries to its property. Callaway based its actions on the language of an 1880 deed from Callaway to the R&S, which Callaway interpreted to give it title to the right-of-way when it was no longer used for railroad purposes, Franklin County contended that it had acquired fee simple title from the R&S and demanded that the barricades be removed. Negotiations between the parties have not resolved the title issue, and Franklin County has decided to bring suit to enforce its claim of ownership and right to possession. Without regard to which party is likely to prevail, discuss whether partition is a proceeding that Franklin County can maintain to establish both its title and right to possession.

Partition is a statutory action to separate ownership interests and may be compelled. The court may take cognizance of any question involving legal title that may arise in the proceedings. The facts of the case show that Franklin County and Callaway are neither Joint Tenants nor Co-parceners. Rather, Franklin County wants to establish sole title to the property. Therefore, partition is not the proper action for Franklin County to use to obtain sole title and the right to possession of the property

Since 1880, the roanoke and southern rairoad company (the R&S) has operated a railroad line in Franklin County, VA which crossed the land of Callway Farms, Inc ("Callaway"). In 2004, R&S stopped using the line, took up its tracks, and conveyed the property included in its right-of-way to Franklin County for use as a public trail. Callaway disputed Franklin County's right to use the property where the rail line had crossed its property, and erected barricades and "no trespassing" signs at the boundaries to its property. Callaway based its actions on the language of an 1880 deed from Callaway to the R&S, which Callaway interpreted to give it title to the right-of-way when it was no longer used for railroad purposes, Franklin County contended that it had acquired fee simple title from the R&S and demanded that the barricades be removed. Negotiations between the parties have not resolved the title issue, and Franklin County has decided to bring suit to enforce its claim of ownership and right to possession. Without regard to which party is likely to prevail, discuss whether ejectment is a proceeding that Franklin County can maintain to establish both its title and right to possession.

The object of an action for ejectment is to try title and obtain possession of a piece of land. To bring this actiom, the plaintiff must be out of possession. To succeed, the plaintiff must show superior right to possession. This action is the most appropriate proceeding for Franklin County to take because (1) it is out of possession, as Callaway has erected barricades and posted "no trespassing signs" at the boundaries; and (2) it can test its superiority to the title, asserting its claim that the R&S conveyed the property, including the right-of-way, to the county. This action is appropriate as it would permanently settle the rights between Franklin County and Callaway

Since 1880, the roanoke and southern railroad company (the R&S) has operated a railroad line in Franklin County, VA which crossed the land of Callway Farms, Inc ("Callaway"). In 2004, R&S stopped using the line, took up its tracks, and conveyed the property included in its right-of-way to Franklin County for use as a public trail. Callaway disputed Franklin County's right to use the property where the rail line had crossed its property, and erected barricades and "no trespassing" signs at the boundaries to its property. Callaway based its actions on the language of an 1880 deed from Callaway to the R&S, which Callaway interpreted to give it title to the right-of-way when it was no longer used for railroad purposes, Franklin County contended that it had acquired fee simple title from the R&S and demanded that the barricades be removed. Negotiations between the parties have not resolved the title issue, and Franklin County has decided to bring suit to enforce its claim of ownership and right to possession. Without regard to which party is likely to prevail, discuss whether declaratory judgment is a proceeding that Franklin County can maintain to establish both its title and right to possession.

The object of such action is to obtain a declaration of right with or without consequential relief. An actual controversy must exist; the action does not authorize an advisory opinion by the court. A declaratory judgement proceeding may be either a legal or equitable claim in a circuit court, depending on the nature of the claim and the forms of relief sought. This proceeding could be used, as there is an actual controversy between Franklin County and Callaway regarding title to the property, and Franklin County could seek equitable relief, putting it in possession of the property, as part of the declaratory judgment proceeding.

Since 1880, the roanoke and southern railroad company (the R&S) has operated a railroad line in Franklin County, VA which crossed the land of Callway Farms, Inc ("Callaway"). In 2004, R&S stopped using the line, took up its tracks, and conveyed the property included in its right-of-way to Franklin County for use as a public trail. Callaway disputed Franklin County's right to use the property where the rail line had crossed its property, and erected barricades and "no trespassing" signs at the boundaries to its property. Callaway based its actions on the language of an 1880 deed from Callaway to the R&S, which Callaway interpreted to give it title to the right-of-way when it was no longer used for railroad purposes, Franklin County contended that it had acquired fee simple title from the R&S and demanded that the barricades be removed. Negotiations between the parties have not resolved the title issue, and Franklin County has decided to bring suit to enforce its claim of ownership and right to possession. Without regard to which party is likely to prevail, discuss whether unlawful detainer is a proceeding that Franklin County can maintain to establish both its title and right to possession.

This action is a summary judgment procedure generally used to recover possession. It is a landlord's remedy against a tenant. This action does not resolve who has title to property. Thus, unlawful detainer is not a proper action for Franklin County to establish its title and right to possession.

Since 1880, the roanoke and southern railroad company (the R&S) has operated a railroad line in Franklin County, VA which crossed the land of Callway Farms, Inc ("Callaway"). In 2004, R&S stopped using the line, took up its tracks, and conveyed the property included in its right-of-way to Franklin County for use as a public trail. Callaway disputed Franklin County's right to use the property where the rail line had crossed its property, and erected barricades and "no trespassing" signs at the boundaries to its property. Callaway based its actions on the language of an 1880 deed from Callaway to the R&S, which Callaway interpreted to give it title to the right-of-way when it was no longer used for railroad purposes, Franklin County contended that it had acquired fee simple title from the R&S and demanded that the barricades be removed. Negotiations between the parties have not resolved the title issue, and Franklin County has decided to bring suit to enforce its claim of ownership and right to possession. Without regard to which party is likely to prevail, discuss whether bill to quiet title is a proceeding that Franklin County can maintain to establish both its title and right to possession.

This statutory action in equity is to remove a cloud on title. While the plaintiff does not have to be in possession to uphold this action, the action does not provide for restoration of possession or damages. Thus, ejectment would be more appropriate.

As between two mortgages, what is the effect on the junior mortgage when the mortgagor accepts an advance of funds from the senior mortgagee? A. The junior mortgage is given priority over the entire senior mortgage if the advance was optional B. The junior mortgage is given priority over the advance if the advance was optional C. The junior mortgage is given priority over the advance if the senior mortgagee was contractually obligated to make it D. The junior mortgage is given priority over the entire senior mortgage if the senior mortgagee was contractually obligated to make it

When the mortgagor accepts an advance of funds from the senior mortgagee, the junior mortgage is given priority over the advance if the advance was optional. Priority among mortgages on the same real estate is normally determined by chronology: The earliest (i.e., senior) mortgage is first in priority, the next (i.e., junior) mortgage is second, and so on. Generally, if the mortgage obligates the mortgagee to make further advances of funds after the mortgage is executed, such advances will have the same priority as the original mortgage. However, if a junior mortgage is placed on the property and the senior mortgagee later makes an "optional" advance (i.e., one it was not contractually bound to make) while having notice of the junior mortgage, the advance will lose priority to the junior mortgage. Numerous states have reversed this rule by statute, but it remains the majority view. Thus, the junior mortgage is NOT given priority over the advance if the senior mortgagee was contractually obligated to make it. Furthermore, an advance would not jeopardize the priority of the entire senior mortgage itself; thus, the junior mortgage is NOT given priority over the entire senior mortgage, regardless of whether the advance was optional or the senior mortgagee was contractually obligated to make it