Property - Multiple Choice

Able, who owned Blackacre, a residential lot improved with a dwelling, conveyed it for a valuable consideration to Baker. The dwelling had been constructed by a prior owner. Baker had inspected Blackacre prior to the purchase and discovered no defects. After moving in,Baker became aware that sewage seeped into the basement when the toilets were flushed.Able said that this defect had been present for years and that he had taken no steps to hide the facts from Baker. Baker paid for the necessary repairs and brought an appropriate action against Able to recover his cost of repair.If Baker wins, it will be because (A) Able failed to disclose a latent defect. (B) Baker made a proper inspection. (C) the situation constitutes a health hazard. (D) Able breached the implied warranty ofhabitability and fitness for purpose.

(A) Able failed to disclose a latent defect.

Test owned Blackacre, a vacant one-acre tract of land in State. Five years ago, he executed a deed conveying Blackacre to "Church for the purpose of erecting a church building there on." Three years ago, Test died leaving Sonny as his sole heir at law. His duly probated will left "all my Estate, both real and personal, to my friend Fanny." Church never constructed a church building on Blackacre and last month Church, for a valid consideration, conveyed Blackacre to Developer. Developer brought an appropriate action to quiet title against Sonny, Fanny, and Church,and joined the appropriate state official. Such official asserted that a charitable trust was created which has not terminated.In such action, the court should find that title is now in (A) Developer. (B) Sonny. (C) Fanny. (D) the state official.

(A) Developer.

Anna entered into a valid written contract to purchase Blackacre, a large tract of land, from Jones for its fair market value of $50,000. The contract was assignable by Anna. Anna duly notified Jones to convey title to Anna and Charles, Charles being Anna's friend whom Anna had not seen for many years.When Anna learned that Charles would have to sign certain documents in connection with the closing, she prevailed upon her brother, Donald, to attend the closing and pretend to be Charles. Anna and Donald attended the closing, and Jones executed an instrument in the proper form of a deed, purporting to convey Blackacre to Anna and Charles, as tenants in common. Donald pretended that he was Charles, and he signed Charles's name to all the required documents. Anna provided the entire $50,000 consideration for the transaction. The deed was promptly and properly recorded. Unknown to Anna or Donald, Charles had died several months before the closing. Charles's will, which was duly probated,devised "All my real estate to my nephew,Nelson" and the residue of his estate to Anna. Anna and Nelson have been unable to agree as to the status or disposition of Blackacre.Nelson brought an appropriate action against Jones and Anna to quiet legal title to an undivided one-half interest in Blackacre. The court should hold that legal title to Blackacre is vested (A) all in Jones. (B) all in Anna. (C) one-half in Anna and one-half in Jones. (D) one-half in Anna and one-half in Nelson.

(A) Lilly, because no subsequent act of Ogle would affect her life estate.

Ogle owned Greenacre, a tract of land, in fee simple. Five years ago, he executed and delivered to Lilly an instrument in the proper form of a warranty deed that conveyed Greenacre to Lilly "for and during the term of her natural life." No other estate or interest or person taking an interest was mentioned. Lilly took possession of Greenacre and has remained in possession.Fifteen months ago, Ogle died, leaving a will that has been duly admitted to probate. The will, inter alia, had the following provision:"I devise Greenacre to Mina for her natural life and from and after Mina's death to Rex, his heirs and assigns,forever."Administration of Ogle's estate has been completed. Mina claims the immediate right to possession of Greenacre. Rex also asserts aright to immediate possession.In an appropriate lawsuit to which Lilly, Mina,and Rex are parties, who should be adjudged to have the right to immediate possession? (A) Lilly, because no subsequent act of Ogle would affect her life estate. (B) Mina, because Ogle's will was the final and definitive expression of his intent. (C) Mina, because Lilly's estate terminated with the death of Ogle. (D) Rex, because Lilly's estate terminated with Ogle's death and all that Ogle had was the right to transfer his reversion in fee simple.

(A) Lilly, because no subsequent act of Ogle would affect her life estate.

O grants Blackacre to "A for life, then to my grandchildren who graduate from high school." O has children B and C, but no grandchildren at the time of the grant What interest is O trying to create, and if different, the interests actually created.

A has a life estate. The remainder violates the RAP.

Brown owned Blackacre, a tract of undeveloped land. Blackacre abuts Whiteacre,a tract of land owned by Agency, the state's governmental energy agency. At Whiteacre,Agency has operated a waste-to-electricity recycling facility for 12 years. Blackacre and Whiteacre are in a remote area and Whiteacre is the only developed parcel of real estate within a ten-mile radius. The boundary line between Blackacre and Whiteacre had neverbeen surveyed or marked on the face of the earth. During the past 12 years, some of the trucks bringing waste to the Agency facility have dumped their loads so that the piles of waste extend from Whiteacre onto a portion of Blackacre. However, prior to the four-week period during each calendar year when the Agency facility is closed for inspection and repairs, the waste piles are reduced to minimal levels so that during each of the four-week closures no waste was, in fact, piled on Blackacre. Neither Brown nor any representative of Agency knew the facts about the relation of the boundary line to the waste piles. The time for acquiring title by adverse possession in the jurisdiction is ten years. Last year, Brown died, and his son, Silas, succeeded him as the owner of Blackacre.Silas became aware of the facts, demanded that Agency stop using Blackacre for the piling of waste, and, when Agency refused his demand, brought an appropriate action to enjoin any such use of Blackacre in the future. If Agency prevails in that action, it will be because (A) the facts constitute adverse possession and title to the portion of Blackacre concerned has vested in Agency. (B) Brown's failure to keep himself informed as to Agency's use of Blackacre and his failure to object constituted implied consent to the continuation of that use. (C) the interest of the public in the conversion of waste to energy overrides any entitlement of Silas to equitable remedies. (D) the power of eminent domain of the statemakes the claim of Silas moot.

(A) the facts constitute adverse possession and title to the portion of Blackacre concerned has vested in Agency.

Able was the owner of Greenacre, a large tract of land. Able entered into a binding written contract with Baker for the sale and purchase of Greenacre for $125,000. The contract required Able to convey marketable record title. Baker decided to protect his interest and promptly and properly recorded the contract.Thereafter, but before the date scheduled for the closing, Charlie obtained and properly filed a final judgment against Able in the amount of $1 million in a personal injury suit.A statute in the jurisdiction provides: "Any judgment properly filed shall, for ten years from filing, be a lien on the real property then owned or subsequently acquired by any person against whom the judgment is rendered." The recording act of the jurisdiction authorizes recording of contracts and also provides: "No conveyance or mortgage of real property shall be good against subsequent purchasers for value and without notice unless the same be recorded according to law." There are no other relevant statutory provisions. At the closing, Baker declined to accept the title of Able on the ground that Charlie's judgment lien encumbered the title he would receive and rendered it unmarketable. Able brought an appropriate action against Baker for specific performance of the contract and joined Charlie as a party. In this action, the judgment should be for (A) Able, because in equity a purchaser takes free of judgment liens. (B) Able, because the contract had been recorded. (C) Baker, because Able cannot benefit fromBaker's action in recording the contract. (D) Baker, because the statute creatingjudgment liens takes precedence over therecording act.

(B) Able, because the contract had been recorded.

Ashton owned Woodsedge, a tract used for commercial purposes, in fee simple and thereafter mortgaged it to First Bank. She signed a promissory note secured by a duly executed and recorded mortgage. There wasno "due on sale" clause, that is, no provision that, upon sale, the whole balance then owing would become due and owing. Ashton conveyed Woodsedge to Beam "subject to a mortgage to First Bank, which the grantee assumes and agrees to pay." Beam conveyed Woodsedge to Carter "subject to an existing mortgage to First Bank." A copy of the note and the mortgage that secured it had been exhibited to each grantee.After Carter made three timely payments, no further payments were made by any party. In fact, the real estate had depreciated to a point where it was worth less than the debt.There is no applicable statute or regulation.In an appropriate foreclosure action, FirstBank joined Ashton, Beam, and Carter as defendants. At the foreclosure sale, although the fair market value for Woodsedge in its depreciated state was obtained, a deficiency resulted.First Bank is entitled to collect a deficiency judgment against (A) Ashton only. (B) Ashton and Beam only. (C) Beam and Carter only. (D) Ashton, Beam, and Carter.

(B) Ashton and Beam only

Oscar, owner of Greenacre, conveyed Greenacre by quitclaim deed as a gift to Ann,who did not then record her deed. Later, Oscar conveyed Greenacre by warranty deed to Belle, who paid valuable consideration, knew nothing of Ann's claim, and promptly and properly recorded. Next, Ann recorded her deed. Then Belle conveyed Greenacre by quitclaim deed to her son Cal as a gift. When the possible conflict with Ann was discovered,Cal recorded his deed. Greenacre at all relevant times has been vacant unoccupied land. The recording act of the jurisdiction provides:"No unrecorded conveyance or mortgage of real property shall be good against subsequent purchasers for value without notice, who shall first record." No other statute is applicable. Cal has sued Ann to establish who owns Greenacre. The court will hold for (A) Cal, because Ann was a donee. (B) Cal, because Belle's purchase cut off Ann's rights. (C) Ann, because she recorded before Cal. (D) Ann, because Cal was a subsequent donee.

(B) Cal, because Belle's purchase cut off Ann's rights.

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

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

Able conveyed Blackacre to Baker by a warranty deed. Baker recorded the deed four days later. After the conveyance but prior to Baker's recording of the deed, Smollett properly filed a judgment against Able. The two pertinent statutes in the jurisdiction provide the following: 1) any judgment properly filed shall, for ten years from filing,be a lien on the real property then owned or subsequently acquired by any person against whom the judgment is rendered, and 2) no conveyance or mortgage of real property shall be good against subsequent purchasers for value and without notice unless the same be recorded according to law. The recording act has no provision for a grace period. Smollett joined both Able and Baker in an appropriate action to foreclose the judgment lien against Blackacre.If Smollett is unsuccessful, it will be because (A) Able's warranty of title to Baker defeats Smollett's claim (B) Smollett is not a purchaser for value. (C) any deed is superior to a judgment lien. (D) four days is not an unreasonable delay in recording a deed.

(B) Smollett is not a purchaser for value.

Alice owned a commercial property, Eastgate,consisting of a one-story building rented to various retail stores and a very large parking lot. Two years ago, Alice died and left Eastgate to her nephew, Paul, for life, with remainder to her godson, Richard, his heirs and assigns. Paul was 30 years old and Richard was 20 years old when Alice died.The devise of Eastgate was made subject to any mortgage on Eastgate in effect at the time of Alice's death. When Alice executed her will, the balance of the mortgage debt on Eastgate was less than$5,000. A year before her death, Alice suffered financial reverses; and in order to meet her debts, she had mortgaged Eastgate to secure a loan of $150,000. The entire principal of the mortgage remained outstanding when she died. As a result, the net annual income from Eastgate was reduced not only by real estate taxes and regular maintenance costs, but also by the substantial mortgage interest payments that were due each month. Paul was very dissatisfied with the limited benefit that he was receiving from the life estate. When, earlier this year, Acme, Inc.,proposed to purchase Eastgate, demolish the building, pay off the mortgage, and construct a30-story office building, Paul was willing toaccept Acme's offer. However, Richardadamantly refused the offer, even thoughRichard, as the remainderman, paid theprincipal portion of each monthly mortgageamortization payment. Richard wasindependently wealthy and wanted to convertEastgate into a public park when he becameentitled to possession. When Acme realized that Richard would not change his mind, Acme modified its proposalto a purchase of the life estate of Paul. Acme was ready to go ahead with its building plans,relying upon a large life insurance policy onPaul's life to protect it against the economicrisk of Paul's death. Paul's life expectancy was45 years. When Richard learned that Paul had agreed to Acme's modified proposal, Richard brought an appropriate action against them to enjoin their carrying it out.There is no applicable statute.The best argument for Richard is that (A) Acme cannot purchase Paul's life estate,because life estates are not assignable. (B) the proposed demolition of the building constitutes waste. (C) Richard's payment of the mortgage principal has subrogated him to Paul's rights as a life tenant and bars Paul's assignment of the life estate without Richard's consent. (D) continued existence of the one-story building is more in harmony with the ultimate use as a park than the proposed change in use.

(B) the proposed demolition of the building constitutes waste.

Homer and Ethel were jointly in possession of Greenacre in fee simple as tenants in common.They joined in a mortgage of Greenacre to Fortunoff Bank. Homer erected a fence along what he considered to be the true boundary between Greenacre and the adjoining property,owned by Mitchell. Shortly thereafter, Homer had an argument with Ethel and gave up his possession to Greenacre. The debt secured by the mortgage had not been paid.Mitchell surveyed his land and found that the fence erected a year earlier by Homer did not follow the true boundary. Part of the fence was within Greenacre. Part of the fence encroached on Mitchell's land. Mitchell and Ethel executed an agreement fixing the boundary line in accordance with the fence constructed by Homer. The agreement, which met all the formalities required in the jurisdiction, was promptly and properly recorded.A year after the agreement was recorded,Homer temporarily reconciled his differences with Ethel and resumed joint possession of Greenacre. Thereafter, Homer repudiated the boundary line agreement and brought an appropriate action against Mitchell and Ethel to quiet title along the original true boundary.In such action, Homer will (A) win, because Fortunoff Bank was not a party to the agreement. (B) win, because one tenant in common cannot bind another tenant in common to a boundary line agreement. (C) lose, because the agreement, as a matter of law, was mutually beneficial to Ethel and Homer. (D) lose, because Ethel was in sole possession of said premises at the time the agreement was signed.

(B) win, because one tenant in common cannot bind another tenant in common to a boundary line agreeme

By warranty deed, Marta conveyed Blackacre to Beth and Christine "as joint tenants with right of survivorship." Beth and Christine are not related. Beth conveyed all her interest to Eugenio by warranty deed and subsequently died intestate. Thereafter, Christine conveyed to Darin by warranty deed. There is no applicable statute, and the jurisdiction recognizes the common-law joint tenancy. Title to Blackacre is in (A) Darin. (B) Marta. (C) Darin and Eugenio. (D) Darin and the heirs of Beth.

(C) Darin and Eugenio.

Ody, owner of Profitacre, executed an instrument in the proper form of a deed,purporting to convey Profitacre "to Leon for life, then to Ralph in fee simple." Leon, who is Ody's brother and Ralph's father, promptly began to manage Profitacre, which is valuable income-producing real estate. Leon collected all rents and paid all expenses, including real estate taxes. Ralph did not object, and this state of affairs continued for five years until1987. In that year, Leon executed an instrument in the proper form of a deed,purporting to convey Profitacre to Mona. Ralph, no admirer of Mona, asserted his right to ownership of Profitacre. Mona asserted her ownership and said that if Ralph had any rights he was obligated to pay real estate taxes,even though Leon had been kind enough to pay them in the past. Income from Profitacre is ample to cover expenses, including real estate taxes.In an appropriate action to determine the rights of the parties, the court should decide (A) Leon's purported deed forfeited his life estate, so Ralph owns Profitacre in fee simple. (B) Mona owns an estate for her life, is entitled to all income, and must pay real estate taxes; Ralph owns the remainder interest. (C) Mona owns an estate for the life of Leon,is entitled to all income, and must pay real estate taxes; Ralph owns the remainder interest. (D) Mona owns an estate for the life of Leon and is entitled to all income; Ralph owns the remainder interest, and must pay real estate taxes.

(C) Mona owns an estate for the life of Leon,is entitled to all income, and must pay real estate taxes; Ralph owns the remainder interest.

Owen, the owner of Greenacre, a tract of land,mortgaged Greenacre to ABC Bank to secure his preexisting obligation to ABC Bank. The mortgage was promptly and properly recorded.Owen and Newton then entered into a valid written contract for the purchase and sale of Greenacre, which provided for the transfer of"a marketable title, free of encumbrances."The contract did not expressly refer to the mortgage.Shortly after entering into the contract,Newton found another property that much better suited her needs and decided to try to avoid her contract with Owen. When Newton discovered the existence of the mortgage, she asserted that the title was encumbered and that she would not close. Owen responded byoffering to provide for payment and discharge of the mortgage at the closing from the proceeds of the closing. Newton refused to go forward, and Owen brought an appropriate action against her for specific performance.If the court holds for Owen in this action, it will most likely be because (A) the mortgage is not entitled to priority because it was granted for preexisting obligations. (B) the doctrine of equitable conversion supports the result. (C) Owen's arrangements for the payment of the mortgage fully satisfied Owen's obligation to deliver marketable title. (D) the existence of the mortgage was not Newton's real reason for refusing to close.

(C) Owen's arrangements for the payment of the mortgage fully satisfied Owen's obligation to deliver marketable title.

O grants Blackacre to "A; but if marijuana is inhaled on the premises, then O has the right to reenter and take the premises." What interest is O trying to create, and if different, the interests actually created.

A has a fee simple subject to condition subsequent. O's right of entry is an interest in the grantor and is a vested interest. There is no RAP problem

Blackacre is a large tract of land owned by a religious order known as The Seekers. On Blackacre, The Seekers erected a large residential building where its members reside.Blackacre is surrounded by rural residential properties and its only access to a public way is afforded by an easement over a strip of land30 feet wide. The easement was granted to The Seekers by deed from Sally, the owner of one of the adjacent residential properties. The Seekers built a driveway on the strip, and theeasement was used for 20 years withoutincident or objection. Last year, as permitted by the applicable zoning ordinance, The Seekers constructed a200-bed nursing home and a parking lot on Blackacre, using all of Blackacre that was available for such development. The nursing home was very successful, and on Sundays visitors to the nursing home overflowed the parking facilities on Blackacre and parked all along the driveway from early in the morning through the evening hours. After two Sundays of the resulting congestion and inconvenience,Sally erected a barrier across the driveway on Sundays preventing any use of the drivewayby anyone seeking access to Blackacre. TheSeekers objected. Sally brought an appropriate action to terminate the easement. The most likely result in this action is that the court will hold for (A) Sally, because The Seekers excessively expanded the use of the dominant tenement. (B) Sally, because the parking on the driveway exceeded the scope of the easement. (C) The Seekers, because expanded use of the easement does not terminate the easement. (D) The Seekers, because Sally's use of self-help denies her the right to equitable relief.

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

Eight years ago, Orben, prior to moving to a distant city, conveyed Blackacre, an isolated farm, to his son, Sam, by a quitclaim deed.Sam paid no consideration. Sam, who was 19years old, without formal education, and without experience in business, took possession of Blackacre and operated the farm but neglected to record his deed. Subsequently,Orben conveyed Blackacre to Fred by warranty deed. Fred, a substantial land and timber promoter, paid valuable consideration for the deed to him. He was unaware of Sam's possession, his quitclaim deed, or his relationship to Orben. Fred promptly and properly recorded his deed and began removing timber from the land. Immediately upon learning of Fred's actions, Sam recorded his deed and brought an appropriate action to enjoin Fred from removing the timber and to quiet title in Sam. The recording act of the jurisdiction provides: "No conveyance or mortgage of real property shall be good against subsequent purchasers for value and without notice unless the same be recorded according to law." In this action, Fred should (A) prevail, because a warranty deed for valuable consideration takes priority over a quitclaim deed without consideration. (B) prevail, because Orben's subsequent conveyance to Fred revoked the gift to Sam. (C) lose, because Sam's possession charged Fred with notice. (D) lose, because the equities favor Sam.

(C) lose, because Sam's possession charged Fred with notice.

Oliver, owner of Blackacre, needed money.Blackacre was fairly worth $100,000, so Oliver tried to borrow $60,000 from Len on the security of Blackacre. Len agreed, but only if Oliver would convey Blackacre to Len outright by warranty deed, with Len agreeing orally to re-convey to Oliver once the loan was paid according to its terms. Oliver agreed,conveyed Blackacre to Len by warranty deed,and Len paid Oliver $60,000 cash. Len promptly and properly recorded Oliver's deed.Now, Oliver has defaulted on repayment with$55,000 still due on the loan. Oliver is still in possession.Which of the following best states the parties' rights in Blackacre? (A) Len's oral agreement to re-convey is invalid under the Statute of Frauds, so Len owns Blackacre outright. (B) Oliver, having defaulted, has no further rights in Blackacre, so Len may obtain summary eviction. (C) The attempted security arrangement is a creature unknown to the law, hence a nullity; Len has only a personal right to$55,000 from Oliver. (D) Len may bring whatever foreclosure proceeding is appropriate under the laws of the jurisdiction.

(D) Len may bring whatever foreclosure proceeding is appropriate under the laws of the jurisdiction.

Sixty years ago by a properly executed and recorded deed, Albert conveyed Greenacre, a tract of land: "To Louis for life, then to Louis's widow for her life, then to Louis's child or children in equal shares." At that time,Louis, who was Albert's grandson, was six years old.Shortly thereafter, Albert died testate. Louis was his only heir at law. Albert's will left his entire estate to First Church.Twenty-five years ago, when he was 41, Louis married Maria who was then 20 years old;they had one child, Norman. Maria and Norman were killed in an automobile accident three years ago when Norman was 21. Norman died testate, leaving his entire estate to the American Red Cross. His father, Louis, was Norman's sole heir at law.Two years ago, Louis married Zelda. They had no children. This year, Louis died testate,survived by his widow, Zelda, to whom he left his entire estate.The common-law Rule Against Perpetuities is unchanged by statute in the jurisdiction.In an appropriate action to determine the ownership of Greenacre, the court should find that title is vested in (A) First Church, because the widow of Louis was unborn at the time of conveyance and, hence, the remainder violated the Rule Against Perpetuities. (B) Zelda, because her life estate and her inheritance from Louis (who was Albert's sole heir at law and who was Norman's sole heir at law) merged the entire title in her. (C) the American Red Cross, because Norman had a vested remainder interest(as the only child of Louis) that it inherited, the life estate to Louis's widow being of no force and effect. (D) Zelda for life under the terms of Albert's deed, with the remainder to the American Red Cross as the successor in interest to Norman, Louis's only child.

(D) Zelda for life under the terms of Albert's deed, with the remainder to the American Red Cross as the successor in interest to Norman, Louis's only child.

O grants Blackacre to "A for life, then to B's grandchildren who reach the age of 21." Assume that B is dead at the time the interest is created, leaving children but no grandchildren. What interest is O trying to create, and if different, the interests actually created.

A has a life estate and B's grandchildren have contingent remainders. Reversion in O. This does not violate RAP because B's children are the relevant measuring lives

Pauline and Doris own adjacent parcels of land. On each of their parcels was a low-rise office building. The two office buildings were of the same height.Last year Doris decided to demolish the low-rise office building on her parcel and to erect anew high-rise office building of substantially greater height on the parcel as permitted by the zoning and building ordinances. She secured all the governmental approvals necessary to pursue her project.As Doris's new building was in the course of construction, Pauline realized that the shadows it would create would place her (Pauline's)building in such deep shade that the rent she could charge for space in her building would be substantially reduced.Pauline brought an appropriate action against Doris to enjoin the construction in order to eliminate the shadow problem and for damages. Pauline presented uncontroverted evidence that her evaluation as to the impact of the shadow on the fair rental value of her building was correct. There is no statute or ordinance (other than the building and zoning ordinances) that is applicable to the issues before the court.The court should (A) grant to Pauline the requested injunction. (B) award Pauline damages measured by the loss of rental value, but not an injunction. (C) grant judgment for Doris, because she had secured all the necessary governmental approvals for the new building. (D) grant judgment for Doris, because Pauline has no legal right to have sunshine continue to reach the windows of her building

(D) grant judgment for Doris, because Pauline has no legal right to have sunshine continue to reach the windows of her building

O conveys Blackacre "to A for life, then to B for life, then to C." Is B's remainder vested or contingent?

Contingent

O grants Blackacre by devise (a grant of real estate in a will) to "A for life, then to my grandchildren who graduate from high school." O has children B and C, but no grandchildren at the time of the grant What interest is O trying to create, and if different, the interests actually created.

The remainder violates the RAP because the graduation of a grandchild from high school can take place more than 21 years after the last death of O's children.

O grants Blackacre "to A for life, then to A's husband if he survives her." What interests are created? a. A has a life estate, and A's husband has a contingent remainder, O has an implied reversion. b. A has a life estate, and A's husband has a contingent remainder, O has nothing. c. A has a life estate, and A's husband has a contingent remainder, O has contingent remainder. d. A has a life estate, A's husband has a life estate pur autre vie, O has a future interest.

a. A has a life estate, and A's husband has a contingent remainder, O has an implied reversion.

A has a complex, multigenerational vision for what should happen to her estate, Blackacre. Which of the following clauses should her lawyer include to help ensure that any court interpreting her plans for Blackacre follows her intent? a. A savings clause b. A clause stating that her vision puts Blackacre to its highest and best use c. A clause explaining the reasoning behind her intent d. A clause authorizing cy pres

a. A savings clause

Fifteen years ago, two men who were fishing buddies moved onto vacant rural land owned by a woman they didn't know and built a small fishing shack on it. Twelve years ago, the men replaced the shack with a fish processing plant and a commercial fishing boat dock. The men maintained their commercial fishery operation on the land until one of them died interestate last year, leaving a sole heir. The period of time to acquire title by adverse possession in the jurisdiction is 10 years. The woman has now become aware of the changes that have occurred on the land. In an action to determine title, for whom should the court decide? a. For the man who is still alive, and the deceased man's heir, because the men acquired title as tenants in common b. For the man who is still alive, because he is the surviving adverse possessor c. For the woman, because the use was changed by the men while they were in possession d. For the woman, because title cannot be claimed by two adverse possessors simultaneously

a. For the man who is still alive, and the deceased man's heir, because the men acquired title as tenants in common

A builder sold a new house to a buyer for use as the buyer's residence. The buyer paid 10% of the purchase price and financed the rest by executing a promissory note and purchase money mortgage to the builder. A year later, the buyer missed several mortgage payments to the builder and became unable to make payments. During that year, property values in the neighborhood declined substantially. The builder suggested that the buyer deed the house back to the builder to settle all claims and avoid the costs and other disadvantages of foreclosure. The buyer deeded the house back to the builder. Does the builder now own fee simple title to the house? a. Yes, because the transaction was reasonable and fair under the circumstances. b. Yes, because of the doctrine of equitable redemption. c. No, because the deed back to the builder constitutes a disguised mortgage. d. No, because the owner of a personal residence cannot waive the right to foreclosure.

a. Yes, because the transaction was reasonable and fair under the circumstances.

O grants Blackacre "to A; but if marijuana is inhaled on the premises, then O shall have the right to reenter and take the premises." What interests are created? a. A has a fee simple determinable; O has a possibility of reverter. b. A has a fee simple subject to a condition subsequent. O has the right of entry. c. A has a fee simple subject to executory limitation, O has an executory interest. d. A has a fee simple absolute, O has nothing.

b. A has a fee simple subject to a condition subsequent. O has the right of entry.

O grants Blackacre "to A for life, then to B and his heirs." What interests are created? a.A has a life estate and B has a remainder in fee simple, O has a possibility of reverter. b. A has a life estate and B has a remainder in fee simple. c. A has a life estate, then B has a life estate, B's heirs have a remainder in fee simple d.A has a life estate and B and his heirs have a remainder, O has a right of entry if B fails to have children.

b. A has a life estate and B has a remainder in fee simple.

O grants Blackacre "to A for life, then to B for life, then to B's children who survive him." What interests are created? a. A has a life estate, B has a remainder in life estate, B's children have contingent remainders. b. A has a life estate, B has a remainder in life estate, B's children have contingent remainders, and O has a reversion. c. A has a life estate, B has a remainder in life estate, O has a reversion. d. A has a life estate, B has a remainder in life estate, B's children have an executory interest

b. A has a life estate, B has a remainder in life estate, B's children have contingent remainders, and O has a reversion.

O grants Blackacre "to A for life, then, if B passes the bar, to B and his heirs as long as he remains a member in good standing of the bar." B is a student in law school. What interests are created? a. A has a life estate. B has a contingent remainder in fee simple determinable. O has a possibility of reverter. b. A has a life estate. B has a contingent remainder in fee simple determinable. O has a reversion and a possibility of reverter. c. A has a life estate. B has nothing yet. O has a contingent reversion. d. A has a life estate. B has a remainder subject to complete divestment. O has a reversion and a possibility of reverter.

b. A has a life estate. B has a contingent remainder in fee simple determinable. O has a reversion and a possibility of reverter.

O grants Blackacre "to A for life, then to B and his heirs." Then C enters adversely. Then thirty years later C is still living openly on Blackacre and A, still alive, has never entered. What interests are created? a.C has an interest in fee simple. b. C has a life estate pur autre vie (A's life), B has a remainder in fee simple c. A has a life estate and B has a remainder in fee simple, C has nothing d. A has a right of entry, C has a possessory interest until A enters, B has a remainder provided that A enters.

b. C has a life estate pur autre vie (A's life), B has a remainder in fee simple

O grants Blackacre to "Huxley College, as long as it is used for instructional purposes, then to my son A and his heirs." What interest is O trying to create, and if different, the interests actually created. a. Huxley College has a fee simple. O has a possibility of reverter b. Huxley College has a fee simple determinable. O has a possibility of reverter c. Huxley College has a fee simple determinable. O has an executory interest. d. Huxley College has a fee simple determinable. O has a right of entry.

b. Huxley College has a fee simple determinable. O has a possibility of reverter

The Rule Against Perpetuities never applies to which of the following situations: I. Interests returning to the grantor, however remote II. Interests returning to initial grantee within 21 years III. Interests granted to charitable corporations IV. Easements lasting more than 21 years a. None of the Above b. I, III, and IV c. II, III, and IV d. All of the Above

b. I, III, and IV

O grants Blackacre "to A for life, then to B and her heirs; but if B ever remarries, then to C and her heirs." What interests are created? a. No grant has happened because the restraint on marriage is void against public policy b. A has a life estate, B has nothing, C has an executory interest. c. A has a life estate and B has a remainder in fee simple subject to executory limitation. C seems to have an executory interest. d. A has a life estate and B has a remainder in fee simple

c. A has a life estate and B has a remainder in fee simple subject to executory limitation. C seems to have an executory interest.

Siblings A, B, and C inherit their parent's house as tenants in common. C, as the baby of the family, still lives at home and has little income. Although C now spends most of her days playing video games, she has kept up with the maintenance and was her parents' full-time caregiver at the end of their lives. The parents often talked about leaving the house to C in exchange for her care but they never updated their will to reflect this promise. A and B sue to partition the property by sale. Which of the following factors may influence the court's decision: I. Whether the parcel can be divided into at least two pieces II. That C is in actual possession of the property III. That C relied on the parents' promise IV. Whether a sale will enable the property to be put to a more productive use a. All of the above b. I, II, and III c. I and II d. I, II, and IV

c. I and II

A son loaned his father a large sum of money. The father signed a 10-year promissory note and secured the note with a mortgage on his farm. The mortgage was promptly recorded. The next year, the father died intestate. The father's heirs were the son and his two sisters. The sisters first learned of the mortgage just after their father died. The sisters now assert that the son, their brother, holds the mortgage for their benefit as well as for himself because as a tenant in common with his sisters, he has a fiduciary duty toward them. There are no applicable statutes. Are the sisters correct a. No, because the three siblings took the farm as tenants in common rather than as joint tenants with right of survivorship. b. Yes, because their three interests are equal. c. No, because the mortgage was granted before the tenancy in common was created. d. Yes, because a fiduciary relationship exists among tenants in common.

c. No, because the mortgage was granted before the tenancy in common was created.

O grants Blackacre "to Springfield Hospital as long as it is used for the care of patients, then to Springfield Animal Clinic." What interests are created? a. Springfield Hospital has a fee simple subject to executory limitation, and Springfield Animal Clinic has an possibility of reverter. b. The grant is invalid because it violates the Rule Against Perpetuities c. Springfield Hospital has a fee simple subject to executory limitation, and Springfield Animal Clinic has an executory interest.

c. Springfield Hospital has a fee simple subject to executory limitation, and Springfield Animal Clinic has an executory interest.

A landlord leased a commercial building to a tenant for five years. Rent was payable on the first day of each month, and the landlord retained the right to terminate the lease if the tenant defaulted. The lease term ended 18 months ago. However, the tenant has stayed in possession of the building and has continued to pay the rent on time. The landlord has continued to accept the rent. The fair rental value of the building is now substantially more than what the tenant has been paying, and the landlord recently found a third party who will pay the higher rent. When the tenant paid the rent six weeks ago, the landlord accepted the rent but told the tenant in writing that she had to vacate at the end of the month. The tenant, who is still in possession of the building, has informed the landlord that she does not want to move and is willing to pay the current fair rental value. The landlord has asked his lawyer for advice regarding the right to possession. Who should the lawyer say is entitled to possession? a. The tenant, because the landlord has not shown good cause to terminate the tenancy. b. The landlord, because he retained the right to reenter. c. The landlord, because he gave proper notice to terminate the tenancy. d. The tenant, because she has stated that she is willing to pay the current fair rental value.

c. The landlord, because he gave proper notice to terminate the tenancy.

O grants Blackacre to "A; but if marijuana is inhaled on the premises, then to B and her heirs." What interest is O trying to create, and if different, the interests actually created. a. A has a life estate, B has a contingent remainder b. A has a fee simple subject to executory limitation, O has an executory interest, B has nothing c. A has a fee simple absolute, O and B have nothing. d. A has a fee simple subject to executory limitation, B has an executory interest.

d. A has a fee simple subject to executory limitation, B has an executory interest.y.

By warranty deed, Marta conveyed Blackacre to Beth and Christine "as joint tenants with right of survivorship." Beth and Christine are married. Beth secretly conveyed all her interest to Eugenio by warranty deed and subsequently died intestate. Thereafter, Christine conveyed to Darin by warranty deed. There is no applicable statute, and the jurisdiction recognizes the common-law joint tenancy. Title to Blackacre is in: a. Marta b. Darin and the heirs of Beth, as tenants in common c. Darin and Eugenio, as tenants in common d. Darin

d. Darin

Thirty years ago, a landowner conveyed land by warranty deed to a church (a charity) "so long as the land herein conveyed is used as the site for the principal religious edifice maintained by said church." Twenty years ago, the landowner died intestate, survived by a single heir. One year ago, the church dissolved and its church building situated on the land was demolished. There is no applicable statute. The common law Rule Against Perpetuities is unmodified in the jurisdiction. In an appropriate action, the landowner's heir and the attorney general, who is the appropriate official to assert public interests in charitable trusts, contest the right to the land. In this action, who will prevail? a. The landowner's heir, because a charity cannot convey assets donated to it. b. The attorney general, because the landowner's attempt to restrict the church's fee simple violated the common law Rule Against Perpetuities. c. The attorney general, because cy pres should be applied to devote the land to religious purposes to carry out the charitable intent of the landowner. d. The landowner's heir, as successor to the landowner's possibility of reverter.

d. The landowner's heir, as successor to the landowner's possibility of reverter.

In the most recent deed conveying a parcel of land, A conveyed the land as follows: "To my niece and her heirs and assigns in fee simple until my niece's daughter, B, marries, and then to B and her heirs and assigns in fee simple." There is no applicable statute, and the common law RAP has not been modified in the jurisdiction. Which of the following is the most accurate statement concerning the title to the land? a. The niece has a life estate and B has a contingent remainder. b. The niece has a fee simple and B has no interest, because A had nothing left to convey after granting the parcel in fee simple to his niece. c. The niece has a fee simple and B has no interest, because she might not marry within 21 years after the date of the deed d. The niece has a defeasible fee simple determinable and B has an executory interest

d. The niece has a defeasible fee simple determinable and B has an executory interest