29. Questions Flashcards
X wrote in his will that he will give his estate ‘to Y’. How long can Y possess X’s estate?
Indefinite duration
- Present estate (Y as holder)
- Fee simple absolute (no restraints)
X wrote in his will that he will give his estate ‘to Y and his heirs’. X now wants to sell it to his manager. What can X do?
Fee simple absolute
- Must transfer to Y (no restraints)
X wrote that he will give his estate ‘to Y for as long as he runs his own company’. How long can Y possess X’s estate?
Potentially infinite duration
- Defeasible fee (terminates upon specified event)
- Y can possess X’s estate until Y no longer runs his own company
X wrote that he will give his estate ‘to Y while he runs his own company’. Y wants to sell his estate to his friend, but Y’s son claims he is entitled to it. X decided to sell his estate to Z, but X’s son claims he is entitled to it. Meanwhile, X claims he is entitled to it when Y stops running his company, but Y argues such provision is not included. What can X do?
Fee simple determinable (termination ‘for as long as’)
X’s options
- Sell to Z
- Devise to X’s son (by will)
- If Y no longer runs own company => Estate reverts back to X (possibility of reverter) (NO need for express provision)
Y’s options
- Sell to Friend
- Devise to Y’s son (by will)
X wrote that he will give his estate ‘to Y provided that Y does not sell goods on the estate’. X claims he is entitled to it if Y sells goods, but Y argues such provision is not included. What can Y do?
Fee simple subject to condition subsequent (termination ‘provided that’)
- X has NOT expressly reserved right of entry
- If Y sells goods on the estate => Estate may become covenant (prevent sale of goods on estate) OR fee simple absolute to Y
X wrote that he will give his estate ‘to Y provided that Y does not sell goods on the estate. In the event that goods are sold on the estate, X and his heirs may enter and terminate the estate hereby conveyed’. After X gave his estate to Y, X wrote an express agreement stating he forfeits his right of entry. Y started selling goods on the estate. X claimed he should have the estate back, even though he did not do anything. What can Y do?
Fee simple subject to condition subsequent (termination ‘provided that’)
- X has expressly reserved right of entry
- X has waived his right of entry (forfeiture by express agreement) (X’s inaction NOT relevant)
- If Y sells goods on the estate => Estate remains with Y (NOT revert back to X)
X wrote that he will give his estate ‘to Y provided that Y does not sell goods on the estate. In the event that goods are sold on the estate, X and his heirs may enter and terminate the estate hereby conveyed’. X decided to sell his right of entry to Z, but X’s son claims he is entitled to it. What can X and Y do?
Fee simple subject to condition subsequent (termination ‘provided that’)
- X has expressly reserved right of entry
- X cannot sell right of entry to Z (NO conveyance allowed)
- X can descend right of entry to X’s son (descend allowed)
X wrote that he will give his estate ‘to Y for as long as Y does not sell goods on the estate. In the event that goods are sold on the estate, X and his heirs may enter and terminate the estate hereby conveyed’. What type of estate is this?
Fee simple subject to condition subsequent (right of entry)
- Policy disfavours automatic forfeiture of estates (Fee simple determinable - ‘As long as’)
X wrote that he will give his estate ‘to Y provided that Y does not sell goods on the estate. Otherwise the estate will go to Z’. X claims he is entitled to it if Y sells goods, but Y argues he is entitled to it because such provision is not included. What can Y do?
Fee simple subject to executory interest (termination ‘provided that’ and to TP)
- X has NOT expressly reserved right of entry
- If Y sells goods on the estate => Estate will automatically pass to Z (executory interest)
X wrote in his will that he will give his estate ‘to Y for the life of X’s son’. How long can Y possess X’s estate?
Life of X’s son
- Present estate (Y as life tenant/holder)
- Life estate pur autre view indefeasible (life of X’s son)
X wrote in his will that he will give his estate ‘to Y for life’. Y wants to sell it to Z, but Y’s son claims he can inherit the estate if X dies. What can Y do?
Life estate
- Sell to Y’s manager
- Devise (by will)
- Descend to Y’s son (by NO will)
X wrote in his will that he will give his estate ‘to Y for the life of X’s son, but in no event for more than 10 years’. How long can Y possess X’s estate?
Less than 10 years (defeasible life estate)
- Present estate (Y as life tenant/holder)
- Estate for years (no longer than 10 years)
X wrote in his will that he will give his estate ‘to Y for life’. How long can Y possess X’s estate?
Life of Y
- Present estate (Y as life tenant/holder)
- Life estate indefeasible (life of Y)
X wrote in his will that he will give his estate ‘to Y for the life of X’s son’. Y died first. Who takes X’s estate?
Life estate pur autre vie (for X’s son’s life)
- Estate can go to ‘Special occupant’ (if named by X)
- Estate can go to Y’s named heirs (devisable if Y has will)
- Estate can go to Y’s heirs (descendible if Y has NO will)
X wrote in his will that he will give his estate ‘to Y for the life of X’s son, then to Z’. Y set fire to the shed on the estate. What are Z’s rights?
Life estate pur autre vie
- Sue Y for damages to shed
- Enjoin Y burning shed
X wrote in his will that he will give his estate ‘to Y for life’. Y failed to pay usual taxes. X paid instead. What are X’s rights?
Life estate
- Claim reimbursement (taxes) from Y for performing Y’s obligations (taxes)
X wrote in his will that he will give his estate ‘to Y for life’. Y was taking some water out of X’s pond, which was required to keep the pond clean. Is Y liable to X?
NOT liable
- Life estate
- Y’s duty not to commit voluntary waste (not consume water)
- Exception: Y can consume water if necessary for maintenance (keep pond clean)
X wrote in his will that he will give his estate ‘to Y for life, then to Z’. Y was mining some gold in X’s land having realised X was in the middle of doing so before giving the land to Y. Y also decided to mine for some silver thinking it would be okay as well. Is Y liable to Z?
Liable to X (silver, NOT gold)
- Life estate
- Y’s duty not to commit voluntary waste (mining)
- Exception: Y can mine if already open (for that use only) (Open mines doctrine)
- Y can mine for gold (already open), but NOT for silver (NOT open)
X wrote in his will that he will give his estate ‘to Y for life, then to Z’. B had a mortgage on the land after X previously borrowed $10,000. Y failed to pay the interest on the mortgage. Z now claims Y to pay the $10,000 and interest. Is Y liable to Z?
Liable to Z (interest, NOT principal)
- Life estate
- Permissive waste (mortgage)
- Y is life tenant => Y must pay interest
- Z is remainderman => Z must pay principal
X wrote in his will that he will give his estate ‘to Y for life, then to Z’. Z told Y to add some monuments to the estate because the real estate market was improving and a new opportunity came up for Z. Y refused to do so. Is Y liable to Z?
Not liable to Z
- Life estate
- Y’s duty not to commit permissive waste (preserve estate in reasonable state of repair)
- Exception: Y does NOT have to make permanent improvements even if he thinks it is wise to do so (monument installation for investment)
X wrote in his will that he will give his estate ‘to Y for life, then to Z’. Y’s neighbour tried to steal from Y’s house and broke his bedroom wall. Is Y liable to Z?
Not liable to Z (modern view)
- Life estate
- Y’s duty not to commit permissive waste (preserve estate in reasonable state of repair)
- Exception: Y is NOT liable for third party damages (tort) (modern view)
- May be liable (common law)
X wrote in his will that he will give his estate ‘to Y for life, then to Z’. The property is old but still manages to produce consistent rental income. Y decides to tear the property down and replace it with a commercial building, which will certainly bring greater income. Z does not want Y to do this. Is Y liable to Z?
Liable to Z
- Life estate
- Y’s duty not to commit ameliorative waste (not change use of land that economically benefits land)
- Y could demolish property because it will not diminish future interest’s market value (increases rental income)
- BUT Z objected + such substantial change to neighbourhood conditions will not deprive property in its current form of reasonable productivity (consistent rental income)
X wrote in his will that he will give his estate ‘to Y for life, then to Z’. The property is old and lacks rental income. Y rented the property to his friend. His friend decides to replace the property with new refurbishments, which increase the value of the property by 10%. Is Y’s friend liable to Z?
Liable to Z
- Life estate
- Y’s friend’s duty not to commit ameliorative waste (not change use of land that economically benefits land)
- Y’s friend could NOT demolish property even though it will not diminish future interest’s market value (Lease tenants remain liable regardless)
X wrote in his will that he will give his estate ‘to Y for life, then to Z’. Y considers asking the court to sell parts of the land because it has almost no present value. The court orders sale and Y receives the proceeds. Is Y liable to Z?
Liable to Z
- Life estate
- Y’s duty not to commit ameliorative waste (not change use of land that economically benefits land)
- Y can order judicial partition sale (land has NO value)
- Y must place proceeds in trust + can receive income from trust
X conveys land ‘to Y for life, and on Y’s death to Z in fee simple as long as Z survives Y’. Z dies first. X claims he is entitled to the land, but Y refuses to give it back because X did not expressly state this. Who takes X’s land?
X
- Life estate determinable (X => Y => Z) (possibility of reverter)
- Y has present interest
- Z has future interest (contingent remainder) (only passes to Z if Z survives Y)
- X has future (reversionary) interest (X conveyed estate of lesser duration to Y than duration of possibly reverting estate) (possibility of reverter) (only passes to X if Z does NOT survive Y) (NO need to be expressly stated)
- Z did NOT survive Y => X takes land (automatic reversion)
X conveys land ‘to Y for life, and on Y’s death X and his heirs may enter and terminate the estate hereby conveyed’. Y dies. Who takes X’s land?
X and X’s heirs (if he exercises his right of entry)
- Life estate subject to condition subsequent (right of entry)
- Y has present interest
- X has future interest
X conveys land ‘to Y for the life of X’s son’. X dies without a will. Y fails to pay necessary taxes on the land. Some burglars enter the land and damage the windows. Who is liable?
Y is liable (permissive waste)
- Life estate pur autre vie (for life of X’s son)
- X has future (reversionary) interest (reverts to X after X’s son dies)
- X died first without will (X descended his reversionary interest to his heirs)
- X’s heirs can sue Y (permissive waste - failure to pay necessary taxes)
Burglars are liable (tort)
- Life estate pur autre vie (for life of X’s son)
- X has future (reversionary) interest (reverts to X after X’s son dies)
- X died first without will (X descended his reversionary interest to his heirs)
- X’s heirs can sue burglars in tort (TP wrongdoers)
X conveys land ‘to Y but if Y gets employed, X can re-enter the land and terminate the estate’. X decided to sell his right of entry to Z. Y decides to mine some gold on the land. Can Z sue Y?
No
- Fee simple subject to condition subsequent (but if…) (right of entry)
- X can NOT sell right of entry (Z has NO interest)
- Voluntary waste (mining) is allowed on defeasible fee (NOT life estate) (Y is NOT liable)
X conveys land ‘to Y while Y is working in a bakery’. Z claims he is entitled to the land because the conveyance violates the Rule Against Perpetuities. Is Z entitled to the land?
No
- Fee simple determinable (while…)
- X has future (reversionary) interest (possibility of reverter)
- Reversionary interest is vested (NOT subject to RAP)
X conveys land ‘to Y for life’. Y dies. Z claims he should be entitled to the land, despite not expressly provided in the conveyance. X claims he should be entitled. Who is entitled to the land?
X
- Life estate (for Y’s life)
- X has future (reversionary) interest (possibility of reverter) (no need to be expressly stated)
- Z has NO remainder (must be expressly stated)
- If Y dies => Land automatically reverts back to X
On Monday, X conveyed his land ‘to Y for life’. On Wednesday, X conveyed ‘all of my right, title and interest in the land to Z’. Who is entitled to the land?
Y
- Life estate (for Y’s life)
- Z has reversionary interest (X transferred (conveyed) reversionary interest to Z)
- Z has NO remainder (NOT same disposition as preceding estate - Dispositions on Monday + Wednedsay)
X conveys land ‘to Y, then to Z’. Y now has possession of the land. Is Z also entitled to the land?
No
- Fee simple (X to Y)
- NO remainders allowed in fee simple (indefinite duration, remainders cannot cut short preceding estate without a time gap)
X conveyed land ‘to Y for life, then to X’s first-born son’. X gave birth to his daughter, Z, then to his son, B. Are X’s children entitled to the land?
B
- Life estate
- B has indefeasibly vested remainder (ascertained first-born son)
- Z has no interest
X conveyed land ‘to Y for life, then to Z’. Z died first. Who is entitled to the land?
- Life estate
- Z had indefeasibly vested remainder (ascertained, NO condition precedent)
- Remainder may pass to Z’s devisees (by will)
- Remainder may pass to Z’s heirs (by NO will)
X conveyed land ‘to Y for life, and on Y’s death to his children in equal shares.’ Y died without any children. Who is entitled to the land?
X
- Y had life estate
- Y’s children had contingent remainder (NOT ascertained)
- Y died with NO children (NO vested remainder subject to open)
- X has reversionary interest (possibility of reverter)
X conveyed land ‘to Y for life, and on Y’s death to his children in equal shares.’ Y has two children. Who is entitled to the land?
- Y has life estate
- Y’s children have vested remainder subject to open (partial investment) (tenants in common - equal shares)
X conveyed land ‘to Y for life, and on Y’s death to X’s children in equal shares.’ X has two children, B and C. B dies. X dies. Who is entitled to the land?
- Class closed (X died)
- X’s children’s vested remainder subject to open became indefeasibly vested remainder (ascertainable persons) (BUT Y still holds life estate until she dies)
- If Y dies => 50% goes to B’s devisees/heirs + 50% goes to C
X conveyed land ‘to Y for life, and on Y’s death to X’s children in equal shares.’ X has two children, B and C. What interests do X’s born and unborn children have?
Born children (B, C) - Vested remainder subject to open (possessory upon naturally termination of X's life)
Unborn children
- Executory interest (NOT possessory upon natural termination of X’s life)
X conveyed land ‘to Y for life, then to Z, but if Z is not survived by an issue, then to B and his heirs’. What interests do the parties have in the land?
- Y has life estate
- Z has vested remainder subject to condition subsequent (but if)
- B has executory interest
X conveyed land ‘to Y for life, then to Z for life.’ What interests do the parties have in the land?
- Y has life estate
- Z has vested remainder subject to condition subsequent (Z loses interest if he dies before Y)
- X has reversionary interest (NO TP included)
X conveyed land ‘to Y for life, then to Z if he marries B’. Z married B. What interest does Z have in the land?
- Y has life estate
- Z had contingent remainder (Condition precedent - Z must marry B)
- Z married B, Y is still alive (NO longer condition precedent)
- Z now has indefeasibly vested remainder (NO condition precedent) (becomes possessory upon Y’s death)
X conveyed land ‘to Y for life, then to Z if he survives Y’. Z died. What interest do the parties have in the land?
- Y has life estate
- Z had contingent remainder (Condition precedent - Z must survive Y)
- Z died before Y, Y is still alive (NO longer condition precedent)
- X has reversionary interest (becomes possessory upon Y’s death)
X conveyed land ‘to Y for life, then to Z’s children’. What interest do Z’s children have in the land?
- Y has life estate
- Z’s children have contingent remainder (NOT ascertained/born) until ascertainable (vested remainder subject to open)
X conveyed land ‘to Y for life, then to Z’s children’. Z dies. What interest do any of the parties have in the land?
- Y has life estate
- Z’s children had contingent remainder (NOT ascertained/born, condition precedent is to survive Z)
- Z died => Z’s children NO longer ascertainable
- X has reversionary interest (becomes possessory upon Y’s death)
X conveyed land ‘to Y for life, then to Z when he turns 21’. Y died. Is Z entitled to the land?
Yes
- Z had contingent remainder (condition precedent: Z must turn 21)
- Y died => Z’s contingent remainder became shifting executory interest
- X’s reversionary interest became possessory (Y’s interest passed to X)
- If Z turns 21 => X’s interest will pass to Z
X conveyed land ‘to Y for life, then to Z if he has children’. X purchased Y’s life estate. Is Z still entitled to the land?
No
- Z had contingent remainder (condition precedent: Z must have children)
- X had reversionary interest
- X acquired reversionary interest (future) + Y’s life estate (present)
- Z’s contingent remainder merged with X’s interest => Remainder is destroyed
- X has fee simple
X conveyed land ‘to Y for life, then to Z for life, then to Z’s heirs’. Do Z’s heirs have a contingent remainder?
Modern view: Yes
- Z has life estate
- Z’s heirs have contingent remainder
Common law: No
- Rule in Shelley’s Case
- Z has life estate + contingent remainder => Merges into fee simple (Y => Z)
- Z’s heirs have NO contingent remainder
X conveyed land ‘to Y for life, then to X’s heirs’. X’s will provided that X’s cousins will take his land. Who is entitled to X’s land?
Doctrine of Worthier Title
- X’s cousins (on the basis that X’s heirs have no contingent remainder under Doctrine + X had reversionary interest + X’s cousins were devisees under X’s will)
- X’s heirs (on the basis that X intended to create contingent remainder in X’s heirs by fulfilling burden of proof)
X conveyed land ‘to Y for life, then to Z for life, but if Z gets married before he dies, in that event to B and his heirs’. What interest does B have in the land?
Shifting executory interest
- Divests Z’s interest (cuts short Z’s preceding estate)
X conveyed land ‘to Y when and if Y marries Z’. What interest does X and Y have in the land?
X: Fee simple subject to executory interest
Y: Springing executory interest
- If Y marries Z => Y’s executory interest divests X’s estate
X conveyed land ‘to Y for life, and one year after Y’s death to Z’. What interest does X, Y and Z have in the land?
X: Reversionary interest
- Y’s estate reverts back to X (if Z dies before Y, and Y dies)
Y: Life estate
Z: Springing executory interest
- Z’s executory interest springs out of X’s reversionary interest (1 year after Y’s death and Z is alive)
- Time gap in possession (1 year) (NOT pass to Z after natural termination of Y’s estate)
X conveys land ‘to Y, then to Z’. Y now has possession of the land. Does Z have an executory interest in the land?
No
- Fee simple (to Y)
- No executory interests allowed in fee simples
X conveyed land ‘to Y if Y marries Z’. Z claims this violates Rule against Perpetuities. Does this violate RAP?
Yes
- Fee simple subject to executory interest (springing)
- Executory interests are subject to RAP
X conveyed land ‘to Y, but if Y dies and his children are married, to Z’. Y claims this violates Rule against Perpetuities. Does this violate RAP?
Yes
- Fee simple subject to executory interest (shifting)
- Executory interests are subject to RAP
- Executory interest is destroyed
- X has fee simple absolute
X conveyed land ‘to Y for life, then to Z, but if Z dies without any issues, then to B’. Z died without any issues and left a will leaving his estate to Z’s spouse. Who takes the land?
B (on Y’s death)
- Y has life estate
- Z has vested remainder subject to condition subsequent
- B has shifting executory interest
- Z’s survival was conditional to taking Y’s estate
- Z’s conveyance > Z’s will (Z cannot devise/descend estate)
X conveyed land ‘to Y for life, then to Z if he survives’. Z’s bank wants to take Z’s estate for failure to pay back his loans. Z dies. Who takes the land? What if Y died before Z?
X (reversionary interest)
- Y has life estate
- Z had contingent remainder
- Z’s survival over Y was conditional to taking Y’s estate
- Z died => NO contingent remainder => Z’s bank has NO vested interest
- X will take Y’s estate after Y dies (reverter)
Z’s bank (vested creditor - if Y died before Z)
- Y died + Z survives => Z’s bank has vested interest
- Z’s estate can transfer to Z’s bank
X and Y agreed that X will enjoy his use on Blackacre and Y will be able to possess Blackacre but not use it under a contract. Both parties subsequently wrote in another document that they will have the right of survivorship entitling them to the other’s share if one party dies. X died. Will Y be entitled to X’s share?
No
- Tenancy in common
- Different interests + Different instruments
- No right of survivorship (X died => X’s interest passes by intestacy, NOT to Y)
X, Y and Z entered an agreement as joint tenants with right of survivorship. X decided to divide his own share to himself. Y died. Who gets Y’s share?
Z
- Joint tenancy
- X involuntarily partitioned his share (NO consent from Y and Z) => Severance => X is now tenant in common
- Y and Z remain joint tenants
- Y died => Z takes Y’s share as joint tenant (right of survivorship)
X, Y and Z entered an agreement as joint tenants with right of survivorship. X’s creditors obtained a judgment lien on X’s share. Y died. X’s creditors later managed to find a buyer (B) during the foreclosure sale. Who gets Y’s share?
Z
- Joint tenancy
- Judgment lien before foreclosure => B is tenant in common, Y and Z are joint tenants
- Y died => Z gets Y’s share (right of survivorship)
- If Y died after foreclosure => B, Y and Z would be tenants in common (severance) => Y’s heirs would get Y’s share (intestacy)
X, Y and Z entered an agreement as joint tenants with right of survivorship. X mortgaged his interest to Lender, who records. Y died. X defaulted and Lender found Buyer during the foreclosure sale. Who gets Y’s share?
Z (most states)
- Joint tenancy
- Lien theory (most states)
- X’s mortgage before foreclosure => Severs X’s share only (Y + Z remain joint tenants)
- Y died => Z takes Y’s share (right of survivorship)
- X’s mortgage after foreclosure => Severance (X, Y and Z become tenants in common)
- Y died => Y’s heirs take Y’s share (by will/intestacy)
Y’s heirs (few states)
- Joint tenancy
- Title theory (few states)
- X’s mortgage => Severance (X, Y and Z become tenants in common)
- Y died => Y’s heirs take Y’s share (by will/intestacy)
X, Y and Z entered an agreement as joint tenants with right of survivorship. X leased his interest to his brother. X died. Who gets X’s share?
X’s heirs (some states)
- Joint tenancy
- X’s lease severs joint tenancy => Tenants in common (some states)
- X died => X’s heirs take X’s share (by will/intestacy)
Y and Z (some states)
- Joint tenancy
- X’s lease does NOT sever joint tenancy (suspends tenancy until end of lease) (some states)
- X died => Y and Z take X’s share equally (right of survivorship)
X, Y and Z entered an agreement as joint tenants with right of survivorship. X decided to sell his interest to Buyer. Y died. Who gets Y’s share?
Y’s heirs
- Joint tenancy
- Single JT conveyance (X) => Severs joint tenancy (X, Y and Z as tenants in common)
- Buyer has equitable interest => Tenants’ contract becomes mere contract to receive purchase price
- Y died => Y’s heirs take Y’s share (by will/intestacy)
- Buyer is entitled to deed from Y’s estate + Buyer becomes tenant in common with X and Z
X, Y and Z entered an agreement as joint tenants with right of survivorship. All of them decided to sell their interests to Buyer. Y died. Who gets Y’s share?
X and Z (common law)
- Joint tenancy
- ALL JTs conveyance => NO severance (common law) (X, Y and Z remain joint tenants)
- Y died => X and Z take Y’s share (right of survivorship)
Y’s heirs (other courts)
- Joint tenancy
- ALL JTs conveyance => Severance (other courts) (X, Y and Z become tenants in common)
- Buyer has equitable interest => Tenants’ contract becomes mere contract to receive purchase price
- Y died => Y’s heirs take Y’s share (by will/intestacy)
- Buyer is entitled to deed from Y’s estate
X, Y and Z entered an agreement as joint tenants with right of survivorship. X wrote in his will that his property should pass to his children. X died. Who gets X’s share?
Y and Z
- Joint tenancy
- X’s will can NOT sever joint tenancy (X’s rights disappeared at X’s death)
- X died => Y and Z take X’s share equally (right of survivorship)
X, Y and Z entered an agreement as joint tenants with right of survivorship. X was convicted of murdering Y. Who gets Y’s share?
Y’s heirs (some states)
- Joint tenancy
- X murdered Y => Severance
- Y died => Y’s heirs take Y’s share (by will/intestacy)
Y’s beneficiary (some states)
- Joint tenancy
- X murdered Y => NO severance
- Y died => Constructive trust is imposed on Y’s share (Appointed beneficiary enjoys income on Y’s share)
X and Y were married and purchased a house in joint names. X later agreed to sell his share to an investor. Y died. Who is entitled to Y’s share?
X
- Tenancy by the entirety
- NO involuntary partition allowed => NO severance
- Y died => X takes Y’s share (right of survivorship)
X and Y were married and lived in a house in joint names. A few years later, X and Y agreed to divorce. Y died. Who is entitled to Y’s share?
Y’s heirs
- Tenancy by the entirety
- Divorce => Severance (X and Y become Tenants in common)
- Y died => Y’s heirs take Y’s share (by will/intestacy)
X and Y were married and lived in a house in joint names. Both of them sold their estate to an investor as directed by X alone. Y died. Who is entitled to Y’s share?
X
- Tenancy by the entirety
- NO involuntary partition allowed (only X consented to sale) => NO severance
- Y died => X takes Y’s share (right of survivorship)
X and Y were married and lived in a house in joint names. X’s bank requested X to pay his mortgage. Y died. Who is entitled to Y’s share?
X
- Tenancy by the entirety
- NO single creditor execution allowed (must be joint) => NO severance
- Y died => X takes Y’s share (right of survivorship)
X and Y entered an agreement as joint tenants with right of survivorship allowing Y to have all of the possession and X to have majority. X died. Will Y be entitled to X’s share?
No
- Tenancy in common (X is NOT entitled to whole of possession)
- X died => X’s heirs will take X’s share (by will/intestacy)
X and Y entered an agreement as joint tenants. X decided to give half his share to his brother and wrote in his will that his other share will go to his children. X died. Who will be entitled to X’s share?
- Tenancy in common (NO right of survivorship)
- X’s share => Transferred to X’s brother (inter vivos transfer)
- X’s share => Transferred to X’s children (testamentary)
X, Y and Z entered an agreement as joint tenants with right of survivorship. X was kicked out by Y and Z. X tried to sue Y and Z, but they claim the property is theirs alone. Who is entitled to the property?
X, Y and Z
- NO co-tenant has exclusive possession
- X was ousted (kicked out) => X can bring possessory action
X, Y and Z entered an agreement as joint tenants with right of survivorship. X was using the property as he asked Y and Z to leave. X rented his share out to his college friend. X also dug some soil from the garden, which still maintained the value of the property. Are Y and Z entitled to any rents or profits from X?
X (in possession)
Y and Z (out of possession)
Yes
- X’s rent from his college friend (X ousted Y and Z out, even though X derived rent from his own use of property)
NOT
- Profit derived from exploiting garden (NOT reduce value)
X, Y and Z entered an agreement as joint tenants with right of survivorship. X mortgaged his interest to Lender, who records. X died. Lender found Buyer during the foreclosure sale of X’s interest. Who gets X’s share?
Y and Z (most states)
- Joint tenancy
- X’s mortgage before foreclosure => NO severance (X, Y and Z remain joint tenants) (lien theory) (most states)
- X died => Y and Z take X’s share (right of survivorship)
Buyer (few states)
- Joint tenancy
- X’s mortgage => Severance (X, Y and Z become tenants in common) (title theory) (few states)
- X died => Buyer takes X’s share (tenant in common)
X and Y owned land as joint tenants. X insisted on dividing the land into 3 lots, 2 for himself and one for Y. Y thought such a division would be unfair and instead requested they sell the land and divide the proceeds amongst themselves. X asks the court for an order. How should the court make an order?
By sale + division of proceeds
- Partition in kind => NOT fair + reasonable
X leased his apartment to Y for 7 days, but if Y parties in the apartment, he must surrender and give it back to X. What type of tenancy is this?
Tenancy for years
- Fixed duration
- 7 days
- Condition subsequent (but if)
X leased his apartment to Y for 1 year. After 1 year, X told Y to leave. Y complained that X did not give him notice. Did X properly evict Y?
Yes
- Tenancy for years
- Lease >= 1 year (NO writing required) (SOF)
- Lease expired after 1 year
- Termination: No notice required
In January, X leased his apartment to Y for 10 months. The lease included that Y pay his rent on the 1st of every month and Y does not create burns on the walls. Y failed to pay on the 1st of March and Y accidentally created a fire leaving marks on the walls. X told Y to leave immediately. Did X properly evict Y?
Y’s breach of covenants: No
- Tenancy for years (10 months)
- X did NOT reserve right of entry
- Y set fire to walls
- X can NOT terminate tenancy
Y’s failure to pay rent: Yes
- Tenancy for years (10 months)
- NO right of entry required
- Y failed to pay rent timely
- X can terminate tenancy
X leased his apartment to Y for 2 years. After 2 months, Y suddenly chose to give up his lease. X accepted. Did X properly evict Y?
No
- Tenancy for years (2 years)
- Y surrendered
- NO writing included (lease > 1 year) (SOF) => NO termination allowed
X leased his house to Y at $15,000 annual rent, to be paid on the 1st of every month. After the lease ended, X proposed to renew the lease on the same terms and duration. What tenancy will Y have?
Periodic tenancy
- Year-to-year
- Implied (annual rent payable monthly)
X leased his house to Y for 1 year. After the lease ended, Y continued to live in the house. X decided to create a new tenancy for Y, but Y refuses because there was never an agreement to do so. Is Y bound to a new tenancy?
Periodic tenancy
- Tenancy for years
- Lease expired => Y held over lease
- X can bind Y to new periodic tenancy (operation of law - NO agreement required)
In January, X leased his house to Y with rent to be paid on the 1st of every month. On the 1st of March, X told Y to leave his house. Is Y required to leave?
No
- Periodic tenancy (month-to-month)
- NO notice of termination (NOT written + delivered)
In January, X leased his house to Y with rent to be paid on the 1st of every month. On the 28th of February, X sent a written letter to Y requesting him to leave on the 14th March. Is Y required to leave?
No
- Periodic tenancy (month-to-month)
- 1 month’s notice required
- X gave written notice 2 weeks in advance => NO termination
In January, X leased his house to Y at $15,000 annual rent. On the 30th of February, X sent a written letter to Y requesting him to leave next month. Is Y required to leave?
Yes (modern view)
- Periodic tenancy (year-to-year)
- 1 month’s notice required (modern view)
- X gave written notice 1 month in advance => Termination
No (common law)
- Periodic tenancy (year-to-year)
- 6 month’s notice required (common law)
- X gave written notice 1 month in advance => NO termination
X leased his house to Y with rent to be paid every month, which could be terminated by Y at any time. X believed he could terminate the lease. X asked Y to leave with 3 weeks’ notice. Is Y required to leave?
No
- Periodic tenancy (month-to-month)
- NOT tenancy at will (X had NO express right to terminate, Y’s right to terminate does NOT imply X’s right)
- X was required to give 1 months’ notice
- X gave 3 weeks’ notice => NO termination
X leased his house to Y with rent to be paid every month, which could be terminated by X at any time. X tried to assign the tenancy to his friend. Y also tried to assign his right to his father. Is Y required to leave?
Yes
- Tenancy at will (Landlord’s express right to terminate => Implies Tenant’s express right to terminate)
- X’s assignment => NO termination
- Y’s assignment (attempted) => Termination
In January, X orally leased his house to Y for 14 months. After March of the following year, Y continued to stay in the house for another month. X told Y to leave immediately. Is Y required to leave?
No
- NOT tenancy for years (NO writing for lease > 1 year) (SOF)
- NO tenancy at sufferance
In January, X leased his house to Y for 6 months. After July, Y continued to stay in the house for another month. X told Y to leave immediately. Is Y required to leave?
Yes
- Tenancy for years (no writing for lease < 1 year) (SOF)
- Y stayed for 1 month after end of lease => Tenancy at sufferance
- NO notice required for termination
- Y is liable for rent (1 month)
X leased his building to Y for running a restaurant for one year, with rent to be paid on an annual basis. After one year, Y continued to run the business. X thought about finding a new tenant or keeping Y. What are X’s options?
Evict Y (NO notice)
- Commercial tenancy for years (1 year)
- Hold-over doctrine (Y stayed after tenancy expired)
Bind Y to new periodic tenancy
- Commercial tenancy for years (1 year)
- Hold-over doctrine (Y stayed after tenancy expired)
- Year-to-year (1 year lease)
X leased his building to Y for running a restaurant for six months, with rent to be paid monthly. After six months, Y continued to run the business. X thought about finding a new tenant or keeping Y. What are X’s options?
Evict Y (NO notice)
- Commercial tenancy for years (6 months)
- Hold-over doctrine (Y stayed after tenancy expired)
Bind Y to new periodic tenancy
- Commercial tenancy for years (6 months)
- Hold-over doctrine (Y stayed after tenancy expired)
- Month-to-month (rent paid monthly)
X leased his house to Y for 2 months, rent to be paid every week. After 2 months, Y continued living in the house. X thought about finding a new tenant or keeping Y. What are X’s options?
Evict Y (NO notice)
- Residential tenancy for years (2 months)
- Hold-over doctrine (Y stayed after tenancy expired)
Bind Y to new periodic tenancy
- Residential tenancy for years (2 months)
- Hold-over doctrine (Y stayed after tenancy expired)
- Week-to-week (rent paid weekly)
X leased his house to Y in writing for 2 years, rent to be paid every month. After 2 years, Y continued living in the house. X thought about finding a new tenant or keeping Y. What are X’s options?
Evict Y (NO notice)
- Residential tenancy for years (2 years)
- Hold-over doctrine (Y stayed after tenancy expired)
Bind Y to new periodic tenancy
- Residential tenancy for years (2 years)
- Hold-over doctrine (Y stayed after tenancy expired)
- Month-to-month (assumed in residential tenancies)
X leased his house to Y for 6 months, $100 rent to be paid every month. After 6 months, Y continued living in the house. X decided to renew his tenancy at $200 rent per month, but Y refused. How much is Y liable to pay?
$100 pcm
- Tenancy for years (6 months)
- Hold-over
- X told Y his new rent AFTER tenancy expired => Y NOT bound to new rent
- Y’s refusal NOT relevant
X leased his house to Y for 6 months, $100 rent to be paid every month. On the last day before the tenancy expired, X suggested to Y he pay $200 rent per month going forward. Y refused and continued living in the house. How much is Y liable to pay?
$200 pcm
- Tenancy for years (6 months)
- Hold-over
- X told Y his new rent BEFORE tenancy expired => Y bound to new rent
- Y’s refusal NOT relevant
X leased his house to Y for 1 year. After 1 year, X requested Y to leave and he claims back his house. Does X have an interest?
X: Future (reversionary) interest
Y: Present interest
X leased his apartment to Y for 5 years in writing. Y noticed the carpet was slightly torn. X requested Y to repair the carpet and pay the cost of the repair. Is Y required to do so?
No
- Tenant must not commit permissive waste
- Tenant is not liable for wear + tear (only ordinary repair)
- Tenant is not liable for cost of repair (only damage)
X leased his apartment to Y for 5 years in writing. The bedroom suddenly caught fire from the neighbour’s barbeque. X requested Y to repair the walls of the bedroom. Is Y required to do so?
No
- Neither X nor Y at fault
- Y not liable to repair
- Y can terminate lease (majority view)
X leased his restaurant to Y for 5 years in writing. After a few months, X came by and noticed the kitchen walls were completely burnt by an accidental fire caused by a customer. X requested Y to rebuild the walls. Y refused, but X showed him their contract stating Y is required to maintain the walls. Is Y required to do so?
No
- Commercial lease
- Tenant’s covenant to repair is NOT enforced
- Tenant is generally NOT liable to ‘re-build’ due to third party damages
- Lease did NOT expressly provide to ‘re-build’ (lease provided to ‘maintain’)
X leased his house to Y for 5 years in writing. After a few months, X came by and noticed the kitchen walls were completely burnt. X requested Y to rebuild the walls and pay for the damages. Is Y required to do so?
Pay for damages (NOT rebuild walls)
- Residential lease
- Landlord must repair
- Tenant is liable for damages only
X leased his house to Y for 6 months. During that time, Y was cooking meth in the kitchen for sale. Y tried to sell to X, but X refused. What are X’s options?
Y’s illegal purpose (cooking meth)
- Damages (nuisance to neighbours, police arrest)
- Injunctive relief (prevent meth cooking)
- Terminate lease
X leased his house to Y for 6 months. Y paid 1 month’s deposit to X. X did not bother paying interest on the deposit. At the end of the lease, X refused to give back the deposit. What are Y’s rights?
Claim statutory/punitive damages
Claim unpaid interest on deposit
X leased his house to Y for 6 months. Y continued to pay monthly rent. One day, X gave Y one month’s advance notice to vacate the premises due to unforeseen events. X requested Y to pay rent, but Y refused to do so. Is Y required to pay rent?
1 month’s rent
- X terminated lease early
- Y is required to pay proportionate amount (1 month) of agreed rent
X leased his house to Y for 2 years. Y continued to pay monthly rent. One day, Y told X he wants to leave the house for good. X requested Y to pay rent because he is not allowed to leave, but Y refused to do so. Is Y required to pay rent?
Yes
- Lease > 1 year: Writing required (SOF)
- Y’s surrender was not in writing
- NO surrender => Y’s duty to pay rent is NOT terminated
X leased his house to Y for 6 months. For the last two months, Y failed to pay rent. Y continued parking his car in the garage. What are X’s rights?
Sue Y for two months’ rent due
Evict Y
Assert lien on Y’s car
X leased his house to Y for six months at $500 rent per month. After three months, Y decided to vacate the premises without reason and left the kitchen in a bad state. X decided to rent the house to another person for $400 rent per month. What are X and Y’s liabilities?
1) Y’s unjustifiable abandonment
- Without reason
2) Majority view
- X must mitigate damages (kitchen) + repossess house
- X accept as surrender => Y is liable for $1,500 ($500 x 3 = $1,500; accrued rent before abandonment)
- X NOT accept as surrender + X re-letted house => Y is liable for $600 (($500 x 6 = $3,000; balance) LESS ($400 x 6 = $2,400; re-letted rent))
2) Minority view
- X NOT required to mitigate damages (kitchen)
- Y liable to pay accrued rent after abandonment
X leased his house to Y for six months at $500 rent per month. After three months, Y decided to vacate the premises without reason and left the kitchen in a bad state. X decided not to rent the house to another person. The house was marketed at $400 rent per month. What are X and Y’s liabilities?
1) Y’s unjustifiable abandonment
- Without reason
2) Majority view
- X must mitigate damages (kitchen) + repossess house
- X accepts as surrender => Y is liable for $1,500 + damages ($500 x 3; accrued rent)
- X NOT accept as surrender => Y is NOT liable (X can make profit of $600 (($500 x 6 = $3,000) LESS ($400 x 6 = $2,400))
2) Minority view
- X NOT required to mitigate damages (kitchen)
- Y liable to pay $1,500 ($500 x 3; accrued rent)
X leased his house to Y for one year, with rent to be paid on an annual basis. After one year, Y continued to live in the house. X already found a new tenant, Z, but Y refused to leave. What are Z’s rights?
Sue X for breach of duty to deliver actual possession of house from beginning of term (majority view)
- X failed to kick out Y (hold-over tenant, stayed in house after expiration of previous lease)
X borrowed a loan from Bank a few months ago. X leased his house to Y for 2 years in writing. Bank came back and foreclosed on X’s loan for failure to pay back in time. After 1 year, Bank took control of the house and told Y to move out. Bank also told Y to pay rent for the final year. Is Y liable to pay rent? Must Y leave?
Y must leave; NOT liable to pay rent
- Implied covenant of quiet enjoyment
- Bank’s actual eviction of Y (from entire premises) => Bank (Y’s mortgagee) breached covenant => Y must leave (mandatory eviction)
- Y’s duty to pay rent terminated
X borrowed a loan from Bank a few months ago. X leased his house to Y for 2 years in writing. Bank came back and foreclosed on X’s loan for failure to pay back in time. After 1 year, Bank told Y not to use the garage anymore. Is Y liable to pay rent?
Yes (reasonable value)
- Implied covenant of quiet enjoyment
- Bank’s partial eviction of Y (from kitchen) => Bank (Y’s mortgagee) breached covenant
- Y’s duty to pay rent limited to reasonable value
X leased his house to Y for 2 years in writing. After 1 year, X told Y not to use the garage anymore. Is Y still liable to pay rent?
No
- Implied covenant of quiet enjoyment
- X’s partial eviction of Y (from kitchen) => X breached covenant
- Y’s duty to pay rent terminated
X leased his house to Y for 2 years in writing. After 1 year, X entered the house and accidentally broke the thermal heater. Y could not use the heating system for months and asked X whether he could fix it within a few weeks’ time. X failed to do so. Y couldn’t take it anymore and decided to leave the house. What are Y’s rights?
Sue for damages + Terminate lease (stop paying rent)
- Implied covenant of quiet enjoyment
- X’s constructive eviction of Y (loss of heat => House unsuitable for occupancy) => X breached covenant
- X’s breach substantially deprived Y’s use of house (loss of heat)
- Y gave reasonable notice to repair
- Y vacated house
X leased his retail store to Y for 1 year. Y was not pleased with the lighting conditions. What are Y’s rights under any implied warranties?
Nothing
- Commercial lease (retail store)
- NO implied warranty of habitability (only residential lease)
X leased his house to Y for 1 year. Y was not pleased with the cleaning system. Must Y vacate the house under an implied warranty?
Y must NOT vacate the house (Y may vacate the house)
- Implied warranty of habitability (Residential)
- Y could move out + terminate lease (NOT mandatory to move out)
- Y could reduce rent to fair rental value
- Y could repair cleaning system + offset cost vs future rent
- Y could remain in possession + sue X for damages
X leased his house to Y for 1 year. As soon as Y entered the house, he noticed there were cracks in the ceiling. During Y’s lease, he also noticed the pipes leaking in his basement. Y sued X for breaching his duty of reasonable care. X admitted he knew of the cracks beforehand but denied knowing about the leaking. Is X liable?
Landlord’s tortious liability (defects)
- General duty of reasonable care
- X is tortiously liable for ceiling cracks (X knew of defects before Y took possession)
- X is NOT tortiously liable for leaking pipes (X had NO notice of defects after Y took possession)
X leased his house to Y for 1 year. Y entered the house and realised the locks were not properly installed. A month later, a group of thieves entered Y’s house but realised he was inside. They smashed the windows open as they escaped. Y asked X to repair. Is X liable?
Landlord’s tortious liability (security)
- General duty of reasonable care
- X is tortiously liable for failing to maintain ordinary security measures (installing locks)
- X is tortiously liable for third party criminal injuries (smashing windows open)
X discussed about renting his flat to Y. Y knew that the flat had termites in the bedroom, but did nothing about it. Y decided to rent the flat. Y suffered bites from the termites and sued X for not telling him about them before entering the lease. Is X liable?
No
- X knew about termites (latent defects); Y could have discovered termites by reasonable inspection
- X failed to disclose BUT X is NOT tortiously liable for Y’s injuries
X discussed about renting his flat to Y. X knew that the bathroom pipes were about to explode as the material had not been replaced for a few years, but did nothing about it. Y decided to rent the flat. Y’s friend came round and used the bathroom when the pipes suddenly exploded. Y sued X for not telling him about them before entering the lease. Is X liable?
Yes (common law)
- X knew about the weak pipes (latent defects); Y could NOT have discovered weak pipes by reasonable inspection
- X failed to disclose => X is tortiously liable for Y’s friend’s injuries
X leased his house to Y for 1 year. During that time, Y cut his leg on the stairs as he stepped on it realising it was not stable and it created a hole. Y sued X for not telling him about this before entering the lease. Is X liable?
Yes (common law)
- X could have reasonably discovered dangerous conditions in unstable stairs (common area) => Y should have maintained with reasonable care
- X is tortiously liable for Y’s injuries from dangerous conditions
X leased his house to Y, a celebrity footballer, for 1 year. During that time, Y advertised online the house as he wanted to show people the luxury bar inside the house. One day, a group of friends came to the house to see the bar, but suffered an electric shock as they tried to charge their phone into the plug sockets which were wirey. Y sued X for their injuries arguing that X failed to repair the sockets before entering the lease. X admits he knew they were faulty but refuses to pay for their injuries. Is X liable for lack of public use?
No (public use)
- X had NO reason to know Y would admit to public to show luxury bar (private residence)
X leased his house to Y for 3 months. Y appreciated it was already installed with furniture, but Y was angry after the roof suddenly collapsed on him. Y sued X. X argued he had no idea the roof would suddenly fall like that. Is X liable?
Yes (common law)
- Short-term (3 months)
- Fully furnished
- X is tortiously liable for all injuries from roof collapse (even though X was not aware)
X leased his hotel to Y for 1 month. Y was pleased that his customers were satisfied the hotel had plenty of furniture included. But one day, a customer claimed the gas was leaking inside. Y sued X. X argued he could never have known about the gas leak. Is X liable?
Yes
- Short-term (3 months), fully furnished, NOT residence (commercial hotel)
- Latent defects: gas leak NOT discoverable by Y => X may be liable for customer’s injuries
X leased his house to Y for 3 months. One day, X decided to repair the bathroom door without being obligated to do so. X tightened the screw of the door, but left it slightly untightened in case Y wanted to unscrew it later with ease. The door appeared to be slightly wobbly, but okay for the most part. Y entered the bathroom and the door fell on him hitting his head. Is X liable?
Yes (Common law)
- X had NO covenant to repair
- X did NOT give off deceptive appearance of safety (door looked okay for most part)
- X negligently repaired door (slightly untightened screw)
- X is liable for Y’s injuries
X leased his property to Y for 10 years. After one month, Y transferred his interest to Z for the rest of lease period. However, Y included his right to retake the premises after nine years. Is this allowed?
Yes
- Sub-lease
- Y partially transferred his interest to Z
- Y reserved his right of reentry (retained some interest)
X leased his property to Y for 10 years. After one month, Y transferred his interest to Z for the rest of lease period. Y included in their agreement that he reserves his right to reenter and reclaim the premises if Z fails to pay due rent to X. Z failed to pay the due rents and Y decided to cancel their lease. Is this allowed?
Yes
- Assignment (complete transfer of Y’s interest)
- Assignment has same conditions as original lease + Y’s right to reenter (which is allowed)
- Z failed to pay rent => Y may terminate lease
X leased his property to Y for 1 year. Their agreement stated Y shall not interfere with the electronic transmission cables located within the neighbourhood, which shall run with other leases. After one month, Y transferred his interest to Z for the remainder of the lease. Z realised the internet was not working. Z went outside and checked the electronic transmission cables. Z accidentally cut the power out. X received complaints from neighbours that they ran out of electricity. X sued Z for breach of the covenant in Y’s agreement. Is Z liable?
No
- NO privity of estate (X + Z)
- Covenant not to interfere with cables: NOT touch + concern X’s property => Covenant does NOT run with land
- Z did NOT breach covenant running with land => Z is not liable
X leased his property to Y for 1 year with rent payable at $500 per month. They agreed that rent payment shall run with the lease. After 6 months, Y transferred his interest to Z and did not bother paying his rent to X. For the last 6 months, Z also failed to pay rent to X. X claims Z should pay both his and Y’s due rent. Is Z liable to pay rent?
$3,000
- Y assigned his interest to Z
- Z failed to pay 6 months’ rent: $3,000 ($500 x 6)
- Z is liable for rent due from assignment to end of lease (6 months) (privity of estate)
X leased his property to Y for 1 year with rent payable at $500 per month. They agreed that rent payment shall run with the lease. After 6 months, Y transferred his interest to Z. After 3 months, Z transferred his interest to B and promised X he will pay B’s rent. B failed to pay the rent for the remainder of the lease. Is B liable to pay rent?
No
- Y assigned his interest to Z
- Z re-assigned his interest to B
- Z promised to X (Landlord) Z will pay B’s rent => Creates privity of contract (X as Landlord + Z as Tenant)
- Z is liable to pay B’s rent as Tenant = $500 (one month)
X leased his property to Y for 1 year with rent payable at $500 per month. They agreed that rent payment shall run with the lease. After 6 months, Y transferred his interest to Z. After 3 months, Z transferred his interest to B and promised Y he will pay B’s rent. B failed to pay the rent for the remainder of the lease. Is B liable to pay rent?
No
- Y assigned his interest to Z
- Z re-assigned his interest to B
- Z promised to Y (Tenant) Z will pay B’s rent => X became TP beneficiary to contract between Y + Z
- Z is liable to pay B’s rent for X (TP beneficiary) = $500 (1 month)
X leased his property to Y for 1 year with rent payable at $500 per month. They agreed that rent payment shall run with the lease. After 6 months, Y transferred his interest to Z and did not bother paying his rent to X. For the last 6 months, Z also failed to pay rent to X and ran away. X claims Y should pay both his and Z’s due rent. Is Y liable to pay rent?
$6,000
- Y failed to pay rent: $3,000 ($500 x 6 months)
- Y is liable to X for rent from start of contract to assignment (privity of contract/estate)
- Y assigned his interest to Z (destroyed privity of estate)
- Z failed to pay rent + disappeared: $3,000 ($500 x 6 months)
- Y promised to pay rent to X (privity of contract)
- Y is liable to X for Z’s rent from assignment to disappearance (privity of contract)
X leased his property to Y for 1 year with rent payable at $500 per month. They agreed that rent payment shall run with the lease. After 6 months, Y transferred his interest to Z and retained his right to retake the premises if Z were to fail in paying rent due. For the last 5 months, Z paid rent to X. Y wishes to kick Z out because he paid X instead of Y. Z refuses to leave as he paid X anyway. Should Z leave?
Yes
- Sub-lease (right to retake premises; partial transfer)
- Z must directly pay rent to Y (Tenant), NOT X (Landlord)
- Z paid X, instead of Y
- Z breached sublease
X leased his property to Y for 1 year with rent payable at $500 per month. They agreed that the tenant must pay rent on time and continue to maintain the roofs every month. There was no mention of termination of the lease in such circumstances. After 6 months, Y transferred his interest to Z and retained his right to retake the premises if Z were to fail in paying rent due. Z told Y ‘I’ll take the blame for whatever was necessary’. Z ignored looking after the roofs and forgot to pay rent to Y for the first two months. Can X terminate the lease?
No
- Sub-lease (right to retake: Y’s part transfer of interest)
- Z did NOT breach covenant to maintain roofs + covenant to pay rent (NOT run with land); X + Z have no privity
- Z did NOT assume covenants expressly (impliedly - ‘I’ll take the blame’) => X can NOT terminate sublease
- X did not state in lease option to terminate for breach of lease (X is NOT TP beneficiary) => X can NOT breach original lease => X can NOT automatically terminate sublease
X leased his house to Y for 1 year with rent payable at $500 per month. Y stated he will be responsible for any repairs required. After 6 months, Y transferred his interest to Z and retained his right to retake the premises if Z were to fail in paying rent due. The house suddenly started leaking and Z asked Y to fix the pipes. Y refused to do so. Can Z sue Y?
No
- Sub-lease
- X breached covenant to repair in original lease (NOT sub-lease) (covenants do NOT run with land in subleases)
- Z can only enforce covenants in sublease vs Y
X leased his hotel to Y for 1 year with rent payable at $500 per month. X promised in their lease he will carry out any necessary repairs. After 6 months, Y transferred his interest to Z and retained his right to retake the premises if Z were to fail in paying rent due. The house suddenly started leaking and Z asked Y to fix the pipes. Y told Z to ask X instead. Z asked X to fix the pipes under an implied warranty. X refused to do so. Can Z sue X?
No
- Sub-lease
- X breached covenant to repair in original lease (NOT sub-lease) (covenants do NOT run with land in sub-leases) (NO privity of estate) => X is NOT liable to repair
- NO implied warranty of habitability (commercial lease - hotel) => X is NOT liable to repair
X leased his house to Y for 1 year with rent payable at $500 per month. X wrote in their lease that Y cannot assign his rights to anyone. After 6 months, Y transferred his interest to Z and retained his right to retake the premises if Z were to fail in paying rent due. X visited the house and noticed Z was living there. X told Z to get out. Must Z leave?
Yes
- Restriction vs assignment
- Y sub-leased interest to Z => Violated restriction in original lease (privity of contract/estate)
X leased his house to Y for 1 year with rent payable at $500 per month. X wrote in their lease that Y cannot sub-lease his rights to anyone. After 6 months, Y transferred his interest to Z and retained his right to retake the premises if Z were to fail in paying rent due. X visited the house and noticed Z was living there. X told Z to get out. Must Z leave?
Yes
- Restriction vs sub-lease => Restricts sub-lease (NOT assignment)
- Y sub-leased interest to Z => Y breached covenant
- X can terminate lease (voidable)
- X can sue Y for any damages
X leased his house to Y for 1 year with rent payable at $500 per month. X wrote in their lease that Y cannot assign his rights to anyone. After 6 months, Y transferred his interest to Z. Towards the end of the lease, Z sent a cheque for 6 months’ rent to X. X did not know who Z was, but decided to accept the cheque anyway. X then visited the house and noticed Z was there. X sued Y. Is Y liable to X?
Yes
- Y’s assignment to Z
- Y breached restrictive covenant vs assignment
- X did NOT waive covenant
- X did not object to accepting rent, but X did NOT know of assignment
X leased his house to Y for 1 year with rent payable at $500 per month. After 6 months, Y was about to transfer his interest to Z, but X did not consent because X has a phobia of other people making his property dirtier other than the tenant himself. Can Y assign his rights to Z?
Yes (most states)
- X can withhold consent to assignment
No (few states)
- X can withhold consent to assignment ONLY reasonably
- Phobia of others making property dirtier: NOT reasonable
X leased his house to Y for 1 year. After 6 months, X told Z, his best friend, he can have ownership rights over the house instead, without telling Y. Y refused to pay rent to Z because he never told him and it was not formally made. Is Y liable to Z?
No
- Y’s consent not required
- X did not make ordinary deed => NO assignment by X (Landlord)
X leased his house to Y for 1 year. After 6 months, X transferred his interest to Z, without telling Y. Y continued paying rent to X until Z called Y and asked to pay him instead. Is Y liable to Z?
No
- Landlord (X)’s assignment to Z (new landlord)
- Y had no reasonable evidence of assignment (NO attornment)
- Y NOT obliged to pay rent to Z
X leased his house to Y for 1 year. The lease provided that X must fix the heating system when necessary. After 6 months, X transferred his interest to Z. The heating system kept breaking and Y could not sleep without the heat on during the winter. Y asked Z to fix the system, but Z refused. Who can Y sue?
X + Z
- Landlord (X)’s assignment to Z (new landlord)
- Covenant to fix heating system ran with land (intent + touch and concern land)
- Z breached covenant => Z is liable
- X is liable for Z’s breach
X agreed to sell his house to Y. Before signing the contract, Y was given the house in possession. X included in the contract that Y may not sell his interest in the house to anyone else. Y tried to convey his interest to Z, but X argued this is not allowed. Can Y convey his interest?
No
- Y has equitable interest in house (possession)
- Restraint on alienation are void ONLY towards legal interests
- X has disabling restraint on Y’s equitable interest (valid) => Prevents Y from transferring
X conveyed his house to Y stating that Y cannot transfer to anyone at all, otherwise Y must give up his house to X. Y wanted to transfer his house to Z, but X refused. Can Y convey his interest?
Yes
- Fee simple
- Total restraint (forfeiture restraint)
- Void
X conveyed his house to Y stating that Y cannot transfer to any of his siblings while Y is working. Y wanted to transfer his house to his brother, but X refused. Can Y convey his interest?
Yes
- Fee simple
- Partial restraint (disabling restraint)
- Void
X conveyed his house to Y stating that Y cannot transfer to Hispanics without X’s consent. Y wanted to transfer his house to his Hispanic friend, but X refused. Can Y convey his interest?
Yes
- Fee simple
- Discriminatory restraint (vs Hispanics)
- Void (14A, Fair Housing Act)
X conveyed his house to Y for life stating that Y cannot transfer to anyone without X’s consent. Y wanted to transfer his house to his brother without telling X. Can Y convey his interest?
No
- Life estate
- Promissory restraint (total)
- Valid
X conveyed his house to Y for life, then to Z. X stated that neither Y nor Z can transfer to anyone, otherwise they must give up the house to X. Y wanted to transfer his house to his brother, but X refused. Z wanted to transfer the house to his brother, but X refused. Can Y or Z convey their interests?
Y: No
- Life estate
- Forfeiture restraint (total)
- Valid
Z: Yes
- Vested remainder
- Forfeiture restraint (total)
- Void
X owned a 3-unit apartment building and a four-family dwelling building. X put out advertisements to rent his flats disallowing any gays or lesbians. Is this allowed?
3-unit apartment building: No
- Owner-occupied building < 4 units (Fair Housing Act does NOT apply)
- Gender discrimination (Civil Rights Act does NOT apply, 14A does NOT apply to private citizens)
4-family dwelling building: Yes
- Owner-occupied building > 3 family dwellings (Fair Housing Act applies)
X owned a private snooker club and a mosque. One night, a gay black man came round asking if the club was for rent. X told him that ‘definitely not mate’. X personally did not like gay people. The black man then went to a mosque, where he was also denied access because of his race rather than gender. Is this allowed?
Private club: Yes
- NOT dwelling (Fair Housing Act does NOT apply)
- Gender discrimination (Civil Rights Act does NOT apply)
Mosque: No
- NOT dwelling (Fair Housing Act does NOT apply)
- Race discrimination (Civil Rights Act applies)
X owned House A and House B. X sold House A to Y. X covenanted that Y must not erect fences on House B. Can Y erect fences?
No
- Burden runs with land (X => Y)
- Negative covenant (NOT erect fences)
- Burden touches + concerns X’s land (House B)
X owned House A and House B. X sold House A to Y. X covenanted that Y must not drive within a radius of one mile of House B. Can Y drive within such radius?
No
- Burden runs with land (X => Y)
- Negative covenant (NOT drive)
- Burden touch + concern X’s land (House B)
X owned House A and House B. X sold House A to Y. X covenanted that Y must keep House B’s garden in good repair. Must Y repair?
Yes
- Burden runs with land (X => Y)
- Affirmative covenant (repair)
- Burden touches + concerns X’s land (House B)
X owned a residential subdivision. X sold one of his lots to Y. X covenanted that Y must pay an annual fee to the homeowners’ association for maintaining the common ways. Must Y pay?
Yes
- Burden runs with land (X => Y)
- Affirmative covenant (payment => maintenance)
- Burden touches + concerns X’s land (subdivision)
X and Y are neighbouring landowners. X promises Y that X’s land ‘will never be used for purposes other than residential’. Is this valid?
No
- Burden NOT run with land (X => Y)
- NO horizontal privity (X + Y; neighbours)
- X did NOT purchase for value
X owned Blackacre. Y held an easement over the land. X promised Y to keep the right of way free of snow. Is this valid?
Yes
- Burden runs with land (X => Y)
- Horizontal privity (X + Y; Easement holder)
X owned Blackacre and Whiteacre in fee simple. X sold Whiteacre to Y and covenanted that Y must maintain the bridge between Blackacre and Whiteacre. Y then sold Blackacre to Z for life, retaining a reversionary interest for himself. Y told Z to maintain the bridge, but Z refused. Must Z maintain?
No
- Burden does NOT run with land (X => Z)
- NO vertical privity (Z has life estate; X has reversionary interest, which X can take back after Z’s death; Z does NOT have entire durational interest that X did)
X owned House A and House B. X told Y he can have House A, as long as he does not erect fences on House B. Can Y erect fences?
Yes
- Burden does NOT run with land (X => Y)
- Covenant NOT in writing (oral)
X owned House A and House B. X sold House A to Y, writing that fences cannot be erected on House B as ‘this covenant shall run with the land’. Can Y erect fences?
No
- Burden runs with land (X => Y)
- X intended covenant to run with land (‘this covenant shall run with the land’)
X owned House A and House B and recorded his deeds. X gave House A to Y. One day, X came round and told Y to maintain the gardens as X always did. Must Y maintain?
No
- Burden NOT run with land
- NO notice (NOT BFP - NOT for value; gift)
X owned House A and House B with no recorded deeds. X sold House A to Y. The next day, X came round and told Y to maintain the gardens as X always did. Y could not tell the gardens were ever maintained. Must Y maintain?
No
- Burden NOT run with land
- NO notice (NO notice at time of purchase; Only after purchase)
X owned House A. X covenanted with his neighbour, Y, who owned House B, that ‘X and his assigns will keep House A in good repair’. Y sells his house to Z. Must X continue to repair House A?
Yes
- Z receives benefit from X
- Y transfers house to Z
- Benefit runs with land (NO horizontal privity required between X + Y) => Equitable servitude
- X must continue to repair House A => Benefit to Z (increase value of Z’s house)
X owned House A. X covenanted with his neighbour, Y, who owned House B, that ‘X and his assigns will keep House A in good repair’. Y sells his house to Z. X also sells his house to B. Must B continue to repair House A?
Yes
Z receives benefit from X
- Y transfers house to Z
- Y’s benefit runs with land (NO horizontal privity required between X + Y)
- X must continue to repair House A => Benefit to Z (increase value of Z’s house)
Z receives benefit from B
- X transfers house to B
- X’s burden runs run with land (equitable servitude - no horizontal privity between X + Y) (assigns to keep in good repair)
- B required to repair House A
X owned Blackacre and covenanted with Y, a supermarket operator owning no adjacent land, to erect and maintain on Blackacre a billboard advertising Y’s supermarkets. Y decided to sell his business to Z. Must X erect for Z?
No
- X’s burden will NOT touch and concern Z’s land (business, NOT actual land) => NO benefit runs to Z
X owned House A and House B. X sold House A to Y and covenanted that ‘Y must maintain the road between House A and B’. Y recorded the deed. Y sold the house to Z. Z failed to maintain. What can X do?
Enforce Y’s burden vs Z
- Burden runs with land
- Vertical privity (X + Z) (Z has fee simple)
- Horizontal privity (contract)
- Z is NOT BFP
Sue for damages from Z
X owned House A and House B. X sold House A to Y and covenanted that ‘Y must maintain the road between House A and B’. Y recorded the deed. Y sold the house to Z telling him there’s no need to maintain at all. The government decided to take over X’s house. Z did not maintain. What can the government do?
NO termination of covenant
- Condemnation of benefitted estate (House A), NOT burden estate (House B)
- Release NOT written (oral)
Enforce Y’s burden vs Z
- Burden runs with land
- Vertical privity (X + Z) (Z has fee simple)
- Horizontal privity (contract)
- Z is NOT BFP (record notice, for value)
Sue for damages from Z
X owned House A and House B. X sold House A to Y and covenanted that ‘Y must maintain the road between House A and B’. Y recorded the deed. Y sold the house to Z. Z also decided to buy X’s house. Must Z maintain?
No
- Merger of benefitted estate (House A) + burdened estate (House B) => Termination of covenant
