Hypo Questions Flashcards
O, owner of Blackacre, executes and delivers a deed for Blackacre to her daughter, A, as a gift. Subsequently, O tells A that she would like Blackacre back, and A, a dutiful daughter, hands the deed back to O and says, “The land is yours again.” O tears up the deed. Who owns Blackacre?
A owns Blackacre. Since title passed to A by the deed from O, the Statute oxqf Frauds requires a deed from A to O signed by A to pass title back to O.
On July 1, Oscar conveys Blackacre to Alice. On July 4, Alice records the deed, which is properly indexed. A few weeks later, on July 20, Oscar conveys Blackacre to Bob for valuable consideration. Bob has no actual knowledge of the earlier conveyance to Alice.
The next day (July 21), Bob records the deed.
Who wins in a notice statute jurisdiction? Why?
Who wins in a race-notice statute jurisdiction? Why?
Alice prevails because Bob had record notice of the conveyance from Oscar to Alice.
Alice prevails because Alice did not have notice of any prior interests and won the race to record against Bob.
- On March 2, Oscar conveys Blackacre to Austin. Austin then moves his motor home on the property a few days later, but he doesn’t actually move into the house on Blackacre. On April 1, Oscar conveys to Badri for valuable consideration. Badri has no actual knowledge of the conveyance to Austin. Badri records his deed the next day, on April 2. Austin finally gets around to recording his deed on April 15, the day after he moves into the house on the property.
Who wins in a notice statute jurisdiction? Why?
Who wins in a race statute jurisdiction? Why?
Race notice?
Austin “should” prevail here because he took possession of the property and moved his motor home on the property. That act should show possession and would likely put Badri on inquiry notice that there might be a competing interest in the property.
Badri would win in a race jurisdiction because Badri recorded first. Notice doesn’t impact anything in race jurisdictions.
Austin would likely prevail over Badri because Badri is probably on inquiry notice of Austin’s claim because Austin possessed the property. So since Badri has inquiry notice, he cannot win the race to record.
- On September 15, Olivia conveys Blackacre to Amy, who still has a month on her apartment lease, so she does not take possession of the property. A week later, on September 22, Olivia then conveys to Barb. Barb has no actual knowledge of the conveyance to Amy. Barb records her deed on Sept 24. Amy records her deed on September 25.
Who wins in a race statute jurisdiction? Why?
Who wins in a notice statute jurisdiction? Why?
Who wins in a race-notice statute jurisdiction? Why?
Barb wins because Barb was the first to record
Barb wins in a notice jurisdiction because they had no actual, inquiry, or record notice of Amy’s interest.
Barb wins in a race-notice jurisdiction because Barb had no notice of Amy’s interest and won the race to record.
O mortgages Blackacre to A, but does not record the interest. O then later conveys Blackacre to B, who does not know of the mortgage.
What happens at common law?
Under most recording acts?
At common law, B takes the land subject to A’s mortgage because title was determined (at common law) by the timing of the conveyance, and A got a mortgage on Blackacre first.
Under most recording acts, a subsequent bona fide purchaser is protected against prior unrecorded interests. So B would be protected.
Important: The common-law rule of “first-in time, first-in right” continues to control UNLESS the person can qualify under the state’s recording act (which most people can).
- On April 1, Owen conveys Blackacre, a rural piece of farmland with no house, to Art, who doesn’t move into the property. Two weeks later, on April 15, Owen conveys a mortgage in his property to Banks, who does not know about the conveyance to Art. Art then records his deed to Blackacre on April 16. On the next day, a Saturday, Art conveys Blackacre to Charlie, who plans on turning the farmland into a subdivision. Charlie does not know about the mortgage to Banks. Two days later, on Monday, Banks records the mortgage interest.
Does Charlie take Blackacre subject to the mortgage interest to Banks in a race jurisdiction? Why?
Would Charlie take subject to the mortgage in a notice jurisdiction? Why?
Would Charlie take subject to the mortgage in a race-notice statute jurisdiction? Why?
Charlie would take Blackacre subject to the mortgage because Art prevails over Banks by recording before Banks did. Thus, Charlie is protected by the shelter rule
Charlie would prevail in a notice jurisdiction because he had no notice of Banks’s interest.
Charlie would win in a race-notice jurisdiction because of the shelter rule. Art would win over Banks in a race-notice jurisdiction because Art did not have notice and recorded first. Thus, since Charlie took title from Alex, Charlie is protected by the shelter rule.
O, owner of Blackacre, conveys Blackacre to Alice, who does not record the deed. O subsequently conveys Blackacre to Bob for valuable consideration. Bob has NO knowledge of Alice’s deed.
Who wins under a notice jurisdiction?
A race-notice jurisdiction?
In a notice jurisdiction, Bob prevails even though Bob did not record the deed from O.
In a race-notice jurisdiction, whether Alice or Bpb wins depends on whether O delivered Alice’s deed or Bob’s deed first.
But this allegation of delivery of the deed becomes irrelevant in a race-notice jurisdiction if one of the deeds has been recorded. Then that person wins.
- May 1 O conveys to A.
May 12 O conveys to B. B is aware of the earlier conveyance to A.
May 13 B records.
May 15 B conveys to C. C has no actual knowledge of the conveyance to A.
May 17 A records.
May 20 C records.
May 25 A sues C for possession and title.
Who wins in a race statute jurisdiction? Why?
Who wins in a notice statute jurisdiction? Why?
Who wins in a race-notice statute jurisdiction? Why?
C would prevail in a race jurisdiction because C got title from B, who won the race to record over A.
Even though B would lose if A sued B, C prevails over A because C was the last purchaser for value without notice of A’s interest. The chain of title would not show A’s interest since A did not record until after C got the property.
A would prevail in a race-notice jurisdiction because A had no notice of any transaction before buying and won the race over C. B’s recording wouldn’t help here because B had actual knowledge of A’s interest, so they were not “a contestant in the race to record.”
O, owner of Blackacre, conveys Blackacre to Alice, who does not record the deed. O subsequently conveys Blackacre to Bob for valuable consideration. Bob has NO knowledge of Alice’s deed. But after O’s conveyance to Bob and BEFORE Bob records, Alice finally records her deed. Thereafter, Carl purchases Blackacre from Bob.
Would Carl prevail over Alice in a notice jurisdiction?
Yes, even though Alice’s recording puts Carl on notice as to Alice’s deed, Carl has no idea whether Bob had notice of Alice’s deed when Bob purchased, which is the main inquiry. This is known as the shelter rule.
Under the shelter rule, a person who takes from a bona fide purchaser that is protected by the state’s recording act has the same rights as the person they bought the property from. (Thus, Carl is protected if Bob was protected.)
O conveys Whiteacre to Alice, who does not record. O subsequently conveys to Bob, who purchases in good faith and for valuable consideration, but does not record. Alice then records. The day after, Carl purchases in good faith and for valuable consideration. Bob then records. Carl then records.
Who prevails under a notice statute?
A race-notice statute?
Carl prevails in a notice jurisdiction. Bob would prevail over Alice because Bob is a subsequent BFP. But Carl would prevail over Bob because Carl had no notice of Bob’s claim.
Carl also prevails in a race-notice jurisdiction. Alice prevails over Bob because Bob did not record before Alice. So Alice can convey good title to Carl.
Note: Even if Carl had notice of Bob’s claim, Carl would prevail over Bob because of the shelter rule.
In a deed, Wendy agrees not to permit trees to grow on her property that are more than 30 feet tall in order to preserve the view that Mary has over Wendy’s land.
Is this an affirmative or negative easement?
It can be both depending on who is doing the tree trimming. It is a negative easement if Wendi will do the tree trimming. But if Mary is permitted (in the deed) to enter Wendi’s land and do the tree trimming, then it is an affirmative easement.
Mary has an easement of way through a building on Wendy’s adjacent land. Wendi later demolishes the building and builds a new, state-of-the-art building.
(1) Could Mary use her easement to prevent Wendy from demolishing the building?
(2) If not, does Mary’s easement of way transfer to the new building?
No. She has an affirmative easement because she is allowed to cross Wendy’s property. She would need a negative easement to prevent the building of the building, which is not what she likely has in the easement of way.
It depends on whether Mary’s easement is appurtenant to the land and not the structure. The language in the easement would control. If it were an easement of way over Wendy’s land, then it would extend to the new building.
Justine decides to sell part of her cow farm to Cody. She sells the north 40 acres and the barns to Cody, but she keeps ownership of the 50 cows that currently occupy that north 40 acres. She’s worried her cows won’t get appropriate watering because Cody is known not to treat his slaughter cows very well, but she doesn’t have enough room for them in her remaining acreage, so she reserves an easement “for the watering of livestock owned by seller.”
Is this an easement appurtenant or an easement in gross?
The court in the actual case this hypo was taken from held that this vague language created an easement appurtenant, which attached to the neighboring land the seller still owned. It didn’t just attach to Justine personally.
Lindsey gives Oscar $1000 for a license giving Lindsey the right to cut timber on Blackacre. Does the money turn Lindsey’s right into an easement?
What happens if Lindsey assigns her rights to Peter?
No. O’s permission is just a license. We often pay for licenses (e.g. video games; computer programs)
In the majority of states, the assignment would be null.
Oscar leases Blackacre to Tom for the sole purpose of Tom’s timbering of the property. Why would Tom prefer a lease over a profit (easement) or a license?
Because a lease is a possessory interest in land, so it gives Tom an exclusive right to use the land for the term of the lease. Any other leasee’s must be approved by Tom. Thus, he can exclude his competitors.
A license or an easement are non-possessory rights, so the use doesn’t need to be exclusive unless it is expressly made to be exclusive.
Alex owns a landlocked parcel with an easement of necessity over Wendy’s land. But because Wendy always gives him a mean look when Alex uses this right of way, he decides to buy a piece of land at auction that allows him to reach a public road without going on Wendy’s land. He later sells that newly purchased strip of land for 10 times what he paid for it, and then he resumes using Wendy’s land.
Can Wendy prevent Alex from doing this?
Yes. Easements by necessity end when the necessity ends. Thus, the necessity ended when Alex bought the strip of land.
Alex’s sale of the strip of land doesn’t make it necessary again. The necessity has to arise out of the severance of the joint property.
Right next to Wendi’s home is a golf club. Every day, several golf balls are driven onto her property, and the players routinely come onto Wendi’s property to retrieve the golf balls. If this continues for the statutory period, will the golf club acquire a prescriptive easement over Wendi’s property?
Yes! This actually happened to Conrad Hilton (of Hilton Hotels fame), and he lost.
How to prevent this?
Erect a fence to interrupt/stop people from getting the golf balls – or get a written agreement with the club to ALLOW/permit them to get the balls, which would negate the hostility element.
Eric owns Blackacre. He records a deed with himself naming himself the grantee of an easement for a road over Blackacre (from adjacent property that he also owns). Is this easement valid?
No.
Rule: A person cannot create an easement in their own property.
Kyle deeds to his next-door neighbor, Tim, the right to park in his parking lot, which gives Tim an easement. But Tim then sells his home to his sister, and moves five miles away. When Tim comes to visit he continues to park in Kyle’s lot, and Kyle doesn’t object. But Kyle does object when Tim’s sister parks in his lot. What would Kyle’s best argument be for this discrepancy?
That this is an easement in gross that only was intended to benefit Kyle, no matter where he lived. Tim’s sister would argue that the intent was for an easement appurtenant, which benefits the land. Thus, when she bought Tim’s property, she now gets the benefit of the easement.
Courtney owned two adjoining lots with existing houses on them. She sold one to Natalie. A driveway and a sewer line ran from Natalie’s new house to the street. After the sale, part of the driveway and part of the sewer line ran over (and under) Courtney’s lot. The deed conveying the lot to Natalie did not mention the driveway or sewer line. Does Natalie have a right to continue using the drive or sewer line?
Yes, if she can show all the elements of an easement by prior use. (1) There was unity of ownership that was severed. (2) the use was likely in place before the severance. (3) the use was visible for the driveway and apparent for the sewer; and (4) it is likely reasonably necessary to use the lot for a residence.
The deed from Matt to DeMarr, which land-locks DeMarr’s property provides for access to DeMarr’s land over a strip of Matt’s land that is narrow, steep, and very inconvenient for DeMarr to use. DeMarr later protests that he needs better access and asserts a way of necessity. Is DeMarr likely to get an easement by necessity? Why or Why not?
No. There must be strict necessity in most jurisdictions – that means no access. Inconvenient access isn’t good enough, especially in situations where an easement of way was already bargained for in the land transaction.
O in 1900 granted E an easement appurtenant over O’s land so E could reach a public road. In 1900, both properties were rural, and travel was by foot, horse, and buggy. 100 years later, O’s successors and E’s successors own the respective properties. Are E’s successors limited to using foot, horse, and buggy to travel over the dirt-path easement?
No. Cars, trucks, and motorcycles are natural developments, so the scope of the easement will likely be adjusted to accommodate progress.
Farmer Ted sold Erin a landlocked lot – Lot 36. In the deed, Farmer Ted deeded Erin a ten-foot-wide easement for ingress and egress over Lot 24, which allowed Erin to reach Cove Road. Farmer Ted continued selling lots. A year later, he deeded Lot 24 to Wilbur, subject to Erin’s easement of way. A year after that, Erin purchased Lot 35, which adjoins her lot and fronts High Street. Wilbur has always wanted to get rid of the easement over his lot.
Does the easement over Wilburn’s lot end when Erin buys lot 35?
No. This was an express easement that was granted in Erin’s deed – not an easement created by necessity. So even though the necessity ended, that doesn’t impact her express easement over Lot 24.
(Know this one)
Farmer Ted sold Erin a landlocked lot – Lot 36. In the deed, Farmer Ted deeded Erin a ten-foot-wide easement for ingress and egress over Lot 24, which allowed Erin to reach Cove Road. Farmer Ted continued selling lots. A year later, he deeded Lot 24 to Wilbur, subject to Erin’s easement of way. One year later, Wilbur sells his property (with a home on it) to Erin, who moves into Wilbur’s home. Six months later, she finally finds a buyer for Lot 36, so she sells it by quitclaim deed (where she doesn’t mention anything about the easement). Is her original easement still in existence?
No. The easement terminated when Erin bought Wilbur’s lot because she owned both the dominant and servient estates – and you cannot have an easement in your own property.
Note: They buyer may have to sue to try and get an implied easement by necessity.