Missed questions Flashcards
question 55
At common law, if a tenant defaulted on her rent obligation, the landlord could:
just
Sue the tenant for rent
under modern law if a tenant defaulted on her rent obligation, the landlord could:
choose to either sue the tenant for rent or evict the tenant.
Regarding a trespasser’s annexations to a landowner’s property, the trespasser loses the annexed chattel to the landowner and is liable for the reasonable rental value of the land on which she annexed the chattel.
If a real covenant is more restrictive than a zoning ordinance, __________.
If a zoning ordinance is more restrictive than a real covenant, __________.
which controls?
The covenant controls
The ordinance controls
May a tenant remove a chattel that the tenant affixed to the leased premises?
Yes, if removal occurs before termination of the lease and leaves no damage to the premises
n elderly man wrote a note to a friend stating that he wanted her to have his house and land. The man then went to his lawyer and had her draft a deed conveying the property to his friend. The man validly executed the deed and gave both the note and the executed deed to the lawyer, telling her to give them to the friend on his death.
The man continued to live on the property until his death one year later. Shortly thereafter, his will was admitted to probate; it left all of his property to a cousin. Prior to the probate of the estate, the friend received the note and deed from the lawyer, and promptly recorded the deed. After probate, she brought an appropriate action to quiet title to the property conveyed by the deed.
In that action, the court should find for:
A The friend, because the deed as delivered constituted a valid conveyance of the property.
B The friend, because the man’s note to her constituted a valid conveyance of the property.
C The cousin, because the deed conveying the property to the friend was not recorded until after the man’s death and thus was not effective.
D The cousin, because the fact that the man remained in possession of the property rendered the conveyance in the deed to the friend ineffective.
A The friend, because the deed as delivered constituted a valid conveyance of the property.
A grantor may deliver a deed to an escrowee with instructions that it be delivered to the grantee when certain conditions (e.g., death of the grantor) are met. When the conditions occur, title passes automatically to the grantee and relates back to the date of delivery to the escrowee.
A seller entered into an enforceable written agreement to sell her house to a buyer for $425,000. The agreement provided that closing would take place on September 18, and on that date the seller would provide marketable title, free and clear of all encumbrances. The agreement was silent as to risk of loss if the house was damaged prior to closing and as to any duty to carry insurance. On August 31, the seller cancelled her homeowners’ insurance when she moved out of the house. Consequently, when the house was destroyed by wildfires on September 15, it was uninsured. The buyer refused to close on September 18 and the seller immediately brought an action against him for specific performance. The buyer countersued for the cancellation of the contract and return of his earnest money. Both parties stipulate that the value of the property without the house is $225,000.
In this jurisdiction, which has no applicable statute, is the seller likely to prevail?
A Yes, but the price will be abated to $225,000.
B Yes, for the full contract price.
C No, because the seller had a duty to carry insurance until the closing date.
D No, because the seller could not convey marketable title.
B Yes, for the full contract price.
Here, the house was destroyed by fire after the seller and buyer entered into their contract for the sale of the house, but before the closing date. The contract was silent regarding the risk of loss. Thus, under the majority rule, the risk of loss is on the buyer.
Property was destroyed without the fault of either party (wildfires)
grantor-grantee index
tract index
An aunt executed and delivered a valid warranty deed conveying her home to her niece as a gift. The niece did not record the deed. Two years later, the aunt was involved in an auto accident. She had allowed her auto insurance to lapse and the other driver’s insurance company obtained a judgment against her for $100,000, which it recorded. A statute in the jurisdiction provides: “Any judgment properly filed shall, for 10 years from filing, be a lien on the real property then owned or subsequently acquired by any person against whom the judgment is rendered.” When the aunt died five years later, her will left all of her property to the niece. The insurance company filed a claim in probate against the estate for $100,000. The niece, as executrix, seeks a determination from the probate court that the home is not part of the aunt’s estate, having already been conveyed to the niece.
How should the court rule?
A The home is part of the estate and must be utilized to satisfy the $100,000 claim.
B The home is part of the estate, but is not subject to the $100,000 claim.
C The home is not part of the estate and thus is not subject to the claim.
D The home is not part of the estate, but is nevertheless subject to a $100,000 lien in favor of the insurance company.
C The home is not part of the estate and thus is not subject to the claim.
The home is not subject to the judgment lien even though the niece never recorded the deed. Under the recording acts, a subsequent mortgagee or bona fide purchaser for value generally prevails over the grantee of a prior unrecorded conveyance. However, most recording statutes do not protect subsequent judgment creditors on the theory that the creditor is not offering consideration at the time its lien is created, and the language of the recording statute generally extends protection to “purchasers,” defined as those obtaining an interest in exchange for consideration. Also, courts generally interpret a judgment lien statute like the one in the question to apply to “any land” actually owned by the judgment debtor rather than any land for which the judgment debtor has record title. Hence, (C) is correct and (A) is incorrect; the home was validly conveyed to the niece and is not subject to the claim of the lien creditor. (B) is incorrect because if the home were part of the estate, it would be subject to any claim against the testator. (D) is incorrect because the insurance company’s lien only applies against the judgment debtor or her estate. Even though the niece is sole beneficiary and executrix, she has no responsibility to pay charges against the estate out of what she already owns.
A right of first refusal gives its holder the preemptive right to meet any third party’s offer to purchase real estate.
A landowner had a contract to sell land to a developer. Before closing on the sale, the developer died. In his will, he left his real property to his son and the residuary estate, including all of his personal property, to his daughter. Just after the developer died, a third party offered to purchase the land from the landowner at a higher price than the contract price. The landowner notified the developer’s son that he was canceling the contract, and would not be conveying the land to the developer’s son. The jurisdiction retains the common law rules regarding exoneration.
What are the rights of the developer’s son?
A He can demand conveyance of the property.
B He can demand conveyance of the property and compel the daughter to pay the purchase price.
C He can recover money damages from the landowner but is not entitled to demand conveyance of the property.
D He has no rights against the landowner, because the landowner’s personal property interest in receiving the sale proceeds entitled the landowner to find another purchaser upon the developer’s death.
B He can demand conveyance of the property and compel the daughter to pay the purchase price.
The developer’s son can demand conveyance of the property at closing and compel the daughter to pay the purchase price. Once the parties have entered into a valid land sale contract, the rights of the parties are fixed according to the doctrine of equitable conversion. The purchaser is regarded as the owner of the real property, and the seller is regarded as having a personal property right to the proceeds of the sale. The doctrine of equitable conversion governs the rights of the parties in a case where, as here, the purchaser dies before the sale is completed at closing. A deceased buyer’s interest passes as real property to the taker of the buyer’s real property interests, in this case the son. He can compel specific performance and demand a conveyance of the land. Furthermore, under the traditional common law rule, he is entitled to exoneration out of the personal property estate. Thus, he can compel the daughter, as taker of the developer’s personal property interests, to pay the purchase price out of her share of the estate. (A) is therefore incorrect because it is does not address all of the son’s rights in this case. (C) is incorrect because, as noted above, the takers of a decedent’s real property can compel a conveyance of the land; they are not forced to settle for money damages. (D) is incorrect because the seller’s right to the sale proceeds does not lead to a right to enter into a land sale contract with another purchaser.
A seller owned a large parcel of land. The western half was undeveloped, and the eastern half contained a grove of apple trees. The seller gave a buyer a deed conveying “the western half of the parcel from the western boundary to the grove of apple trees, comprising 220 acres.” It was subsequently determined by survey that the land conveyed to the buyer was in fact 229 acres.
In a dispute between the seller and the buyer as to the mistake, which of the following is most accurate?
A The deed is invalid because of the mutual mistake of the parties.
B The deed is invalid unless the court admits parol evidence as to the amount of acreage conveyed.
C The deed is valid, and the buyer is the owner of 220 acres.
D The deed is valid, and the buyer is the owner of 229 acres.
D The deed is valid, and the buyer is the owner of 229 acres.
When there is a mistake or inconsistency in the description of property in the deed, one of the rules of construction is that the physical description takes precedence over the quantity description unless there are grounds for reformation of the deed (court rewrites the deed to make it conform to the intention of the parties).
Here, the facts indicate that the seller and the buyer were bargaining for a specific physical location (“the western half of the parcel from the western boundary to the grove of apple trees”) and not for a specific number of acres. Thus, there appear to be no grounds for reformation. A conflict in description does not invalidate a deed, so (A) and (B) are incorrect. While parol evidence may be admissible to ascertain the parties’ intent, the absence of parol evidence will not invalidate the deed as long as rules of construction may be applied to resolve any inconsistency. (C) is incorrect because, as discussed above, physical descriptions prevail over quantity.`
In the case of a will, the RAP period begins to run on the date of the testator’s death, and measuring lives used to show the validity of an interest must be in existence at the time of the T’s death.
When the owner of a tract of land sells a part of it and by this division deprives one lot of access to a public road, a right-of-way by absolute necessity is created over the lot with access to the public road. This is true regardless of whether the landlocked owner could obtain a right-of-way from another neighbor
a purchase-money mortgage executed at the same time as the purchase of the real property encumbered takes precedence over any other claim, including a previously filed judgment lien.
