Missed Questions Flashcards
A landlord entered into a written lease of a bakery for a term of 25 years with a baker. The parties agreed to a right of first refusal if the bakery was offered for sale during the term of the lease. The lease also permitted assignments and subleases on notice to the landlord. Three years later, the baker retired and, after notifying the landlord, transferred the lease to a chocolatier. Twenty-one years later, the landlord entered into a contract with a buyer for the sale of the bakery for $100,000. The landlord had informed the buyer of the lease but had forgotten about the right of first refusal. When the chocolatier learned of the sale to the buyer, she informed both the landlord and the buyer that she wanted to exercise her option and was prepared to purchase the bakery for the contract price. The jurisdiction’s Rule Against Perpetuities is unmodified by statute.
Can the chocolatier enforce the option?
Yes, because the option touches and concerns the land. The right of refusal is a covenant. When a tenant makes a complete transfer of the entire remaining term of his leasehold interest, it constitutes an assignment. The assignee and the landlord are then in privity of estate, and each is liable to the other on all covenants in the lease that run with the land. The covenant runs with the land if the original parties so intend and the covenant “touches and concerns” the leased land, i.e., burdens the landlord and benefits the tenant with respect to their interests in the property.
A landowner conveyed his land “to my son for life, then to my son’s widow for her life, then to my son’s children.” At the time of the conveyance, the son was 20 years old and unmarried. The son eventually married and had two children, the landowner’s grandson and granddaughter.
Many years later, the landowner and the grandson were involved in a train accident. The landowner was killed instantly. The grandson died a short time later of his injuries. The landowner left his entire estate by will to his friend. The grandson’s will devised his entire estate to the city zoo. The son’s wife was so grief-stricken that she became ill and died the next year, leaving her entire estate to her husband.
Eventually the son met and married a 21-year-old. Ten years later, the son died, leaving everything to his second wife. When the second wife moved onto the land, the granddaughter filed suit to quiet title to the land, joining all of the appropriate parties.
If the jurisdiction recognizes the common law Rule Against Perpetuities, unmodified by statute, in whom will the court most likely find that title to the land is held?
The granddaughter and the city zoo each own one-half of the land, subject to the second wife’s life estate.
A man and his neighbor owned homes on adjacent lots in a subdivision. The subdivision’s recorded restrictions did not prohibit detached storage sheds, and several homeowners in the subdivision had placed such sheds in their backyards. Because the man and the neighbor thought the sheds were unsightly, they both agreed in writing not to place detached storage sheds in their respective yards. Their agreement was drafted in recordable form and stated that it was enforceable by and against all assignees, heirs, and successors. The agreement was promptly recorded.
Three years later, the neighbor gave his home to his daughter. Shortly after moving into the home, the daughter learned of the restriction. She informed the man that she planned to put a detached storage shed in her backyard, claiming that the restriction was not enforceable against her.
Does the man have the right to enjoin the neighbor’s daughter from placing a detached storage shed in her yard?
Yes, because the restriction is binding on the daughter as a successor. The man is seeking an injunction which means this is a equitable servitude not a covenant.
Can a joint tenancy with right of survivorship be destroyed by a devise in a will?
NO.
A woman owned land in fee simple absolute. The woman conveyed the land to a friend “for life,” and when the friend died the land was to go to the woman’s neighbor “and her heirs.”
The neighbor died and in her duly probated will devised her entire estate to a local charity. If she had died intestate, her daughter would have been her only heir.
One year after the neighbor died, her daughter executed a quitclaim deed conveying any interest she might have in the land to the woman’s friend.
The common law Rule Against Perpetuities is unmodified in the jurisdiction. There are no other applicable statutes.
Who has what interest in the land?
The grant here gave a life estate to the friend and a remainder in fee simple to the neighbor. It is a remainder because on the friend’s death (the natural termination of the preceding estate), the neighbor has the right to possession. The remainder is vested because it was granted to an ascertainable person in being (the neighbor) and there were no conditions to prevent it from becoming possessory. A vested remainder is devisable by will; so when the neighbor devised her estate to the local charity, the charity took her vested remainder interest.
A landlord leased a building to a tenant for a 10-year term. Two years after the term began, the tenant subleased the building to a sublessee for a 5-year term. Under the terms of the sublease, the sublessee agreed to make monthly rent payments to the tenant.
Although the sublessee made timely rent payments to the tenant, the tenant did not forward four of those payments to the landlord. The tenant has left the jurisdiction and cannot be found. The landlord has sued the sublessee for the unpaid rent.
There is no applicable statute.
If the court rules that the sublessee is not liable to the landlord for the unpaid rent, what will be the most likely reason?
The sublessee is not in privity of estate or privity of contract with the landlord. In a sublease, the tenant transfers a right of possession for a time shorter than the balance of the leasehold. Therefore, the sublessee and the tenant are in privity of estate with each other, but only the tenant remains in privity of estate with the landlord. There also is no privity of contract between the sublessee and the landlord, because the sublessee made no promise, either to the landlord or to the tenant, to pay rent to the landlord. Lacking privity, the sublessee is not liable to the landlord for the rent. Although privity may not be required under an equitable servitude theory, a finding for the sublessee would mean that the court did not use such a theory.
Ten years ago, a couple bought a building and moved into its second-floor apartment with their teenage daughter. The couple operated a shoe store on the first floor of the building for many years. When the couple purchased the building, the area was predominantly rural and was zoned for nonresidential use. The municipality’s zoning is cumulative.
Five years ago, the municipality rezoned the area to single-family residential use. The daughter was not aware of this change, since she was away at college.
Recently, the daughter inherited the building from her parents. The daughter immediately moved into the apartment and took over the operation of the shoe store on the first floor. The daughter has learned that a developer is planning to build a large residential community in the area surrounding her building.
The daughter has asked her lawyer for advice regarding her ability to continue operating the shoe store.
Should the lawyer advise the daughter that she can continue to operate her shoe store?
Yes, because the shoe store is a nonconforming use. A cumulative zoning ordinance creates a hierarchy of uses of land, and land that is zoned for a particular use may be used for the stated purpose or for any higher use. A residential use is higher than a nonresidential use. Here, the building was in an area originally zoned for nonresidential use. The daughter and her parents used the property for a business and their residence. This was appropriate under the cumulative zoning ordinance as the family’s uses met or exceeded the zoned use. Later, the area was rezoned for single-family residential use, which is a higher use than the shoe store. However, a use that exists at the time of passage of a zoning ordinance and that does not conform cannot be eliminated at once. Generally, the nonconforming use may continue indefinitely, but any change in the use must comply with the zoning ordinance. Because the shoe store existed at the time of the rezoning, the daughter may continue to operate the shoe store as a nonconforming use.
Fifteen years ago, two men who were fishing buddies moved onto vacant rural land owned by a woman they didn’t know and built a small fishing shack on it. Twelve years ago, the men replaced the shack with a fish processing plant and a commercial fishing boat dock. The men maintained their commercial fishery operation on the land until one of them died intestate last year, leaving a sole heir.
The period of time to acquire title by adverse possession in the jurisdiction is 10 years.
The woman has now become aware of the changes that have occurred on the land.
In an action to determine title, for whom should the court decide?
Title to the property was acquired by adverse possession. For adverse possession, the possession must be: (i) actual (it must give the true owner notice of the trespass) and exclusive (not shared with the true owner or the public); (ii) open and notorious possession (use of the property as an owner would be sufficient to put the true owner on notice of the trespass); (iii) adverse (sometimes called hostile, which means without the owner’s permission); and (iv) continuous for the statutory period. Two or more people can work together to take title by adverse possession, and if they meet the requirements, they take as tenants in common. Here, the men took actual possession of the land by building a fish processing plant and dock.
An owner of a parcel of land instructed his lawyer to draw up an instrument deeding the land to his friend’s “nieces.” The owner acknowledged the deed before a notary and signed it. As directed by the owner, the lawyer recorded the deed and then returned it to the owner. The owner put the deed in the drawer of his desk, intending to present it to the friend’s nieces when they came to visit him next month.
The following week, however, the owner died, leaving his daughter as his sole heir at law. The daughter discovered the deed to the land in the owner’s desk. She filed an appropriate action to quiet title in the land, naming the friend’s only two nieces as defendants. The only evidence presented at the trial was the deed itself, the evidence of recordation, and the lawyer’s testimony regarding the owner’s intent.
Who should the court rule owns the land?
the nieces, because recording of a notarized deed satisfies a prima facia case for delivery. To be valid, a deed must be “delivered,” which means that the grantor must have taken some action (not necessarily a manual handing over of the deed) with the intent that it operate to pass title immediately. Recording a deed that has been acknowledged before a notary is such an action and is presumed to carry with it the requisite intent. Even without the knowledge of the grantee, delivery to the recorder’s office will satisfy the delivery requirement. If the grantor intends the recording of the document to be the final act in vesting title in the grantee, then such recording constitutes delivery.
A landowner validly conveyed a parcel of land to a veterinarian “for so long as the property is used as a veterinary practice, but if the property is used for any other purpose, it is to go to the American Cancer Society.” Two years later, the landowner died, validly devising all of his property to his friend. The landowner’s only heir is his daughter. Although this jurisdiction is a common law jurisdiction with respect to all real property considerations, the state’s probate laws provide that future interests or estates in real property may be passed by will or descent in the same manner as present or possessory interests.
Last month, the veterinarian approached the daughter and asked her to join with him to sell the parcel of land, which he had been using as an animal shelter, in fee simple absolute to a developer. The veterinarian and the daughter entered into a contract of sale with the developer. However, after consultation with an attorney, the veterinarian decided against the sale. The developer sued the daughter and the veterinarian for specific performance.
Will the requested relief likely be granted?
No because the friend did not join the k. The executory interest to the American cancer society is void because it violates RAP. It can vest when someone dies and 21 years after. What is left after it is stricken is a POR to the landowner which passed to the friend after the landowner died.
A landlord who owned a strip mall entered into a written five-year lease of one of the units with a discount retail perfumery. The lease provided for a monthly rent of $1,000, payable on or before the first day of each month. The perfumery dutifully paid its rent on time for two years and three months. At that time, with the oral permission of the landlord, the perfumery transferred its interest in the remainder of the lease to a dry cleaner in writing, and added a clause requiring the dry cleaner to get permission from the perfumery for any subsequent assignments. The dry cleaner promptly paid rent to the landlord for 14 months, and then asked the landlord to approve a transfer of its interest in the lease to a video rental store. The landlord gave her oral assent. To obtain the perfumery’s approval of the transfer to the video store, the dry cleaner wrote a letter to the perfumery, promising that if any problems arose and anyone tried to go after the perfumery for money, the dry cleaner would “make it good.”
After the perfumery sent a letter back to the dry cleaner agreeing to the transfer, the dry cleaner executed a written transfer of its interest to the video store. The video store promptly paid rent for three months. Having failed to make any profits, the video store ceased paying any rent to the landlord and cannot be located. The landlord has been unable to find anyone interested in the unit.
Given that any judgment against the video store would be worthless, from whom can the landlord collect the unpaid rent owed on the lease?
either the perfumery or the dry cleaner. Usually when dry cleaner assigned its interest its privity of estate would cut off, however, dry cleaner promised the tenant to pay. so both could be liable.
