Property - Missed Questions Flashcards
At common law, a conveyance of property from O “to O and A as joint tenants with right of survivorship” creates a __________.
A. Tenancy for years
B. Tenancy the entirety
C. Tenancy in common
D. Joint tenancy
C. Tenancy in common
“O” acquired his instrument first by another instrument.
Two partners bought a commercial building from an owner. They paid cash for the building and took title as joint tenants with right of survivorship. Several years later, the first partner executed a mortgage on the building to secure a personal loan to a bank. The second partner had no knowledge of the mortgage to the bank. The state in which the commercial building is located recognizes the lien theory of mortgages. The first partner died before paying off his loan. He left all of his property by will to his daughter, his only heir.
Who has title to the commercial building?
A. The second partner has title free and clear of the mortgage
B. An undivided one-half is held by the second partner free and clear of the mortgage, and the other one-half is held by the daughter, subject to the mortgage
C. An undivided one-half is held by the second partner and the other one-half by the daughter, with both halves subject to to the mortgage
D. The second partner has title to the entire property, with an undivided one-half being subject to the mortgage
A. The second partner has title free and clear of the mortgage
Which of the following transfers creates a sublease from T to T2?
A. One year into a five-year tenancy for years, T transfers his interest “to T2 for four years; however, if T2 breaches the original lease terms, T may reenter and retake the premises.
B. Six months into a seven-month tenancy for years, T transfers his interest “o A for the balance of the leasehold term.”
C. Two years into a four-year tenancy for years, T “assigns my entire interest to T2 for one year.”
C. Two years into a four-year tenancy for years, T “assigns my entire interest to T2 for one year.”
A landlord entered into a 10-year lease of a building with an auctioneer, who planned to use the building itself for a storage area and the covered porch at the front of the building for auctions. A term in the auctioneer’s lease stated, “Lessor agrees to maintain all structures on the property in good repair.” Four years into the lease, the landlord sold the property to a buyer. The buyer did not agree to perform any obligations under the lease. As instructed, the auctioneer began paying rent to the buyer. In the fifth year of the lease, the porch roof began to leak. Citing the lease terms, the auctioneer asked the buyer to repair the roof. He continually refused to do so. The auctioneer finally repaired the roof herself at a cost of $2,000. The auctioneer then brought an appropriate lawsuit to recover the money.
Absent any other facts, what is the auctioneer likely to recover?
A. $2,000 from the LL only, because the sale of the property did not sever his obligation to the auctioneer
B. $2,000 from the buyer only, because a covenant to repair runs with the land
C. $1,200 from the buyer and $800 from the LL, because that represents their pro rata shares
D. $2000 from either the buyer or the LL, because they are both in privity with the auctioneer
D. $2000 from either the buyer or the LL, because they are both in privity with the auctioneer
The only way that the LL could be released is by a novation; not present here.
A landowner and her neighbor owned adjoining parcels of land. The landowner’s property was situated to the west of the neighbor’s property. A highway ran along the east of the neighbor’s property. Twelve years ago, the landowner asked the neighbor if it would be all right for the landowner to use an eight-foot strip along the northern part of the neighbor’s land to access the highway. The only other way for the landowner to get to the highway was to use a one-lane unpaved road that meandered through the woods for two miles. The neighbor agreed, and the landowner used the strip of land regularly to access the highway. The statutory period for adverse possession in this jurisdiction is 10 years.
What is the landowner’s interest in the neighbor’s eight-foot strip of land?
A. An easement appurtenant
B. An easement by necessity
C. An easement by prescription
D. Not an easement
D. Not an easement
It is a license, not an easement. Licenses are revocable privileges.
A retiree purchased a rustic cabin on a small plot of land near the center of a landowner’s large parcel of land. The deed to the land, which the landowner delivered to the retiree for fair consideration, did not specifically grant an easement over the landowner’s property to reach the public highway bordering her land. There were two means of access to the cabin from the public roads: a driveway from the county road on the south, and a private road from the highway on the east. The landowner told the retiree that he could use the private road from the highway. Twice during his first two years at the cabin, the retiree took the driveway from the county road instead; at all other times he used the private road.
At the end of his second year at the cabin, the retiree began reading tarot cards to supplement his retirement income. He had a steady stream of clients coming to his home at all hours of the day and night. Most of the clients came in on the driveway from the county road, which ran close to the landowner’s home. The landowner objected, and told the retiree that neither he nor his clients had any right to use that driveway and that they must use the private road from the highway. The retiree refused, and he and his clients continued to use the driveway from the county road for three years. Finally, the landowner began blocking off the driveway from the county road. The retiree brought suit to enjoin this practice. The prescriptive period in this jurisdiction is five years.
Who will most likely prevail?
A. The landowner, because the tarot business changed the nature of the use of the easement by necessity.
B. The landowner, because she may select the location of the easement.
C. The retiree, because he has a valid easement by necessity in the driveway from the county road.
D. The retiree, because he has acquired an easement by prescription in the driveway from the county road.
B. The landowner, because she may select the location of the easement.
A developer owned a 240-acre parcel of land zoned for commercial and residential use. He prepared and recorded, after obtaining approval from all appropriate agencies, a subdivision plan that included a commercial center and a number of lots for single- and multi-family residences. The list of covenants, conditions, and restrictions recorded with the plan included provisions that required every building constructed in the subdivision to be of “simulated adobe style” architecture approved in advance by an association. A year later, the developer sold many of the lots in the commercial center, including several to a real estate firm. Each deed prepared by the developer contained a reference to the design restriction in the recorded plan. The developer also sold almost all of the residential lots, the deeds of which contained the same reference to the restriction. The following year, the real estate firm sold one of its lots to a burger franchise. The deed contained no reference to the design restriction. The franchise’s prefabricated restaurant, complete with a giant burger logo mounted on the roof, was constructed over the weekend.
A merchant, an original purchaser of one of the commercial lots, owned the lot next to the burger franchise. She did not learn of construction of the restaurant until she came in to work on Monday, and saw the giant burger logo. The merchant brings an action seeking a mandatory injunction compelling the burger franchise to demolish the restaurant. At trial, the merchant proves that the burger franchise did not seek or obtain approval of the association for its building.
Should the court issue the injunction?
A. No, because destruction of the restaurant would be a tremendous waste of resources.
B. No, because the burger franchise’s deed contained no restriction on the type of building that could be constructed on the lot.
C. Yes, because the restrictive covenant runs with the land.
D. Yes, unless the burger franchise can establish to the court’s satisfaction that its restaurant design has at least as much aesthetic merit as any “simulated adobe style” design.
C. Yes, because the restrictive covenant runs with the land.
A developer prepared and recorded a subdivision plan, calling for 100 home sites on half-acre lots. There were five different approved plans from which a purchaser could choose the design of the home to be built on his lot. Each deed, which referred to the recorded plan, stated that “no residence shall be erected on any lot that has not been approved by the homeowners’ association.”
A lawyer purchased a lot and built a home based on one of the approved designs. However, many of the lots were purchased by investors who wanted to hold the lots for investment purposes. Two years after the lots went on the market, one such investor sold her lot to an architect by a deed that did not contain any reference to the recorded plan nor the obligation regarding approval by the homeowners’ association. In fact, because very few residences had been built in the subdivision since the lots were first available for purchase, no homeowners’ association meetings had been held in two years.
The architect began building a very modernistic house on her one-half acre. When the lawyer noticed the house being built, he brought an action to enjoin the construction.
For which party will the court rule?
A. The architect, because her deed contained no restrictive covenants.
B. The architect, because any restrictive covenant in her deed can only be enforced by the opposite party to the covenant or that person’s successor in title.
C. The lawyer, because the recorded subdivision plan, taken with the fact that all lots were similary restricted and the architect had notice of this, gave him the right to enforce the covenant on her property.
D. The lawyer, because his deed contained the restrictive covenant.
C. The lawyer, because the recorded subdivision plan, taken with the fact that all lots were similary restricted and the architect had notice of this, gave him the right to enforce the covenant on her property.
A developer owned a 30-acre tract of farmland. As required by law, the developer filed a plat with the county planning board, but did not record it. The plat divided the parcel into 87 one-third-acre residential lots. A one-acre strip on the eastern edge of the parcel that abutted a busy highway was set aside for commercial development. The plat restricted each lot to a single residence and banned all “nonconforming detracting structures or appurtenances,” including “free-standing flagpoles more than six feet in height, television antennas and receiving equipment of excessive size and obtrusiveness, and windmills.” The restrictive clause was put into the deeds of all the residential lots in the subdivision, except for the deeds to lots 23, 24, and 25. This oversight was due to an error by the developer’s secretary. All the other lots had deeds stating that the restriction applied “to the grantee and his or her heirs and assigns.”
A homeowner purchased lot 24 and duly recorded her deed in the office of the county recorder of deeds. The developer’s salesperson had orally informed the homeowner of the general restrictions applicable to lots in the subdivision. A year later, a sports bar purchased the one-acre commercial strip and installed a large satellite dish. Two years later, the homeowner sold her property to a buyer. The homeowner never mentioned any of the restrictions to the buyer. The buyer put a satellite dish on top of his house. His dish was not as large as the bar’s dish, but it was obviously bigger than any of his neighbors’ modest antennas. The owners of 15 lots in the subdivision sue the buyer, demanding that he remove the dish.
If the court finds for the buyer, what is the likely reason?
A. The buyer is not charged with record notice based on other deeds given by a common grantor
B. The buyer’s predecessor in interest, the homeowner, was not bound by the oral restriction told to her by the developer’s salesperson
C. The property owners suing the buyer all purchased their lots prior to the homeowner’s purchase of lot 24
D. The existence of a satellite dish on the eastern end of the original parcel indicates that neighborhood conditions have changed to the point where it would be inequitable to enforce the restrictions.
A. The buyer is not charged with record notice based on other deeds given by a common grantor
A developer created an exclusive residential subdivision. In his deed to each lot, the following language appeared:
Grantee agrees for himself and assigns to use this property solely as a single-family residence, to pay monthly fees as levied by the homeowners’ association for upkeep and security guard services, and that the backyard of this property shall remain unfenced so that bicycle paths and walkways may run through each backyard, as per the subdivision master plan [adequately described], for use by all residents of the subdivision.
The developer sold lots to an actuary, a baker, and a coroner. All deeds were recorded. The subdivision was developed without backyard fences, with bicycle paths and walkways in place in accordance with the general plan. The actuary in turn sold to an accountant by a deed that omitted any mention of the covenants above, and the accountant had no actual knowledge thereof. Shortly thereafter, the accountant started operating a tax preparation business out of his home. The baker in turn sold to a barber, who knew of, but refused to pay, the monthly fees levied by the homeowners’ association. The coroner leased their property for 10 years to a chiropractor, who erected a fence around the backyard, unaware of the covenant against such fencing.
According to common law principles, which of the following statements is correct?
A. If the developer, still owning unsold lots, sues the accountant to have him cease operating the tax preparation business, the accountant would win because there is no privity between the developer and the accountant.
B.If the homeowners’ association sues the barber to collect the monthly fees for upkeep and security guard services, the homeowners’ association would win because the covenant regarding fees is enforceable in equity against the barber.
C. If the barber sues the chiropractor to obtain removal of her backyard fence, the barber would win because the covenant regarding fencing is enforceable in equity against the chiropractor.
D. If the chiropractor sues the accountant to have him cease operating the tax preparation business, the chiropractor would win because the covenant regarding single-family use is enforceable at law against the accountant.
C. If the barber sues the chiropractor to obtain removal of her backyard fence, the barber would win because the covenant regarding fencing is enforceable in equity against the chiropractor.
O conveys a life estate to A, with a remainder to B.
If during A’s lifetime, X enters into actual, exclusive possession that is open and notorious and hostile for the statutory period, will X obtain title to the land?
A. Yes, if X had color of title.
B. No, because land subject to a future interest cannot be acquired by adverse possession.
C. No, but X will acquire A’s life estate.
D. Yes, because X satisfied the elements of adverse possesion.
C. No, but X will acquire A’s life estate.
A farmer conveyed a 60-acre parcel of land to a rancher. A private gravel road ran through the center of the parcel. The southern half consisted of arable land, which the farmer, and later the rancher, used for farming. The northern half was undeveloped woodland. The rancher never used the northern half for timbering or for anything else. On very rare occasions, the rancher would take a walk in the woods, but outside of those occasions she never set foot on the northern half.
Fifteen years after the farmer conveyed the parcel to the rancher, a landowner appeared, claiming ownership of the northern half of the parcel. Unbeknownst to either the farmer or the rancher, the landowner’s name had been forged on the deed purporting to convey the parcel to the farmer, and the landowner was, in fact, the true owner of the property at that time. The state in which the parcel is located has a 10-year statutory adverse possession period. The landowner admits that the rancher now has title to the southern half of the parcel by adverse possession.
In an action to quiet title, who will prevail as to the northern half of the parcel?
A. The landowner, because the rancher did not actually occupy the northern half.
B. The landowner, because one may not obtain color of title through a forged deed.
C. The rancher, because her farming of the southern half was constructive occupation of the entire parcel, including the northern half.
D. The rancher, because the farmer did not know his deed to the parcel was forged, and he acted in good faith when he conveyed to the rancher.
A. The landowner, because the rancher did not actually occupy the northern half.
A man owned a tract of land in fee simple. Fifteen years ago, he built a barn on five acres that he believed were part of his property. One year later, the man discovered that the five acres on which he had built his barn were not part of his property. The five acres actually belonged to the woman who owned the adjoining property. The year following the discovery that the five acres belonged to the woman next door, the woman died, leaving all of her property to her one-year-old daughter. The man has brought a quiet title action against the now 14-year-old daughter. The statutory period for adverse possession in this jurisdiction is 10 years. The man has not paid any additional property taxes to account for the five acres for any of the past fifteen years.
Who will prevail?
A. The daughter, because the man did not pay the property taxes on the five acres.
B. The daughter, because her status as a minor tolls the statute until she reaches her majority.
C. The man, because he honestly believed that the five acres were part of his land.
D. The man, because he was in continuous possession of the five acres for the statutory period.
D. The man, because he was in continuous possession of the five acres for the statutory period.
Which of the following does not charge a purchaser of realty with inquiry notice?
A. Absence of his grantor’s deed from chain of title.
B. His deed’s reference to an unrecorded instrument.
C. His grantor’s use of a quitclaim deed.
D. The presence of a third party on the property.
C. His grantor’s use of a quitclaim deed.
A landowner gratuitously conveyed his interest in land to a friend by quitclaim deed. The friend promptly and properly recorded her deed. Six months later, the landowner conveyed his interest in the same land to an investor for $50,000 by warranty deed, which was promptly and properly recorded.
As between the friend and the investor, who has the superior right to title to the land?
A. The friend, regardless of the type of recording statute.
B. The friend, because she recorded prior to the investor’s recording.
C. The investor, regardless of the type of recording statute.
D. The investor, because it took by warranty deed rather than quitclaim deed.
A. The friend, regardless of the type of recording statute.
