Quimbee Flashcards
A homeowner agreed to sell his house to a buyer. While the homeowner was signing the sales agreement, he told the buyer that he would only close if the buyer could bring half of the purchase price in cash to the closing and finance the remainder. The buyer nodded in reply and signed the sales agreement, which stated nothing about the home’s financing. At closing, the escrow agent handed the deed to the buyer. The deed was subsequently recorded. However, the buyer financed three-quarters of the purchase price. When the homeowner learned of the financing arrangement, he unsuccessfully attempted to take the deed back.
Did the homeowner deliver the deed to the buyer?
Yes, because the deed was recorded. When a deed is recorded, there is a rebuttable presumption of valid delivery.
A homeowner powered his home using solar energy, which required unobstructed sunlight to contact solar panels on one side of the home’s roof. The lot next to the homeowner had been undeveloped for the past 10 years, as long as the homeowner had lived there. A buyer purchased the narrow undeveloped lot and filed plans to build a residence there. While compliant with all local land use ordinances, the buyer’s planned residence would be taller than the homeowner’s home. If constructed as planned, the buyer’s residence would place the side of the homeowner’s roof with the solar panels in shade for a majority of the day. As a result, the residence would cause the home to lose 80 percent of the sunlight it currently receives. The homeowner filed a nuisance claim, seeking an injunction compelling the buyer to alter the plans.
Which of the following arguments best supports the buyer’s defense of the nuisance claim?
The buyer’s planned residence is not an unreasonable invasion of the homeowner’s interests.
(note- the incorrect answer that I chose was The buyer’s planned residence does not invade on the homeowner’s use and enjoyment of his land. I was wrong because Here, the buyer’s planned residence arguably does interfere with the homeowner’s use and enjoyment of the land. At issue is whether that invasion is unreasonable.)
