Real Property Flashcards
Adverse Possession
HELUVA
Hostile Exclusive Lasting Uninterrupted Visible Actual (or constructive / leasing)
SoF K of Sale
description of prop
names of parties
price or a means of determining the price
for breach of IWOH
terminate the lease
make repairs and offset the cost against future rent
abate the rent to an amount equal to the fair market value in view of the defects
remain in possession, pay full rent, and sue for damages
CONTRAST constructive eviction
Four unities of JTs
unity of title
possession
time
interest
equitable servitudes
intent and touch and concern for both burden and benefit; notice only for burden
real covenants
intent, touch and concern, and vertical privity for burden and benefit; horizontal privity and notice for burden only
formalities in a deed
in writing prop description conveyancing language signed by the grantor (acknowledgement is not necessary) no consideration needed
formalities in a K for sale
description of the property
names of the parties
the price or a means of determining the price
in writing signed by party to be charged
mortgage on the LE
does not obligate remaindermen to pay
life estate holder alone is liable
title theory versus lien theory
note that mortgage in a lien theory state will not destroy unity of title and sever a joint tenancy
holdover COMMERCIAL tenant on a two-year lease paying monthly rent
is treated as a year-to-year tenant
cross easements for support, driveway or fence
result in horizontal privity (mutual interests in the same property)
if grantee assumes the mortgage, does original mortgagor remain liable?
yes, as a surety (lender is 3rd party beneficiary)
BUT
if the grantee takes subject to the mortgage, then transferee not liable on the underlying promise to pay the mortgage
mortgagee can still foreclose, but would go after transferor for a deficiency j/m
A buyer contracted to purchase a home from a real estate developer for $700,000, and made a down payment on the purchase in the amount of $100,000. The buyer’s employer provided $100,000 of the purchase price, by giving the buyer a loan and taking a mortgage. Because of the down payment, the employer agreed to an additional loan provision, whereby the buyer could receive up to $100,000 in future financing, subject to the same terms as the first $100,000, if the buyer needed extra cash. The developer loaned $500,000 to the buyer to finance the remainder of the purchase price, and in return took a mortgage on the property. Both mortgages were recorded the day after closing. One week later, a bank obtained a judgment against the buyer for a delinquent credit card balance. The bank recorded its judgment lien the next day. Another month after that, the buyer incurred some extraordinary medical expenses, and asked the employer for another $100,000, which the employer provided and added onto the principal balance the buyer owed on the loan. Finally, six months later, the buyer asked the developer to change the terms of the loan, so that the buyer would have more time to pay. The developer and the buyer agreed that the buyer could have an additional five years to pay the balance of the loan, but the interest rate would increase by an extra percentage point. Shortly thereafter, the buyer lost his job and defaulted on all of his payments. The employer brought an action to foreclose its mortgage.
(i) the original amount of the employer’s purchase money mortgage, (ii) the bank’s judgment, (iii) the $100,000 advance by the employer, and finally, (iv) the amount of the increase in the debt to the developer due to the agreed modification of the interest rate on the original loan. The original unmodified purchase money mortgage of the developer would remain on the land because it was senior to the mortgage being foreclosed (the employer’s).
On April 15, a seller entered into a valid written agreement to sell her home to a buyer for $175,000. The provisions of the agreement provided that closing would be at the buyer’s attorney’s office on May 15, and that the seller would deliver to the buyer marketable title, free and clear of all encumbrances. On the date of closing, the seller offered to the buyer the deed to the house, but the buyer refused to go ahead with the purchase because his attorney told him that a contractor who had done work on the house had recorded a lis pendens on May 1 against the property regarding a $10,000 contract dispute he had with the seller. The seller indicated that she was unaware of the lien, but that she was willing to go ahead with the sale and set aside funds from the purchase price to cover the contractor’s claim until the dispute was resolved. The buyer still refused to proceed, stating that the seller had breached the contract.
Seller entitled to use proceeds of sale as a guarantee to clear the encumbrance
