RP, DO THIS SET Flashcards
Alex acquired a property by adverse possession, did not record and did not live there. Subsequently Jake bought a property from its previous owner for value (BFP) and recorded. In a lawsuit by Jake against Alex, who wins?
Alex has a superior title. The recording acts do not protect a subsequent purchaser against interests that arise by operation of law, because there is no instrument to record in order to perfect such interests.
What element is not required to acquire an easement by prescription?
Exclusivity is not required. Must be Open, Continous, Hostile, Notorious.
A seller agreed to sell land by an to a buyer for an agreed price. At closing, the seller tendered the deed to the land, but the buyer refused to complete the transaction because of a secured note on the land, saying that the contract required the seller to supply a deed free of encumbrances. The seller offered to put the proceeds of the sale in escrow for that purpose, for which the buyer could pick the escrow agent. The buyer refused the seller’s proposal. Can the seller use proceeds from the sale to clear the title?
Yes. Although the seller is obligated to transfer a title free of encumbrances, he has an implied right to use proceeds from the sale to clear the title (so long as the price is higher than liens)
A landowner and her neighbor owned adjacent parcels of land. The landowner hired a contractor to install an in-ground swimming pool on her land. The day after the contractor had excavated for the pool, the neighbor’s storage shed, located on his property a few feet from the edge of the excavation, collapsed when the ground shifted. A riding tractor and patio furniture contained within the shed were damaged. The neighbor sued the landowner for damages. At trial, the neighbor established that the landowner’s project caused the subsidence and the damage to his property.
What else must the neighbor establish to prevail?
For the neighbor to prevail, he must show either that his land would have been damaged without the storage shed or that the contractor was negligent. A landowner has a right to have his land supported in its natural state by adjoining land. If, however, the land has buildings on it, an excavating adjacent landowner is strictly liable for damage to the buildings caused by the excavation only if the excavation would have caused the land to subside even in its natural state (i.e., without buildings). Even if the land would not have subsided in its natural state, the excavating landowner is liable for the damages if she was negligent.
Which of the following statements is correct under the federal Fair Housing Act?
1) The landlord’s expressed preference for lessees without children in the ad violated the Act.
2) The landlord’s refusal to lease the home to a tenant with children violated the Act.
3) Both the landlord’s expressed preference for lessees without children in the ad and the refusal to lease the home to a tenant with children violated the Act.
1) The landlord’s expressed preference for lessees without children in the ad violated the Act.
Because LL that live I the apartment and rent no more than three single family units are excepmpt from the statute and can discriminate to whom they lease. But still cannot discriminate in ads
To whom does Fair Housing Act apply
to all landlords except to single-family homes rented by an owner who owns no more than three single-family homes
What does Fair Housing Act state?
A person may not be discriminated against because of their race, color, religion, national origin, sex, disability or familial status
A brother and a sister held record title to a home as joint tenants with right of survivorship. The brother moved out of the home shortly after conveying his interest in the home to his friend by quitclaim deed. The friend did not record his deed. Several years later, the sister died, leaving her adopted daughter as her sole heir. Shortly after the sister died, the brother asked his friend to return his deed and give up his interest in the home. The friend agreed and returned the deed, which the brother destroyed.
Who has title to the home?
The friend and the daughter own the home as co-tenants.
the destruction of the friend’s deed has no effect on his interest. For the brother to have his interest back, the friend would have to reconvey by deed to him.
A landowner devised her home “to my daughter for life, then to the eldest survivor of her two children, my grandson and granddaughter, for life, remainder to the eldest surviving offspring of the two grandchildren who is alive at the death of the last life tenant.” After the landowner’s death, the daughter lived in the family home for 15 years. Upon the daughter’s death, both of her children were alive, so the home passed to the grandson, the eldest. He lived in the house for three years, and then conveyed it to the city historical society, which converted it into its headquarters and museum. Eight years later, the grandson died. At the time of his death, he was survived by his widow, his two sons, the granddaughter, and the granddaughter’s daughter, who was the eldest of the niece and nephews. Four years after the grandson’s death, the granddaughter’s daughter brought an action for ejectment and to quiet title against the city historical society. The jurisdiction has a statutory period of adverse possession of 10 years, or five years if entry was made by the adverse possessor under color of title.
How should the court rule in the granddaughter’s daughter’s action?
The granddaughter’s daughter prevails because the statutory period for adverse possession did not begin to run against her until the grandson died.
Prior to the termination of the grandson’s life estate, the granddaughter’s daughter had no cause of action against the society because she had no right to possession. Upon the grandson’s death, when the granddaughter’s daughter’s interest became possessory, the statute began to run against her. Thus, as against her, the society has not been in adverse possession for the requisite period.
What is the difference between equity of redemption rights and statutory redemption rights?
Statutory redemption rights gives the borrower a right to redeem for the foreclosure price AFTER the foreclosure sale
Equity of redemption right gives the borrower a right to pay the amount due plus any accrued interest prior to foreclosure to free land of mortgage.
An entrepreneur opened a specialized business on her land. After using up most of her capital to purchase inventory, however, the entrepreneur needed more funds and asked her friend for a $30,000 loan, to be secured by the business’s inventory. The friend declined the loan. A desperate entrepreneur then told the friend she would convey the land, which had a fair market value of $100,000, to him if he would give her the loan at the current market rate of interest. The friend agreed, and the entrepreneur conveyed the land to the friend the next day. At that time, the friend gave the entrepreneur $30,000 in cash, and the parties orally agreed that the entrepreneur would pay the friend back at the rate of $1,000 per month, and that after the loan was paid in full, the friend would reconvey the land to the entrepreneur. The friend immediately recorded his deed to the land.
The entrepreneur made three $1,000 payments to the friend and then paid no more. She continued to live on the land but, being very much in debt, could not repay the loan. The friend, meanwhile, had received an offer to buy the land for $100,000.
Which of the following most accurately states the friend’s right to sell the property?
A The friend may sell the land and keep the entire proceeds.
B The friend may sell the land, but he must give $73,000 of the proceeds to the entrepreneur.
C The friend may sell the land only after formally foreclosing on the property.
D The friend may not sell the land.
C The friend may sell the land only after formally foreclosing on the property.
In the course of repainting an apartment, the landlord of a small apartment building used a professional strength, stain-killing primer manufactured by a paint company for professional painters. The building’s common ventilation system was running as the landlord applied the primer, and some fumes from the primer went through the ventilation system into the apartment of the upstairs tenant, who suffered injuries to her eyes as a result. The warning label on the can, which the landlord read, stated: “Danger. This material is extremely hazardous and volatile. Do not use near open flame. Use only with adequate ventilation.” The product contained a chemical known to be harmful to people’s eyes, but in the 15 years that the product has been on the market, there were no reported cases of anyone suffering an eye injury from the product. However, professional painters routinely close off or shut down any common ventilation systems in buildings before using the product.
If the tenant brings an action against the paint company on a theory of strict liability, will she recover?
A Yes, because the product was used as intended and she was injured thereby.
B Yes, because the label on the product did not warn of the risk of the fumes causing eye injury.
C No, because the fact that no one had previously been injured demonstrated that the warning label on the product was sufficient.
D No, because the landlord acted negligently by leaving the ventilation system on.
B Yes, because the label on the product did not warn of the risk of the fumes causing eye injury.
