Property Quizes

ML purchases the house at 537 Paper Street from TD and TD conveys the property to ML in 1999 by quit claim deed.  ML never occupies the house.  TD occupied the house prior to selling the house to ML for a period of years.  In 2003, RP challenges ML's ownership of the house and commences a court case.  RP proves conclusively that TD only ever rented the 537 Paper Street house and therefore could not have passed title to ML.  RP can prove no title to the house of his own.  RP occupied the house for a short time together with TD as TD's guest. RP left the premises before TD and before TD conveyed the house to ML.  Between ML and RP, who wins?

 

ML because TD conveyed good title.

 

ML because he has better title than RP.

 

RP because TD could not convey good title to ML.

 

RP because he previously occupied the property.

ML because he has better title than RP.

ML purchases the house at 537 Paper Street from TD and TD conveys the property to ML in 1999 by quit claim deed.  ML never occupies the house.  TD occupied the house prior to selling the house to ML for a period of years.  In 2003, BigBank challenges ML's ownership of the house and commences a court case.  BigBank proves conclusively that TD only ever rented the 537 Paper Street house and that TD therefore could not have passed title to ML.  BigBank can prove a valid title to the house and that TD rented from BigBank.  Between ML and BigBank, who wins?

 

ML because TD occupied the house.

 

BigBank because TD could not pass any interest in the house to anyone.

 

ML assuming the premises are uninhabitable.

 

BigBank because it has better title than ML.

BigBank because it has better title than ML.

A and B both wish to claim the last parcel of land in a public land grant scheme. The scheme specifies that the first person to mark off a parcel of property has ownership of that parcel.   A gets to the land first and is able to mark her ownership claim consistent with the terms of the land grant scheme.  B can prove conclusively that due to A's poor farming skills, the land in question will produce below average yields. B further proves that due to her own farming skills, B could produce above average yields from the same parcel of land.  Between A and B, who has better claim to the parcel of land in question? 

 

A because A is first in time.

 

Neither A nor B because their claims offset each other.

 

A and B must split the property.

 

B because B would make more productive use of the property.

A because A is first in time.

Sportsman sets out on a fox hunt on horseback with a pack of hounds. The pursuit begins on a public beach. In the hot pursuit of a fox, Sportsman and his pack of hounds jump a fence and pass a no trespassing sign.  Before Sportsman can complete the hunt, Everyman shoots the fox.  Everyman is the owner of the land on which the fox was taken.  Sportsman gets to the fox before Everyman.  Between Sportsman and Everyman, who has better claim to the fox?

 

Sportsman because he was in hot pursuit.

 

Sportsman because of the rule of capture.

 

Everyman because he killed the fox.

 

Everyman because Sportsman trespassed on his property.

Everyman because Sportsman trespassed on his property.

Sportsman sets out on a fox hunt on horseback with a pack of hounds. Instead of pursuing a fox, Sportsman instead pursues a dog.  The dog has a collar identifying it as the property of Everyman.  While Sportsman is in hot pursuit of the dog, Everyman successfully steps in to stop the hunt and calls the frightened dog to him.  The jurisdiction in question recognizes that as a matter of the rule of capture, a person is entitled complete taking a wild animal when that person can prove that the person was in hot pursuit.  The pursuit at all times took place on public property.  Between Sportsman and Everyman, who has better claim to the dog?

 

Sportsman because the pursuit took place on public property.

 

Sportsman because Sportsman was in hot pursuit.

 

Everyman because Everyman was the first to take control of the animal.

 

Everyman because Everyman owned the animal prior to the pursuit by Sportsman.

Everyman because Everyman owned the animal prior to the pursuit by Sportsman.

Mineral Owner 1 drills an oil well into an oil reservoir.  Mineral Owner 1's rights to oil and gas abut those of Mineral Owner 2.  Mineral Owner 2 has a right to develop the same oil reservoir.  Mineral Owner 1 drills the well horizontally right to the property line separating the mineral estates of Mineral Owner 1 and Mineral Owner 2.  Mineral Owner 1 then uses a fracturing process on his own side of the property line.  Mineral Owner 1 knows (as does everyone in the industry) that the fracturing process will cross the property line between Mineral Owner 1 and Mineral Owner 2 and force oil from Mineral Owner 2's estate to Mineral Owner 1's well.  Mineral Owner 1 did not physically intrude on Mineral Owner 2's estate.  All else being equal and assuming that Mineral Owner 1 did not otherwise violate any regulations governing oil and gas production, is Mineral Owner 1 entitled to the excess oil produced by means of the fracturing process 'aimed at' Mineral Owner 2's estate?

 

No because Mineral Owner 1 intended to deprive Mineral Owner 2 of oil which Mineral Owner 2 was entitled to develop.

 

No because Mineral Owner 1 trespassed on Mineral Owner 2's estate.

 

Yes, by virtue of the rule of capture.

 

Yes because oil is subject to the rule of capture.

Yes, by virtue of the rule of capture.

Fan is a professional football game.  Quarterback of home team throws a landmark touchdown pass setting the all-time sports ball record.  Fan jumps out of the stands, rushes the receiver in the end zone and wrestles the ball from him.  Fan jumps back into the stands with the ball firmly in his possession.  In the stands, Fan is tackled by Security Guard.  When Fan hits the ground, the ball comes loose and Security Guard recovers it.  Who has the best claim to the ball?

 

Security Guard because Security Guard got the ball from Fan.

 

Fan because the ground cannot cause a fumble.

 

Home team because home team at no point abandoned the ball.

 

Fan because Fan completed possession of the ball before losing the ball.

Home team because home team at no point abandoned the ball.

Jesse eats at a fine dining restaurant.  At the end of the meal, Jesse receives the check in a credit card sleeve. The bill is for the meal for $364.50. Jesse pays with a $1,000 bill and tells the waiter to give Jesse back $500 and keep the rest as a tip.  Jesse's waiter returns with the requested $500 in change in the sleeve containing the bill.  Jesse at that exact moment receives an important phone call from Rick and leaves without picking up the change. Bob, another patron, notices the issue, takes the $500 and flags down the owner of the restaurant to hand in the $500 in change.  Jesse never returns to the restaurant.  Who has the best claim to the $500?

 

Waiter because waiter was the last person in possession of the money.

 

Bob because the $500 was lost.

 

Bob because the $500 was abandoned.

 

Owner because the $500 was milaid.

Owner because the $500 was milaid.

Shady Person tries to hide $100,000 in cash.  Shady Person goes on a fenced off pasture by jumping the fence, digs a hole next to a group of trees, places the money in the hole and covers it up. The land belongs to Big City Banker.  Employee of Electricity Company digs on the land in question to electric lines connecting a near by sub-development.  Electric Company acts on its own account rather than as an agent of Big City Banker (it is on the land pursuant to an easement.)  Employee finds $100,000 adjacent to where the electric lines will be buried.  Shady Person never returns for the money.  Who has the best claim to the $100,000?

 

Electric Company because Employee acted as its agent.

 

Big City Banker because the money was embedded in the soil.

 

Employee because the money was lost.

 

Employee because the money was abandoned.

Big City Banker because the money was embedded in the soil.

Drug Enforcement Agency impounds a car used in the narcotics trade and sells it to Buyer.  Buyer takes it to Mechanic.  Mechanic discovers $10,000 in cash the gas tank and informs Drug Enforcement Agency.  The Prior Owners from whom the Drug Enforcement Agency impounded the car are made aware of the discovery and disclaim all knowledge of the cash.  Who has the best claim to the $10,000?

 

Buyer because the money was abandoned.

 

Prior Owners because they are the true owners.

 

The DEA because the money had been mislaid.

 

Mechanic because she found the money.

Buyer because the money was abandoned.

Armand eats dinner at a Bistro.  At the end of the meal, Armand takes an espresso.  Shortly after his espresso arrives, Armand notices that there is no sugar on his table. Armand looks around and notices that the waitstaff has gone into the kitchen.  He gets up from his table, walks to the kitchen door, knocks, opens it and asks: "excuse me, would you be able to get me some sugar?"  The chef, incensed, says: "Sir, you are not allowed in the kitchen. Please leave at once.  A waiter will be with you momentarily."  As he turns to leave, Armand notices a brooch on the kitchen floor.  He quickly strides forward, picks up the brooch and takes it to his table.  Once the waiter arrives with Armand's sugar, Armand hands the brooch to his waiter and says "I hope the true owner comes forward. It is beautiful."  The true owner does not come forward.  Who has the best claim to the brooch? 

 

Armand because the brooch was mislaid.

 

Waiter because Armand handed the brooch to waiter.

 

Armand because the brooch was abandoned.

 

The owner of the bistro because Armand trespassed in the kitchen.

The owner of the bistro because Armand trespassed in the kitchen.

Every school night, Ferris, Sloane, and Cameron sneak into the school at night, break into the office of the Dean of Students, Ed Rooney and rearrange the furniture and hang notes expressing their appreciation on the wall with thumbtack, signing the note.  Every morning, Ed Rooney furiously cleans up his office and swears he will get Ferris this time.  As Ferris, Sloane, and Cameron always have an air tight alibi, they are never caught for the break-ins to Rooney's office.  Assuming that the statutory period for adverse possession in Chicagoland is three years, and assuming further that Ferris, Sloane, and Cameron began their prank on their first day of high school, have they adversely possessed Ed Rooney's office when they become seniors? 

 

Yes, because entry of every day of the school year is continuous.

 

Yes, because their entry was exclusive for the school year.

 

No, because their entry was in fact notorious.

 

No, because their entry was not open.

No, because their entry was not open.

Jay is a student at Lawrence State University.  Jay tries to save a little money on rent and decides to squat in the student dorms rather than paying for a room.  On orientation day, Jay walks into the dorms with a flood of other students. Jay deftly avoids the check in line and makes for the tornado shelter and sets up camp.  Every day of term, Jay enters the dorms with a mass of students at the end of the day.  Jay makes it down to the shelter no earlier than 11 pm. Jay cleans up the shelter every morning at 6 am.  A few evenings, some students look for a place to consume items they brought with them from Colorado away from prying eyes and try to enter the tornado shelter.  Jay kicks them out unceremoniously, pointing out "I got here first."  Jay does this from Jay's first day as an undergraduate to Jay's graduation as MD, MBA, JD, PhD fifteen years later.  Has Jay adversely possessed the tornado shelter?

 

No, because entry was not notorious.

 

Yes, because entry was exclusive.

 

Yes, because entry was open.

 

No, because entry was not continuous.

No, because entry was not notorious.

Janis is tired of the rat race.  Together with a few friends, she squats in an abandoned farm within sightline of a major highway.  Janis and her friends set up big signs like - "Bobby McGee Commune," "Squat With Us!," and "All Welcome."  Plenty of people join Janis in the Bobby McGee Commune and no one is ever turned away.  Twenty years later, the owner of the farm wants to turn the site into an amusement park.  Did Janis and her friends adversely possess the farm?

 

No, because their entry was not notorious.

 

No, because their entry was not exclusive.

 

Yes, because their entry was adverse.

 

Yes, because the landowner should have known what was going on on the land.

No, because their entry was not exclusive.

Patrick and Cameron do not like Bogey. Bogey is pretentious and condescending.  Every year when Bogey travels to Saint Barts for his Christmas vacation, Patrick and Cameron break into Bogey's mansion and hold a one night 'Die Hard Christmas Party.'  The party is typically attended by 1,000 people and is the talk of the town (even though nobody knows who exactly organizes it).  The party guests do not pick up after themselves and more than a few items break during every party.  This goes on for twenty years. Bogey never files a police report as that would be such an unclassy thing to do.  Did Patrick and Cameron adversely possess Bogey's mansion?

 

Yes, assuming Bogey could have stopped the partying by filing a police report.

 

Yes, because Bogey had actual knowledge of the party.

 

No, because entry was not continuous.

 

No, because entry was not notorious.

 

No, because entry was not continuous.

The Smith family purchases one of ten five acre lots in a sub-division close to a beach community popular with vacationers.  The other nine lots are sold to different owners.  The Smith family is the only owner to develop the lot. The other owners are financial institutions that hold the land as investment property.  The Smiths are at their home for the entire duration of the summer vacation and for every other school break.  The owner of the adjacent lot only notices some twenty years later that the Smiths encroached on its property.   The Smiths enclose an additional acre of their neighbor's property by inadvertence in a very discrete fence that is visible only when one is on a property in the subdivision. Assuming that the Maine doctrine applies, did the Smith family adversely possess the additional acre enclosed in its fence?

 

No, because it acted with the wrong state of mind.

 

Yes, because its state of mind is irrelevant.

 

No, because it did not continuously occupy the land.

 

es, because it acted with the right state of mind.

No, because it acted with the wrong state of mind.

Sourgens owns an estate he rarely visits.  Davies enters onto the estate in 2007 without permission and builds a soccer field and clubhouse on the property.  He is regularly on the property and the press report on his activities.  In 2015, Davies passes his interest in the property he improved by quit claim deed to Childress.  Childress continues to hold soccer events at the field and club house.  In 2018, Sourgens tries to eject Childress.  The statutory period for adverse possession is 10 years. Can Sourgens eject Childress?

 

No, because Sourgens waited for more than 10 years to protect his property.

 

Yes, because Davies was on the property for less than 10 years.

 

No, because Davies and Childress are in privity.

 

Yes, because Davies cannot be in privity with Childress with regard to property he did not own.

No, because Davies and Childress are in privity.

Elizabeth owns Derryacre in 1952.  Orla enters Derryacre in 2018.  Elizabeth passes away in 2022 and leaves Derryacre to her heir Charles.  Charles moves to eject Orla in 2029.  The statutory period for adverse possession is ten years.  Assuming that Orla meets all the requirements of adverse possession with the only open question being whether she entered against Charles's interest in 2018, can Charles eject Orla in 2029?

 

No, because Orla entered against Elizabeth and Charles in 2018.

 

Yes, because Orla entered against Charles only in 2022 when Charles had a right of possession of Derryacre.

 

Yes, because Orla entered against Elizabeth, not Charles.

 

No, because Orla was in continuous possession of Derryacre for longer than the statutory period.

No, because Orla entered against Elizabeth and Charles in 2018.

Cruyff owns Barcacre. In 1980, Marca enters onto Barcaacre.  Cruyff passes in 1984.  Cruyff's heir Pep is ten years old when Pep inherits Barcaacre in 1984.  In 1995 when Pep is twenty-one years old, he becomes insane.  He is cured of his insanity in 2002. When does Marca adversely possess Barcaacre, assuming all requirements for adverse possession are met?

 

1997.

 

2007.

 

1995.

 

1990.

1997.

Sméagol loses a ring in a cave. Bilbo finds the ring.  Bilbo finds out the ring belongs to Sméagol. Bilbo and Sméagol agree that Sméagol will give Bilbo the ring if Bilbo can answer a riddle.  Bilbo answers the riddle correctly.  Bilbo says "Excellent. I will keep it, then. See you!" Did Sméagol make a gift of the ring to Bilbo?

 

No, because Bilbo did not accept the ring.

 

Yes, because Sméagol intended to make a gift.

 

Yes, because Bilbo had possession of the ring.

 

No, because Sméagol did not deliver the ring to Bilbo.

No, because Sméagol did not deliver the ring to Bilbo.

Aflac owns a life insurance policy worth $100,000.  The life insurance policy is located in Aflac's desk. Aflac tells Gilbert "I give you the desk and its contents" and hands Gilbert a key to the desk.  Gilbert takes the key. The desk includes personal papers, manuscripts, and photos as well as the life insurance policy.  The other items are worth $5,000. Shortly after Aflac hands Gilbert the key, Gilbert and Aflac die.  Gilbert's heirs want to take the proceeds from the policy. Did Aflac make a gift of the life insurance policy to Gilbert?

 

Yes, because Aflac gave Gilbert the key to the desk containing the life insurance policy.

 

No, because Gilbert did not accept the gift.

 

No, because Aflac did not deliver the life insurance policy.

 

Yes, because Aflac intended to give Gilbert the life insurance policy.

 

No, because Aflac did not deliver the life insurance policy.

Fezzik shows a ring to Buttercup at dinner and says "It's mine. I want you to have this."  Buttercup takes a look at the ring and says "I can't take it, it's too big for me."  Fezzik says "That's fair. Let me keep it until we can have it resized for you. I still want you to have it."  Buttercup shrugs.  During dinner, Fezzik dies because he is poisoned with iocane powder.  Who owns the ring, Buttercup or Fezzik's heirs?

 

Buttercup because A intended a causa mortis gift.

 

Buttercup because Fezzik delivered the ring to Buttercup.

 

Fezzik's heirs because Buttercup did not accept the ring.

 

Fezzik's heirs because Buttercup returned the ring to Fezzik.

Fezzik's heirs because Buttercup did not accept the ring.

A writes to B "I want you to have Blackacre when I die." A year later, A drafts a will.  In the will, A leaves Blackacre to C.  Two years later, A dies.  Who takes Blackacre?

 

B, because A made a gift of the land to B before making the will.

 

C, because A did not have an intent to give an existent interest to B.

 

C, because A was in possession of the land when A drafted the will.

 

B, because A only retained a life estate.

C, because A did not have an intent to give an existent interest to B.

A writes to B "I give you to Blackacre, retaining a the right to stay on Blackacre while I live." B writes back "I accept." A year later, A drafts a will.  In the will, A leaves Blackacre to C.  Two years later, A dies.  Who takes Blackacre?

 

C, because A did not have an intent to transfer an existing interest to B.

 

C, because A did not deliver Blackacre to B.

 

B, because A made a gift of Blackacre to B.

 

B, because C is not in privity with A.

B, because A made a gift of Blackacre to B.

A writes to B "I give you to Blackacre, retaining a life estate in Blackacre for the duration of the life of D." B writes back "I accept." A year later, A drafts a will.  In the will, A leaves Blackacre to C.  Two years later, A dies.  D is still alive. Who takes Blackacre?

 

C takes Blackacre for the duration of the life of D.

 

B takes Blackacre immediately upon A's death because A only had a life estate.

 

C takes Blackacre immediately because A did not deliver Blackacre to C.

 

C takes Blackacre because A left C Blackacre in the will.

C takes Blackacre for the duration of the life of D.

Justin is Britney's boyfriend.  One day, Justin buys a $250,000 engagement ring, gets on one knee, shows Britney the ring, and asks Britney to marry him.  Britney says 'yes' and Justin places the ring on Britney's ring finger.  Two weeks later, Britney finds Justin with Jenna and breaks off the engagement. Britney publicly gives Justin her engagement ring back.  Justin says "I want you to have this ring. I love you!!!" Britney takes the ring and throws it in Justin's face screaming "I don't want it back. Bye, bye, bye!!" Justin yells after her "I cannot take it back. It will always be yours. Give me a chance, baby, one more time!"  Ten minutes later, Alecia finds the ring on the street, recognizes it as Britney's and wears it around her neck while also wearing a T-shirt saying "My Ring Now" Britney and Justin both demand the ring from Alecia. The events take place in a no fault jurisdiction. Who has the best claim to the ring?

 

Alecia because Justin and Britney both abandoned the ring.

 

Britney because Justin gave her the ring unconditionally.

 

Justin as the true owner.

 

Britney because Justin gave Britney cause to break off the engagement.

Alecia because Justin and Britney both abandoned the ring.

Elizabeth devises to Charles the following estate in her will: "To Charles, I leave Balmoralacre and all my Swans.  But not the dogs.  Those go to Andrew."  What estate did Elizabeth leave Charles in her will, applying the contemporary rules of property law?

 

Fee simple because Andrew only get the dogs.

 

Fee simple because the law presumes that a grantor conveys the largest possible estate.

 

A life estate because Elizabeth did not include words of limitation in her will.

 

A life estate because Elizabeth did not include words of inheritance in her will.

Fee simple because the law presumes that a grantor conveys the largest possible estate.

Elizabeth devises to Charles the following estate in her will: "To Charles and to the heirs of his body, I leave Balmoralacre and all my Swans.  But not the dogs.  Those go to Andrew."  What estate did Elizabeth leave Charles in her will, applying the contemporary rules of property law?

 

A life estate because the will used the wrong words of limitation.

 

Fee simple assuming the fee tail has been abolished.

 

A life estate assuming the fee tail has been abolished.

 

A fee tail.

Fee simple assuming the fee tail has been abolished.

Elizabeth devises to Charles the following estate in her will: "To Charles and his heirs, I leave Balmoralacre and all my Swans.  But not the dogs.  Those go to Andrew."  At the time of Elizabeth's death, Charles has two sons, William and Harry.  Upon Elizabeth's death, Charles immediately subdivides Balmoralacre, sells half of it to Elon Musk to build a battery factory and leaves the other half of Balmoralacre in his will to his wife from a second marriage with the words "to Camilla and her heirs."  Charles plans to donate all the money from the sale of half of Balmoralacre to Greenpeace.  William and Harry sue.  Which if any of Charles' action can they enjoin?

 

The device to Camilla because William and Harry are heirs included in Elizabeth's original will.

 

All because Charles is a life tenant.

 

None because Charles is the fee simple owner of Balmoralacre on Elizabeth's death.

 

The sale to Musk because the sale to Musk constitutes waste.

None because Charles is the fee simple owner of Balmoralacre on Elizabeth's death.

Elizabeth devises to Charles the following estate in her will: "To Charles for his life, I leave Balmoralacre and all my Swans.  But not the dogs.  Those go to my son Andrew."  At the time of Elizabeth's death, Charles has two sons, William and Harry.  Upon Elizabeth's death, Charles immediately subdivides Balmoralacre, sells half of it to Elon Musk to build a battery factory and leaves the other half of Balmoralacre in his will to his wife from a second marriage with the words "to Camilla and her heirs."  Charles plans to donate all the money from the sale of half of Balmoralacre to Greenpeace.  William and Harry sue.  Which if any of Charles' action can they enjoin?

 

The sale because it constitutes a waste.

 

None because they are not certain to inherit as there is a reversion of Balmoralacre to Elizabeth and her heirs upon Charles' death.

 

The device to Camilla as Charles only has a life estate.

 

Both because each constitutes a waste.

None because they are not certain to inherit as there is a reversion of Balmoralacre to Elizabeth and her heirs upon Charles' death.

Elizabeth devises to Charles the following estate in her will: "To Charles for his life and then to William and his heirs, I leave Balmoralacre and all my Swans.  But not the dogs.  Those go to my son Andrew."  At the time of Elizabeth's death, Charles has two sons, William and Harry.  Upon Elizabeth's death, Charles immediately subdivides Balmoralacre, sells half of it to Elon Musk to build a battery factory and leaves the other half of Balmoralacre in his will to his wife from a second marriage with the words "to Camilla and her heirs."  Charles plans to donate all the money from the sale of half of Balmoralacre to Greenpeace.  William sues.  Which if any of Charles' action can he enjoin?

 

The device to Camilla.

 

None as William is not certain to inherit Balmoralacre on Charles' death.

 

All actions as Charles is only a life tenant.

 

The subdivision and sale to Musk as those constitute a waste.

The subdivision and sale to Musk as those constitute a waste.

Elizabeth devises to Charles the following estate in her will: "To Charles, I leave Balmoralacre and all my Swans.  Charles must not sell Balmoralacre and must leave it to William only and not to his second son Harry.  If Charles tries to sell or devise Balmoralacre in whole or in part to Harry, then Balmoralacre shall go immediately to Andrew and his heirs." William is Charles' oldest son. What is the best answer as to what estate Elizabeth left Charles?

 

A fee tail because William is Charles' oldest son.

 

A life estate because Elizabeth expressly enjoins a sale of Balmoralacre.

 

Fee simple because of the presumption that a grantor conveys the largest estate possible.

 

No estate because the entire conveyance imposes an impermissible restraint on alienability.

Fee simple because of the presumption that a grantor conveys the largest estate possible.

Elizabeth devises to Charles the following estate in her will: "I leave Balmoralacre to Charles for life  and then to William."  Once William learns of the will but before Elizabeth's death, William intends to sell his interest in Balmoralacre to Elon Musk to build a battery factory.  At that time, can William sell an interest in Balmoralacre?

 

Yes, because William is certain to come into possession.

 

No, because Charles may survive William.

 

Yes, because a different result would impose an impermissible restraint on alienation of Balmoralacre.

 

No, because Elizabeth could change her will.

No, because Elizabeth could change her will.

Elizabeth devises to Charles the following estate in her will: "I leave Balmoralacre to Charles for life  and then to William."  Shortly after Elizabeth's death, William intends to sell his interest in Balmoralacre to Elon Musk to build a battery factory.  At that time, can William sell an interest in Balmoralacre?

 

Yes, because William is certain to come into possession.

 

No, because Elizabeth could change her will.

 

Yes, because a different result would impose an impermissible restraint on alienation of Balmoralacre.

 

No, because Charles may survive William.

Yes, because William is certain to come into possession.

Elizabeth devises to Charles the following estate in her will: "I leave Balmoralacre to Charles. He must preserve Balmoralacre as a historical site in its current and may not build further buildings, change the facade of the building or make any structural alterations to the buildings currently on Balmoralacre.  Charles must use Balmoralacre as a hunting lodge and personally visit it at least ten times a year.  He may only bring family members and four non-family members with him at any time."  May Charles sell Balmoralacre to Richard Branson for the development of Balmoralacre into a luxury resort?

 

Yes, because Elizabeth may not impose use restrictions in her will.

 

Yes, because the restrictions imposed on Charles are an impermissible restraint on alienation.

 

No, because such a sale would violate a permissible use restriction of the property.

 

No, because Charles only has a life estate.

Yes, because the restrictions imposed on Charles are an impermissible restraint on alienation.

Elizabeth devises to Charles the following estate in her will: "I leave Balmoralacre to Charles. He must preserve the castle on Balmoralacre as a historical site.  Charles must use Balmoralacre as place to which all family members can come a retreat from their busy lives whenever they need it."  Charles wants to sell Balmoralacre to Richard Branson for the development of Balmoral acre into a luxury resort.  The resort would be anchored by the castle on the property which would be expertly preserved as a historical site. May Charles sell Balmoralacre to Richard Branson?

 

No, because Charles is a life tenant.

 

No, because the sale would violate reasonable use restrictions.

 

Yes, because the restriction is an impermissible restraint on alienation of the property.

 

Yes, assuming that all qualifying family members can stay free of charge at the resort when ever they wish to visit.

Yes, assuming that all qualifying family members can stay free of charge at the resort when ever they wish to visit.

Mickey conveys as follows: "To Goofy for life, then to Donald's children, and if Donald does not ever have children, to Huey, Dewey, and Louie."  At the time of the conveyance, Goofy, Donald, and Huey, Dewey, and Louie are alive.  Donald does not have children.  Which of the following answers best identifies Mickey's future interest at the time of conveyance?

 

Mickey has a possibility of reverter.

 

Mickey has no future interest.

 

Mickey has a reversion.

 

Mickey has a right of entry.

Mickey has a reversion.

Mickey conveys as follows: "To Goofy for life, then to Donald's children, and if Donald does not ever have children, to Huey, Dewey, and Louie."  At the time of the conveyance, Goofy, Donald, and Huey, Dewey, and Louie are alive.  Donald does not have children.  Which of the following answers best identifies Donald's childrens future interest at the time of conveyance?

 

Fee simple subject to condition subsequent.

 

Contingent remainder.

 

Vested remainder.

 

Vested remainder subject to divestment.

Contingent remainder.

Mickey conveys as follows: "To Goofy for life, then to Donald's children, and if Donald does not ever have children, to Huey, Dewey, and Louie."  At the time of the conveyance, Goofy, Donald, and Huey, Dewey, and Louie are alive.  Donald does not have children.  Before Goofy dies, Donald has a daughter. Which of the following answers best identifies Donald's children future interest at the then current time?

 

Vested remainder.

 

Vested remainder subject to open.

 

Vested remainder subject to divestment.

 

Contingent remainder.

Vested remainder subject to open.

Mickey conveys as follows: "To Goofy for life, then to Donald's children, and if Donald does not ever have children, to Huey, Dewey, and Louie."  At the time of the conveyance, Goofy, Donald, and Huey, Dewey, and Louie are alive.  Donald does not have children.  Which of the following answers best identifies Huey, Dewey, and Louie's future interest?

 

Shifting executory interest.

 

Contingent remainder.

 

No future interest.

 

Vested remainder subject to open.

Contingent remainder.

Mickey conveys as follows: "To Goofy for life, then to Donald's children, and if Donald does not ever have children, to Huey, Dewey, and Louie."  At the time of the conveyance, Goofy, Donald, and Huey, Dewey, and Louie are alive.  Donald does not have children.  Before Goofy dies, Donald has a daughter. Which of the following answers best identifies Huey, Dewey, and Louie future interest at the then current time?

 

No future interest.

 

Vested remainder subject to divestment.

 

Contingent remainder.

 

Shifting executory interest.

No future interest.

Mickey conveys as follows: "To Goofy for life, then to Donald's children, and if Donald does not ever have children, to Huey, Dewey, and Louie."  Goofy is dead.  Donald is alive. Huey, Dewey, and Louie are alive.  Donald has no children. What interest does Mickey have at this time?

 

A springing executory interest.

 

A right of reverter.

 

A reversion.

 

Fee simple subject to executory limitation.

Fee simple subject to executory limitation.

Mickey conveys as follows: "To Goofy for life, then to Donald's children, and if Donald does not ever have children, to Huey, Dewey, and Louie."  Goofy is dead.  Donald is alive. Huey, Dewey, and Louie are alive.  Donald has no children. What interest do Huey, Dewey, and Louie have at this time?

 

No future interest.

 

A shifting executory interest.

 

A vested remainder subject to divestment.

 

A springing executory interest.

A springing executory interest.

Mickey conveys as follows: "To Goofy for life, then to Donald's children, and if Donald does not ever have children, to Huey, Dewey, and Louie."  Goofy is dead.  Donald is alive. Huey, Dewey, and Louie are alive.  Donald has no children. What interest do Donald's children have at this time?

 

A shifting executory interest.

 

A springing executory interest.

 

A vested remainder subject to open.

 

A contingent remainder.

A springing executory interest.

Mickey conveys as follows: "To Goofy for life, then to Donald's children, and if Donald does not ever have children, to Huey, Dewey, and Louie."  Goofy is dead.  Donald is dead. Huey, Dewey, and Louie are alive.  Donald has no children. What interest do Huey, Dewey, and Louie have at this time?

 

A shifting executory interest.

 

Fee simple.

 

A vested remainder subject to open.

 

A springing executory interest.

Fee simple.

Mickey conveys Toonacre as follows: "To Goofy for life, then to Donald's children, and if Donald does not ever have children, to Huey, Dewey, and Louie."  Mikey is dead. Goofy is dead.  Donald is dead. Huey, Dewey, and Louie are dead.  Donald has no children. Who takes Toonacre?

 

Huey, Dewey, and Louie's heirs.

 

Mickey's heirs.

 

Goofy's heirs.

 

Donald's heirs.

Huey, Dewey, and Louie's heirs.

Tony Stark conveys: "Stark Tower to Nick Fury for life then to Riri Williams."  Does Riri Williams have a good interest in Stark Tower?

 

Yes, because she has a vested remainder.

 

No, because Riri Williams could die before Tony Stark.

 

Yes, because Nick Fury is a validating life.

 

No, because Tony Stark could die before Nick Fury.

Yes, because she has a vested remainder.

Tony Stark conveys: "Stark Tower to S.H.I.E.L.D. for 99 years then to Riri Williams."  Tony Stark dies twenty-two years later.  Riri Williams dies eighty years later.  Does S.H.I.E.L.D. own Stark Tower in fee simple?

 

No, at the end of the 99 years Riri Williams' heirs take in fee simple.

 

No, at the end of the 99 years Tony Stark's heirs take in fee simple.

 

Yes, the period before Riri Williams can enter in possession is more than 21 years.

 

Yes, because there is no validating life.

No, at the end of the 99 years Riri Williams' heirs take in fee simple.

Tony Stark conveys: "Stark Tower to Nick Fury and his heirs so long as they use Stark Tower as a base of operations for the Avengers."  Tony Stark dies twenty-two years later.  Riri Williams is Tony Stark's heir.  After Stark dies, Nick Fury no longer uses Stark Tower as a base of operations for the Avengers.  Does Riri Williams have a good interest in Stark Tower?

 

No, because Riri Williams was only identified on Tony Stark's death.

 

No, because Nick Fury's heirs could change the use of Stark Tower.

 

Yes, because Nick Fury is a validating life.

 

Yes, because possibilities of reverters are inheritable.

Yes, because possibilities of reverters are inheritable.

Tony Stark conveys: "Stark Tower to S.H.I.E.L.D. so long as S.H.I.E.L.D. uses Stark Tower as a base of operations for the Avengers."  Tony Stark dies twenty-two years later.  Riri Williams is Tony Stark's heir.  After Stark dies, S.H.I.E.L.D. no longer uses Stark Tower as a base of operations for the Avengers.  S.H.I.E.L.D. is a government agency.  Does Riri Williams have a good interest in Stark Tower?

 

Yes, because possibilities of reverter are inheritable.

 

No, because government agencies cannot be validating lives.

 

Yes, because Tony Stark is a validating life.

 

No, because twenty-two years passed after the conveyance.

Yes, because possibilities of reverter are inheritable.

Tony Stark conveys: "Stark Tower to S.H.I.E.L.D. so long as S.H.I.E.L.D. uses Stark Tower as a base of operations for the Avengers, then to Riri Williams."  Tony Stark dies twenty-two years later.  Riri Williams is Tony Stark's heir.  After Stark dies, S.H.I.E.L.D. no longer uses Stark Tower as a base of operations for the Avengers.  S.H.I.E.L.D. is a government agency.  Does Riri Williams have a good interest in Stark Tower?

 

Yes, because Tony Stark is a validating life.

 

Yes, because possibilities of reverter are inheritable.

 

No, because government agencies cannot be validating lives.

 

No, because twenty-two years passed after the conveyance.

No, because government agencies cannot be validating lives.

Howard Stark conveys: "To Peggy Carter for life, then my grandchildren, and if I do not have grandchildren to Chester Phillips."  As far as Howard knows, he has one one son, Tony Stark. Tony Stark has no children, yet.  Peggy Carter is alive.  Chester Phillips is alive. Tony Stark is alive. Howard Stark is alive. Is the conveyance to Stark's grandchildren good?

 

No, because there is no validating life.

 

Yes, because Tony Stark is a validating life.

 

No, because Howard Stark could currently have children he does not know about.

 

Yes, because Peggy Carter is a validating life.

No, because there is no validating life.

Tony Stark devises in his will: "Stark Tower to such of the employees or interns of Stark Enterprises who have successfully become Avengers."  At the time of Tony Stark's death, Peter Parker, an "employee or intern of Stark Enterprises" had become an Avenger.  Following Tony Stark's death, Riri Williams becomes an Avenger.  Riri Williams was an employee or intern of Stark Enterprises while Tony Stark was alive.  Later Peter Parker's daughter, MJ jr., becomes first a Stark Enterprises intern and later still an Avenger.  MJ jr. was born ten years after Tony Stark died. Who if anyone has a good interest in Stark Tower?

 

Only Peter Parker does, because Peter Parker is his own validating life under the rule of convenience.

 

No one does, because after-born employees like MJ jr. mean that the class gift vests too remotely.

 

All three (Peter Parker, Riri Williams and MJ Parker, jr.) do, because they meet the conditions of the gift.

 

Only Peter Parker and Riri Williams do, because they are their own validating lives under the rule of convenience.

Only Peter Parker and Riri Williams do, because they are their own validating lives under the rule of convenience.

Tony Stark devises in his will: "Stark Tower to Pepper Potts for life, then to such of the employees or interns of Stark Enterprises who have successfully become Avengers."  At the time of Tony Stark's death, Peter Parker, an "employee or intern of Stark Enterprises" had become an Avenger.  Following Tony Stark's death, Riri Williams becomes an Avenger.  Riri Williams was an employee or intern of Stark Enterprises while Tony Stark was alive.  Later Peter Parker's daughter, MJ jr., becomes first a Stark Enterprises intern and later an Avenger.  MJ jr. was born ten years after Tony Stark died. Who if anyone has a good interest in Stark Tower?

 

All three (Peter Parker, Riri Williams and MJ Parker, jr.) do, because they meet the conditions of the gift.

 

Only Peter Parker and Riri Williams do, because they are their own validating lives under the rule of convenience.

 

Only Peter Parker does, because Peter Parker is his own validating life under the rule of convenience.

 

No one does, because after-born employees like MJ jr. mean that the class gift vests too remotely.

No one does, because after-born employees like MJ jr. mean that the class gift vests too remotely.

Tony Stark and S.H.I.E.L.D. enter into a complex set of real estate transactions.  One provision of these contracts provides as follows: "S.H.I.E.L.D. shall have a right of first refusal on Stark Tower in perpetuity and Tony Stark, his heirs, assigns and successors in interest must sell Stark Tower to S.H.I.E.L.D. on the same terms as those on which he would sell to a third party."  80 years later, Riri Williams, Tony Stark's heir, wishes to sell Stark Tower to New Asgard Tours Inc. for $250 MM.  S.H.I.E.L.D. is a government agency.  Does S.H.I.E.L.D. have a valid right of first refusal?

 

Yes, because rights of first refusal are not subject to the Rule Against Perpetuities.

 

No, because government agencies cannot be validating lives.

 

No, because the document by its terms assigns a perpetual interest in land.

 

Yes, because Tony Stark is a validating life.

Yes, because rights of first refusal are not subject to the Rule Against Perpetuities.

Tony Stark conveys “Stark Towers to Pepper Potts for her life, then to Nick Fury for his life, then to Pepper Potts’ grandchildren then living.” Assume ‘then living’ refers to the time of the natural termination of the immediately previous estate. What interest do Pepper Potts grandchildren have?

 

A springing executory interest.

 

A contingent remainer.

 

None because their interest violates the rule against perpetuities.

 

A shifting executory interest.

A contingent remainer.

Tony Stark conveys “Stark Towers to Nick Fury for his life, then to Pepper Potts for her life, then to Pepper Potts’ grandchildren then living.” Assume ‘then living’ refers to the time of the natural termination of the immediately previous estate. What interest do Pepper Potts grandchildren have?

 

None because their interest violates the rule against perpetuities.

 

A shifting executory interest.

 

A springing executory interest.

 

A contingent remainer.

A contingent remainer.

Peter Quill devises "Milanoacre to Rocket, Groot, Drax, and Gamora as joint tenants." Subsequently, Drax conveys his interest in Milanoacre to the Collector.  Gamora dies and leaves Nebula as her heir.  What interest does Nebula have in Milanoacre?

 

Nebula has no interest in Milanoacre because Gamora was a tenant in common.

 

Nebula has no interest in Milanoacre because Gamora was a joint tenant.

 

Nebula is a joint tenant in Milanoacre.

 

Nebula is a tenant in common in Milanoacre.

Nebula has no interest in Milanoacre because Gamora was a joint tenant.

Peter Quill devises "Milanoacre to Rocket, Groot, Drax, and Gamora as joint tenants." Subsequently, Drax conveys his interest in Milanoacre to the Collector.  Gamora dies and leaves Nebula as her heir.  What interest does Rocket have in Milanoacre as against Groot?

 

Rocket has no interest in Milanoacre.

 

Rocket has an undivided half interest with Groot as joint tenant in 75% of Milanoacre.

 

Rocket has a divided half interest with Groot.

 

Rocket has a 37.5% interest in Milanoacre, the same as Groot.

Rocket has an undivided half interest with Groot as joint tenant in 75% of Milanoacre.

Peter Quill devises "Milanoacre to Rocket and Groot as joint tenants for their joint lives, remainder to the survivor." Subsequently, Rocket conveys his interest in Milanoacre to the Collector.  Rocket dies.  What interest does Groot have in Milanoacre?

 

Fee simple as sole tenant.

 

None as Milanoacre reverts to Quill's heirs.

 

A joint tenancy with the Collector.

 

A tenancy in common with the Collector.

Fee simple as sole tenant.

Peter Quill owns Milanoacre as joint tenant with Gamora.  Peter Quill wants to make sure that he can devise his interest in Milanoacre to Groot.  Peter Quill therefore conveys his own interest in Milanoacre to himself.  Peter Quill then makes out a will devising his interest in Milanoacre to Groot.  At Peter Quill's death, what is Groot's interest in Milanoacre?

 

Groot has no interest as Gamora takes all of Milanoacre under the right of survivorship.

 

Groot has a half undivided interest as tenant in common with Gamora.

 

Groot has a half undivided interest as tenant by the entirety with Gamora.

 

Groot has a half undivided interest as joint tenant with Gamora.

Groot has a half undivided interest as tenant in common with Gamora.

Peter Quill owns Milanoacre as joint tenant with Gamora.  Peter Quill secures a loan from the Ravagers with a mortgage in Milanoacre. The Ravagers do not enforce against Milanoacre during Peter Quill's life. At Peter Quill's death, can the Ravager still enforce against Milanoacre?

 

No, because Gamora takes free of the mortgage under the right of survivorship.

 

Yes, because mortgages are an overriding interest.

 

Yes, because Peter Quill severed the joint tenancy by entering into the mortgage.

 

No, assuming Gamora knew nothing of the mortgage.

No, because Gamora takes free of the mortgage under the right of survivorship.

Peter Quill and Groot are tenants in common of a Walkman.  Both have a peculiar attachment to listening to mix tapes on the Walkman.  They cannot agree on how to use the Walkman and Peter Quill sues to partition.  The Walkman has a market value below the transaction costs of putting it up for auction.  What is the most best remedy under the circumstances?

 

A custody arrangements giving each Groot and Peter Quill equal time.

 

None because Quill does not have a right to partition the property.

 

Sale and division of the proceeds.

 

Cutting the Walkman in half.

A custody arrangements giving each Groot and Peter Quill equal time.

Groot and Peter Quill own Milanoacre as tenants in common.  Groot and Peter Quill enter into an agreement that they will not partition Milanoacre for a period of one year while they conduct a survey to establish whether there are valuable minerals in Milanoacre.  Three months later, Peter Quill sues to partition Milanoacre.  What is the most likely result?

 

Partition because tenants in common have an inalienable right to partition.

 

No partition because the agreement is for a reasonable period of time.

 

No partition because agreements not to partition are always enforceable.

 

Partition because the agreement is an impermissible restraint on alienation.

No partition because the agreement is for a reasonable period of time.

Peter Quill has a one half undivided interest in Milanoacre.  Peter Quill is in possession of Milanoacre.  Quill uses all of Milanoacre on a regular basis as a place to store 'loot.'  Quill places new locks on the buildings on Milanoacre and puts up signs saying 'keep out!'.  Does Peter Quill have to pay rent to this tenant in common?

 

No because Peter Quill has not excluded anyone from the property.

 

Yes because Peter Quill put up 'no trespassing' signs.

 

Yes because Peter Quill used the whole property.

 

No because Peter Quill as tenant in common never has to pay to rent to anyone for Milanoacre.

No because Peter Quill has not excluded anyone from the property.

Peter Quill and Rocket are tenants in common in Milanoacre.  Quill opens a dance club called 'Dance Off Disco.' Quill leases out the dance club to Collector Enterprises.  Rocket is upset that Quill opened the dance club.  Rocket enters the premises and decides to use the dance floor for 'demolition practice'. Quill yells at Rocket that everyone is fleeing from his explosions and tells him to stop.  Rocket replies 'this party is the bomb!' and sets of more explosives.  Quill promptly flees and is hit by flying debris on his way out the door. Was there an ouster?

 

No.

 

Yes, because Rocket continued to use the property for demolition practice.

 

There is an ouster because both tried to exclude each other.

 

Yes, because Quill told Rocket to stop.

Yes, because Rocket continued to use the property for demolition practice.

Each members of the Ravagers owns an equal undivided interest as tenant in common in one unbreakable 'Infinity Stone.'  The Ravagers have 100 members.  The Collector has a standing offer of 4 billion dollars for the Infinity Stone. There are no other potential buyers.  One Ravager with a 1/100 interest moves for partition in kind.  What result?

 

Partition by sale because there are too many Ravagers.

 

Partition by sale because partition in kind is physically impracticable.

 

Partition in kind because one could give each Ravager equal time with the Infinity Stone.

 

Partition in kind because there is a presumption in favor of in kind partitions.

Partition by sale because partition in kind is physically impracticable.

Danny Ocean enters into a lease with Terry Benedict.  The lease provides that Ocean shall move in on October 21.  The lease further provides that it is terminable by either party.  The lease states that Danny Ocean shall make payments of $4,000 in rent for each month of occupancy.  On November 15, Terry Benedict sends a letter to Danny Ocean, stating that he terminates the lease at the earliest possible time.  When must Danny Ocean vacate the premises?

 

November 15.

 

November 21.

 

December 15.

 

December 21.

December 15.

Danny Ocean enters into a lease with Terry Benedict.  The lease provides that Ocean shall move in on October 21.  The lease further provides that it is terminable by either party and that it runs month to month.  The lease states that Danny Ocean shall make payments of $4,000 in rent on the 21st of every month.  On November 15, Terry Benedict sends a letter to Danny Ocean, stating that he terminates the lease at the earliest possible time.  When must Danny Ocean vacate the premises?

 

November 15.

 

December 15.

 

November 21.

 

December 21.

December 21.

Danny Ocean enters into a lease with Terry Benedict.  The lease provides that Ocean shall move in on October 21 and that the lease shall terminate 11 calendar days later.  The lease further provides that it is terminable by either party effective immediately if Danny Ocean's credit card charge for rent is contested by the credit card company or if the premises are uninhabitable. The premises are habitable and Danny Ocean's credit card company in fact authorizes the rent payment of $4,000 to Terry Benedict.  On October 28, Terry Benedict sends a letter to Danny Ocean, stating that he terminates the lease at the earliest possible time.  When must Danny Ocean vacate the premises?

 

November 21.

 

October 28.

 

December 1.

 

November 1.

November 1.

Danny Ocean enters into a lease with Terry Benedict.  The lease provides that Ocean shall move in on October 21 and that the lease shall terminate 11 calendar days later.  The lease sets the rent amount at $4,000. The lease further provides that it is terminable by either party effective immediately if Danny Ocean's credit card charge for rent is contested by the credit card company or if the premises are uninhabitable. The premises are habitable and Danny Ocean's credit card company in fact authorizes a single rent payment of $4,000 to Terry Benedict.  Danny Ocean continues to stay until Terry Benedict finds out that Ocean overstayed and immediately sends a letter to Danny Ocean on November 5 stating that he terminates the lease at the earliest possible time. When must Danny Ocean vacate the premises?

 

December 1.

 

November 5.

 

November 30.

 

November 12.

November 5.

Danny Ocean leases an apartment from Terry Benedict for a term of 3 years.  One month later, Ocean "subleases, transfers, and assigns" the apartment to Rusty Ryan for a period of 2 years.  At first, Rusty Ryan pays rent to Terry Benedict directly, noting the apartment number for which Rusty Ryan pays rent.  After one year, Rusty Ryan does not pay Benedict or Ocean.  Benedict sues Ocean and Ryan for rent owed.  Against whom can Benedict recover?

 

Ryan.

 

Both Ocean and Ryan.

 

Neither.

 

Ocean.

Ocean

Danny Ocean leases commercial property in California from Terry Benedict for a period of 10 years.  The property in question is part of a shopping mall.  Ocean uses the property to sell magic tricks.  The lease states that “there shall be no assignment of sublease without the landlord’s consent.”  Danny Ocean after two years proposes to assign his lease to Rusty Ryan.  Ryan wishes to open a firearms store. Ryan is in a better financial position than Ocean.  There is no other firearms business nearby.  The presence of the proposed store does not negatively impact the value of surrounding properties or the business of their tenants. The open or concealed carry of firearms is prohibited at the mall but transport of firearms from the store is possible without violating California law or any other regulations.  Benedict refuses to agree to the assignment, noting his personal hostility to firearms. Is Benedict’s refusal permissible?

 

Yes, Benedict has reasonable commercial grounds to refuse consenting to the assignment.

 

Yes, the lease does not include a convenient that Benedict may only reasonably withhold consent.

 

No, Benedict can only look to the financial strength of Rusty Ryan.

 

No, Benedict is refusing to consent on the basis of personal taste only.

No, Benedict is refusing to consent on the basis of personal taste only.

Danny Ocean leases commercial property in California from Terry Benedict for a period of 10 years.  The property in question is part of a shopping mall.  Ocean uses the property to sell magic tricks.  The lease states that "there shall be no assignment of sublease without the landlord's consent."  Danny Ocean after two years proposes to assign his lease to Rusty Ryan.  Ryan wishes to open a firearms store. Ryan is in a better financial position than Ocean.  There is no other firearms business nearby.  The presence of the proposed store does not negatively impact the value of surrounding properties but has a negative impact on the business of other tenants. The open or concealed carry of firearms is prohibited at the mall but transport of firearms from the store is possible without violating California law or any other regulations.  Benedict refuses to agree to the assignment, noting that insurance costs for the mall and other tenants increases if Ryan opens his business. Is Benedict's refusal permissible?

 

Yes, the lease does not include a covenant that Benedict may only reasonably withhold consent.

 

Yes, Benedict has reasonable commercial grounds to refuse consenting to the assignment.

 

No, Benedict can only look to the financial strength of Rusty Ryan.

 

No, Benedict is refusing to consent on the basis of personal taste only.

Yes, Benedict has reasonable commercial grounds to refuse consenting to the assignment.

Danny Ocean is 45 years old, an atheist, and divorced.  He wishes to lease an apartment in the Bellagio Senior Living Community.  The Bellagio Senior Living Community has an age requirement - it only lets apartments to currently married or widowed persons of the Roman Catholic faith over the age of 55.  Danny Ocean fills out a lease application and is denied on the basis of his marital status and his age.  Incensed, Ocean sues the Bellagio Senior Living Community for violation of the federal Fair Housing Act.  Will his claim succeed?

 

Yes, because the Bellagio Senior Living Community discriminated against him on the basis of age.

 

No.

 

Yes, because the Bellagio Senior Living Community discriminated against him on the basis of marital status.

 

Yes, because the Bellagio Senior Living Community discriminated against hum on the basis of religion.

No.

Danny Ocean leases an apartment from Terry Benedict at the Bellagio Estates.  Benedict owns the apartment in question.  The apartment is located on the premises of the Bellagio Private Club, a separate and unrelated entity.  Danny Ocean pays $4,000 per month for the apartment for a period of 1 year.  Benedict gives Ocean his keys to the apartment in the Bellagio Restaurant two blocks away from the Bellagio Private Club and wishes him a good life.  Ocean wants to get to his apartment but is stopped at the entry gate to the Bellagio Private Club.  He is told that he may only access the property if he is a member and that membership is available for an initiation fee of $250,000 and monthly dues of $50,000.  Ocean incensed storms away, cancels all payments to Benedict and Benedict sues for outstanding rent.  The jurisdiction follows the American Rule.  Must Ocean pay rent?

 

No, because Benedict did not transfer a right of possession of the premises.

 

No, because Benedict did not transfer a right of access to the premises.

 

Yes, because Benedict conveyed a right of possession.

 

Yes, because Benedict is not subject to an implied covenant to provide actual access to the apartment.

No, because Benedict did not transfer a right of access to the premises.

Danny Ocean leases an apartment from Terry Benedict at the Bellagio Estates.  Benedict owns the apartment in question.  The apartment is located on the premises of the Bellagio Private Club, a separate and unrelated entity.  Danny Ocean pays $4,000 per month for the apartment for a period of 1 year.  Benedict gives Ocean his keys to the apartment in the Bellagio Restaurant two blocks away from the Bellagio Private Club. Benedict then tells Ocean that he must always use the Catton Shuttle service to come and go from his apartment.  Ocean wants to get to his apartment but is stopped at the entry gate to the Bellagio Private Club.  He is told that he may only access the property if he is a member and that membership is available for an initiation fee of $250,000 and monthly dues of $50,000. He then calls the Catton Shuttle Service and the driver sneaks him past the guards to Ocean's apartment.  Ocean stays on the property but refuses to pay rent.  The jurisdiction follows the English Rule.  Must Ocean pay rent?

 

No, because he does not have actual possession of the premises.

 

Yes, because he is in actual possession of the premises.

 

No, because he does not have actual access to the premises.

 

Yes, because he has a right of possession to the premises.

Yes, because he is in actual possession of the premises.

Meredith Grey leases an apartment to Izzie Stevens for a period of eight years.  The lease states that Stevens is to maintain the building in reasonably good repair.  The lease further states that should Lessee fail to meet any conditions of the lease Grey retains the option to re-enter into possession.  Five years into the lease, the apartment appears in visible disrepair and lack of maintenance and strong smells emanate from it. Worried, Grey gains access and, finding it in an utter state of chaos, has a locksmith come by to change the locks.  Two weeks later, Stevens calls irate that she is unable to get in the apartment.  Grey tells Stevens that she exercised her right of self-help under the lease.  Did Grey wrongfully evict Stevens, assuming that Stevens had not abandoned the apartment?

 

No, because Grey had a contractual right of self-help.

 

Yes, because Stevens did not violate the lease.

 

Yes, because reentry was not peaceable.*

 

No, because Stevens was not physically present when Grey changed the locks.

Yes, because reentry was not peaceable.*

Meredith Grey leases an apartment to Izzie Stevens for a period of eight years.  The lease states that Stevens is to maintain the building in reasonably good repair.  The lease further states that should Lessee fail to meet any conditions of the lease Grey retains the option to re-enter into possession.  Five years into the lease, the apartment appears in visible disrepair and lack of maintenance and strong smells emanate from it. Worried, Grey gains access and finding it in an utter state of chaos, has a locksmith come by to change the locks.  Two weeks later, Stevens calls irate that she is unable to get in the apartment.  Did Stevens abandon the apartment? 

 

Yes, because the breach of the maintenance obligations of the lease prove an intent to abandon.

 

No, because Stevens did not send a written notice of surrender of the premises to Grey.

 

No, because there is sufficient evidence to support her intent to retain possession.

 

Yes, because Stevens was in fact absent when Grey came by the apartment.

No, because there is sufficient evidence to support her intent to retain possession.

Meredith Grey leases an apartment to Izzie Stevens for a period of eight years.  The lease states that Stevens is to maintain the building in reasonably good repair.  The lease further states that should Lessee fail to meet any conditions of the lease Grey retains the option to re-enter into possession.  Five years into the lease, the apartment appears in visible disrepair and lack of maintenance and strong smells emanate from it. Worried, Grey gains access and finding it in an utter state of chaos. Grey retains counsel and asks 'what steps should I take?' You answer 

 

Call the police to assist in changing the locks.

 

There are no steps you can take until Stevens indicates whether she intends to maintain in possession.

 

Commence eviction proceedings for violations of the lease.

 

Exercise your remedy of self-help.

Commence eviction proceedings for violations of the lease

Meredith Grey leases an apartment to Izzie Stevens for a period of eight years.  The lease states that Stevens is to maintain the building in reasonably good repair.  With 36 months remaining on the lease, the apartment appears in visible disrepair and lack of maintenance and strong smells emanate from it. Worried, Grey gains access and finds it in an utter state of chaos. Grey finds a letter on the kitchen table addressed to her stating "Dear Meredith, I am leaving and surrender the remainder of my apartment lease to you."  Grey has the apartment professionally cleaned. Unlike her other properties, Grey shows this apartment only sporadically to friends. With 12 months left on Stevens' lease, Grey eventually leases the apartment at below market rent to Alex Karev. Grey leased a similar apartment to Christina Yang two months after Stevens abandoned the property and did not show Yang the Stevens apartment.  Stevens paid rent of $2,000 per month/ $24,000 per year.  The cleaning cost $2,000.  Karev paid $1,000 in rent per month for a total of $12,000.  Grey sues Stevens after the end of the lease term for back rent. How much can Grey recover?

 

$2,000 (the cleaning costs).

 

$62,000 (the remaining rent, minus the rent paid by Karev, plus $2,000 in cleaning costs).

 

$74,000 (the remaining rent on the lease, plus $2,000 in cleaning costs).

 

$6,000 (two months' rent plus cleaning costs).

$6,000 (two months' rent plus cleaning costs).

Meredith Grey leases an apartment to Izzie Stevens for a period of eight years.  Upon moving in, Stevens finds that water to the property has been disconnected.  She contacts Grey.  Grey tells Stevens that the previous tenant had not paid their water bill of $3,000 and that Grey would see to the issue.  Grey does not pay the $3,000 for a month.  Stevens pays the $3,000 at that point and water service is restored.  Furious with Grey, Stevens moves out of the apartment a month later and informs Grey of her move (after staying for a total of 90 days in the apartment).  The lease states that Stevens may only sue for injunctive relief or seek for money damages but may not terminate the lease early for breaches of the lease by landlord.  Must Stevens continue to pay rent to Grey following her departure from the premises?

 

Yes, because the lease states that Stevens may not terminate the lease due to a breach by the landlord.

 

No, because Grey's failure to deliver premises with actual water access is a constructive eviction from the premises.

 

Yes, because the apartment is connected to water services at the time of Stevens' departure.*

 

No, because Grey's failure to deliver premises with actual water access is an actual eviction from the premises.

Yes, because the apartment is connected to water services at the time of Stevens' departure.*

Meredith Grey leases an apartment to Izzie Stevens for a period of eight years.  Upon moving in, Stevens finds that water to the property has been disconnected.  She contacts Grey.  Grey tells Stevens that the previous tenant had not paid their water bill of $3,000 and that Grey would see to the issue.  Grey does not pay the $3,000 for a month.  Stevens pays the $3,000 at that point and water service is restored.  Furious with Grey, Stevens hires an attorney to determine what her rights are.  The lease states that Stevens may only sue for injunctive relief or seek for money damages but may not terminate the lease early for breaches of the lease by landlord.  What advice do you give Stevens?

 

She can sue Grey for $6,000.

 

She may rescind the lease due to a breach of the implied warranty of habitability.

 

She can sue Grey to recover the $3,000 she paid to have water services reconnected under an implied warranty theory.

 

She does not have to pay any more rent as she has been evicted from the premises.

She can sue Grey for $6,000.

Meredith Grey leases an apartment to Izzie Stevens for a period of eight years.  Six months after moving in, a paper mill begins operating some 500 yards from the apartment building.  The paper mill emits foul smelling gases around the clock.  The smell is highly nauseating.  The paper mill is using state of the art emission reduction technology.  The paper mill's operations generate a revenue of $100MM per year and it employs 300 people directly or indirectly.  Affected dwellings have a fair market value of $25 MM and there are 100 affected residents.  There are no other industrial activities within a 50 mile radius. Can Stevens establish the existence of a private nuisance?

 

Yes, because the mill unreasonably interferes with Stevens' enjoyment of the property.

 

Yes, because the mill negligently, recklessly, or ultrahazardously interferes with Stevens' enjoyment of the property.

 

No, because the paper mill uses state of the art smokestack technology.

 

No, because the paper mills use of land is the more economically productive than any other adjacent use.

Yes, because the mill unreasonably interferes with Stevens' enjoyment of the property.

Meredith Grey leases an apartment to Izzie Stevens for a period of eight years.  Six months after moving in, a paper mill begins operating some 500 yards from the apartment building.  The paper mill emits foul smelling gases around the clock.  The smell is highly nauseating.  The paper mill is using state of the art emission reduction technology.  The paper mill's operations generate a revenue of $100MM per year and it employs 300 people directly or indirectly.  Affected dwellings have a fair market value of $25 MM and there are 100 affected residents.  There are no other industrial activities within a 50 mile radius. Assume the trial court has ruled that Stevens successfully established the existence of a private nuisance.  What is the appropriate remedy that Stevens can obtain?

 

Cost of relocation to a new apartment.

 

No relief as Stevens can claim constructive eviction or violation of the implied warranty of habitability against Grey.

 

Injunctive relief stopping operation of the plant.

 

Only damages due to the high economic value of paper mill.

Injunctive relief stopping operation of the plant.

Meredith Grey leases commercial premises to Izzie Stevens for a period of eight years.  Six months after moving in, a paper mill begins operating some 500 yards from Stevens' premises.  The paper mill emits foul smelling gases around the clock.  The smell is highly nauseating.  The paper mill is using state of the art emission reduction technology.  The paper mill's operations generate a revenue of $100MM per year and it employs 300 people directly or indirectly.  The paper mill cost $2 billion to build. Stevens operates the only business in the area and there are no other residences.  There are no other industrial activities within a 50 mile radius. Stevens generates revenues of $100,000 per year and employs one person. Can Stevens obtain an injunction requiring the mill to stop operating in the area?

 

No, because 300 employees would be put out of work.

 

Yes.

 

No, because such a decision would waste $2 billion in construction costs.

 

No, because the paper mill is significantly more valuable than Stevens' business.

Yes.