You snooze you lose
Which of the following is the most fundamental requirement for a successful adverse possession claim?
A) The possessor must have recorded a deed
B) The possessor must have paid property taxes
C) The possessor's use must be open and notorious
D) The possessor must have the true owner's permission
Answer: C
Explanation: Open and notorious use is a core element of adverse possession, meaning the possession must be visible and obvious to the true owner and the public. Permission from the owner would actually defeat an adverse possession claim, as the possession must be hostile/adverse.
Margaret is dying of cancer and gives her diamond ring to her niece Sarah, saying "I want you to have this because I'm not going to make it." Margaret unexpectedly recovers after successful treatment. What is the legal status of the ring?
A) The gift is valid and irrevocable because Margaret had donative intent
B) The gift is invalid because Margaret recovered from her illness
C) Margaret can revoke the gift because it was a gift causa mortis
D) The gift is valid only if Sarah continues to care for Margaret
Answer: C
Explanation: This is a gift causa mortis (gift in contemplation of death). Such gifts are automatically revoked if the donor recovers from the illness or peril that motivated the gift. Unlike inter vivos gifts, gifts causa mortis are revocable and conditioned on the donor's death from the anticipated cause.
Which statement best describes the hierarchy of rights in found property under traditional common law?
A) True owner > finder > landowner where found
B) True owner > landowner where found > finder
C) Landowner where found > true owner > finder
D) The hierarchy depends on whether the property was lost or mislaid
Answer: D
Explanation: The hierarchy of rights varies based on the classification of the found property. For lost property: true owner > finder > landowner. For mislaid property: true owner > landowner > finder. This is because mislaid property (intentionally placed but forgotten) suggests the true owner may return to look for it at the location.
"To William and the heirs of his body." Under traditional common law, what type of estate is created?
A) Fee simple absolute
B) Life estate
C) Fee tail
D) Fee simple determinable
Answer: C
Explanation: The phrase "and the heirs of his body" is the traditional language for creating a fee tail estate. This restricts inheritance to William's lineal descendants (children, grandchildren, etc.). Most American states have abolished fee tail and would convert this to a fee simple absolute.
What are the four rights that comprise the "Bundle of Rights" as listed in your class notes?
A) Right to Transfer, Right to Exclude, Right to Use, Right to Inherit
B) Right to Sell, Right to Exclude, Right to Possess, Right to Destroy
C) Right to Transfer, Right to Exclude, Right to Use, Right to Destroy
D) Right to Convey, Right to Prevent Access, Right to Occupy, Right to Demolish
Answer: C
Explanation: Bundle of Rights consists of four components: (1) Right to Transfer, (2) Right to Exclude, (3) Right to Use, and (4) Right to Destroy.
Sarah builds a fence 3 feet onto her neighbor Tom's property and maintains a garden there for 12 years (the statutory period in their state). Tom knew about the fence but never objected. Which statement is most accurate?
A) Sarah automatically owns the land because the statutory period has passed
B) Sarah has likely acquired title if she can prove all elements of adverse possession
C) Sarah cannot claim adverse possession because Tom knew about the encroachment
D) Sarah's claim fails because she didn't intend to take Tom's land
Answer: C
Explanation: Meeting the statutory period is necessary but not sufficient. Sarah must still prove all required elements: open and notorious (✓), exclusive, continuous, hostile/adverse, and under claim of right. Tom's knowledge doesn't defeat the claim because Sarah is not aware of Tom's knowledge. For example, it would be different if he came out onto his porch, she saw him, he saw her and then he never did anything. That would be considered implied consent.
Tom wants to give his car to his son but continues driving it daily while telling friends "It's really Jake's car now, I'm just borrowing it." Tom keeps the keys and title in his name but instructs Jake to handle all maintenance and insurance. Two years later, Tom tries to sell the car. Which analysis is most correct?
A) No valid gift occurred because Tom retained possession and control
B) A valid gift occurred through symbolic delivery and donative intent
C) The gift is valid because Tom's statements show clear donative intent
D) Constructive delivery occurred when Tom assigned maintenance responsibilities
Answer: A
Explanation: This illustrates the strict delivery requirement for gifts of chattels. When the donor retains possession and control (keeping keys and title), there is insufficient delivery even with clear donative intent. The donor's continued use "as borrower" and retention of control indicate no actual delivery occurred. Statements alone cannot substitute for delivery.
Employee Janet finds a diamond ring in her employer's office while emptying wastebaskets after hours. She takes the ring home and later learns it belongs to a client who visited earlier that day. The client demands the ring back. Who has the best rights to the ring?
A) Janet has superior rights as the finder of lost property
B) The employer has superior rights because Janet found it during work hours
C) The client has superior rights as the true owner
D) Janet has no rights because she was trespassing in the office
Answer: C
Explanation: The true owner always has superior rights to found property, regardless of who finds it or where it's found. Janet's status as finder, the employer's property rights, and the classification of the property are all irrelevant when the true owner is identified and claims the property.
To Mary for life, then to John and his heirs." What type of estate does Mary hold?
A) Fee simple absolute
B) Life estate
C) Term of years
D) Fee tail
Answer: B
Explanation: The language "to Mary for life" creates a life estate. Mary has the right to use and possess the property during her lifetime, but the estate automatically ends when she dies. John holds a remainder interest that will become possessory upon Mary's death.
Professor Sawyer argues that property rights should be allocated to maximize overall social welfare, even if this means redistributing wealth from current owners to those who could use the resources more productively. Which theory of property does this position most closely reflect?
A) Labor Theory - property rights reward those who mix their labor with resources
B) First Possession Theory - property rights protect those who were first in time
C) Utilitarian Theory - property rights should maximize societal happiness
D) Personhood Theory - property rights facilitate individual self-development
Answer: C
Explanation: The utilitarian theory, as noted in the class materials, seeks to "distribute and define property rights in a way that best promotes the welfare of all citizens." This approach focuses on maximizing overall social welfare rather than protecting individual claims based on first possession, labor, or personal attachment.
Rachel inherits a family farm and discovers that her deceased grandmother had been using a 2-acre strip of the neighboring property for grazing cattle for 25 years before her death 5 years ago. Rachel continues the same use. The neighboring landowner, who recently inherited his property, sues Rachel after discovering old survey records. The jurisdiction requires 20 years for adverse possession and follows the "tacking" doctrine. Which statement best describes Rachel's legal position?
A) Rachel cannot tack her possession to her grandmother's because there was no privity of estate
B) Rachel has a valid adverse possession claim because the combined possession exceeds 20 years
C) The claim fails because the use was agricultural rather than residential
D) The neighboring landowner's recent inheritance resets the statutory period
Answer: B
Explanation: Under the tacking doctrine, successive adverse possessors can combine their periods of possession if there is privity of estate between them. Inheritance creates privity, allowing Rachel to tack her 5 years to her grandmother's 25 years (total 30 years > 20-year requirement). The type of use (agricultural vs. residential) doesn't matter if it's open, notorious, and consistent with the land's character. A change in true ownership doesn't reset the statutory period.
Dr. Patricia, diagnosed with terminal heart disease, gives her art collection to the museum with written instructions: "If I die from my heart condition within one year, these belong to the museum permanently. If I survive one year or die from other causes, return them to me or my estate." Patricia dies in a car accident eleven months later. The museum claims the art, while Patricia's estate demands its return. Which outcome is most likely under traditional gift causa mortis doctrine?
A) The museum keeps the art because Patricia died within the specified timeframe
B) The estate recovers the art because Patricia didn't die from the contemplated peril
C) The museum keeps the art because the written conditions were met
D) The court will divide the art between the museum and estate
Answer: B
Explanation: Traditional gift causa mortis doctrine requires that the donor die from the specific peril that motivated the gift. Since Patricia died from an unrelated cause (car accident) rather than her heart condition, the gift causa mortis fails and the property reverts to her estate. The donor's own conditional language supports this outcome - she specified death "from my heart condition," which did not occur.
Rebecca discovers an old car that has been sitting in the same spot on a vacant lot for five years. The car has flat tires, broken windows, is covered in rust, and is overgrown with weeds. The license plates expired four years ago. Rebecca removes some valuable vintage parts from the car. The lot owner later appears and claims the car was merely stored there, not abandoned, and demands return of the parts. Rebecca argues the car was clearly abandoned property. Which factor would be MOST decisive in determining whether the car was abandoned?
A) The length of time the car sat undisturbed (five years)
B) The physical deterioration and overgrown condition
C) The expired license plates showing lack of registration
D) Evidence of the original owner's intent to relinquish ownership
Answer: D
Explanation: Abandonment requires both physical relinquishment AND intent to give up ownership rights. While the car's condition, duration, and expired plates are circumstantial evidence of possible abandonment, they don't prove the owner's intent to relinquish ownership. The car could have been stored long-term with intent to repair later, or the owner might have been unable to retrieve it due to circumstances (illness, financial problems, etc.). Courts focus primarily on the owner's subjective intent, which must be proven by clear evidence, not just inferred from physical condition or passage of time.
What is the key characteristic that distinguishes a defeasible estate from a fee simple absolute?
A) Defeasible estates cannot be inherited
B) Defeasible estates can automatically end upon the occurrence of a specified event
C) Defeasible estates cannot be transferred during the owner's lifetime
D) Defeasible estates last for only a specified number of years
Answer: B
Explanation: Defeasible estates are fee simple estates that can end automatically or be terminated upon the occurrence of a specified event or condition. Unlike fee simple absolute, which lasts forever, defeasible estates have built-in termination conditions.
True or False: Gift Causa Mortis requires four elements: Donative intent, Delivery, Acceptance, and Imminent death, and according to the class notes, Gift Causa Mortis is "favorable" compared to inter vivos gifts.
Answer: False
Explanation: While the four elements are correct (the same three as inter vivos gifts plus "Imminent death"), they are not favorable because the courts would rather have people write wills to give away their property.
Developer Dan subdivides his land and sells lots to various buyers, but mistakenly conveys overlapping areas to both Emma and Frank due to an error in the legal descriptions. Emma builds a house partially on the disputed area and lives there for 18 years. Frank discovers the overlap when he tries to build. The jurisdiction has a 15-year adverse possession statute and follows the "good faith" rule requiring honest belief of ownership. Which analysis is most correct?
A) Emma wins under adverse possession because she exceeded the statutory period
B) Frank wins because Emma cannot adversely possess against a co-owner
C) The court will likely order partition of the disputed area
D) Emma will win because she genuinely believed she owned the disputed land
Answer: D
Explanation: This tests the "good faith" vs. "bad faith" distinction in adverse possession law. In "good faith" jurisdictions, the adverse possessor must honestly believe they own the land. Emma's claim hinges on whether she had actual knowledge of the boundary dispute. If she knew about the overlap, her possession would be in "bad faith" and fail. The co-ownership issue (B) is incorrect because Frank and Emma are not intentional co-owners but victims of a scrivener's error.
Wealthy collector Robert orally promises to give his rare book collection to the university library. The next day, he has the books professionally packed and calls a moving company to transport them, specifically instructing that they be delivered "to the university library as a gift from Robert Miller." While the truck is en route, Robert has a heart attack and dies. The books are delivered to the library after his death, but Robert's estate claims the books were never validly gifted since Robert died before delivery was completed. How should the court rule?
A) Invalid gift because the donor died before physical delivery to the donee
B) Valid gift because Robert did everything possible to effectuate delivery before his death
C) Invalid gift because the moving company was Robert's agent, not the donee's
D) Valid gift because the books reached their intended destination
Answer: B
Explanation: This tests the "donor does all he can" doctrine for inter vivos gifts. When a donor has done everything within his power to complete delivery but dies before physical delivery occurs through no fault of his own, courts will often find the gift valid if the donor's intent is clear and delivery was set in motion. Robert demonstrated clear donative intent, took concrete steps to effectuate delivery (packing, hiring movers, giving specific instructions), and put the gift beyond his control. His death during the delivery process doesn't invalidate the gift since he had done all he could to complete it.
Tom, a construction worker, finds an antique watch buried 2 feet underground while digging foundation trenches on private property. The watch appears to have been buried for decades. How should this property be classified under majority rule?
A) Abandoned property belonging to the finder.
B) Mislaid property belonging to the landowner
C) Treasure trove belonging to the finder
D) Lost property belonging to the construction owner's boss.
Answer: D
Explanation: Because the construction worker found the watch while working on the job, it does not belong to him but to his boss. A person may have buried the watch with the intention of returning it, but it is more likely the true owner did not intend to lose possession of the watch in the first place.
Alice holds a life estate in Greenacre and wants to sell her interest to Bob. Which statement is most accurate?
A) Alice cannot transfer a life estate because it's not alienable
B) Alice can sell her life estate, but Bob's interest will end when Alice dies
C) Alice can sell her life estate, and Bob will own the property in fee simple
D) Alice must get permission from the remainder holders before selling
Answer: B
Explanation: Life estates are alienable during the life tenant's lifetime. However, the transferee (Bob) receives only what Alice had - a life estate measured by Alice's life. When Alice dies, Bob's interest ends and the property passes to the remainder holders. Alice doesn't need permission from remainder holders to transfer her interest.
Maria owns a house but is prohibited by city ordinance from destroying it due to its historical significance. She can live in it, rent it out, and sell it, but cannot demolish it. Based on the bundle of rights concept from your class notes, which statement is most accurate?
A) Maria doesn't have true property ownership because she lacks all four rights
B) Maria has property ownership but with a limitation on her right to destroy
C) The city ordinance violates Maria's fundamental property rights
D) Maria only has a life estate since she cannot destroy the property
Answer: B
Explanation: According to the class notes, the bundle of rights includes the right to transfer, exclude, use, and destroy. However, as shown in cases like Eyerman v. Mercantile Trust Co., the right to destroy can be limited when it would cause "unwarranted loss to the estate, adjacent [properties] and workers and the public." Property rights are relative, not absolute, and can be subject to reasonable governmental restrictions.
Alex begins adversely possessing land in January 2010 by building a workshop and using it daily. In June 2012, Alex permits his friend Ben to use half the workshop for woodworking twice weekly, while Alex continues using the other half daily. In 2014, Alex becomes seriously ill and Ben begins maintaining the entire workshop (cleaning, repairs, security) though Alex visits monthly when able. In 2016, Alex dies, and Ben continues all maintenance and exclusive use. In 2018, Alex's heir Carol discovers the situation and demands Ben leave, but Ben refuses and claims adverse possession. The jurisdiction requires 15 years of continuous, exclusive, open, notorious, and bad faith. Ben files suit in 2023. Which analysis is most accurate regarding Ben's adverse possession claim?
A) Ben succeeds because he maintained continuous possession from 2014-2023.
B) Ben fails because Alex's initial permission in 2012 made Ben's possession permissive until 2016.
C) Ben succeeds because his caretaking role evolved into hostile possession after Alex's death
D) Ben fails he did not file an adverse possession lawsuit immediately after being confronted by Carol.
Answer: B
Explanation: Ben's possession began permissively in 2012 when Alex explicitly allowed him to use the workshop. Permissive use cannot ripen into adverse possession unless there is a clear, unequivocal act of hostility that repudiates the permission and gives the true owner notice of the adverse claim. Ben did not maintain exclusive control for the statutory period. How quickly someone files a lawsuit for adverse possession is irrelevant.
Businessman Carl owns a Swiss bank account containing $500,000. He executes a written document stating "I hereby give my Swiss account #12345 to my son David" and hands David the document along with a photocopy of the account statements, but retains the original bank cards and access codes. Carl calls the bank and adds David as a joint account holder with survivorship rights but does not inform David of this action. Carl tells David "The account is yours, but I need to keep managing it for tax purposes until year-end." Three months later, Carl removes $100,000 for personal use. When David objects, Carl claims he never made a completed gift. Under traditional gift law principles, which analysis is most accurate?
A) Valid gift because the written document and account statements constitute sufficient delivery of intangible property
B) Invalid gift because Carl retained the means of access and control over the account
C) Valid gift because Carl added David as joint holder, creating present ownership rights
D) The gift is valid but Carl breached his fiduciary duty as trustee of the gifted property
Answer: B
Explanation: For intangible property like bank accounts, constructive delivery typically requires transferring the means of access and control, not just documentary evidence of the account's existence. Carl's retention of bank cards, access codes, and practical control (evidenced by his $100,000 withdrawal) demonstrates that no effective delivery occurred despite the written declaration and photocopies. The joint account designation was unknown to David and doesn't cure the defective delivery. Carl's continued "management for tax purposes" and ability to withdraw funds shows he never relinquished dominion and control, which is essential for valid gift delivery of intangible assets.
Detective Mike, while executing a search warrant at suspect's home, finds a bag of rare coins hidden in the attic that clearly don't belong to the suspect (based on dates and the suspect's age). Mike takes the coins "for safekeeping." Later investigation reveals the coins were stolen from Museum A 20 years ago, but Museum A had purchased them from Estate B, which had acquired them through a questionable probate sale. Who has the strongest claim to the coins?
A) Detective Mike as the finder
B) Museum A as the victim of theft
C) The police station because Detective Mike was working when he discovered them.
D) The suspect as the landowner where found
Answer: B
Explanation: This tests the principle that stolen property cannot be adversely possessed and that theft breaks the chain of title. Museum A, as the victim of theft, retains superior title regardless of subsequent possession by others. Finders/landowners have no rights against the true owner of stolen property.
Oscar conveys "To Library for so long as books are lent free to the public, then to School District." What estate does Library hold?
A) Fee simple determinable
B) Fee simple subject to condition subsequent
C) Fee simple subject to executory limitation
D) Life estate
Answer: C
Explanation: The durational language "so long as" combined with the gift to a third party (School District) upon violation creates a fee simple subject to executory limitation. The School District holds a shifting executory interest, not the grantor.
True or False: Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.'s quote about property taking "root in your being" appears in the class notes under the Labor Theory rationale for adverse possession.
Answer: False
Explanation: The Holmes quote "A thing which you have enjoyed and used as your own for a long time...takes root in your being and cannot be torn away without your resenting the act" appears under the Personhood Theory rationale, not the Labor Theory.