A
What is an assignment?
A complete transfer of a tenants remaining interest
What is a license?
A limited privilege of use.
O to A for life, then to B, but if B smokes cigarettes, the property with revert to O. What does B have?
B has a vested remainder subject to divestment.
O to A for life, but if A gets arrested, then to B. What does B have?
B has an executory interest.
Shack and Tejeras were charged with criminal trespass as defined by the New Jersey statute, N.J. Stat. §2A:170-31.6 Tedesco invoked the criminal system by calling the police and filing a criminal complaint against Shack and Tejeras. Criminal proceedings are generally initiated by federal, state, or local government officials rather than by private citizens, and their purpose is to deter wrongful activities and to punish those who engage in them. These proceedings may include arrest, criminal complaint, or indictment by the prosecutor, arraignment (bringing formal charges against the accused in court), plea bargaining, and trial. Punishment may include imposition of a fine payable to the state, probation (continued supervision), and incarceration. How did the charge of criminal trespass in Shack differ from the common law definition of trespass?
Common law - entering on another's land without consent
Criminal - on another's land after being told to leave
A man owned a tract of land in fee simple. Fifteen years ago, he built a barn on five acres that he believed were part of his property. One year later, the man discovered that the five acres on which he had built his barn were not part of his property. The five acres actually belonged to a woman. The next year, the woman died, leaving all of her property to her one-year-old daughter. Now the man brings a quiet title action against the daughter. The statutory period for adverse possession in this jurisdiction is 10 years. Who will prevail?
The man, because he was in continuous possession of the five acres for the statutory period.
In 2000, Olive died leaving a will that said, in relevant part, "I convey my city lot to the Springfield Chapel on condition that it uses the property to operate a food bank there; failing that, the property should go to my son, Alan." The chapel operated a food bank on the lot until 2010, when it began to use the property solely for parking. Alan had died, leaving a daughter, Betty. What would be the result?
Betty gets the property because her interest has vested within 90 years of its creation.
Oscar died leaving a will that said, in relevant part, "I leave my house to Albert, to inhabit for the duration of his life. Then I want Barbara to have the house, assuming that she survives Albert." Barbara died first, followed by Albert, survived by Oscar's son. What would be the result?
Oscar's son gets the house.
O to A for life, then to B's children. B currently has no children. What do B's future children have?
B's future children have a contingent remainder subject to open
An owner conveyed residential real estate to a friend for life. The friend conveyed his interest in the same real estate to his brother. When the owner discovered the conveyance to the brother, he brought an eviction action against the brother. The brother refused to vacate the premises and appealed. What is the likely decision of the court regarding the requested eviction of the brother?
The court will rule that the brother has a right to live on the premises until the death of his brother who conveyed the property to him.
A rancher deeded his ranch “to my son so long as he lives, and on his death to my son’s widow for the remainder of her life, and on her death to each of her lineal descendants who are living on her death, to share and share alike.” The deed was validly executed, delivered, and recorded. At the time of the conveyance, the son was married but had no children. Three years later, the rancher died. His will left all of his estate to his sister. Two years after the rancher’s death, the son was killed in an automobile accident, leaving his widow with twin girls. Upon the widow’s death many years later, she was survived by both girls, her only lineal descendants. Who now owns the ranch?
The sister owns the ranch in fee simple, which she received upon the death of the son’s widow.The sister owns the ranch, because the gift over to the son’s widow’s descendants was void. This is the case of the unborn widow. Remember, the Rule Against Perpetuities is measured and enforced at the time of the grant, not later. If there is any way, at the time of the grant, that a gift over may vest later than any life in being plus 21 years, it is void.
For many years, a landowner owned a parcel of land bordered on the west by a public road, and his neighbor owned a parcel of land located immediately to the east of that parcel. The neighbor had an easement to cross the west parcel to enter the public road bordering it. Because the neighbor’s east parcel is surrounded by swampland on the north, south, and east, the only route of ingress to and egress from that parcel over dry land passed through the west parcel. Subsequently, the neighbor sold the east parcel to the landowner, who proceeded to use both lots as a common tract. Last year, the landowner sold the east parcel to his friend. Does the friend have an easement over the landowner’s west parcel?
Yes, because her only access to her parcel from the public road is across the west parcel. The friend has an easement by necessity over the landowner’s west parcel, because only by crossing over that parcel can she gain access to her parcel.
A recorded subdivision plan contained a provision for 20 one-half acre open spaces designated as “dedicated public parks.” One year later, the city in which the subdivision was located decided to put picnic benches and other recreational facilities on the 20 open areas and to establish these areas for public use for the first time. Homeowners in the subdivision and the homeowners’ association filed suit to prevent the city from proceeding with this plan, claiming that the resulting congestion and health and safety problems would drive down the value of their property. What is the probable result of the suit?
The suit will be dismissed, because the dedication of the parkland was appropriate and required no acceptance by the city at the time.
Shortly before their wedding, a man and a woman bought a tract of land, taking title in both names. They had intended to build a summer cottage there, but many years after their marriage the land was still a vacant lot. The man decided that their introverted son would have more confidence if he were a landowner; thus, the man drew up a deed conveying a one-quarter interest in the land to him. Not wanting to show favoritism, two weeks later the man drew up a deed conveying a one-quarter interest in the same land to their daughter. Who owns the land?
The son has a one-quarter interest, the daughter has a one-quarter interest, and the woman has a one-half interest.
A brother and a sister held real property as joint tenants. The sister was involved in an automobile accident and was sued by a motorist who had received serious bodily injuries. The jury ruled against the sister and assessed a large damages award that the sister was unable to pay in full. Therefore, the motorist went back into court and secured a statutory lien on the property. Shortly thereafter, the sister died. What are the respective interests of the brother and the motorist in the property?
The brother is the sole owner of the property, and the property is not subject to the motorist’s statutory lien. This is because they held the property in joint tenancy which carries with it the right of survivorship.
A landlord owns a six-unit strip mall. He offered to lease one of the units to a barista, who planned to open a gourmet coffee shop. Because the mall is located on a busy street, the barista insisted that the landlord install a metal fence around the outdoor seating area that would protect her customers. The landlord agreed to do so, and the barista signed a 10-year lease. A term in the lease stated, “The landlord agrees to maintain all structures on the property in good repair.” Eight years later, the landlord sold the strip mall to a buyer. The buyer did not agree to perform any obligations under the leases. As instructed, the barista began paying rent to the buyer. The following year, the metal fence was in desperate need of repairs. Citing the lease terms, the barista asked the buyer to repair the fence, but the buyer continually refused to do so. The barista finally repaired the fence herself at a cost of $3,000 and then brought an appropriate lawsuit to recover the money. Absent any other facts, what is the barista likely to recover?
$3,000 from either the landlord or the buyer, because they are both in privity with the barista.The barista may recover the cost of the repairs from either the landlord or the buyer. A landlord’s promise in a lease to maintain the property does not terminate because the property is sold. Although no longer in privity of estate, the original landlord and tenant remain in privity of contract, and the original landlord remains liable on the covenant unless there is a novation.
A testator wanted to give his home to his brother. The testator executed a warranty deed conveying the home to his brother. The testator then wrote a letter to his brother saying, “Dear brother, my home is now yours.” He put the letter and deed in an envelope and wrote the following on the outside of the envelope and signed it: “Cousin, you are to give this deed to my brother when I die. Until then, you should safeguard this envelope and the documents inside.” The testator delivered these items to his cousin and continued to live in his home by himself. Two years later, the testator executed a will leaving all of his property to his sister. Seven years later, the testator died. Shortly thereafter, the cousin delivered the envelope containing the deed to the testator’s brother, who promptly recorded the deed. The testator’s will has been admitted to probate and his executor has brought an appropriate action against the brother to determine the title to the testator’s home. For which party should the court rule?
For the brother, because the testator no longer owned his home when he died. Because the testator did not retain a right to revoke the escrow, his delivery of the deed to his cousin completes the conveyance.
A seller of residential property told the buyer that he could use his gravel road to the main highway if he purchased the property, which adjoined the seller’s property. Although the property was not otherwise landlocked, the buyer relied on the seller’s promise in making an offer. The buyer had specific uses in mind for improvements that needed the gravel road. The purchase took place but the seller did not include the easement in the deed or the other papers. The buyer built a garage that accessed the gravel road leading to the highway. The seller later decided to fence off the driveway and divert it from buyer’s use. Will a court compel the seller to open up the road and provide an easement to the buyer?
Yes because this was an easement by estoppel, created by the seller's promise and relied upon by the buyer
Plaintiffs agreed in writing to sell to defendants a single-family home for the sum of $40,000. The contract provided that this sum would be paid over a 15-year period with interest, in monthly installments. The sellers agreed to convey legal title upon payment in full as agreed. The purchasers were entitled to possession of the property, and all taxes, assessments and water rates, and insurance became their obligation. The contract provided that if the purchasers defaulted and failed to cure the default within 30 days, the sellers could elect to call the remaining balance immediately due, or elect to declare the contract terminated and repossess the premises, keeping all monies paid as liquidated contract damages. Defendants made improvements to the property, and made the payments for 10 years until one of them became disabled. At the time of default they had paid about $30,000 total of which 20,000 was applied to principal. The plaintiffs sued the defendants for breach of the contract, got a judgment against them, and evicted the defendants. Defendants appealed, claiming that they had equitable title, and a foreclosure action had to be first instituted. What result?
The D' had equitable title and the sellers had legal title
A wealthy philanthropist owned a mansion built to his exact specifications, featuring a pipe organ built into the wall of the music room. The organ was impressive, with beautiful hand- carved wood scrollwork. The accompanying bench was made from the same wood as the organ and was carved to match the patterns on the organ. The bench was fully movable and could be slid into a niche beside the organ when not in use, although the philanthropist usually left the bench in front of the organ for its matching effect, even when the organ was not being played. The philanthropist died, and his will left all of his personal property to his daughter and all of his real property to a local charity. After the will was admitted to probate, the daughter removed all of the furniture and other movables from the mansion, including the organ bench. The daughter refused the charity’s request to return the bench to the mansion. If the charity brings suit against the daughter to replevy the bench, which party is likely to prevail?
The charity, because the bench is integrally connected to the organ.The charity will win because the organ is a fixture and the bench is integrally connected to the organ. Under the concept of fixtures, a chattel that has been annexed to real property is converted from personalty to realty. As an accessory to the land, it passes with ownership of the land.
An uncle executed a warranty deed granting a parcel of land to his nephew. The uncle placed the deed in his bedroom closet and told his friend to get the deed and give it to the nephew if the nephew survived the uncle. Several years later, the uncle conveyed the land by quitclaim deed to a purchaser for $20,000. The uncle told the purchaser about the earlier deed to the nephew, and he told the purchaser that he planned to tear it up, but the uncle never did so. The purchaser properly recorded her deed. The uncle died the following year, leaving the nephew as his sole surviving heir. The friend thereupon delivered the uncle’s deed to the nephew, which was the first time the nephew knew of the deed. A statute of the jurisdiction in which the land is located provides: “No conveyance or mortgage of real property shall be good against subsequent purchasers for value and without notice whose conveyance is first recorded according to law.” Was the deed from the uncle to the purchaser effective?
Yes, as a conveyance of title when delivered.
A woman arranged with a bank to take out a loan for $30,000, secured with a mortgage on her home. On June 3, the woman executed the note and the mortgage, and the bank gave her a certified check for $30,000. On June 4, the woman sold her home to a wealthy buyer for $150,000 in cash. The buyer knew nothing about the mortgage. On June 5, the buyer recorded her deed to the property. Two hours after the buyer recorded, the woman fled the country. On the evening of June 8, which was a Saturday, the buyer presented her niece with a deed to the property as a gift. At 10 a.m. on June 10, the bank recorded its mortgage. At 2 p.m. on June 10, the niece recorded her deed. After the woman missed her first mortgage payment on July 1, the bank employees went to the title office. They discovered the deeds to the buyer and her niece. The bank demanded that the niece satisfy the $30,000 mortgage. The niece filed an appropriate suit to determine the various interests in the property. The recording statute in the jurisdiction reads, in relevant part: “A conveyance of an estate in land shall not be valid against any subsequent purchaser for value, without notice thereof, unless the conveyance is recorded.” How should the court should rule?
The niece owns the property free of the bank’s mortgage, because the buyer was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice. In general, a person who takes from a bona fide purchaser will prevail against any interest that the transferor-bona fide purchaser would have prevailed against.
On December 1, a landlord rented an apartment to a tenant for one year, commencing January 1. The tenant paid the first and last months’ rent. Both the landlord and the tenant were aware that, at the time of the making of the lease, the apartment in question was occupied by a student, who had a lease on the premises until December 31. The student refused to leave the apartment on December 31, and the landlord served the appropriate legal notices to vacate the premises. The student still did not vacate the apartment and the landlord instituted an unlawful detainer action against the student. She succeeded in getting the marshal to enforce the judgment and take possession of the apartment, and the tenant received possession of the apartment on February 1. The lease between the landlord and the tenant contained the following statement: “The tenant, on payment of the monthly rent and compliance with all of the covenants and conditions stated herein, shall have the quiet enjoyment of the premises.” If the tenant now sues the landlord for damages resulting from the delay in the tenant’s possession of the premises, what is the landlord’s best defense?
The landlord’s best defense is that the jurisdiction follows the minority approach regarding the landlord’s duty to deliver possession. In most states, statutes require the landlord to put the tenant in actual possession at the beginning of the lease term. In a minority of states, the landlord’s obligation is merely to give the tenant the legal right to possession; it is up to the new tenant to bring eviction proceedings against a hold-over tenant.
A homeowner owned a parcel of land on which she built a single-family residence. To pay for the construction, she obtained financing from a bank in exchange for a mortgage on the land. The bank promptly and properly recorded its mortgage. When the house was completed, except for the absence of an oven in the kitchen, the homeowner leased the house to a tenant for a three-year term. There was no provision in the lease agreement regarding kitchen appliances. The homeowner bought an oven from an appliance company and had it installed in the space provided around the built-in cabinets in the kitchen. To make the purchase, the homeowner signed a security agreement with the appliance company granting it a security interest in the oven in exchange for financing. The appliance company did not file or record its security interest in the oven. By the end of the lease term, the homeowner was in serious default on her mortgage payments to the bank and to the appliance company. In preparing foreclosure proceedings against the homeowner, the bank learned that the tenant was planning to remove the oven and take it with him when he moved out within the next few weeks. The bank filed an action against the tenant claiming ownership of the oven, and joined the homeowner and the appliance company as parties. Which party has a superior claim to the oven?
The bank, because its mortgage interest attaches to all fixtures on the real estate and it has priority over the appliance company.
The owner of 50 acres of unimproved property prepared and recorded a subdivision plan calling for 80 home sites on one-half acre each. Purchasers were required to build their homes using one of five different approved plans. Each deed, which referred to the recorded plan, stated that “no residence shall be erected on any lot that has not been approved by the homeowners’ association.” An investor who bought one of the lots but did not build on it resold it to a purchaser a few years later. The deed from the investor to the purchaser did not contain any reference to the recorded plan nor the obligation regarding approval by the homeowners’ association. The purchaser began to build a very modernistic house on her one-half acre. A neighbor who had built a house using one of the approved plans brought an action to enjoin the construction. Who is likely to prevail in this action?
The neighbor, because the recorded subdivision plan, taken with the fact that all lots were similarly restricted and the purchaser had notice of this, gave him the right to enforce the covenant on the purchaser’s property.