Property Law Review quiz 3

Question 1

Correct
Mark 1.00 out of 1.00

Question text

Questions 1 and 2 are based on the following fact situation.

Owner was the record owner of Blackacre, a 150-acre tract of undeveloped natural
land in Victor County. Blackacre is mostly wooded except for five acres of pasture in
the eastern corner that Owner sometimes used for cattle grazing in connection with his
cattle ranch on Blueacre, an adjoining tract of land. In 2010 Owner received an offer
to purchase Blackacre from a non-profit environmental corporation, Enviro. Owner
declined to sell Blackacre. After further discussions, however, Owner executed and
delivered to Enviro corporation in exchange for $100,000 the following instrument:
"It is hereby agreed between Owner and Enviro Corporation hereinafter "Enviro" that
no entry shall be made, and no activity conducted, on Blackacre except as expressly
permitted by such regulations as Enviro may from time to time adopt in the interest of
maximum enjoyment by the public of Blackacre's, natural land consistent with due
protection for those values." Owner continued his occasional pasturing of cattle on
Blackacre until he died in 2002, which he left by will all of his real property to his
son, Charles. Charles would like to develop on Blackacre a shopping center.

In an appropriate action to construe the agreement between Owner and Enviro, the
court will determine provision to be a/an
Select one:
a. Easement.
b. Profit.
c. Covenant running with the land.
d. Negative covenant.
Feedback

The correct answer is: Negative covenant.

Question 2

Correct
Mark 1.00 out of 1.00

Question text

Assume the same facts above except the instrument had an added provision

b) agents and employees of Enviro shall at all times be allowed access to Blackacre as
required for the purpose of appraising the current conditions and needs of the land,
and of discovering violations of Enviro's regulations.

In an appropriate action to construe the agreement between Owner and Enviro, the
court will determine provision to be a/an
Select one:
a. Easement

b. Profit
c. Covenant running with the land
d. Equitable servitude

Feedback

The correct answer is: Easement

Question 3

Correct
Mark 1.00 out of 1.00

Question text
For many years Wilson has been asking Denis if he was willing to sell Villa Ranch.
Finally, on August 18, 2010 Wilson and Denis entered into a real estate sales contract
which provided in part: "I, Denis, agree to convey good marketable title to Wilson
thirty days from the date of this contract." The stated purchase price for Villa Ranch
was $1,500,000.

On September 11, 2010, Wilson telephoned Denis and told him that his title search
indicated that Riley, not Denis, was the owner of record to the property. Denis stated
that he has been in adverse possession for twenty-one years. The statutory period of
adverse possession in this jurisdiction is twenty years. The fact is what Denis is stating
is true. At the time set for closing, Denis tendered a deed in the form agreed in the
sales contract. Wilson, however, refused to pay the purchase price because of Denis'
inability to convey "good marketable title:' In an appropriate action by Denis against
Wilson for specific performance, the vendor will
Select one:
a. Prevail, because he has obtained "good and marketable title" by adverse
possession.
b. Prevail, because Denis' action for specific performance is an action in rem to
which Wilson is not a necessary party.
c. Not Prevail, because an adverse possessor takes title subject to an equitable lien
from the dispossessed owner.
d. Not Prevail, because Wilson cannot be required to buy a lawsuit even if the
probability is great that Wilson would prevail against Denis.

Feedback

The correct answer is: Not Prevail, because Wilson cannot be required to buy a
lawsuit even if the probability is great that Wilson would prevail against Denis.

Question 4

Correct
Mark 1.00 out of 1.00

Question text
Fergi owned three two-story commercial buildings that were adjacent to each other on
Rodeo Drive in Los Angeles. The buildings were known as Meadow Towers. The first
floors of the buildings were occupied by various clothing retail establishments. The
buildings' other floors were rented to tenants and used for offices. There was an
enclosed walkway, which connected the second floor of each building. Thus, shoppers
and office workers could walk across the common walkway and gain access to each
building. While the buildings were being used in this manner, Fergi sold one of the
buildings to Xerox. The deed conveyed to Xerox was a general warranty deed which
made no mention of any rights concerning the walkway between the buildings. The
walkway continued to be used by the occupants of all three buildings. After several
years, Fergi brought an action to enjoin Xerox from continuing using the walkways.
The court will rule for:
Select one:
a. Fergi, because Xerox does not have rights in using the walkway.
b. Fergi, because Xerox rights in Meadow Towers do not extend to the walkway.
c. Xerox because they have an implied easement in the walkway.

d. Xerox, because they have a right to use the walkways in order to gain access to
the other buildings.

Feedback

The correct answer is: Xerox because they have an implied easement in the walkway.

Question 5

Incorrect
Mark 0.00 out of 1.00

Question text

Landlord was the owner of a large high-rise apartment building in Detroit. On January
1, 2009, Tenant took possession of a three-bedroom apartment in Landlord's building
under a three-year lease to them from Landlord at a rental of $825 per month. Their
lease, as all other leases given by Landlord, contained the following provisions:

"Tenant hereby agree that the premises

are to be maintained in good condition."

Tenant lived in the apartment for about two years. On February 28, 2011, a fire broke
out and destroyed the apartment building. As a result, all the apartments in the
building were rendered uninhabitable. Tenant moved to another apartment and
stopped paying rent. Landlord brought suit against Tenant to recover the rent due for
the balance of the lease. Tenant claims that he is no longer liable for rent or any other
obligations under the lease. The lease agreement did not contain a provision regarding
liability for fire. Who will prevail?
Select one:
a. Tenant because there was nothing in the lease regarding liability for fire.

b. Tenant because they did not own an interest in the property.

c. Landlord, because the fire was not his fault.
d. Landlord.

Feedback

The correct answer is: Landlord.

Question 6

Correct
Mark 1.00 out of 1.00

Question text

Willard, devised his farm in South Hampton to his daughter, Susie and her husband,
Tom, as tenants by the entirety. Susie and Tom took immediate possession of
Blackacre and lived there with their children, Cindy and Brad. Thereafter, Tom died in
an automobile accident. In 1972, two years after her father's death, Cindy moved to
another state.

Brad lived with his mother on the farm until her death intestate in 1992. He continued
in exclusive possession of the farm until his death in 2002. In his will, Brad devised
the farm in South Hampton to the Girl Scouts of America. Brad was unaware that
Cindy was still alive and that title to the farm had descended to the two of them as
their mother's sole surviving heirs. Since his mother's death, Brad has held himself out
as the owner of the farm, maintaining it and paying all of the taxes on the property.
The jurisdiction in which the farm is located has a 10-year limitation period for the
acquisition of property by adverse possession. What interest, if any, does Cindy have
in the property?
Select one:
a. An undivided one-half interest because Brad's possession was not adverse to
Cindy's title.

b. None, because of the doctrine of laches.

c. None, because Brad acquired title to the farm by adverse possession.
d. An undivided one-half interest because the 10-year limitation period did not run
against her since she was unaware of Brad's exclusive possession.

Feedback

The correct answer is: An undivided one-half interest because Brad's possession was
not adverse to Cindy's title.

Question 7

Incorrect
Mark 0.00 out of 1.00

Question text

Jonathan is the owner in fee simple of a tract of land on which is situated a large
office building. Jonathan leases the land and building thereon to Jim for a term of six
years, commencing on August 1, 2010, and terminating at midnight on July 31, 2016.
The lease contains the following provisions:

"1. Jim covenants not to assign the leased premises without the consent of Jonathan;

2. Jim covenants to pay the rent of $2,550 per month on the first day of each month;

3. Jim covenants to keep the building on the leased premises insured against fire in the
amount of $1, 000,000; and

4. Jonathan covenants to utilize any fire insurance proceeds for repair or replacement
only."

After two years, without the consent of Jonathan, Jim assigned the entire balance of
the lease period to Fred, who took immediate possession of the leased property.
Jonathan accepted rental payments from Fred. Soon afterwards, a fire spread from an
adjoining building to the leased property, completely destroying the building.

It was established that the owner of the premises on which the fire started had failed
for several years to comply with the municipal Fire Code measures applicable to his
building. While Jim was in possession of the leased property, he carried a fire
insurance policy on the premises in the amount of $1,000,000. However, Jim allowed
the policy to lapse after his assignment to Fred. Fred did not carry insurance on the
leased building. Jonathan learned that the building was not insured at the time of the
fire. In an action by Jonathan against Jim to recover for the fire loss, Jonathan will
most probably
Select one:
a. Not recover, since the covenant to provide fire insurance did not run with the
land.

b. Not recover, since Fred, as assignee, would be liable for the fire loss.
c. Recover, since the covenant to maintain fire insurance would "touch and
concern" the land.
d. Recover, since Jim's obligation to maintain fire insurance did not terminate after
his assignment to Fred.

Feedback

The correct answer is: Recover, since Jim's obligation to maintain fire insurance did
not terminate after his assignment to Fred.

Question 8

Correct
Mark 1.00 out of 1.00

Question text
Brown owned a large building in the city of Princeton. On January 15, 2000, Brown
leased the building to Rodger for a period of 20 years at a rental of $20,000 per
month. The leasehold agreement between Brown and Rodger provided that neither
was permitted "to assign this lease to anyone except a corporation with an 'A' credit
rating from the Trans Credit Rating Corporation." On February 1, 2001, Rodger leased
the premises to Corp Inc., a corporation which did not have the required credit rating.
The Rodger-Corp lease was for a period of five years, with a rental of $25,000 per
month, payable by Corp to Rodger. In addition, Corp agreed to abide "by all of the
terms and conditions of the lease between Brown and Rodger." One year later, Corp
Inc. leased the premises to Albert for the balance of the term of the Corp-Rodger
lease. Albert took possession of the said premises on February 1, 2002, the same day
that Corp Inc. vacated its occupancy. Pursuant to the Corp-Albert leasehold
agreement, the latter was obligated to pay a monthly rental of $27,500 directly to Corp
Inc. Albert has a 'B' credit rating with the Trans Credit Rating Corporation. For one
year, Albert paid $27,500 each month directly to Corp Inc. During that same period,
Corp Inc. continued to pay $25,000 each month to Rodger, while the latter paid
$20,000 each month to Brown. Brown knew about the leases to Corp Inc. and Albert,
and protested promptly, but took no further action, apparently satisfied as long as he
received his $20,000 per month from Rodger. On February 1, 2003, Albert abandoned
the premises and stopped paying rent to Corp Inc. After Albert discontinued paying
rent, Corp Inc. stopped paying rent to Rodger, When Rodger failed to receive his rent,
he, too, stopped paying rent to Brown. The building is now vacant, and Rodger
refuses to pay rent until the air conditioning is fixed. Rodger has not returned any keys
to Brown yet. Albert's abandonment was caused by the destruction of the air
conditioning unit in a fire apparently set by some vandals. The damaged unit was
located in an area inside the building that was used for storing merchandise. Albert
has flatly refused to repair or replace the equipment at his own expense. Despite
Albert's repeated demands, Corp, Rodger, and Brown have all refused to replace the
air conditioning system. If Brown brings suit to recover for past rent due, which of the
following are correct?
Select one:
a. Brown may recover against Rodger for past rent due.

b. Brown may recover against Corp Inc. for past rent due.
c. Brown may recover against Albert for past rent due.
d. Brown may recover against Albert, Corp Inc, and Brown for past rent due.

Feedback

The correct answer is: Brown may recover against Rodger for past rent due.
Question 9

Incorrect
Mark 0.00 out of 1.00

Question text

Chris was the owner of a vacant warehouse located in Richmond, Virginia. On March
1, 2010 Chris leased the warehouse to Thompson for a term of ten years. The
leasehold agreement provided in relevant part:

"Thompson hereby acknowledges that certain areas of the leased premises are in a
state of disrepair and unsafe for the conduct of business. Nonetheless, Thompson
agrees to assume full responsibility for the necessary repairs. Furthermore, Thompson
agrees to indemnify Chris for any loss resulting from the condition of the said
premises."

Under the terms of the lease, Chris delivered possession of the warehouse to
Thompson on March 2, 2012. On that date, an employee of Thompson's, was working
in the warehouse. He was moving some equipment into the warehouse when a section
of the ceiling collapsed and fell on him. At the time the lease was entered into Chris
was aware that the ceiling was defective and needed to be repaired. Employee
initiated a suit against Chris to recover damages resulting from his injury. If Employee
prevails it will be because
Select one:
a. A Landowner is strictly liable for injuries occurring on his property.
b. A Landowner's duty of care to third parties cannot be shifted to a tenant by the
terms of a lease.
c. Tenant cannot waive the implied warranty of commercial habitability.
d. Covenant to indemnify by a tenant in favor of a landowner is against public
policy.

Feedback

The correct answer is: A Landowner's duty of care to third parties cannot be shifted to
a tenant by the terms of a lease.
Question 10

Incorrect
Mark 0.00 out of 1.00

Question text

Alley is the owner of record of a parcel of land designated as "A." It is the highest of
the three neighboring properties on Big Bear Mountain. Beth is the owner of parcel
"B," which is situated lower than "A" on the mountainside. Cal owns parcel "C"
which lies below parcels "A" and "B" on the mountain slope.

In 1980 Alley, who originally owned all three parcels of land, constructed a private
drainage system. This system consisted of an underground pipeline, which extended
across all three parcels of land, Sewage from parcel "A" drained through the system to
a municipal sewer which was located at the bottom of the mountain. The drainage
system would most likely be defined as
Select one:
a. A Prescriptive easement.
b. An Express easement.
c. An Easement appurtenant.

d. An Easement by implication.

Feedback

The correct answer is: An Easement by implication.

Question 11

Correct
Mark 1.00 out of 1.00

Question text
Jim is the fee simple owner of Blue Bayou, a 1,000-acre tract of land in Louisiana.
Half of Blue Bayou is swampland totally unfit for cultivation, but heavily covered
with valuable hardwood timber. The other half of Blue Bayou is also covered with
valuable timber, but is land, which is fit for the raising of crops when cleared of the
timber thereon. The latter section of land is more valuable for cultivation than for the
growing of timber.

In 1992, Jim conveyed his Blue Bayou tract to his brother Tim for life. At the time of
the conveyance, the swampland had never been used for the production of timber. Tim
took possession and cleared 40 acres of the timber on the section that was suitable for
cultivation. In addition, Tim cut 60 acres of timber in the swampland, thus becoming
the first person to exploit this area. He then sold the timber from the swampland for
$2,400; he sold the timber from the area adaptable for cultivation for $2,000. Tim then
proceeded to clear some timber on the tract and used it as "estovers" for the purpose
of utilization in repairing fences, buildings, equipment, and the like on the Blue Bayou
property. In an action by Jim to permanently enjoin Tim from cutting any more timber
on the swampland section of Blue Bayou and to account for profits received in the
sale of the timber, Jim will most likely
Select one:
a. Succeed, since a life tenant must account for permissive waste to the reversioner
or remainderman.
b. Succeed, since a life tenant may not exploit natural resources where no such
prior use had been made.

c. Not succeed, since a life tenant is not liable for ameliorative waste.
d. Not succeed since a life tenant has a right to make reasonable use of the land.

Feedback

The correct answer is: Succeed, since a life tenant may not exploit natural resources
where no such prior use had been made.

Question 12

Correct
Mark 1.00 out of 1.00

Question text
Wilson owns one of two large two-story office buildings in downtown Manhattan. On
June 1, 2000, Wilson entered into a valid written lease with Cal to rent the second
floor office space for four years at a monthly rental of $5,000. The lease contained a
provision wherein Wilson was required to repaint the second floor premises after two
years of occupancy.

On June 1, 2002, Cal sent Wilson a written letter requesting the repainting of the
second floor office space. Wilson has refused to perform the repainting as the lease
required. The cost of repainting Cal's office was estimated at $1,750. On July 1, 2003,
Wilson had still not repainted the premises. Cal moved out, mailed the keys to Wilson,
and refused to pay any more rent. In an appropriate action by Wilson against Cal for
the rent due, Wilson will
Select one:
a. Win, because there was no constructive eviction.

b. Win, because Cal had the remedy of self-help.

c. Lose, because he cannot maintain an action for rent while in breach of an
express covenant.
d. Lose, because the obligation to pay rent is dependent on Wilson's performance
of his express covenant.

Feedback

The correct answer is: Win, because there was no constructive eviction.

Question 13

Incorrect
Mark 0.00 out of 1.00

Question text

Questions 13 and 14 are based on the following fact situation.

Mitt was the owner of a 300-acre tract of land that was located in Alba County. Over
the course of time, he developed the property into a residential subdivision known as
Berkshire. Coastal Boulevard, a four lane public highway ran along the northern
boundary of Berkshire. When Berkshire was first plotted, Mitt constructed a private
road called Mitt Lane across the western boundary of the subdivision. Mitt Lane was
used only for the benefit of the owners who purchased lots in the subdivision.

Isaiah owned a 20-acre tract that was situated just below Lincoln Boulevard and
immediately adjacent to the west side of Mitt Lane. Isaiah's property was divided into
two 10-acre parcels: Parcel 1 was the northern half and bordered along Coastal
Boulevard; Parcel 2 was the southern sector and abutted the Pine River. In 2001,
Isaiah conveyed Parcel 1 to Peter by warranty deed. No encumbrances were
mentioned in the deed. Six months later, Isaiah conveyed Parcel 2 by warranty deed to
Scott. Both Peter and Scott promptly recorded their deeds with the County Recorder's
Office.

Assume for the purposes of this question only that no part of Parcel 2 adjoins a public
road. Consequently, Scott constructed an access road connecting his property to Mitt
Lane. After Scott used Mitt Lane for approximately two months, Selvester, a
Berkshire lot owner, ordered Scott to discontinue using the private road. In an
appropriate action by Selvester against Scott to enjoin the use of Mitt Lane, Scott will
Select one:
a. Win, because there is an easement by necessity over Mitt Lane.

b. Win, because there is an implied easement appurtenant over Mitt Lane.

c. Lose, unless Mitt Lane is the only access road by which Scott can gain ingress
and egress to his property.
d. Lose, because he has no legal right to travel over Mitt Lane.

Feedback

The correct answer is: Lose, because he has no legal right to travel over Mitt Lane.

Question 14

Incorrect
Mark 0.00 out of 1.00

Question text

Assume the following facts for this question only. In 1990, Isaiah constructed a
driveway from Mitt Lane over what is now Parcel 2. This driveway, which extended
over Parcel 1 where it connected with Coastal Boulevard, was used continuously by
Isaiah until 2001 when he conveyed his property to Peter and Scott. When Scott took
possession of Parcel 2, he immediately began to use the driveway across Parcel 1.
Thereafter, Peter requested that Scott cease to use the driveway over Parcel 1. After
Scott refused, Peter brought an appropriate action to enjoin Scott from using the
driveway. In this action, Peter will
Select one:
a. Win, because his deed antedated Scott's deed.
b. Win, because no encumbrances were mentioned in his deed.
c. Lose, because Scott has an easement by necessity.
d. Lose, because Scott has a prescriptive easement.

Feedback

The correct answer is: Lose, because Scott has an easement by necessity.

Question 15

Incorrect
Mark 0.00 out of 1.00

Question text

Ferguson was the owner of many acres of land, the northern boundary of which
fronted on a road, and the southern boundary of which fronted on a lake. Ferguson's
house was located in the middle of the property, about halfway between the road and
the lake. Ferguson divided the land into three lots. Lot 1, the northern most lot, fronted
on the road; Lot 3, the southernmost lot, fronted on the lake. Lot 2, which contained
Ferguson's house, was located between Lots 1 and 3, with no frontage on either the
road or the lake. The only ingress and egress to Lot 2 was over a clearly marked and
graded dirt driveway that crossed Lot 1, connecting Lot 2 with the road.

Ferguson continued to live in his house on Lot 2, but he sold Lot 1 to Elizabeth. The
deed to Elizabeth reserved an easement over the dirt driveway that connected Lot 2
with the road.

Five years after Ferguson's conveyance to Elizabeth, the county constructed a new
road along the westernmost boundary of Lots l, 2 and 3. The new road led from the
old road to the lake. Ferguson began using the new road for ingress and egress to his
property, maintaining but not using the dirt driveway that crossed Lot 1. If Elizabeth
desiring to sell Lot 1, brought an action to enjoin Ferguson from further use of the
right of way across Lot 1, the court should find for
Select one:
a. Elizabeth, because continued use of the easement by the landowner will
unreasonably reduce the value of Lot 1.
b. Elizabeth, because an implied easement by necessity terminates upon
termination of the necessity.
c. Ferguson, because his easement was created by express reservation.
d. Ferguson, because an implied easement by necessity does not terminate upon
the termination of the necessity.

Feedback

The correct answer is: Ferguson, because his easement was created by express
reservation.

Question 16

Incorrect
Mark 0.00 out of 1.00

Question text

Eviana owned Hillcrest, a ten-acre tract of land, in fee simple. Hillcrest was located in
Bear Valley. In 1988, Eviana conveyed Hillcrest to The Donald Triumph Development
Corporation "on condition that a ski lodge and resort area would be built on and the
land to be used solely for skiing purposes and, in the event that said property is not
used as a ski resort, the property shall revert to myself, the grantor, my heirs, or
assigns." Subsequently, a ski lodge was built and the land was continuously used as a
ski resort for over 20 years.

In 2007, Barry, owner of Greenhaven, a property abutting the southeast corner of

Hillcrest, began to use a portion of Hillcrest in order to gain access to Greenhaven for
ingress and egress. He used this access road openly, visibly, and notoriously until
2012. The period of prescription in this particular jurisdiction was 5 years. In March
2013, he decided to sell Greenhaven to Stan for the purchase price of $500,000.
Thereupon, Barry and Stan entered into a written real estate sale. Upon the closing of
Greenhaven, The Donald Triumph Development Corporation refuses to allow Stan to
use Hillcrest in order gain access to Greenhaven. In an action to allow the use of
Hillcrest, judgment should be in favor of which of the following parties?
Select one:
a. The Donald Triumph Development Corporation, because Barry did not obtain
an easement by prescription.

b. The Donald Triumph Development Corporation, because the easement would

violate the negative restriction that Eviana originally sought to impose.
c. Stan because Barry had already obtained an easement by prescription.
d. Stan, because an easement by necessity exists.

Feedback

The correct answer is: Stan because Barry had already obtained an easement by
prescription.

Question 17

Incorrect
Mark 0.00 out of 1.00

Question text

Bernard is the owner in fee simple absolute of Oldacre, a ten acre tract, on which he
maintains a dwelling house for himself and his family. Adjoining Oldacre is
Floweracre, a 20-acre tract, owned by Joy. In order to gain access to the highway,
Bernard has an easement to cross over Floweracre. Bernard has recently purchased
Greenacre, a 12-acre tract, which abuts Floweracre but is not appurtenant to Oldacre.
Bernard has begun constructing a farmhouse on Greenacre and is using the existing
easement across Floweracre to gain access to the l2-acre tract. Bernard has never
received permission from Joy to use the road across Floweracre to gain access to
Greenacre. In an appropriate action by Joy to enjoin Bernard from using the existing
easement to gain access to Greenacre, Joy will most likely
Select one:
 a. Succeed, because Bernard is making use of the servient tenement beyond the
scope and extent of the easement as it was originally created.
b. Succeed, because Bernard has no right to use the servient tenement in
connection with a tract of land which is not part of the dominant tenement.
c. Not succeed, because Bernard has an easement by necessity.
d. Not succeed, because Bernard has a right to use the easement in a manner not
inconsistent with the rights of the owner of the servient tenement.

Feedback

The correct answer is: Succeed, because Bernard has no right to use the servient
tenement in connection with a tract of land which is not part of the dominant
tenement.

Question 18

Incorrect
Mark 0.00 out of 1.00

Question text

Bradley was the record owner in fee simple absolute of a 125-acre parcel of land
located in Bradford. In 1998 Bradley conveyed the property "to my sister, Marie, for
life with remainder to my son, Rob, if he be living." At the time of the conveyance,
Rob was in medical school in Los Angles. Marie immediately recorded the deed and
took possession.

Shortly thereafter, Marie discovered that the property contained large coal deposits,
which she severed and began to sell. In 2001 Rob graduated from medical school and
returned to Bradford. He then learned of the conveyance and also ascertained that
Marie had not paid taxes on the property for the last five years. After discovering that
the property was subject to a pending tax foreclosure, Rob demanded that Marie pay
the delinquent taxes. Even though the profits from the coal sales were quite
substantial, Marie refused to pay the outstanding taxes. Rob thus paid the taxes
himself. If Rob sues Marie to recover the taxes and for an accounting of the proceeds
received from the coal sales, judgment should be
Select one:
 a. In favor of Rob for the taxes but not for the coal.

b. In favor of Rob for the coal but not for the taxes.
c. In favor of Rob for both the taxes and the coal.
d. Against Rob for both the taxes and the coal.

Feedback

The correct answer is: In favor of Rob for both the taxes and the coal.
Save the state of the flags

Finish review