An investor owned a large tract of realty in a wooded and undeveloped region of the state. A hunter, knowing that the investor rarely visited his realty, built a cabin on it and began to occupy it on January 1, 1989, in hopes that the investor would not discover his presence. Five years later, in January 1994, the investor learned that the hunter was occupying the realty and had him removed. In February 1994, however, the hunter moved back in without the investor's knowledge and remained in possession for an additional 16 years, until March 2009. The law in the jurisdiction provides that one who openly, notoriously, hostilely, and continuously occupies realty for a period of 20 years acquires title to it by adverse possession.

If the investor instituted an action in April 2009 to eject the hunter from the land, the court should find for

Group of answer choices

The investor, only if the removal of the hunter in January 1994 was by self-help without a court order.

The investor, whether the removal of the hunter in January 1994 was by self-help or by court order.

The investor, only if the removal of the hunter in January 1994 was by court order.

The hunter, because his removal in January 1994 was temporary and therefore consistent with his claim of right.

As part of a divorce settlement between husband and wife, the wife conveyed a parcel of realty "to my ex-husband for life; remainder to my children who survive my ex-husband."

Of the following interests, the ex-husband can convey which power to a buyer?

Group of answer choices

No right to possess the realty.

The right to possess the realty until the ex-wife's death.

The right to possess the realty until the death of the buyer.

The right to possess the realty until the ex-husband's death.

When the landowner died, he was the owner of 200 acres of undeveloped land. His will devised the land to his three daughters as joint tenants with full right of survivorship. Shortly after the landowner's death, one of the daughters became ill and died. Her will devised her entire interest in the realty to the youngest daughter (her sister).

Which of the following most correctly states the proportional interests that the surviving daughters would hold as a result?

Group of answer choices

The surviving daughters would be joint tenants, with the youngest daughter holding a two-thirds interest and the other daughter holding a one-third interest in the realty.

The surviving daughters would be tenants in common, with the youngest daughter holding a two-thirds interest and the other daughter holding a one-third interest in the realty.

The surviving daughters would be tenants in common with equal interests in the realty.

The surviving daughters would be joint tenants with equal interests in the realty.

In January, the landowner executed a will leaving a tract of land to "my brother for life, remainder to be divided equally among my brother's children, share and share alike." At the time of the will's execution, the brother had two daughters. In March, the brother's daughters were killed in a boating accident. The following June, the landowner died. Fifteen years later, the brother executed a deed to a buyer purporting to convey "all my right, title, and interest in the land." A year after he executed that deed, the brother died without a will. The brother was survived by his six-year-old son.

Which of the following correctly describes the brother's son's interest in the land immediately BEFORE the death of the brother?

Group of answer choices

Vested remainder subject to partial divestment.

Vested remainder subject to complete divestment.

No valid interest.

Contingent remainder.