Anne holds a life estate in a small piece of property containing a single family home. One day, Bounce', a famous pop singing star, crashed her car through Anne's living room window, but miraculously, Anne and her family escaped with their lives, as did Bounce', who wrote a #1 world-wide smash hit-dance song sensation about her experience that repeatedly referred to Anne's address in the chorus; 8675 Three Hundred and Ninth St.

Now, more than two years after the accident, fans of Bounce' continue to converge upon Anne's house at 8675 Three Hundred and Ninth St., 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, in the thousands, to see for themselves the famous site, immortalized in their favorite song, where their beloved pop icon almost perished, but miraculously survived, to sing what they regard as the anthem of their youth. Anne wants to completely remodel the small house, now virtually uninhabitable, because of the accident and crush of fans, into a museum focused on the accident and the pop star, Bounce'. Bounce' has endorsed the project for a share of the profits. The museum will bring in millions of dollars annually. Would an action brought by the remainderperson against Anne for waste be successful in a jurisdiction which follows the modern approach to life tenants and ameliorative waste ?

Question 2 options:

a)	No, because Anne committed voluntary waste, which is not actionable under the common law.

b)	No, because of changed circumstances under the modern approach used by courts in deciding issues of ameliorative waste.

c)	Yes, because of changed circumstances under the modern approach used by courts in deciding issues of ameliorative waste.

d)	Yes, because Anne committed voluntary waste, which is actionable under the common law.