Question 1 Lester, who owned Rentacre, entered into a written...

Question 1

Lester, who owned Rentacre, entered into a written lease agreement with Tonya for a three-year term. At the same time, Lester orally agreed that Tonya would have the option, during the last six months of the lease, to purchase Rentacre at a specified price. During the second year of the lease, Lester sold Rentacre to Paul, who knew that Tonya was a tenant in possession of Rentacre. Two years and eight months after first entering into the lease with Lester, Tonya notified Paul that she was exercising her option to purchase Rentacre at the price agreed to by Lester. Paul refused to sell Rentacre to Tonya. The jurisdiction has the following statute: "A conveyance of an estate in land (other than a lease for less than one year) shall not be valid as against any subsequent purchaser for value, except such persons having actual notice of it, unless the conveyance is properly recorded." Who holds title to Rentacre?

a)	Tonya, but only if she recorded the written lease agreement between her and Lester.

b)	Tonya, because Paul had notice of Tonya's interest in Rentacre because a purchaser of leased property has a duty to inquire about the tenant's possible rights to purchase the leasehold estate or extend the lease.

c)	Paul, because the recording act renders Tonya's option interest invalid.

d)	Paul, because a purchase option in a lease is not enforceable against a successor in interest to the landlord unless there is both privity of estate and privity of contract.

View question 1 feedback

Question 2

Dan, a self-employed computer consultant, was hired by Disco to design a computer software package for Disco. Dan told Disco that it would take about a month to fully design and implement the software. Since Disco was located in a distant city, Dan traveled to Disco's headquarters to look for a nearby apartment to rent for the one-month period. Dan found an apartment and signed a one-month lease to begin November 1, 2017 for a total rent of $500. Dan moved into the apartment on November 1, 2017 and gave the resident apartment manager a check for $500 for the rent. Due to difficulties in installing the software, Dan decided he would need to stay longer. Dan paid the manager $500 on December 1, telling the manager he wanted to stay a while longer. The manager accepted the $500 payment. On December 15, Dan left a written note in the apartment manager's mailbox stating that Dan intended to vacate the apartment on January 15, 2018. The manager left a note in Dan's mailbox on December 31, 2017 stating that the tenancy was terminated as of January 31, 2018. On January 1, 2018, Dan stopped at the manager's apartment and attempted to pay $250 for rent for the period January 1, 2018 through January 15, 2018. The manager insisted that Dan pay $500 for the entire month of January. Angered by the manager's response, Dan tore up the $250 check and moved out of the apartment that afternoon. Assuming that there are no applicable statutes in effect in the jurisdiction where the apartment is located, Dan is liable for rent on the apartment in the amount of:

a)	$0, because Dan's notice is effective immediately to terminate the holdover tenancy.

b)	$250, because Dan's notice is effective to terminate the tenancy as of January 15, 2018.

c)	$500, because the apartment manager's notice is effective to terminate the tenancy as of January 31, 2018.

d)	$1,000 because Dan's notice is effective to terminate the tenancy as of February 28, 2018.

View question 2 feedback

Question 3

Laurie rented an apartment owned by her to Tan, pursuant to a written lease having a term of two years. After six months had elapsed, Tan was transferred by his employer to another city. With Laurie's consent, Tan transferred his interest to Quark, who moved in and began paying rent to Laurie. Before leaving, Tan successfully persuaded Laurie to execute a written agreement expressly releasing Tan from any further liability for future rent under the original two year lease. Three months later, Quark lost his job. He told Laurie that his modest savings would be stretched badly while he looked for work, and asked her if she would defer collecting his rent for a few months while he sought new employment. Laurie agreed. After four months, Quark found a job in another country, and left the apartment without paying Laurie for the four months he had occupied the apartment after she agreed to defer collection of the rent. Laurie immediately re-leased the apartment "on Tan's account." Laurie then sought to recover from Tan the four months' rent attributable to the last four months in which Quark occupied the apartment. Should Laurie be able to recover from Tan?

a)	Yes, so long as the transfer from Tan to Quark was an assignment.

b)	Yes, because Tan remained contractually liable for all rent payments.

c)	No, because Laurie expressly released Tan from any future rent liability.

d)	No, because Laurie's acceptance of rent from Quark and agreement to defer collection of rent due from Quark constituted a release of Tan.

View question 3 feedback

Question 4

Problems 4 and 5 involve the same fact pattern. Garth owned some property along the waterfront in Giles Bay, a small city on the coast which catered mostly to tourists. He rented his property to Flora, a pottery maker, who intended to use the back part of the building for living quarters, and the front part as a pottery studio to make the pottery she sold to the tourists in town. Flora installed a kiln, some lights, and some storage units in the front part of the building for her use. Sometime later, Garth mortgaged the property to First City Bank to secure a loan. The mortgage was recorded, but Garth did not personally tell Flora that he had done so. In fact, she only learned of it when Garth defaulted on the loan and the bank foreclosed on the mortgage and told her that she would have to quit the premises. Flora began removing the equipment and fixtures which she had installed in the house. The bank objected and sought an injunction to prevent her from doing so. Under these circumstances the court should deny Bank the injunction because:

a)	There was no contrary provision in the agreement between Garth and Flora, and therefore, she is entitled to remove any personal property which belongs to her.

b)	Bank had not perfected a security interest in the personal property belonging to Flora.

c)	The equipment and fixtures were installed for Flora's exclusive benefit.

d)	Garth had never given Flora notice of the mortgage.

View question 4 feedback

Question 5

Problems 4 and 5 involve the same fact pattern. Garth owned some property along the waterfront in Giles Bay, a small city on the coast which catered mostly to tourists. He rented his property to Flora, a pottery maker, who intended to use the back part of the building for living quarters, and the front part as a pottery studio to make the pottery she sold to the tourists in town. Flora installed a kiln, some lights, and some storage units in the front part of the building for her use. Sometime later, Garth mortgaged the property to First City Bank to secure a loan. The mortgage was recorded, but Garth did not personally tell Flora that he had done so. In fact, she only learned of it when Garth defaulted on the loan and the bank foreclosed on the mortgage and told her that she would have to quit the premises. Flora began removing the equipment and fixtures which she had installed in the house. The bank objected and sought an injunction to prevent her from doing so. Would it make any difference if Garth himself had installed the equipment for the benefit of the tenant?

a)	No, First City Bank's position would be exactly the same.

b)	No, First City Bank's security agreement with Garth did not include personal property.

c)	Yes, First City Bank's chances of receiving an injunction would be diminished.

d)	Yes, First City Bank's chances of receiving an injunction would be increased.

View question 5 feedback

Question 6

On June 1, Sally and Burton entered into a written contract for the purchase and sale of Sally's real estate. The contract described the real estate, fixed a purchase price, required that it be paid in full and in cash upon delivery of a deed, and set a closing date of August 1, but was silent about the quality of title which Sally was required to convey. On July 25, Burton advised Sally that he would not go through with the transaction. On August 1, Sally tendered a deed, which Burton refused to accept. In an action by Sally against Burton for breach of contract, a court is most likely to hold that the contract of June 1:

a)	Was unenforceable because it was not sufficiently definite in its terms regarding the quality of title Sally was required to convey.

b)	Required Sally to convey marketable title.

c)	Required Sally to convey whatever title she held on June 1.

d)	Required Sally to convey whatever title she held on June 1, together with any additional interest which she owned at the time of closing.

View question 6 feedback

Question 7

Orville prepared a deed conveying Blackacre to Dee, and handed it to his attorney Lore, with instructions for delivery to Dee. Lore delivered the deed to Dee upon Orville's death in accordance with the instructions. Which of the following instructions by Orville to Lore would most likely have resulted in a valid delivery which effected a conveyance of the realty:

a)	"Unless you hear from me to the contrary, give this deed to Dee in case I die."

b)	"I am giving Blackacre to Dee. Give him this deed when I die."

c)	"I want Dee to have Blackacre after I am gone; give him this deed after my death."

d)	"I am about to undertake a dangerous mission. If I should be killed, give this deed to Dee."

View question 7 feedback

Question 8

Sam entered into a contract to sell Blackacre to Betty. On the date agreed upon, Betty paid Sam the purchase price, and he executed a deed to Blackacre in her favor. The next day, Betty learned that Sam had not been the holder of record title to Blackacre, and that he claimed to have acquired legal title to Blackacre by adverse possession. If Betty brings an action against Sam for recovery of the amount she paid him, judgment should be for:

a)	Betty, because Sam failed to convey marketable title to Blackacre.

b)	Sam, but only if he had already established his title arising from adverse possession in a judicial proceeding.

c)	Sam, if he conveyed title to Betty via a quitclaim deed.

d)	Sam, because title obtained by adverse possession is marketable title.

View question 8 feedback

Question 9

When Boyajian purchased her home in Yosemite Sky Park, a residential subdivision created for owners of small airplanes, the deed transferring title from San Joaquin Development Corporation to her included the following covenant: "Grantee, her successors and assigns agree to maintain ownership of a general aviation aircraft, to hangar that aircraft at the Yosemite Sky Park Airport, and to make use of said Airport's maintenance and fuel supply facilities for operation of the aircraft." The realtor, acting as San Joaquin's agent, explained that such a covenant was necessary to ensure the economic viability of the subdivision airport--if a substantial number of owners of Sky Park homes did not maintain aircraft, the airport would not be able to provide services to those residents who did own aircraft, and the value of all the homes in the subdivision would decline. After four years, Boyajian sold her home to Nguyen, who did not own any aircraft. San Joaquin Development Corporation, owner and operator of Yosemite Sky Park Airport, has brought an action against Nguyen to enforce the covenant contained in the San Joaquin-Boyajian deed. What is Nguyen's strongest argument for refusing to enforce the covenant?

a)	The covenant requires him to purchase an item of personal property instead of restricting the use of his land.

b)	The covenant is an illegal restraint on alienation.

c)	The covenant creates a "personal" benefit to San Joaquin Development Corporation as owner of the Yosemite Sky Park Airport.

d)	The covenant lacks the requisite mutuality.

View question 9 feedback

Question 10

Xact granted an easement over his front yard to Redcar Railway for the purpose of operating a cable car system which Redcar then built. Redcar used the system for twenty years, but ceased its operations a number of years ago when the system became rundown and unprofitable. Over ten years ago, Redcar removed the cables and tracks because they had become an eyesore. Three years ago, Xact planted the area with grass. The applicable statute provides for a prescriptive period of ten years. Last year Redcar received a state subsidy to reopen its system and now is planning to lay new tracks and cables over its right-of-way. Xact has brought an action to quiet his title and to restrain Redcar from building on his land. If Xact wins, it will be because:

a)	Redcar's removal of its cable and tracks combined with many years of non-use indicates an intent to abandon the easement.

b)	Redcar's plan to build the new system will unreasonably interfere with Xact's use of his fee simple.

c)	Redcar's easement terminated when it was no longer practical to utilize the easement for the purpose for which it was granted.

d)	Redcar's non-use of the easement for a period beyond the prescriptive period terminated the easement.