TB MC Qu. 26-25 In the case in the text, Hutchison v. Kaforey.... In the case in the text, Hutchison v. Kaforey, 67 NE 3d 121 (Ohio Cl. App 2016, the appellate court held that the probate court: Multiple Choice None of the choices are correct propenly granted summary judgment to the movants improperly granted summary judgment to the movants properly granted the motion to dismiss TB MC Qu. 26-65 When a person procures the transfer of property... When a person procures the transfer of property by means of fraud or curess, he becomes atn). return the property to its original owner. and is under an obligation to Multiple Choice executar constructive trustee administrator implied trust TB MC Qu. 25-34 Bill leased a villa from Mark for a period... Bill leased a villa from Mark for a period of two years. Two months after he moved in, he found that he was regularly disturbed by the noise created by a group of young boys living in the adjacent unit, also owned by Mark. Despite repeated requests to the neighbors and Mark there has been no improvement in the situation. Which of the following is an accurate statement? Multiple Choice all cannot use the remedy of constructive eviction since he has leased residential property Mark is liable to Bill under the implied warranty of quiet enjoyment Bill cannot recover damages from either Mark or his neighbors, The neighbors have the right to live as they wish to Save & Exit Sub TB MC Qu. 25-53 Linda was visiting Jose at his apartment.... Linda was visiting Jose at his apartment. While she was there. Lindo slipped on a banana peel that Jose negligently left on the kitchen floor. Linda was injured and sued both Jose and his landlord Who is liable to Linda? Multiple Choice Jose is liable because he was negligent The landlord is able for all accidents that happen in his apartment Both Jose and the landlord are limbie No one is liable. Help Save & Exit Submit TB MC Qu. 25-37 Magnum Corporation rented a building from Wheller... Magnum Corporation rented a building from Wheilor to set up an office for a 5-year lease period. After the office was set up, it was found that the paint was peeling off in many places, the washrooms were broken and the floors were completely damaged. Magnum sued Wheiler for damages under the implied warranty of habitability Magnum will: Multiple Choice ose the case because the implied warranty of habitability is not applica win the case because Wheller is the owner of the damaged premises o the case because Wheer hos no responsibility to maintain is gremios win the case because property leased for commercial purpose is the owner's responsibility TB MC Qu, 25-37 Magnum Corporation rented a building from Wheller... Magnum Corporation rented a building from Wheller to set up an office for a 5-year lease period. After the office was set up, it was found that the paint was peeling off in many places, the washrooms were broken, and the floors were completely damaged. Magnum sued Wheiler for damages under the implied warranty of habitability, Magnum will: Multiple Choice lose the case because the implied warranty of habitability is not applicable. win the case because Whelter is the owner of the damaged premises lose the case because Whelter has no responsibility to maintain his premises win the case because property leased for commercial purposes is the owner's responsibility