This is a question for principles of real estate RE310

Case #1: Easements:

In the 1960s, ConocoPhillips obtained an easement to lay, maintain, operate, inspect, and remove its pipeline and laid a pipeline on Mr. Browns property. Conoco claimed the roots of a 60 - 70 oak tree that had grown on the property could damage the pipeline and that the tree interfered with inspecting the pipeline by air as required by federal guidelines. Brown obtained an injunction from the district court to preserve the tree, but the courts ruling allowed it to be removed in the event of an emergency.

Assignment: Indicate how you think the Court of Appeals ruled. Can ConocoPhilips force Mr. Brown to remove the tree from the easement? Explain briefly (a few sentences) why you think it will rule this way.

Case #2: Adverse Possession:

A man purchased land in 1963 and began residing on it with his second wife in 1988. They deeded the property to her daughter in 1993 to avoid a possible tax lien by the IRS and claims by the mans ex-wife. The man and wife #2 divorced in 2006, but he continued to live there until his death in 2008. During all relevant times, the man resided on the property and treated it as his paying taxes, making improvements and collecting agricultural rent from a tenant. After his death, litigation ensued in the family over the true owner of the property. The stepdaughter claimed ownership by the 1993 deed; the mans children claimed ownership by his adverse possession of the property after granting the deed.

Assignment: Indicate how you think the court ruled. Did the man hold title through a claim of adverse possession, or did the stepdaughter retain title? Once again, briefly explain why you think the court will rule this way