Twenty years ago, a landowner who owned Blackacre, a one-acre tract of land, duly delivered a deed of Blackacre "to School District, so long as it is used for school purposes." The deed was promptly and properly recorded. Five years ago, the landowner died, leaving Sonny as his heir at law. The landowner left a duly probated will, by which he left "all my Estate" to his friend, who was a doctor. Last month, School District closed its school on Blackacre and for valid consideration duly executed and delivered a quitclaim deed of Blackacre to a developer who planned to use the land for commercial development. The developer has now brought an appropriation action to quiet title against Sonny, the doctor, and the School District. The only applicable statute is a provision in the jurisdiction's probate code which provides that any property interest is descendible and devisable.

In such action, the court should find that the title is now in

Group of answer choices

The doctor.

Sonny, the son.

The developer.

School District

A property owner desired to leave his farm in such a manner that his daughter and son would have the right to occupy it during their joint lives. To that end, the property owner devised his property to "to my daughter and son, but if either attempts to convey their interest while both are alive, that interest is forfeited to the other."

If the daughter deeds her interest in the property to her friend while the son is alive, is the conveyance valid?

Group of answer choices

No, because it violated the owner's restriction on transfer.

No, because a joint tenant may not convey her interest unless there is a partition.

Yes, because a conveyance by a tenant in common results in a severance.

Yes, because the restriction on transfer is invalid.

A grantor owned a ranch in fee simple absolute. The grantor deeded the ranch to his son and daughter as joint tenants with the right of survivorship. The son, in order to secure a promissory note to a lender, executed a mortgage to the lender of the entire fee in the land.

What is the state of the title after the mortgage?

Group of answer choices

Joint tenancy with right of survivorship in the son and the daughter, subject to a mortgage on the son's interest if the son survives the daughter and inherits the entire fee, in a state which adheres to the title theory of mortgages.

Joint tenancy with right of survivorship in the son and the daughter, subject to a mortgage on the son's interest, in a state that adheres to the title theory of mortgages.

Joint tenancy with right of survivorship in the son and the daughter, subject to a mortgage on the son's interest, in a state that adheres to the lien theory of mortgages.

Tenancy in common between the son and the daughter, with a mortgage on the son's undivided one-half interest, in a state which adheres to the lien theory of mortgages.

A landowner deeded a parcel of land to four people as tenants in common. Only one of the co-tenants, a park ranger, lived near the parcel. Without discussing it with the co-tenants, the ranger immediately moved onto the parcel, built a house on a portion of the land, fenced off a yard, and lived there for the next five years without paying anything to the other co-tenants.

What does the ranger owe to his co-tenants?

Group of answer choices

Three-fourths of the fair rental value of the land.

Three-fourths of the fair rental value of the land, less three-fourths of the real estate taxes on the land.

Nothing.

Three-fourths of the fair rental value of the house and land.

A landlord leased an apartment to a salesman for two years at a rent of $1200 a month. Rental payment was due on the first day of each month. The terms of the lease prohibited any assignment without written consent of the landlord. The salesman paid rent for one year but was then transferred to another state by his employer for six months. The salesman entered into an agreement with a cousin for the cousin to move into the apartment and pay the full amount of the rent for the six months the salesman would be gone. Because the salesman was worried that he'd be too busy with his new job to remember to make the rent payments, he asked the cousin to pay the rent directly to the landlord. The cousin paid the rent for the first four months, and the landlord accepted the rent. However, the cousin did not pay any rent for the final two months. When the salesman returned and took possession, he promptly made a payment of $1200 to the landlord. The landlord notified him that he was bringing suit for the $2400 of unpaid rent for the previous two months.

From whom can the landlord recover this amount?

Group of answer choices

From the salesman only, based on privity of contract and privity of estate.

From the cousin only, based on privity of estate.

From either the salesman or the cousin, because the lease agreement did not expressly prohibit a sublease.

From the cousin only, because the landlord consented to the sublease by accepting the four months' rent.

A large field, owned by a city, was used as a municipal parking lot for many years. When a new parking facility was constructed, the field was no longer used for that purpose. The city officially vacated the property, except for a small parcel of land at the easterly end of the field. The adjoining owner on both sides of the field fenced the parcel and cultivated it for a period of time in excess of the period required for adverse possession. A statute of the jurisdiction in which the field is located provides that real property interests can be lost by a municipality through adverse possession.

In an appropriate action brought by the adjoining owner to establish his title to the parcel, which of the following must he establish if he is to prevail?

Group of answer choices

Fee interests in real property can be abandoned by a municipality without an official vote.

The adjoining owner believed that he owned the parcel.

Lack of use of the parcel by the municipality created an irrevocable license in the adjoining owner.

The adjoining owner's use of the parcel was proof of his assertion of dominion over the parcel.