Use the following facts for 1-3:

A couple purchases a used car at a government auction. The government originally came to own the car when they seized it in a forfeiture action after arresting a drug dealer who was driving it. After driving the car for a week, the couple notices that the gas gauge is not working. They take the car into an auto repair shop to have the problem looked at. When a mechanic employed by the auto repair shop opens up the gas tank, the mechanic finds a strange package inside - a sealed two-gallon gas container. After pulling the two-gallon gas container out and opening it, the mechanic finds many small rolls of cash carefully wrapped in thick layers of shrink-wrap. The rolls of cash total $32,000. The mechanic takes the money to the owner of the auto repair shop. The owner does not inform the couple. Later after the repaired car has been returned to the couple, the mechanic tells the couple about what was found in the gas tank. The couple in turn informs the government, worried that the money might be connected to drug trafficking and not certain of their legal obligations. After the government seizes the money, the couple, auto repair shop, and the mechanic each claim rights to the money in the resulting litigation with the government. (Assume no statute affects any of their respective rights to the cash.)

1. The court will most likely classify the cash as:

A)Lost.

B)Mislaid.

C)Abandoned.

D)Treasure Trove

2. With respect to the mechanic's claims, the court will most likely conclude:

A) That, as the first possessor, the mechanic will be entitled to the cash if it is classified as abandoned.

B)That the mechanic will be entitled to a finder's fee for notifying the couple.

C)That the mechanic will not be entitled to the cash regardless of how it is classifiedbecause the mechanic found the cash as an employee of auto repair shop.

D) That the mechanic will not be entitled to the cash because the mechanic abandoned any rights by giving the money to the owner of the auto repair shop.

3. If the court classifies the cash as mislaid, it will most likely hold that the relevant premises is the:

A)The car.

B)The auto repair shop.

C)The government impound lot where the car and cash were stored after seizure.

D)The two-gallon gas container.

***

4. Wanda, while on the way to her sister-in-law Marie's birthday party, is in a horrible car accident and is rushed to the hospital. The doctors tell her that she will likely not survive the next few hours and the upcoming emergency surgery. Marie, who arrives at the hospital, talks to Wanda just before she is taken into surgery. Wanda hands her a birthday card and wrapped package containing a diamond bracelet and says, "I want you to have this. Happy Birthday. I hope it will remind you of me when I am gone." Wanda opens the package and begins wearing the bracelet immediately. Miraculously, Wanda survives the surgery and her injuries...only to find out that Marie is divorcing her brother. Wanda demands that Marie return the bracelet. Marie refuses. Can Wanda recover the bracelet from Marie and why or why not?

1. Yes, because gifts causa mortis can be revoked by the election of the donor if the donor survives.
2. B)Yes, but only because gifts causa mortis are automatically revoked if the donor survives.
3. C)No, because gifts causa mortis cannot be recovered after delivery has occurred.
4. D)No, because Wanda did not intend to make a gift causa mortis.

5. Eddie and Danny were talking on the telephone one afternoon when Eddie said, "I have to go, because I need to go buy a bike before the store closes." Danny said, "Don't buy one. I have one sitting in my garage that I never use. You can have it. I'm heading out for a while, but I'll put it on my back porch, and you can come pick it up." Eddie said, "Great." Danny puts the bike on the back porch as he said and left. Eddie got there about half an hour after Danny left, picked the bike up, and took it home. Upon returning home later that evening, Danny saw numerous people out riding bikes and had second thoughts about giving the bike to Eddie. Can Danny get a court to force Eddie to return the bike?

1. Yes, because at the time of the telephone conversation, Danny did not have the present intention to make a gift.
2. B)No, because Danny made a valid inter vivos gift.
3. C)Yes, because Danny never delivered the bicycle.
4. D)Yes, because Eddie did not provide any consideration for the bicycle.

6. The Northern Lands Timber Company (NLTC) cut down six truckloads of timber from land it owned. Because the lumber mill NLTC normally used was backlogged, NLTC then hauled the timber to a local storage facility, Store-Anything Incorporated (SAI). Three days after NLTC left the timber in the possession of SAI, another SAI customer, Steel Tree Incorporated (STI), entered the facility and removed a portion of the timber left at the facility by NLTC. SAI immediately demanded the return of the timber. Assuming that this demand turns into litigation and goes to court, and assuming no statutes apply, would SAI prevail and why or why not?

1. No, because SAI is not the true owner of the timber.
2. B)Yes, because SAI has superior rights to all but the true owner.
3. C)No, because it is not possible for SAI to have adversely possessed the timber.
4. D)Yes, because it is possible for SAI to have adversely possessed the timber.

7. Ralph just took the bar exam. He is sure that he has failed, mainly because he didn't study for it. He is so sure that he failed that he tells his classmate Sarah (who was very conscientious in her bar preparations) that she can have his new laptop that he planned to use in his law practice. Ralph explained that the laptop has been shipped by Amazon and should arrive in the next few days. The next day, before the laptop arrives, Ralph dies unexpectedly. Sarah asks Ralph's heirs for the laptop once it arrives, but they refuse to give it to her. Under traditional common law, does Sarah own the laptop and why or why not?

A)Yes, because Ralph died before being able to revoke the gift.

B)No, because Ralph never delivered the computer to Sarah.

C)No, because Ralph's heirs did not have the requisite intent.

D)Yes, because the gift was a gift causa mortis.

8. A, B, and C own Blackacre as joint tenants with the right of survivorship. A executes and delivers a deed to X (who accepts the deed) covering his interest in Blackacre. Then A dies without a will and is survived only by one child, Y. B then dies with a will that devises all of her property to Z. After B's death, who owns what interest in Blackacre?

1. X,Z&C all own a 1/3 interest.
2. C owns a 100% interest.
3. X&C each own a 12 interest.
4. X owns a 1/3 interest and C owns a 2/3 interest.

9. As a gift, Allen writes and signs a check made out to Bob in the amount of $5,000, drawn on Allen's bank account. After giving the check to Bob but before Bob cashes the check, Allen dies unexpectedly. Craig, Allen's executor, asks the court to declare that Allen's actions did not amount to a valid inter vivos gift and that therefore Bob is not entitled to the $5,000. If Craig is successful, what will be the most likely reason why?

1. A written instrument can never substitute for the delivery requirement for a vaild inter vivos gift.
2. The gift could only be valid if it met the requirements for a gift causa mortis, and it does not.
3. The delivery requirement was not met because Allen could have stopped payment on the check at any time before Bob cashed the check.
4. Bob cannot demonstrate acceptance of the gift.

10. Two partners owned a piece of real property as joint tenants with the rights of survivorship. Both members of that joint tenancy entered into an earnest money agreement to sell the property to a commercial development company. The contract specified that an escrow closing would be used and that the escrow agent was to deposit an equal split of the final proceeds into each of the two partners' separate bank accounts when the closing was completed. Two months after the contract was signed and two days before the development company submitted the purchase money to the escrow agent, one of the partners died. The surviving partner and the estate of the deceased partner are now disputing the proper disposition of the proceeds from the sale of the property. What will a court conclude with respect to the effect of the earnest money agreement on the joint tenancy between the two partners, and why?

1. The joint tenancy was severed because equitable conversion had occurred.
2. The joint tenancy was severed because the instructions that the agent deposit theproceeds into separate accounts evinces an intent to end the joint tenancy.
3. The joint tenancy was not severed because both members of the joint tenancy signed the contract and the closing had not been completed at the time of death.
4. The joint tenancy was not severed because the partners could still have refused to continue with the closing at any time up until the development company delivered the purchase money.

11. With respect to a tenancy in common, which is not true?

1. A co-tenant who has made improvements to the property can obtain contribution from another co-tenant for those improvements.
2. A co-tenant in possession does not have to pay rent to a voluntarily out of possession co-tenant.
3. A co-tenant possession can obtain contribution from another co-tenant for taxes on the property.
4. A co-tenant can always lease the property without the consent of the other co-tenant.

12. With respect to the judicial partition of tenancies in common, which is not true?

1. Despite being a disfavored restraint on alienation, judicial partition can be restricted by agreement of the co-tenants or by the original conveyor.
2. Consent of all co-tenants is not required for judicial partition.
3. Whether one of the co-tenants lives on the property is a relevant factor considered bythe court when determining the type of partition granted.
4. Partition by sale will be chosen by courts if a partition in kind will reduce the overall value of the resulting parcels.

13. Your firm's client is the last surviving member of joint tenancy, but the estate of the other deceased member of the joint tenancy is claiming that the deceased members' interest is part of her estate. Your client and the deceased member were business partners. There is no dispute that the property, originally purchased by the business partners as an investment, was initially held as a joint tenancy with the right of survivorship. However, unbeknownst to your client, the other member of the joint tenancy gave a mortgage on the property to Second State Bank in exchange for $50,000 shortly after the joint tenancy was created. Your client will likely prevail if:

A)The jurisdiction follows a lien theory of mortgages.

B)The jurisdiction follows a title theory of mortgages.

C)The jurisdiction follows an intermediate theory of mortgages and the mortgage wentinto default immediately after the partner's death.

D) The mortgage was not recorded until after the partner's death.

Use the following facts for 14-16:

Amy and Bill are brother and sister. When their grandfather died in 1987, they received a large undeveloped tract of land from his will. The will devised the property "to Amy and Bill." The land was rural in nature and fairly uniform in its terrain. While it was undeveloped, it was capable of being developed. The land was located 20 miles outside a small but growing city. Amy continued to live in the city, but Bill moved onto the land. He built a small house for himself in 1988, including a paved driveway from the local road. In that same year, Bill farmed two acres adjacent to the house. In 1989, Bill fenced in a ten-acre portion of the land, also close to the house, that he then used as pastureland for a small number of cattle. At the same time, he built a barn on the border of the fenced portion closest to the house. He has continued to live there, farm there, and raise cattle there until the present time. Periodically over that time period (once or twice a year), Bill has cut down a few trees for firewood to use in his house or to sell to other locals. All of these activities and structures were visible from public roads. Bill has paid all of the taxes on the property since 1987. All of Bill's activities take place on only about one third of the property devised to Amy and Bill, except for the harvesting of timber for firewood, which was spread over the entire property.

Over the course of the past two decades, the small city has grown considerably in the direction of the property. As a result, there is substantial demand for land to develop as planned suburban living communities. A real estate developer offers Amy and Bill a substantial sum of money for the property. Because the land is worth much more to him as a larger tract, he is willing to pay much more per acre as the size of the tract sold to him increases. Thus, the property is much more valuable if it is sold as a complete unit. The smaller the portion sold to him, the less he is willing to pay per acre.

Bill is quite happy as he is and does not want to sell. Amy does want to sell the property to the developer.

14. What type of concurrent estate did the will create in Amy and Bill?

A)Tenancy in common.

B)Joint tenancy.

C)Tenancy by the entirety.

D)Joint life estate.

15. If Amy petitions a court to grant her partition, preferably by sale, so that she can sell the land to the real estate developer at the highest price, and if Bill opposes the petition asking the court to deny Amy right to have the land partitioned, what will be the most likely result and why?

1. The court will refuse to partition the land because such an exercise of the government's power would constitute an unconstitutional taking.
2. The court will grant a partition by sale because a partition in kind would substantially lower the monetary value for both cotenants.
3. The court will grant a partition by sale because there is no equitable way to divide a single house.
4. The court will grant a partition in kind rather than a partition by sale because Bill's home and livelihood are on the land.

16. Assume that in response to Amy's request to partition the land, Bill claims to have acquired title by adverse possession to the one third of the property where his house, barn, farm and pastureland are located. The relevant statute of limitations is 10 years. If Bill fails in this attempt, what will be the most likely reason, and why?

1. His open and notorious acts of actual possession over the required time period were not enough to gain him title because he possessed as a cotenant.
2. His acts of possession only satisfied the requirements for one third of the land devised to Amy and him.
3. Sporadic harvesting of timber is not enough to satisfy the requirements for adverse possession because the land could be put to other uses by a true owner.
4. Higher levels of use are required by adverse possessors in order to gain title to rural land.

17. Rod finds a laptop in the airport. When Rod gets the laptop home, he discovers that it will not boot up. He therefore takes it to the Roma Computer Warehouse to see if it can be repaired. Rod explains how he found the laptop, describes the problems he had getting it to boot, and gives it to Francisco, the proprietor of Roma Computer Warehouse. Francisco tells Rod to return in five days. When Rod returns, Francisco tells Rod that he was only able to get the laptop to boot after reformatting the hard drive and installing a new operating system. Francisco then refuses to give Rod the laptop, stating that Rod is not the owner of the laptop. If Rod sues Francisco, will Rod win?

1. Yes, because Rod brought the laptop to Francisco promptly.
2. No, because mislaid property goes to the owner of the premises.
3. Yes, because his prior possession gives him superior rights.
4. No, because the true owner has superior rights to any later possessor.

18. While traveling on a business trip, Fred, an employee of the Wilma Corporation, checks into the Rubble Hotel. When he gets to his room, he finds a gold necklace and a pair of diamond earrings. He phones the front desk to tell them. Betty who works the front desk tells Fred that she is not sure whether she will be able to contact the previous guest. Fred then leaves his room to use the Rubble Hotel's heated pool. When he returns after his swim, he finds the jewelry is gone. He again phones the front desk. Betty tells Fred that she came to his room, entered when no one answered the door, and collected the jewelry. Fred gets upset and demands that she return the jewelry; Betty refuses. The ensuing case pits Fred against the Rubble Hotel. Which of the following additional facts, if true, would help Fred the most?

A)The jewelry was arranged neatly on the nightstand next to the bed.

B)The previous guest paid cash and did not leave a real name or phone number.

C)Betty is only an agent of the Rubble Hotel.

D)The jewelry was located in the trashcan along with several ripped up pictures of acouple.

Use the following facts for 19-21:

A frequent traveler and a friend were talking on the telephone one afternoon when the friend said, "I have to go, because I need to go buy a new laptop before the store closes." The traveler said, "Don't do that. I just bought a new lighter one for my trips, and you can have my old one. It's only a year old. I'm leaving for two weeks tomorrow, but I'll put it on my dining room table for you. You have a key. You can pick it up while I'm gone." The friend says, "That'd be awesome." The traveler put the old laptop on the table and left on the trip the next morning. The friend was the only other person besides the traveler who had a key to the traveler's house. The friend stopped at the traveler's house several times over the next week and used the old laptop, but he never removed it from the traveler's house. Before the traveler returned from the trip, the friend was killed in a car accident. The friend's will provided that all of the friend's property was to go to the friend's only surviving sibling. The traveler had never liked the sibling and so refused to give the old laptop to the sibling when a request was made to turn it over.

19. Of the following, the traveler's strongest argument for why the court should conclude that the delivery element was never satisfied is:

1. A)That the sibling never had the key and thus never had access to the laptop's location.
2. B)That traveler maintained the sole right of possession to the apartment at all times andthus could have legally excluded the friend at any time.
3. That the friend died before delivery was possible or practical.
4. That the traveler did not put his intentions in a signed writing that conformed fully to the requirements of the statute of frauds.

20. Of the following facts, which would NOT help the sibling's argument for why the court should conclude that the delivery requirement was satisfied?

1. A)The traveler placed the laptop on the dining room table.
2. B)The friend was the only person who had access to the house after the traveler left on the trip.
3. The friend physically used the laptop several times before his death.
4. The traveler's refusal to turn over the laptop came after the friend had died.

21. Which additional fact or facts, if true, would most help the sibling's argument?

1. If the traveler had left the laptop with the traveler's agent for the friend to pick up, but the friend had been killed on the way to the agent's office.
2. If the traveler had cleared all of his data and passwords from the laptop before leaving on the trip.
3. If the traveler had told the friend in an email that the traveler would gift the laptop to him when he got back from the trip.
4. If the friend had changed the passwords on the laptop.

22. One day while walking to lunch through a public park, Sallie comments on her co-worker Brandon's new watch. Brandon takes it off and hands it to her so that she can look at it more closely. After she says how much she admires it, Brandon chuckles and says, "Well, if I die in the next minute, it's yours to keep." Approximately 2.7 seconds later, Brandon is struck in the head by a piece of a satellite that had fallen out of orbit, killing him instantly.

Sallie keeps the watch even after Brandon's family, as his heirs, ask for it back. Who will likely prevail between the two and why?

1. Sallie because Brandon delivered the watch.
2. Brandon's heirs because Brandon was not in actual contemplation of impending death.
3. Sallie because, as she testified in court, "It was an act of God. You can't argue with God.Aren't you afraid to go against the will of God? Don't you see what can happen?"
4. Brandon's heirs but only because he did not express the intent before handing the watch to her.

23. A court finds that an adverse possessor has met all the requirements for adverse possession and quiets title in her. How will the court determine the boundaries of the land in which to quiet title in the adverse possessor?

A)Only those areas for which she has satisfied the requirements.

B)The land described in the deed of the owner from whom she adversely possessed theland.

C) Only the areas that she has physically fenced in.

D) The land as originally granted out by the state, a new chain of title.

Use the following facts for questions 24-28:

One Saturday, a parent took his two pre-teen children to Worldwide Wonder Park, one of the largest amusement parks in the world. Worldwide includes acres of rollercoasters, water rides, midway games, shows, restaurants, and (of course) souvenir stores. The amusement park was particularly crowded that Saturday because Worldwide was holding a special celebration of the 75th "birthday" of Worldwide Wonder Park's mascot Ricky Rat. Tickets and concessions were discounted, and many special events were taking place within the park.

After purchasing food for himself and his children and being unable to find a table at which to sit and eat, the parent sat on the edge of a large concrete planter that backed up against the wall of the restaurant from which he'd just bought hot dogs and fries. The planter was basically a large waist-high box holding shrubs and flowers planted in dirt. Many of the park's patrons had been resorting to this sort of makeshift improvised seating due to the large crowds.

While eating lunch with his children, the parent noticed that there was a gap between the planter and the building's wall. When he looked down behind the planter, he saw something near the ground between the planter and wall. Upon closer inspection, he discovered a backpack wedged upside down right above ground level, as if it had fallen behind the planter and gotten stuck before hitting the ground. Because of the height of the planter and its closeness to the wall, the backpack was hidden from view from all angles except the one from which the parent spotted the backpack.

When he pulled the backpack out and opened it, he found one Ziploc bag with a sandwich in it along with several empty Ziploc bags containing crumbs, a number of empty juice boxes, several sets of wet children's clothes in waterproof bags, and (importantly) a tablet and a laptop computer in another waterproof bag.

After leaving the park and taking the backpack with him, the parent complied with the jurisdiction's Lost Property/Finders statute. That statute specifies that ownership of "lost property shall vest in the finder if the original owner does not claim the found property after the county advertises the found property for 180 days."

The parent turned the backpack and its contents, including the laptop and the tablet, to the specified statutory authority. There was no identifying information on or in any of the items. After the property had been advertised as statutorily required and no one came forward to claim the property, the backpack, laptop, and tablet were returned to the parent.

When he searched the digital contents of the laptop, he made a very valuable discovery. He found a software-based Bitcoin wallet (that was not protected by a password) containing $350,000 worth of Bitcoins. Because of the underlying anonymous nature of Bitcoins, whoever had access to the digital software wallet could spend or sell the Bitcoins in the wallet completely anonymously.

His discovery of the Bitcoins, including where he found the laptop, ended up making the local news and several online news websites. One result of that publicity was that Worldwide Wonder Park filed a lawsuit against him claiming rights to the backpack, tablet, and laptop (including the software wallet and Bitcoins contained therein).

[Note from Professor: For the purposes of answering these questions, treat the Bitcoins as if they have the same characteristics as cash.]

24. If, in response to Wonder Park's lawsuit claims, the parent argues that the Lost Property/Finders statute has already vested title in him as the new true owner, which of the following would be Wonder Park's best response?

1. That the statute applies only to found property classified as lost and not to found property classified as mislaid as this property should be classified.
2. That the statute only resolves claims as between finders such as the parent and original true owners but does not resolve claims between finders and landowners.
3. That the true value of the property was not conveyed in the statutorily mandated advertisement.
4. That hundreds of years of common law should not be displaced by one quickly thought out statute.

25. With respect to how the court should classify the found property, what should the parent argue?

A)That the backpack and its contents be classified as lost.

B)That the backpack and its contents be classified as mislaid.

C)That the backpack and its contents be classified as abandoned.

D)That the backpack and its contents be classified as treasure trove.

26. With respect to how the court should classify the found property, what should the Worldwide Wonder Park argue?

A)That the backpack and its contents be classified as lost.

B)That the backpack and its contents be classified as mislaid.

C)That the backpack and its contents be classified as abandoned.

D)That the backpack and its contents be classified as treasure trove.

27. What is Worldwide Wonder Park's best policy-based argument for a holding in their favor?

1. That leaving the found property with the parent would be a case of unjust enrichment because the parent has done nothing to earn such amounts.

1. That leaving the found property with the parent instead of with the landowner Wonder Park would encourage trespassers to come onto the property of others looking for valuables.
2. That leaving the found property with Worldwide Wonder Park would lead to less future litigation since it is easier to determine who the land owner is than who the first possessor is.
3. That leaving the found property with Worldwide Wonder Park would be more likely to reunite the found property with its true owner since the true owner obviously planned to bring it to the Park.

28. How is the court most likely to classify the found property?

A)The backpack and its contents will be classified as lost.

B)The backpack and its contents will be classified as mislaid.

C)The backpack and its contents will be classified as abandoned.

D)The backpack and its contents will be classified as treasure trove.