Looking for Question Type
All
Property Ownership Madison owned a tract of land, but he was not sure that he had full title to the property. When Rafael expressed an interest in buying the land, Madison sold it to Rafael and executed a quitclaim deed. Rafael properly recorded the need immediately. Several months later, Madison learned that he had had full title to the tract of land. He then sold the land to Linda by warranty deed. Linda knew of the earlier purchase by Rafael but took the deed anyway and later sued to have Rafael evicted from the land. Linda claimed that because she had a warranty deed, her title to the land was better than that conferred by Rafael's quitclaim deed. Will Linda succeed in claiming title to the land? Explain.
Free
Essay
Answer:
Answer:
Person M has previously sold a tract of land to Person R using a quitclaim deed. At that time he was not sure regarding whether he had the full title to that property or not. Later on, when Person M came to know that he had full title to the land, he sold the land to Person L by warranty deed. Person L was also aware of the previous deal; however she purchased the land and then sued to evict Person R from the land. It needs to be decided that whether Person L would get the title to the land.
Quitclaim deed provides the least protection to a person against any defects in the title. In case, the grantor has no interest in a land, then the grantee would not receive any interest. Contrary to this, a warranty deed provides the greatest protection to a person by providing him the greatest number of warranties.
In this case, Person R would probably be the winner. Although a quitclaim deed is the least protective deed, it covers the seller's entire interest. In this case, Person M's interest included the entire piece of property. Thus, Person R would receive the entire parcel of land.
On the other hand, Person L had knowledge of the previous sale of land to Person R, but she chose to ignore it when transacting with Person R. Thus, she was not a bona fide purchaser like Person R. Since, Person R is a bona fide purchaser and his deed was recorded, the court would probably find for Person R.
Choose question tag
Vern Shoepke purchased a two-story home from Walter and Eliza Bruster in the town of Roche, Maine. The warranty deed did not specify what covenants would be included in the conveyance. The property was adjacent to a public park that included a popular Frisbee golf course. (Frisbee golf is a sport similar to golf but using Frisbees.) Wayakichi Creek ran along the north end of the park and along Shoepke's property. The deed allowed Roche citizens the right to walk across a five-foot-wide section of the lot beside Wayakichi Creek as part of a two-mile public trail system. Teenagers regularly threw Frisbee golf discs from the walking path behind Shoepke's property over his yard to the adjacent park. Shoepke habitually shouted and cursed at the teenagers, demanding that they not throw objects over his yard. Two months after moving into his Roche home, Shoepke leased the second floor to Lauren Slater for nine months. (The lease agreement did not specify that Shoepke's consent would be required to sublease the second floor.) After three months of tenancy, Slater sublet the second floor to a local artist, Javier Indalecio. Over the remaining six months, Indalecio's use of oil paints damaged the carpeting in Shoepke's home. Using the information presented in the chapter, answer the following questions.
Can Shoepke hold Slater financially responsible for the damage to the carpeting caused by Indalecio? Why or why not?
DEBATE THIS: Under no circumstances should a local government be able to condemn property in order to sell it later to real estate developers for private use.
Free
Essay
Answer:
Answer:
The tenant's transfer of all or part of the premises for a period shorter than the lease term is sublease.
The same restrictions that apply to an assignment of the tenet's interest in leased property apply to sublease.
If the landlord's consent is required, a sublease without such permission is ineffective. Also like an assignment, a sublease does not release the tenant from her or his obligations under the lease.
Choose question tag
Implied Warranty of Habitability Sarah has rented a house from Frank. The house is only two years old, but the roof leaks every time it rains. The water that has accumulated in the attic has caused plaster to fall off ceilings in the upstairs bedrooms, and one ceiling has started to sag. Sarah has complained to Frank and asked him to have the roof repaired. Frank says that he has caulked the roof, but the roof still leaks. Frank claims that because Sarah has sole control of the leased premises, she has the duty to repair the roof. Sarah insists that repairing the roof is Frank's responsibility. Discuss fully who is responsible for repairing the roof and, if the responsibility belongs to Frank, what remedies are available to Sarah.
Free
Essay
Answer:
Answer:
Implied Warranty of Habitability:
An implied warranty of habitability is a warranty in all residential leases that the premises are fit and habitable for human habitation. The warranty also creates the guarantee that the premises will remain fit and habitable throughout the duration of the lease.
It is the landlord's responsibility to make major repairs and must repair the uninhabitable condition, usually within 30 days, subject to state statutes and nature of the repair.
If a landlord does not repair the condition that makes the unit uninhabitable, with notice the following options are available to the tenant:
1. Move out and terminate the lease.
2. Repair and deduct the cost from the next month's rent. If the cost of repair exceeds one month's rent, then this option is not available to the tenant.
3. Sue for damages from the date of the landlord's knowledge of the breach of warranty of habitability. Damages will be the difference between the rental value in its uninhabitable condition and its fair market rental value.
4. Sue to force the landlord to make repairs by obtaining a court order. This is not a popular option for courts because of the costs and obligation of the court to oversee repairs.
Choose question tag
Commercial Lease Terms Gi Hwa Park entered into a lease with Landmark HHH, LLC, for retail space in the Plaza at Landmark, a shopping center in Virginia. The lease required the landlord to keep the roof "in good repair" and the tenant to obtain insurance on her inventory and absolve the landlord from any losses to the extent of the insurance proceeds. Park opened a store-The Four Seasons-in the space, specializing in imported men's suits and accessories. Within a month, and continuing for nearly eight years, water intermittently leaked through the roof, causing damage. Landmark eventually had a new roof installed, but water continued to leak into The Four Seasons. On a night of record rainfall, the store suffered substantial water damage, and Park was forced to close. On what basis might Park seek to recover from Landmark? What might Landmark assert in response? Which party's argument is more likely to succeed, and why? [ Landmark HHH, LLC v. Gi Hwa Park, 277 Va. 50, 671 S.E.2d 143 (2009)]
Essay
Answer:
Choose question tag
Ownership in Fee Simple Thomas and Teresa Cline built a house on a 76-acre parcel of real estate next to Roy Berg's home and property in Augusta County, Virginia. The homes were about 1,800 feet apart but in view of each other. After several disagreements between the parties, Berg equipped an 11-foot tripod with motion sensors and floodlights that intermittently illuminated the Clines' home. Berg also installed surveillance cameras that tracked some of the movement on the Clines' property. The cameras transmitted on an open frequency that could be received by any television within range. The Clines asked Berg to turn off, or at least redirect, the lights. When he refused, they erected a fence for 200 feet along the parties' common property line. The 32-foot-high fence consisted of 20 utility poles spaced 10 feet apart with plastic wrap stretched between the poles. This effectively blocked the lights and cameras. Berg filed a suit against the Clines in a Virginia state court, complaining that the fence interfered unreasonably with his use and enjoyment of his property. He asked the court to order the Clines to take the fence down. What are the limits on an owner's use of property? How should the court rule in this case? Why? [ Cline v. Berg , 273 Va. 142, 639 S.F.2d 231 (2007)]
Essay
Answer:
Choose question tag
Zoning and Variances Joseph and Lois Ryan hired a contractor to build a home in Weston, Connecticut. The contractor submitted plans to the town that included a roof height of thirty-eight feet for the proposed dwelling. This exceeded the town's roof-height restriction of thirty-five feet. The contractor and the architect revised the plans to meet the restriction, and the town approved the plans and issued a zoning permit and a building permit. After the roof was constructed, a code enforcement officer discovered that it measured thirty-seven feet, seven inches high. The officer issued a cease-and-desist order requiring the Ryans to "remove the height violation and bring the structure into compliance." The Ryans appealed to the zoning board, claiming that the error was not theirs but that of their general contractor and architect. The zoning board upheld the cease-and-desist order but later granted the Ryans a variance because "the roof height was out of compliance by approximately two feet,... the home [was] perched high on the land and [was] not a detriment to the neighborhood, and... the hardship was created by the contractor's error." Neighbors (including Curtis Morikawa) appealed to a court. They argued that the hardship claimed was solely economic. In addition, they argued that even though it was unintended, the hardship was self-created. The trial court ruled in favor of the neighbors, and the Ryans appealed. How should the court rule? Were there legitimate grounds for granting a variance? Discuss. [Morikawa v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Town of Weston, 126 Conn.App. 400, 11 A.3d 735 (2011)]
Essay
Answer:
Choose question tag
QUESTION WITH SAMPLE ANSWER: Deeds.
Wilfredo and Patricia are neighbors. Wilfredo's lot is extremely large, and his present and future use of it will not involve the entire area. Patricia wants to build a single-car garage and driveway along the present lot boundary. Because ordinances require buildings to be set back fifteen feet from an owner's property line, however, the placement of Patricia's existing structures prevents her from building the garage. Patricia contracts to purchase ten feet of Wilfredo's property along their boundary line for $3,000. Wilfredo is willing to sell but will give Patricia only a quitclaim deed, whereas Patricia wants a warranty deed. Discuss the differences between these deeds as they would affect the rights of the parties if the title to this ten feet of land later proves to be defective.
Essay
Answer:
Choose question tag
Vern Shoepke purchased a two-story home from Walter and Eliza Bruster in the town of Roche, Maine. The warranty deed did not specify what covenants would be included in the conveyance. The property was adjacent to a public park that included a popular Frisbee golf course. (Frisbee golf is a sport similar to golf but using Frisbees.) Wayakichi Creek ran along the north end of the park and along Shoepke's property. The deed allowed Roche citizens the right to walk across a five-foot-wide section of the lot beside Wayakichi Creek as part of a two-mile public trail system. Teenagers regularly threw Frisbee golf discs from the walking path behind Shoepke's property over his yard to the adjacent park. Shoepke habitually shouted and cursed at the teenagers, demanding that they not throw objects over his yard. Two months after moving into his Roche home, Shoepke leased the second floor to Lauren Slater for nine months. (The lease agreement did not specify that Shoepke's consent would be required to sublease the second floor.) After three months of tenancy, Slater sublet the second floor to a local artist, Javier Indalecio. Over the remaining six months, Indalecio's use of oil paints damaged the carpeting in Shoepke's home. Using the information presented in the chapter, answer the following questions.
What is the term for the right of Roche citizens to walk across Shoepke's land on the trail?
DEBATE THIS: Under no circumstances should a local government be able to condemn property in order to sell it later to real estate developers for private use.
Essay
Answer:
Choose question tag
Adverse Possession In 1974, the Mansells built a shed with a dirt floor, to be used as a three-car garage, at the back of their property. This shed went beyond the Mansells' property line and encroached approximately fourteen feet on the neighboring property. The neighbor knew of the encroachment and informally approved it, but did not transfer ownership of the property. In 2001, Betty Hunter bought the neighbor's property. The survey done at that time revealed the encroachment. In 2003, Hunter's attorney notified the Mansells about the encroachment, and the parties held some informal conversations but did not reach an agreement. In 2006, the Mansells installed a concrete foundation and ran electricity to the structure. Hunter then sought a declaratory judgment that she was the fee simple owner of the property partially covered by the garage that encroached on her property, and demanded the removal of the encroaching structure. The Mansells filed a counterclaim arguing that the possession of the property from 1974 to 2001 gave them ownership by adverse possession. The trial court held that the property still belonged to Hunter, but did not order removal of the garage. Hunter and Mrs. Mansell (whose husband had died in the meantime) both appealed. Did the open occupation of the property for twenty-eight years give Mansell title by adverse possession? Why or why not? [ Hunter v. Mansell, ___ P.3d ___ (Colo.App. 2010)]
Essay
Answer:
Choose question tag
Vern Shoepke purchased a two-story home from Walter and Eliza Bruster in the town of Roche, Maine. The warranty deed did not specify what covenants would be included in the conveyance. The property was adjacent to a public park that included a popular Frisbee golf course. (Frisbee golf is a sport similar to golf but using Frisbees.) Wayakichi Creek ran along the north end of the park and along Shoepke's property. The deed allowed Roche citizens the right to walk across a five-foot-wide section of the lot beside Wayakichi Creek as part of a two-mile public trail system. Teenagers regularly threw Frisbee golf discs from the walking path behind Shoepke's property over his yard to the adjacent park. Shoepke habitually shouted and cursed at the teenagers, demanding that they not throw objects over his yard. Two months after moving into his Roche home, Shoepke leased the second floor to Lauren Slater for nine months. (The lease agreement did not specify that Shoepke's consent would be required to sublease the second floor.) After three months of tenancy, Slater sublet the second floor to a local artist, Javier Indalecio. Over the remaining six months, Indalecio's use of oil paints damaged the carpeting in Shoepke's home. Using the information presented in the chapter, answer the following questions.
What covenants would most courts infer were included in the warranty deed that was used in the property transfer from the Brusters to Shoepke?
DEBATE THIS: Under no circumstances should a local government be able to condemn property in order to sell it later to real estate developers for private use.
Essay
Answer:
Choose question tag
Eviction James owns a three-story building. He leases the ground floor to Juan's Mexican restaurant. The lease is to run for a five-year period and contains an express covenant of quiet enjoyment. One year later, James leases the top two stories to the Upbeat Club, a discotheque. The club's hours run from 5:00 P.M. to 11:00 P.M. The noise from the Upbeat Club is so loud that it is driving customers away from Juan's restaurant. Juan has notified James of the interference and has called the police on a number of occasions. James refuses to talk to the owners of the Upbeat Club or to do anything to remedy the situation. Juan abandons the premises. James files suit for breach of the lease agreement and for the rental payments still due under the lease. Juan claims that he was constructively evicted and files a countersuit for damages. Discuss who will be held liable.
Essay
Answer:
Choose question tag
A QUESTION OF ETHICS: Seller's Duty to Disclose.
In 1999, Stephen and Linda Kailin bought the Monona Center, a mall in Madison, Wisconsin, from Perry Armstrong for $760,000. The contract provided, "Seller represents to Buyer that as of the date of acceptance Seller had no notice or knowledge of condi tions affecting the Property or transaction" other than certain items disclosed at the time of the offer. Armstrong told the Karlins of the Center's eight tenants, their lease expiration dates, and the monthly and annual rent due under each lease. One of the lessees, Ring's All-American Karate, occupy about a third of the Center's space under a five-year lease. Because of Ring's financial difficulties, Armstrong hud agreed to reduce its rent for nine months in 1997. By the time of the sal e to the Kailins, Ring owed $13,910 in unpaid rent, but Armstrong did not tell the Kailins, who did not ask. Ring continued to fail to pay rent and finally vacated the Center. The Kailins filed a suit in a Wisconsin state court against Armstrong and others, alleging, among other things, misrep resentation. [ Kailin v. Armstrong, 2002 WI App 70, 252 Wis.2d 676, 643 N.W.2d 132 (2002)]
(a) Did Armstrong have a duty to disclose Ring's delinquency and default to the Kailins? Explain.
(b) What obligation, if any, did Ring have to the Kailins or Armstrong after failing to pay the rent and eventually defaulting on the lease? Discuss.
Essay
Answer:
Choose question tag
Vern Shoepke purchased a two-story home from Walter and Eliza Bruster in the town of Roche, Maine. The warranty deed did not specify what covenants would be included in the conveyance. The property was adjacent to a public park that included a popular Frisbee golf course. (Frisbee golf is a sport similar to golf but using Frisbees.) Wayakichi Creek ran along the north end of the park and along Shoepke's property. The deed allowed Roche citizens the right to walk across a five-foot-wide section of the lot beside Wayakichi Creek as part of a two-mile public trail system. Teenagers regularly threw Frisbee golf discs from the walking path behind Shoepke's property over his yard to the adjacent park. Shoepke habitually shouted and cursed at the teenagers, demanding that they not throw objects over his yard. Two months after moving into his Roche home, Shoepke leased the second floor to Lauren Slater for nine months. (The lease agreement did not specify that Shoepke's consent would be required to sublease the second floor.) After three months of tenancy, Slater sublet the second floor to a local artist, Javier Indalecio. Over the remaining six months, Indalecio's use of oil paints damaged the carpeting in Shoepke's home. Using the information presented in the chapter, answer the following questions.
Suppose that Shoepke wants to fi le a trespass lawsuit against some teenagers who continually throw Frisbees over his land. Shoepke discovers, however, that when the city put in the Frisbee golf course, the neighborhood homeowners signed an agreement that limited their right to complain about errant Frisbees. What is this type of promise or agreement called in real property law?
DEBATE THIS: Under no circumstances should a local government be able to condemn property in order to sell it later to real estate developers for private use.
Essay
Answer:
Choose question tag
Contact Us
© 2020-2022 Quizplus LLC. All Rights Reserved