Property I Fall 2003 Final Exam
Prof. Krishnan
Question 1: Recommend Time: 1 Hour
Seymour and Edna live together in the state of Springfield. They have cohabitated for nearly a dozen years. One day as they are driving together into town to pick up some milk at the neighborhood Kwiki-Mart, Seymour and Edna are involved in a terrible car accident. Their car is completely totaled and both Seymour and Edna suffer serious injuries. Eventually, Edna is able to recover from her wounds, and after about six months she returns to her job teaching elementary school. Seymour, however, struggles to resume his normal activities. He is unable to work and remains in an enormous amount of pain even one year after the car accident. Along with going to physical therapy, Seymour has started seeing the renowned psychiatrist, Dr. N. Riviera, to combat the severe depression he is enduring.
Yet even with his visits to the psychiatrist, Seymour’s depression does not subside - in fact it becomes worse. Unable to cope with his physical and mental anguish, Seymour one afternoon decides to end his life by swallowing an excess of prescription pills. Note, that morning of his death, Seymour had received a $50,000 settlement check (made out to him) in the mail from the insurance company representing the person who caused the car accident.
When Edna arrived home that evening she found Seymour’s body, with two handwritten notes next to him. One note said: “Dear Edna, I love you always; I’m sorry.” The second note stated: “I give all my property, including the $50,000 settlement check to Edna.” Needles to say, Edna was shocked and deeply saddened. She recalled how that morning she had phoned Seymour to check on him and how he did not sound unusually depressed; among the things they discussed included the fact that the settlement check had arrived and how they planned to spend the money.
Milhouse is a nephew of Seymour who claims to be Seymour’s heir. Milhouse asks the court to invalidate any claim Edna might have to Seymour’s property. Milhouse points to Springfield’s statute #1 that reads: “For a will to be valid in this state, the testator must sign the will in the presence of two witnesses; the two witnesses, through writing, must acknowledge the testator’s signature.”
Please discuss both Edna’s arguments and the counter-arguments. With whom do you think a court most likely would side? Why? (Please only draw on what we covered in class and in the readings when answering this question.)
Answer Key: Question 1
I. Acquisition by Gift issue here
See Newman v. Bost – discuss applicability of that rule, here See Gruen v. Gruen – discuss applicability of that rule, here Question needing to ask is whether he has endorsed check over to Edna: important because might show the evidencing of his intent we’re not told here either way, so issue needs to be discussed from both pro and con perspective is there unequivocal relinquishment of control of the check before death In other words is this a valid gift causa mortis Need to consider role suicide plays here – did Seymour create this condition, and if so did he have control over whether he lived or died given fact situation (that he was suffering from this medical illness) this would need to be addressed – again both pro and con arguments need to be given could Seymour, before he died, re-claim check for himself – was that a possibility; if so how does this affect Edna’s claim What role does evidence play – see cases above, where this was key aspect if Seymour had endorsed check over to Edna, looks like intent would be there; what about the converse of this statement need to ask yourself who else has access to this house. If it is only Edna, does this matter one way or the other – in other words, what was the expectation of Seymour? could it not be argued that by taking his own life, Seymour was doing the ultimate in relinquishing his worldly possessions. But on the other hand, is one’s death, at least for gift causa mortis purposes, less impending when person is taking his/her own life? How definitive are the notes from Seymour to Edna, regarding Edna?F. Proof of delivery is needed: (Remember, “Wrench of Delivery”)
i. Manual v.
ii. Constructive v.
Symbolic---- all would need to be discussed and defined.
What about the fact that this was a written note; as opposed to a verbal communication – How does this play into each party’s claim? Was there any fraud here – doesn’t seem so, but why is this important Another issue, was gift even accepted by Edna? - remember this is issue in Gruen – how does it play out here? What about the statute that is in place? Is this not conclusively in the nephew’s favor – why or why not?i. what about nephew’s claim that he is an heir – where is the statutory authority for this?
What are public policy implications here in ruling for Edna – in ruling for the nephew – role Statute of Wills plays (see p. 186 of text) – Statute of Frauds (p. 178) What about the fact that they ‘cohabitated’ – how does common law marriage issue come into play, if at all – what are the rights and obligations of couples who live together but may or may not be married? Some mentioned issues of concurrent estates – this is not directly relevant but if the discussion was informationally accurate points were given accordingly.Question 2: Recommended Time: 1 hour
Marge and Homer are married and live in the state of Springfield. Before they were married, Homer owned four separate parcels of land. After the wedding, however, Homer signed a piece of paper declaring that his lots are: “Now and forever owned together with Marge as joint tenants.” Marge also signs the paper and they place this document in a file cabinet in their home. About a month later, Homer loses his job at the nuclear power plant. In desperate need of money, Homer asks his father, Abe, to borrow $10,000. Abe agrees but only if Homer puts up the four parcels of land as collateral; Homer acquiesces by orally consenting to Abe’s condition.
Unfortunately, after Homer lost his job, he and Marge began having serious marital troubles. Both constantly argued and at times their anger towards one another even turned violent. One afternoon, neighbor-Ned was out mowing his lawn when he noticed what he thought was blood on the inside of Marge and Homer’s window. Ned immediately called 911 and upon arriving the police found Marge dead in the kitchen, with Homer sitting at the table with a gun in his hand. The police took Homer into custody, but as they were exiting the house, they noticed a land conveyance-contract on the floor purporting to transfer the four above-mentioned parcels of land to Homer’s dad, Abe. Homer tells the police that after killing his wife, he conveyed the parcels in fee simple absolute to his dad. (Assume that Homer’s explanation of the sequence of events is valid.)
Homer is subsequently charged with and eventually convicted of murder. In Springfield, there is a statute that reads:
“No person who is convicted of murder shall inherit any property from the victim killed by said murderer.”
Marge’s sister Selma is the administrator of Marge’s estate and is seeking to invalidate the conveyance from Homer to Abe. Drawing only on principles covered in our property class and in the readings, please state Selma’s argument in full and then the counter-argument in full. If you were deciding this case, who would prevail and why? (Finally, assume that Springfield is a tenancy by the entirety jurisdiction.)
SEE BACKSIDE OF THIS SHEET FOR Q. 3 Answer Key: Question 2:
I. Several concurrent estates issues are raised:
A. Joint tenancy principles
i. distinguishing characteristics
ii. four unities – define and discuss
how to create – common law necessity of straw (principles from relevant case law Riddle v. Harmon Harms v. Sprague-Did Homer’s writing of note create JT
how to sever (SPAM) – did murder sever JT – traditional methods: sale partition*vol agreement;
*part. in kind;
*forced sale
mortgage*title theory v.
*lien theory
– how is Selma and/or Abe’s claim affected by the jurisdiction she is in – or is it?
relevance of Swartzbaugh case – applicable principles here? How does Springfield being a tenancy by the entirety jurisdiction come into play here – what is the difference between this and JT, and which set of common law rules apply – and why? If strict JT principles are followed, could Abe have a claim – perhaps:i. Logic of this argument: Homer and Marge = JT / each has undivided interest in the whole, plus right of survivorship.
ii. When Marge is dead, regardless of how that happened, Homer takes the whole
iii. Abe, an innocent party, who relied on the principles of JT being followed, should not be punished for the actions of Homer
But counter-argument: There is a statute on the books that seems to invalidate Abe’s above argumenti. However, the statute talks about inheriting – this is different, Abe would argue, than a JT claiming the right of survivorship – Homer, according to Abe, did not inherit anything. He simply had his right of survivorship realized.
ii. But Selma would argue that adhering to the strict mandates of JT removes principles of equity from the equation – in other words, where is the justice? And what are the larger public policy ramifications if the tenets of JT are so strictly followed?
Possible outcomes:i. give Selma everything on equity grounds – Homer, nor any people Homer conveyed to, should benefit from this tragedy
ii. But, what if Abe bought this in good faith, not knowing how Homer came to acquire full title. Then ought not he have full title to the parcels of land?
But shouldn’t Abe have inquired? – If we are requiring this, then what type of proof would you need to buy the contention that Abe bought this in good faith? Perhaps splitting the property between Marge’s estate and Abe is an option – i.e., the murder serves as the severance of the JT; Selma gets one-half and Abe gets one-half.Question 3: Recommended Time: 1 hour
Please conduct a full analysis for these particular problems. Please define terms and explain in detail your rationale for the final answer you give for each problem. Note if you have defined a term and that same term is used later, then there is no need to define it again. Please just indicate that you have already defined it in an earlier problem.
1. Assume for this problem that the jurisdiction adheres to the Rule in Shelly’s Case:
Otto conveys to Digweed for life, and then three days after Digweed dies, to Digweed’s heirs.
State the full title of this conveyance. For this problem, please do not perform a RAP analysis.
2. Moe conveys to Barney for life, then to the Apu Temple, but if and when Barney or one of his now-living biological parents converts to religion X, then to the first of such persons and his/her heirs who make the conversion.
State the full title of this conveyance at common law.
(Note if there is one or more future interests here that may be subject to the rule against perpetuities, please employ the RAP analysis accordingly.)
3. Milhouse conveys to Lisa for life, then to Springfield Elementary School, but if and when a female relative of Lisa decides to major in drama in college, then to such relative and her heirs. (Facts: Milhouse and Lisa are alive. All of Lisa’s relatives in college currently major in biology. Lisa comes from a very large family: 12 aunts; 13 uncles; two living parents; and two siblings.)
State the full title of this conveyance at common law.
(Note if there is one or more future interests here that may be subject to the rule against perpetuities, please employ the RAP analysis accordingly.)
4. Jimbo devises property to Utter for life, and on Utter’s death to Utter’s children for their lives, and upon the death of Utter and Utter’s children, to Bart’s children.
State the full title of this conveyance at common law. Assume that Utter and Bart survive Jimbo.
(Note if there is one or more future interests here that may be subject to the rule against perpetuities, please employ the RAP analysis accordingly.)
5. Moe conveys to Barney for life, then to Barney’s children who reach 30. Barney has a child, Ruddiger (age 22) who is living at the time of the conveyance. Under the common law RAP, is the entire conveyance valid? Under the various modern-day statutory rule-against-perpetuity reforms, how would the conveyance be viewed? Please discuss all the reforms we covered in class.
6. Seymour conveys to Chalmers for the life of Edna. All parties are alive. State the title and explain your answer.
7. Hoover conveys to Ralph in hopes that Ralph will finish the property exam. State the title and explain your answer.
Answer Key: Question 3:
1. The rule in Shelly’s case here would be irrelevant. Remember, the Rule only applies to remainders, not to executory interests, which we have here. Thus the full state of title here would be:
Digweed has a life estate (need to define), O has a reversion (need to define), and A’s [potential] heirs have a springing executory interest in fee simple (need to define).
2. To start, Barney has a life estate, the Temple has a vested remainder subject to complete divestment, and Barney or one of his biological parents has an executory interest. Again, the terms would need to be defined, and it would be helpful to state who the lives in being/measuring lives are and whether they meet step four of our in-class RAP technique. The executory interest here would be subject to the RAP. But it would be valid because we will know for certain in the lifetime of Barney or one of his two biological parents if any one of them would have met the condition and thus would be able to take. How is this related to the Jee v. Audley case, where Lord Keyon makes his provocative statement that is replicated in #4, on p. 311.
3. To start, Lisa would have a life estate and Springfield Elementary would have a VR subject to divestment in fee. There would be a shifting exectuory interest in the female relative of Lisa who decides to major in drama in college. Milhouse has nothing. In applying the RAP, the shifting exectuory interest would be invalid and the cross out rule would come into play here. The remaining ungrammatical conveyance would be transformed into a life estate for L and a vested remainder (indefeasibly vested remainder) in the School. Neither the grantor (Milhouse) or the future interest holder here could take.
4. The remainder is to Bart’s children is valid. It will vest, if at all, at Bart’s death, as we will know at Bart’s death whether any children are ascertained. (See hand-out provided in class on this type of problem.)
5. The remainder under common law would be invalid. Barney could die, leaving a child (say, Lenny) who is 3. Then Ruddiger could die as well. If Lenny survives to the age of 30, this gift would vest too remotely. Remember, the remainder here is contingent to Ruddiger, but because it does not survive RAP it is void. Now under the statutory reforms, we could:
a) wait and see if Ruddiger or any other lives run their course and satisfy the condition.
b) if USRAP were in place then the vesting period would not be 21 years, but rather 90 years.
c) we could cut down the 30 year condition to 21 years, in order to comply with the common law RAP requirements.
6. Chalmers has a life estate pur autre vie (for the life of Edna) – Seymour has a reversion.
7. Here, there is not any clear durational language. Remember what we said, hope or desire or intention are insufficient to create a defeasible fee. In this situation Ralph lucks out and gets a fee simple absolute.