Jay Krishnan
2002 Property Final
Question 1: (Recommended time to spend on this question: 1 hour)
The year is 2002.
In May of 1991, Bart, who is 10 years old, discovered
Springfield Farms. He thought it was the
perfect place to fly his favorite kite.
He decided that during the following month (June 1991), he was going to
spend every weekend at Springfield Farms, camping out in the evenings and
flying his kite during the days. In
particular, Bart was interested in staking out 5 acres of the southwest corner
of Springfield Farms, because that was where the best wind gust was to fly his
kite. So every weekend in June of 1991,
Bart went to these 5 acres; in fact, he found a sturdy tree in which to build a
nice tree house. Inside the tree house,
he kept a cooler with food, a small cot, and other supplies. (The tree house served as Bart’s secret
hideaway, as it was not readily visible from ground.) Bart continued this
practice of going to the 5 acres on every weekend, every June, from 1991 till
2002. Because
In 1996,
Assume that a businessman, Mr. McClure, wants to purchase all 100 acres of Springfield Farms. You are his lawyer and recognize that several different interests are at play here. Please discuss to whom he would have to make purchase offers, and how you would advise him to deal with each of the above individuals. (Also assume that there is a 5-year statute of limitations period for one legally to eject unwanted persons from one’s property.)
Question 2: (Recommended time to spend on this question: 1 hour)
Ned and Maude decide to lease a luxury home in Springfield Hills, one of the most exclusive neighborhoods in the entire state. Their lease is with Krusty Clown, a wealthy landlord who has been in the real estate business for decades. Ned and Maude’s lease is for two years, and their rent is $4000 per month. The house that they rent is state of the art. It includes: 8 bedrooms, 6 bathrooms, a finished basement, a deluxe size kitchen, and three sitting rooms. In addition, in the front yard, there is an enclosed, four-season 9-hole putt-putt golf course.
The lease begins on
On
The lease is silent on who should be responsible for repairing this item, and both Ned and Maude are increasingly becoming frustrated with Krusty’s lack of action. They come to you and ask for advice, and they want you to give them their full range of options. How do you advise?
(For those who are unfamiliar with putt-putt golf, it is a
recreational hobby/sport, whereby players attempt to put a small ball into a
small round hole, using a flat-ended stick-like instrument, that can range
anywhere from 4-5 feet in length. The
goal is to get the ball into the hole, using the fewest number of
strokes/shots. On any given putt-putt
course, there can be up to 18 separate golf holes).
Question 3: (Recommended time to
spend: 1 hour)
Please conduct a full
analysis for these particular problems.
This includes performing a rule against perpetuities analysis for each
question.
1. Ned
conveys “to Homer for life, then to Homer’s bartender, if any, for life, then
to Homer’s issue then living.” Is the
gift to Homer’s bartender valid?
2. Bart
devises property “to Milhouse for life, and on Milhouse’s death to Milhouse’s
children for their lives, and upon the death of Milhouse
and Milhouse’s children, to Milhouse’s
grandchildren.”
Milhouse survives Bart. Identify each type of interest and state
which, if any, are
void, and
which, if any, are valid.
3. Oscar
conveys to Alfred and his heirs so long as the land is used for worshipping;
and if it is not used for worshipping, then to Bart and his heirs. State the full title after completing this
analysis.
4. Oliver
conveys to
5. Monty
conveys to Wayland for life then to Wayland’s grandchildren and their
heirs. Wayland has no grandchildren
yet. State the full title after
completing this analysis.
Answer Key To Question 1 (Outline)
I. Define Bart’s Rights:
A. Definition of A.P.
Elements of A.P.
i. Continuous - define and apply to Bart - the
“summer home” principle - what role does that play?
ii. Open and Notorious - define and apply to Bart (is the campsite he has built
O & N?; counter argument)
-Indirect, actual, record knowledge - key points
iii. Actual/Exclusive - define and apply - the fact that this is periodically,
rather than everyday, is that an issue - what about
iv. Hostile - was this hostile by Bart - without
Seymour’s permission - how does Seymour not knowing at all come into play here
-Objective v. Good-Faith v. Aggressive Standards
-All of these points need to be applied to Bart - both sides need to have been
presented.
-How does Gorski and Howard v. Kunto
play into this analysis?
-how does tacking come into play, if at all.
B. If Bart has gained A.P. - to what part of the land - all of it - just those
5 acres? Should
---discuss Bart’s age - how does this come into play,
or does it
C. How does
-What are the policy arguments for AP?
- How does Locke’s Labor Theory fit here
- Oliver Wendell Holmes’ views?
- What are the lines between AP and trespassing?
II. Joint Tenancy Issues:
A. JT needs to be defined -
i. Four Unities: time, title, interest, possession
· Each JT has undivided right of possession, use, and enjoyment
· Must be made expressly as well
B. Application: Moe, Karl, and Marge each have undivided interest in the NE 20
acres
C. Remember to ask what can sever JT
i. Application here - Marge’s sale to Barney severs
the JT as to Marge. Barney is a Tenant in C with Moe and Karl, the latter two
who still hold as JT.
· Key point here is that Marge is out of any deal - Mr. McClure will not need
to make a purchase offer to her
· But any purchase offer will need to include Barney, because he is a tenant in
common owner of the 20 acres
D. What about when Karl dies - remember, survivors take -
· Thus when Karl dies, his interest in Springfield Farms evaporates
· Does Agnes have any interest as JT?
1. No - why not? a JT may not pass through will or
laws of intestacy his/her interest
E. What about
1. need to attack this question from two perspectives:
a.
b.
2. Regardless, McClure will need to consider
--How does JT compare with Tenancy in Common & Tenancy by the Entirety -
would need a full-fledged discussion of this topic.
General Comment:
-Perhaps most importantly, all sides would need to be discussed - ON EVERY
ISSUE. For example, it is not enough to say simply that: “here are the COAH
elements, and Bart fails to meet them because . . . .” - Each issues deserves a patient, cogent, and comprehensive
analysis. Numerous responses were too conclusion-oriented and failed to take
this into account.
------------------------------------------------
QUESTION 2
I. How do the various doctrines apply?
A. Caveat Lessee - Definition
1. 6 Exceptions
2. Duties of L v. Duties of T
B. Quiet Enjoyment - Def.
1. Some Aspects that are key include:
a. Moving out
b. doc taking on life of its own v. emanating from 1 of 6 exceptions
c. substantial interference / construc. eviction - at what pt can tenant stop paying rent and move
out?
C. IWH - Def.
1. staying in premises & not paying rent???
2. applies in some jurisd - how universal is it?
3. its applicability in commercial v. residential
leases
4. can it be waived
5. at what point can tenant acquire comp damages &
punitv damages?
6. what role does L's willfulness play?
7. IWH tied to housing codes?
-also remember Posner's point about what so many protections for the T results
in
-there is also a case in the book (in the notes) that is related and is almost
on point with this hypo - how does the court rule there and how does it apply
here?
-other related issues: if T pays for repairs can T deduct that from rent; under
what scenario(s)?
D. How does illegal lease play into this?
1. Ten at suffrance - how
does this arise?
E. Retal. Evic - Def - is
this a possiblility that N & M face?
***In applying each of these points, would need to consider how each and every
one applies to N & M as well as to K
***Argument and counter-arguments relating to each point (AND EACH SUBPOINT)
would have to be made for each of the characters in the hypo
***Also, the fact that this is a putt-putt course and not a main part of the
house: how does that play out here?
***The fact that the putt putt course is at the heart
of the bargain: how does that play out here?
***Is the course's defect related to health and safety?
F. Then would need to discuss other alternatives for N & M, including what
if they tried to assign or sublease this place?
1. would need to go into a full discussion of the
rules on assignments and subleases (see class hand-out on this)
2. then would need to each of the rules of subleases
and assignments to each of the characters in the case.
***Also if N & M, or for that matter K, tries to publicly adverstise this place, how does the FHA come into play.
Would need to discuss whether it applies to this case; if so why, if not why
not.
--------------------------------------------
Question 3
-For each of these problems, you were required to perform a full RAP analysis.
This would include going through each of the steps that we covered in class.
Specifically, each question had to:
1. state the title at the time of conveyance
2. identify the future interests that were in each
conveyance
3. find the relevant measuring lives
4. ask if we would know, within 21 years of our m.l., if the future interest holder, will or will not take
5. what would the ultimate title be, after RAP is performed
*Now, I repeatedly stated in class, that you should only apply the various
other rules, like the Rule in Shelly's Case, or the Doctrine of Worthier Title,
or USRAP, if asked. None of these questions referred to any such doctrines. The
questions asked simply for you to apply a standard RAP analysis.
*Also, versions of each of the questions asked, appeared either in the book
itself or in one of the hand-outs that were provided to you in class. Thus,
there should have been no surprises at all on these problems.
* for the first question, the gift to the bartender
would be valid - Homer would have a life estate; Homer's bartender would have a
C.R. for life (would have to explain why, here), and the issue would have a
C.R. in FS (again, why?) - Ned's interest would be a reversion. Here the two CRs are subject to RAP (why?) -- the
other interests are not (why not?). For Homer's bartender to take,
Homer would need to have a bartender at his death and for the issue to take,
they would have to outlive both Homer and the bartender. Clearly the m.l. would be Homer (why? - relevance of his life). Now the
question only asks in terms of whether the gift to the bartender is valid. It
is here -- in the book, the question asks about the then living issue, but this
question did not -- would need to explain about why the bartender's gift is
okay, but would not need to provide a RAP analysis for the then living issue,
except to say that that particular gift is void. (If you did provide a RAP
analysis, that was correct, this would be helpful in stating the final title,
which would be: Homer has a LE, the bartender has a CR for life and Ned has a
reversion.)
*for the second question, again, a version of this one was discussed in a class
hand-out and in the book. At the time of the conveyance, M would have a LE; M's
kids = a C.R. (need to say why?) and the grandchildren would have a CR in FSA
(why again?). Clearly the two CRs are subject to RAP,
and the kids will take for their lives upon M's death, while the grandkids take
upon M and M's kids deaths. The m.l. would be M (why,
what is his relevance?). And we would know at M's death if his kids take, thus
this is valid, while this cannot be said about the grandkids --why not -- the
final title would be that M has a LE, the kids hae a CR for their lives while B has a Reversion in FSA.
Note, for this question, it would be key to explain
why the kids cannot serve as measuring lives for the grandkids.
*for this third question, this was one of the first ones we did in class, when
explaining future interests and RAP. Many of you properly identified how the
future interest here was void, but unfortunately there were numerous answers
that did not include a full analysis. A here has a fee simple subject to B's
shifting E.I. The E.I is subject to RAP (why; what is its definition?).
Initially, it would appear that O has nothing. How can B take? Because this is a E.I. it has to cut A short. What role do A's heirs play
here? Remember our repeated statement about a living person and heirs -- can
such a person actually have heirs? What can A have:
potential heirs at best. Why will we not know within 21 years if B can take?
This affects B's interest and actually strikes it out -- leaving what: A with a
fee simple determinable and O with a possibility of reverter
in FSA -- how does the cross out rule come into play here, if at all?
*for the fourth problem, again, we did a practice one like this in class. A has
a LE while A's children who reach age of 21 (remember there is X who is 25 and
Y who is 5), in this case qualify as an open class - thus leaving us with a VR subj to open. (Would need to define this
term). O would seem to have a reversion in FSA because A's children
could die without heirs. The VR subject to open is prone to a RAP analysis, and
it is valid. (Who is the m.l here? -
A, why?) Even if we came up with a scenario with a new life in being,
say Z who would be a child of A, this future interest is valid - because, after
all, there is no way for the future interest to vest beyond the 21 year time
period (see original conveyance.) With this said, the final title would be A
has a LE, A's children who reach 21 and their heirs = VR subj
to open in fee simple and O = reversion.
*for the final RAP problem, the state of title at the time of the conveyance,
would be that Monty has a reversion in FSA; W has a LE; W's grandkids would
have a CR in FS (why). The CR would be subject to RAP, and under what
conditions would they take? Who is the m.l. - W, but
why? Why can't the children of W be an m.l.? Here the
future interest is void, but why? W could have a child, say X. Then X could
have a child, say Y (this would be W's grandchild.) Assume that W then dies. At
a much later date, say beyond 21 years, X has a child, Z. This interest,
conceivably, vests too remotely to satisfy the RAP. As a result, M would
maintain a reversion in FS and W would have a LE -- that would be it.