Question I (30 minutes)

Scheduled Completion Time: 1:30 p.m.

We have learned that title may be acquired by adverse possession if certain requirements are met. One of those requirements is that the person claiming adverse possession must prove that he or she possessed the property under a claim of right (also called claim of title). In applying this requirement some courts require that the claimant have a good faith state of mind, that is, the claimant mistakenly believes the property is hers. Other courts require a bad faith state of mind, that is, the claimant knows that the property is not hers but intends to claim it for herself anyway. Still other courts deem that the state of mind of the claimant is irrelevant. State the justification for each of the rules and then state which one is best. Why do you think so?

Question II. (60 minutes)

Scheduled Completion Time: 2:30 p.m.

Marietta Morris is a lifelong atheist who is adamantly antireligious. Five years ago she conveyed a parcel of unimproved land on the shore of Big Lake in the state of Mitchell to her daughter, Nancy Cole, and Nancy's husband, Larry. The conveyance stated in relevant part:

I, Marietta Morris, grantor, an unmarried person, convey Blackacre to my daughter, Nancy Cole, and her husband, Larry Cole, as tenants in common, provided that if the land is ever used for religious purposes including but not limited to conducting of religious services, then Blackacre shall pass instead to the then living issue of my friend, Donald White.

Donald White was a friend of Marietta's who shared her religious views. She was aware that he had raised his family in a manner similar to hers.

Nancy and Larry built a house on the property and moved in in 1991. By 1992 Larry's violent tendencies became apparent. He was arrested twice for hitting Nancy in public. He regularly threatened Nancy that he would beat her if she did not do as he said. On several occasions at home he hit her in the face hard enough to leave bruises. Nancy was afraid for her safety and finally moved out of the house and in with her mother in December, 1992. Larry called her almost daily and pleaded with her to come back. He promised that he had changed, but, still fearing him, Nancy refused.

Larry lived in the large house for 4 months, but finally decided that he could not bear to live there without Nancy. Besides, the house was much too large for one person. In May, 1993, Larry leased the property to Willy Graham who said he planned to use it for a summer place to entertain friends and associates. The lease term was for four years ending May 31, 1997, and the rent was set at $1,500 per month. On June 15, 1993, Graham assigned the entire remaining term of the lease to Graham Camp for Boys, a nonprofit corporation, which ran a summer camp for boys.

The camp was similar to any recreational camp except that every day started with a recitation of the Lord's Prayer. The first boys arrived on July 1, 1993, and the camp ran steadily until Labor Day in 1993. It was shut down from September until April, but then ran again from May 1, 1994 until Labor Day that year. From July 1, 1993, until May 1, 1995, the Graham Camp for Boys paid rent of $1,500 per month to Graham who in turn paid the same amount to Larry. The fair rental value of the property was probably closer to $2,500 per month, but Larry had never been a good business person and had not checked with anyone before agreeing to the smaller amount.

In January, 1995, a court in Call County granted Nancy a divorce from Larry. In the decree Nancy was awarded Larry's entire interest in Blackacre.

In February of 1995, Craig White, who was Donald White's grandson and only living issue, entered the property and moved into the house. He had a locksmith remove the old locks and put in new ones. He had heard about the recitation of the Lord's Prayer at the camp, and knew the terms of the deed to Nancy and Larry. He said that he was now the owner of Blackacre, and notified Graham, Nancy and Larry of this.

Much to Marietta's chagrin, Craig was nothing like his grandfather. In fact perhaps in rebellion, he was extremely religious, and announced that he planned to turn the property into a retreat center for religious groups. He anticipated that it would become a center for religious expression in the area.

Answer the following questions based on these facts. Explain your answers.

1. Nancy Cole has asked you if she is entitled to Blackacre since she has done nothing wrong. She also has asked whether she has any rights against Larry. What do you tell her?

2. Marietta has asked you whether she has any rights in Blackacre that will permit her to keep Craig from carrying out his plans to use it for religious purposes. What do you tell her?

3. Graham has asked you whether he or the Graham Camp for Boys is entitled to possession of Blackacre for the remainder of the lease term, and if not, whether he or the Camp has any right of recovery against Larry Cole. What do you tell Graham?

Question III (45 minutes)

Scheduled Completion Time: 3:15 p.m.

Fred and Mary Abbott, husband and wife, and Mary's cousin, Laura Timm, and Laura's longtime companion and housemate, Jack Baker, were traveling through the wine country of northern California. Though Jack and Laura had never married, they had lived together for over 10 years. They often told people that they saw no need to marry since they did not plan to have children. Further, they told many others that they had an oral agreement that any property acquired by either of them would be shared equally by them.

The two couples were very compatible traveling companions and went on trips together frequently. They did have one difference. The Abbotts liked to stay in luxurious inns while Laura and Jack liked to spend less on accommodations and stayed in simpler places. This had never been a problem because the Abbotts would make reservations at the luxury places they found and Laura and Jack would then find a less expensive place nearby.

When the group arrived in Napa Valley, the Abbotts checked into the Valley Inn, a very expensive small hotel near Calistoga. Laura and Jack stayed at the Super Cheap Motel just down the road. They agreed to meet at the bar at the Valley Inn at 7:00 p.m. for drinks and then go to dinner at Catahoula, a wonderful restaurant in town. All of them arrived at the bar at 7:00 and ordered a bottle of wine. They had been there only a few minutes when Laura remembered that she had forgotten to call her mother to wish her a happy birthday. Rather than go back to her room down the street, she asked the Abbotts whether they would let her use the phone in their room. They agreed, and Jack and Laura went up to the Abbotts' room to call.

When they arrived at the room, Laura dialed her mother's number and wished her a happy birthday. Jack then took the phone and spoke to Laura's mother briefly. He then gave the phone back to Laura. As Laura was finishing her conversation with her mother, she noticed a watch on the floor between the headboard of the bed and the wall. There was only about a 3 inch gap, and the only reason Laura saw the watch was that she was leaning against the wall while talking to her mother. She happened to be at the only place in the whole room where the watch was visible. Unless the bed had been moved recently, the watch might have been there for a long time.

Laura was not able to reach the watch, but Jack was able to use a coat hanger to pull it out. It was encrusted with diamonds and was later appraised at $5,000.

Before they went back to the bar, Jack and Laura decided to call the restaurant to see if they could move their reservations back a half hour. Since they did not know the number of the restaurant, Laura opened the drawer to the desk in the Abbotts' room and found the telephone book. When she opened the book, she found a lottery ticket between the pages. It appeared to have been placed there like a bookmark. The ticket turned out to be worth $100,000, and although it was 6 months old, it was still redeemable for that amount.

Jack and Laura returned to the bar and told the Abbotts what had happened. After some discussion, they all agreed that the proper thing to do was to report the incident to the hotel people to see if the true owners could be found. They did this, but when the hotel owner, Brenda Lang, sent inquiries to all of the persons she could find who had stayed in the Abbotts' room over the last 9 months, none could make a claim identifying the two items. Some of the persons who had been registered for the room were not found, apparently because they used fictitious names or addresses when registering.

Since the events described occurred, Jack and Laura have separated. The Abbotts now have sent a letter to Brenda Lang who has been in possession of the watch and lottery ticket demanding that both be given to them. Laura has sent a letter claiming both as hers, and Jack has sent a letter claiming that he is the owner of all or part of the items. Brenda Lang has replied to each letter refusing to send the items, claiming that she is entitled to them.

Discuss the principles of property law which favor or disfavor each of the claims. If the matter came to litigation among the parties and you were the judge assigned to the case, in whose favor would you rule? Why?

Question IV (45 minutes)

Scheduled Completion Time: 4:00 p.m.

In this question the term "convey" refers to an inter vivos transfer. The term "devise" refers to a transfer by will.

1. In the following questions you are asked to identify the interests owned by the parties. Answer the specific questions in each example.

a. O conveys land "to A for life, then to the children of B." A and B are living persons at the time of the conveyance and B has no children at that time. What interests are created? If two years after the conveyance, B has a child, C, what interests then exist?

b. O conveys land "to A for life, then to B, but if B ever marries C, then to D and her heirs." A, B, C and D are living persons and B is single at the time of the conveyance. What interests are created?

c. O conveys land "to A and her heirs, but if A dies leaving no descendants surviving, to B for life." A and B are living persons at the time of the conveyance, and A has no descendants at that time. What interests are created?

d. O devises land "to A for life, then to B if B survives A, and if B does not survive A, to C, but if C does not survive A, to C's issue." A, B and C are all living and none has issue at the time of O's death. What interests are created?

2. Analyze the following examples under the Rule Against Perpetuities in its common law formulation. Be sure to explain your answers.

a. O conveys land Òto A for life, then to my grandchildren who reach the age of 21.Ó A is alive, and O has no grandchildren at the time of the conveyance.

b. T devises land Òto my children for life, then to my mother for life, and then to my grandchildren who are then living.Ó T has 2 children, A and B, living at her death. Her mother, M, is also living. A has 1 child, C, and B has 2 children, D and E.

c. O conveys land Òto AÕs children who reach the age of 24.Ó At the time of the conveyance, A is alive and has 3 children, B who is 24, C who is 18 and D who is 2.