Property I - PP, MP, LL/T

Liz leases Blueacre “to Hayden for one year, beginning January 1, 2018.” On December 1,

2018, Liz leases Blueacre “to Tam for one year, beginning January 1, 2019.” On January 1,

2019, Tam tries to move into Blueacre but finds Hayden still in possession. Tam asks Liz to

release her from the lease or evict Hayden, but Liz refuses. If Tam sues Liz, a court will most likely hold for:

• Liz, but only if this jurisdiction follows the American rule for delivery of physical

  possession.

• Liz, but only if this jurisdiction follows the English rule for delivery of physical

  possession

• Tam, but only if this jurisdiction follows the American rule for delivery of physical

  possession

• Tam, because Liz did not deliver the legal right to possession of Blueacre

After a camping trip, Willard is diagnosed with Hantavirus Pulmonary Syndrome, a deadly disease transmitted

by rodents. As he is lying on a hospital bed, awaiting certain death, he writes a note stating: “To my nephew

Pete. I know I’m going to die. I want you to have my baseball card collection. It is located in the shoebox in

the bottom drawer of my dresser.” He signs the note, placing it in the pocket of his robe. Willard dies. The

nurse later finds the note and hands it to Pete. Pete retrieves the baseball cards. Willard’s heir, Lisa, contests

Pete’s ownership. Lisa’s best argument is:

• The delivery was invalid because delivery cannot be made through a third party.

• The delivery of the note was unauthorized.

• Although the delivery was valid, Pete did not accept the gift.

• A gift causa mortis cannot defeat inheritance.

Aaron and Blythe own Blueacre as joint tenants. Both are in possession of the property.

American Bank holds a mortgage on Blueacre, which has been signed by both Aaron and

Blythe. Aaron is in charge of paying the mortgage, but fails to do so for several months.

American Bank notifies the couple of its intent to foreclose unless the loan is paid in full.

Blythe quickly pays off the loan. Blythe is entitled to:

• Partition.

• Contribution from Aaron.

• Full title to the land placed in Blythe’s name (because Blythe has paid off the entire

  mortgage), even if contribution is granted.

• Nothing, because Blythe is a fiduciary of Aaron.

On January 1, 2000, Lisette leases a building to Austin for a ten-year term. On January 1, 2002, Austin leases the building “to Bridgette for eight years.” On January 1, 2004, Bridgette leases the building “to Clarence for four years.” Which of the following is a true statement?

• The agreement between Austin and Bridgette is an assignment, and the agreement between Bridgette and Clarence is an assignment.

• The agreement between Austin and Bridgette is a sublease, and the agreement between Bridgette and Clarence is a sublease.

• The agreement between Austin and Bridgette is a sublease, and the agreement between Bridgette and Clarence is an assignment.

• The agreement between Austin and Bridgette is an assignment, and the agreement between Bridgette and Clarence is a sublease.

Adalia owns Blueacre. Bob enters Blueacre without Adalia’s knowledge or permission. Using a metal detector, Bob locates inside the barn an iron pot buried underneath the ground that contains several five-dollar gold coins, all dating from the mid-1800s. The pot was buried more than a foot below ground, and facts suggest that the pot and coins had been buried for some time. The pot itself was deteriorating, suggesting a very old age. Adalia and Bob dispute ownership of the gold coins. In a jurisdiction that has rejected the doctrine of treasure trove, a court would likely place ownership in:

• Bob, because these coins are most likely lost property, and lost property is awarded to the finder.

• Bob, because these coins are most likely mislaid property, and mislaid property is awarded to the finder.

• Bob, because the coins are most likely abandoned property, and abandoned property is awarded to the finder.

• Adalia, because she owns Blueacre and everything buried on it by constructive possession.

Homer and Wanda are married in a common law marital property state that recognizes dower and curtesy. During marriage, Homer purchases Blueacre in fee simple absolute with his earnings. He takes title as joint tenants with right of survivorship with his brother, Ben. Homer and Wanda had no children. Homer dies. What is the state of Blueacre’s title?

• Ben owns two-thirds of Blueacre outright, but only a vested remainder in one-third. As to that third, Wanda holds a life estate because of her dower right.

• Ben owns Blueacre because of his right of survivorship.

• Wanda and Ben own Blueacre as tenants in common.

• Wanda holds a life estate in Blueacre because of her dower right, and Ben holds a vested remainder.

Larry owns Blueacre. On January 1, 2014, he leases Blueacre “to Tiffany for one year.” On December 31, 2014, Tiffany moves out, without giving any notice to Larry. Larry argues that notice is required and sues Tiffany for rent through December 31, 2015. A court will likely hold for:

• Tiffany, because the lease was a periodic tenancy (for a period of one year), which only requires notice if the lessee wants to renew for another period.

• Tiffany, because the lease was a term of years, which does not require notice to terminate.

• Larry, because the lease was a term of years which requires notice to terminate.

• Larry, because the lease was a periodic tenancy (for a period of one year), which requires notice to terminate.

Paul and Beatrice, a married couple, live in a community property state. During marriage, Beatrice acquires Blueacre and $200,000 in personal property with her earnings. She also receives an inheritance of $50,000 from her Aunt Edith. Beatrice dies, devising her entire estate to the daughter of her first marriage. To what is Paul entitled, if anything?

• Blueacre and $200,000.

• One-half of Blueacre and $125,000.

• One-half of Blueacre and $100,000.

• Blueacre and $225,000.

Leslie owns Blueacre, a lakeside parcel of land. Her son Toby, a writer, asks if he can stay in the cabin located on Blueacre to work on his next book. Leslie agrees and does not ask for rent. Three months later, Leslie is approached by a group of fishermen seeking to lease Blueacre (including the cabin). Leslie sends Toby a written notice to vacate in one month, indicating that a paying tenant will be moving in. Toby refuses to leave, arguing that Leslie has no right to evict him. If Leslie sues, a court will likely hold for:

• Toby, because the lease was a term of years and his term had not yet expired,

• Toby, because the lease was a tenancy at will, terminable at the will of only the tenant.

• Leslie, because the lease was a tenancy at will, terminable at the will of either landlord or tenant.

• Leslie, because the lease was a tenancy at sufferance, which is terminable only by the landlord.

Lilly owns Blueacre. She leases Blueacre to Theodore for a term of one year, beginning January 1, 2018. On January 1, 2019, Theodore is still on the premises. Which of the following is a true statement?

• Under the traditional view, Lilly can either evict Theodore or hold Theodore to a second one-year term if she chooses.

• Because Theodore is a tenant at sufferance, Lilly must give Theodore the option of a second one-year term.

• At common law, Theodore’s lease automatically converts to a month-to-month tenancy.

• Lilly has no cause of action against Theodore because his lease automatically repeats if notice has not been given by either landlord or tenant.