Week 4 Property Review Quiz

Thomas writes a letter to his niece, Mary, stating his intention to give her his vintage car as a graduation gift. The letter includes a request for Mary to sign an enclosed copy of the letter acknowledging receipt of the gift. Thomas keeps the car in his garage and retains the keys, but he hands the signed letter and the car's original title document to Mary during a family dinner. Mary, unaware of the car's value and not fully attentive, casually places the letter and title document in her bag without acknowledging the gift verbally or in writing. A week later, Thomas passes away. Mary finds the letter and title document while sorting through her belongings and claims the car as her gift. Thomas's will, however, does not mention the car or any gift to Mary.

If Mary is unsuccessful at arguing that Thomas gave her the vintage car as a gift, what is the most likely reason why?

• The letter from Thomas was not legally binding since it was not notarized.

• The gift was not valid because Thomas did not relinquish control and possession of the car.

• The car's title document in Mary's possession is sufficient proof of the gift's completion.

• Mary's failure to sign and return the acknowledgment letter invalidates the gift.

Answer explanation

In this scenario, although Thomas expressed his intention to give the car to Mary and handed her the title document and a letter, the court clearly decided that he did not complete the delivery by handing over the car or the keys. Retaining the keys and keeping the car in his garage indicates that Thomas maintained control and possession of the car. Hence, the most likely reason for Mary being unsuccessful in her claim would be Thomas's failure to relinquish control and possession of the car, making the delivery of the gift incomplete.

What lessons does Gruen teach us about how Thomas might have successfully given a gift to Mary?

Company X has been using a specific shade of blue for its packaging for many years. This shade of blue is not functional to the product but is unique and well-recognized by consumers as associated with Company X's products. A competitor, Company Y, starts using a very similar shade of blue for its product packaging. Company X decides to sue Company Y.

In a legal dispute, which legal doctrine will be central to Company X's case?

• The doctrine of trade secret, as the specific shade of blue is a proprietary secret of Company X.

• The doctrine of trademark protection for color, as the color is distinctive and identifies Company X's goods.

• The doctrine of color functionality, as the color used by Company X is functional to its product.

• The doctrine of patent infringement because the color is unique to Company X's products.

Answer explanation

The correct legal doctrine in this scenario is trademark protection for color. The court has held that a color, if it meets the ordinary requirements for trademark registration and is distinctive, can be registered as a trademark. The color used by Company X is distinctive and has become associated with its goods, thereby qualifying for trademark protection. The fact pattern doesn't suggest that the color is functional to the product; it is distinctive and used for brand identification. Therefore, the central legal doctrine in Company X's case against Company Y would be the protection of its color as a trademark, not patent infringement, color functionality, or trade secret protection.

Alex purchases a parcel of land from Pat, who provides a deed for the property. However, unbeknownst to Alex, Pat does not actually own the land; Pat's deed was a forgery. Alex builds a fence around the property and lives there, maintaining the land for several years. During this time, Alex believes he is the rightful owner of the land. The true owner, Taylor, learns of Alex's presence on the land after several years and files a lawsuit to reclaim it. Alex asserts a claim of adverse possession under color of title based on the deed he received from Pat.

If Alex prevails, what is the most likely reason why?

• The deed Alex received from Pat was a legally binding document.

• Alex's honest belief that he was the rightful owner of the land excuses the forgery of the deed.

• Alex's possession of the land under color of title allowed him to claim the entire tract described in the deed, even though the deed was defective.

• Taylor did not take legal action against Alex within the statutory period for adverse possession.

Answer explanation

Color of title refers to a claim to ownership of property based on a written instrument (like a deed) that purports to convey the property but is defective for some reason, such as the grantor not having the actual title or the conveyance being improperly executed. Despite the defect in the deed Alex received from Pat, if Alex has been in possession of the land for the requisite period under the belief that he is the rightful owner, he may have a valid claim of adverse possession under color of title. This is because color of title can provide certain advantages, such as potentially shortening the period required for adverse possession and allowing the possessor to claim the entire tract described in the deed, even if they only have actual possession of a portion of it. Therefore, if Alex prevails, the most likely reason is that his possession under color of title allowed him to claim the entire tract, despite the deed's defect.

Emma gifted her niece Sarah a live puppy named Buddy. She delivered Buddy directly to Sarah's house and explained her intention to gift the puppy. Sarah, surprised and initially hesitant, eventually accepted Buddy and began caring for him. However, a few weeks later, Sarah decided she couldn't handle the responsibility and tried to return Buddy to Emma. Emma refused, insisting the gift was complete.

In a legal dispute, who is likely to prevail and why?

• Sarah, because she never explicitly accepted the gift.

• Emma, because she delivered the puppy and expressed her intention to gift it.

• Sarah, because she cannot be forced to accept a gift, even a living one.

• Emma, because Sarah's initial hesitation does not negate her implied acceptance by caring for Buddy.

Answer explanation

In this scenario, the key issue is implied acceptance of a gift inter vivos. While explicit acceptance is ideal, the law recognizes that acceptance can also be implied through the donee's conduct. Here, Sarah's actions of accepting Buddy into her home and caring for him, even after initial hesitation, demonstrate implied acceptance. Her later attempt to return the puppy doesn't negate this prior acceptance. Therefore, Emma is likely to prevail in the legal dispute as she can demonstrate both delivery and implied acceptance of the gift.

In the state of Arcadia, a jurisdiction that requires an adverse possessor to have a good faith belief in ownership of the property, Jordan has been openly using and maintaining a parcel of land for the requisite period. The land actually belongs to Chris, who was unaware of Jordan's use of the land until recently. Chris files a lawsuit to reclaim the property. In response, Jordan seeks to assert an adverse possession claim. In court, Jordan argues that he genuinely believed the land was his, based on an incorrectly marked boundary shown in an old property survey he received when purchasing adjacent land.

You are the judge presiding over the case. Which of the following arguments made by Jordan is most relevant to your decision on whether to grant a motion to dismiss?

• Jordan has made valuable improvements to the land, significantly increasing its market value.

• Chris failed to pay property taxes on the land during the period of Jordan's possession.

• Jordan's use of the land was open and notorious for the entire statutory period required for adverse possession.

• Jordan had a good faith belief that the land belonged to him based on an old property survey.

Answer explanation

In the state of Arcadia, the specific requirement for an adverse possession claim is that the possessor must have a good faith belief in ownership of the property. Jordan's argument that he genuinely believed the land was his, based on an old property survey, directly addresses this requirement. It's relevant to determining whether Jordan meets the state's specific standard for adverse possession. While the other options (A, B, and D) may be factors in an adverse possession claim, they do not directly address the unique requirement of the jurisdiction for a good faith belief in ownership, which is the central issue in deciding whether Jordan's motion to dismiss should be granted.