Exam Pro Q 2

Assuming the court applies the CL approach, what is the most likely outcome

• W owns each parcel outright under the terms of the deeds and right of survivorship, and W owes C nothing

• W will not prevail on her claim of adverse possession and owes C nothing

Answer explanation

At CL as long as time, title, interest, and possession are satisfied the default tenancy for married couples was joint tenancy with a right to survivorship.

Assuming the court applies the modern trend approach, what is the most likely result:

• W will not prevail on her claim of adverse possession, and W must account to C for the rents received from the little house and is liable for rent for living in the big house

• W owns each parcel outright under the terms of the deeds and right of survivorship, and hence W owes C nothing

Answer explanation

Here, there is no clear and express intent to opt into joint tenancy or tenancy by the entirety; there has to be some express reference to a right of survivorship (jointly does not do this). H & W were tenants in common. When H died his share passed into probate and since he died intestate W received 2/3rds of his 1/2 interest and C received the other 1/3rd (or she has 1/6 interest). Under CL and MT co-tenants have to account for rents to co-tenants out of possession.

There is no adverse possession b/c they are co-tenants.

The statute sets forth which approach to the recording acts?

• race-notice recording act

• race recording act

Answer explanation

Race notice statutes typically provide that any purported property interest is not valid against subsequent transferees if the subsequent transferees have acquired the property "in good faith and for valuable consideration, whose conveyance is first duly recorded." Race notice statutes require not only that the party seeking protection qualify as a subsequent bona fide purchaser without notice of the prior property interest (the same as under the typical notice recording act), but also that the partying seeking protection be the first to duly record the instrument creating the property interest.

What is the extent of Miner's interest, if any?

• Miner has a one-half interest in the mineral rights in Greenacre and an implied easement by necessity to permit him to enter Greenacre to mine

• Miner has a one-half interest in the mineral rights in Greenacre, but no right to enter Greenacre

Answer explanation

Miner will claim the 1/2 interest in the mineral rights under first in time, first in right.

The statute sets forth which approach to the recording acts?

• race recording act

• race-notice recording act

Answer explanation

Race notice statutes typically provide that any purported property interest is not valid against subsequent transferees if the subsequent transferees have acquired the property "in good faith and for valuable consideration, whose conveyance is first duly recorded." Race notice statutes require not only that the party seeking protection qualify as a subsequent bona fide purchaser w/o notice of the prior prop interest (the same as under the typical notice recording act), but also that the party seeking protection be the first to duly record the instrument creating the property interest

After Miner shows up demanding entry to start mining, Naive contacts Gullible and persuades Gullible to record the Owner to Gullible deed. Is Naive entitled to protection under the recording act? The most likely result is:

• Naive is entitled to protection

• Naive is not entitled to protection b/c Naive had notice of the Owner to Miner conveyance before her chain of title was properly recorded

Answer explanation

When Gullible records the deed from Owner to gullible, that recording connects Naive's recording to the chain of title and entitles Naive to protection under the race-notice recording act. Although Gullible's recording is late, it is still the first deed recorded under Owner's name as grantor purporting to transfer title to a grantee. A grantee checking the grantor index under Owner would keep searching under Owner's name until the grantee found the deed from Owner to Gullible which is recorded. The grantee would then switch names in the grantor index and begin looking under Gullible's name.

Under the general CL approach, who can successfully sue whom for breach of the present covenants?

• Chris can sue Bertha, and even if Chris recovers from Bertha , Bertha cannot sue Slick

• Chris can sue Slick only

Answer explanation

When Slick purported to convey Getawayacre to Bertha, Slick did not own Getawayacre or have the power to convey it. These present covenant were breached in 1995 when Slick delivered the deed to Berta. Bertha's cause of action against Slick began to run at that point in time. By 2000, the SOL had run on Bertha's cause of action for breach of the present covenant against encumbrances. Bertha can no longer sue Slick on the present covenants.

These present covenants were breached in 2003 when Bertha delivered the deed to Chris. Chris's cause of action against Berha began to run at that point in time. The SOL has not run on Chris's cause of action for breach of the present covenants of seisen and right to convey. Chris can sue Bertha. Although Slick caused the problem,not Bertha, Bertha conveyed a general warranty deed to Chris. The general warranty deed warrants not only her actions as owner, but also the actions of all prior owners- including Slick.

Under the general CL approach, who can successfully sue whom for breach of the future covenants

• Chris can sue Bertha, and even if Chris recovers from Bertha, Bertha cannot sue Slick

• Chris cannot sue anyone

Answer explanation

Exam 5 #16

Under the modern trend approach, who can successfully sue whom for breach of the present covenants?

• Chris can sue Bertha, and even if Chris recovers from Bertha, Bertha cannot sue Slick

• Chris can sue Bertha or Slick, and if Chris recovers from Bertha, Bertha can sue Slick

Answer explanation

Exam 5 #17

Under the modern trend approach, who can successfully sue whom for breach of the future covenants?

• Chris can sue Bertha or Slick, and if Chris recovers from Bertha, Bertha can sue Slick

• Chris cannot sue anyone

Answer explanation

Exam 5 #18