Property Exam Review

8/13/2019 Property Exam Review

1/6

EXAM INSTRUCTIONS

Will be what we have done in this class and the reading.

Half multiple choice, half essay

We may refer to the singer textbook, class handouts, class notes,and any outlinesprepared by us or out study group.

Think through

Organize essays with underlined headers and subheaders.

Thursday 12/5 6-8 pm office hours added will also take questions via email

through Thursday 12/5

Question #5

A

If the landowners want equitable relief they might sue with an equitable servitude

If the landowners want money damages they might sue for a covenant

Go through each of the elements

1. in writing2. intent to run language about heirs and assigns3. constructive notice in the deed4. Touch and concern use probably benefits and adds considerable calue to

the property, less clear than the first 3 with these 4 injunctive relief may be

appropriate (all the owners could sue, including the 80 lots such as fannie

lou) Do renters get injunctive relief?

For covenant, you can say the first 4 elements are met, and we now look at whether

there is horizontal and vertical privity. Renters would also have this interest to

achieve injunctive relief.

Traditional jurisdictions require strict vertical privity (no leases) while modernjurisdictions might allow this type of privity.

When we determine that a covenant exists, we look at the defense of changed

conditions. This is more about a non-economic change.

One argument would be that the putt putt would maintain a golf course,


2/6

Another defense would be whether there is a relative hardship the burden

outweighs the benefit.

The nature of the covenant being affirmative, there is a presumption of invalidity.

Kotseas were negative covenants, which are looked upon more kindly. This question

must be teased out.

DO THE SAME THING WITH PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENTS AND ADVERSE

POSSESSION find the crossover elements. The only difference between adversepossession and prescriptive easements are adverse possession does the person act

like an owner of fee, prescriptive easement does the person act like an easement

holder.

Certain restraints on the selling of property would be an unreasonably restraint on

alienation

B

Can we break up the large lots into smaller estates, specifically lots 2-10.

Can the golf course sue the owners of these lots?

No signs of intent to benefit the golf course by setting up the land as single family

zoned. Also problems with horizontal property.

Is Hillary an intended beneficiary of the restrictions to lot 3-10?

Could Evita be covered by an implied reciprocal servitudes or implied reciprocal

negative servitudes?

Common plan same size and contained the same restriction.

Harder for Evita since there is not the same restriction and she went first, but the

size and location would support this implied servitude.

Changed conditions and public policy reasons to not enforce the breakup of #3-10.

Abandonment of the covenant perhaps? If someone violated the covenant before

would it be assumed to be void later.

C

Is this a restrictive easement that travels with the land? Issues of entering the golf

course and skateboarding on the golf course. Do these two have the right to use the

land

Is skateboarding within the scope of the easement?


3/6

Is the easement an easement that appurtenant (runs with the land) or an easement

in gross? At least enough as Green v. Lupo so probably appurtenant.

Cox v. Glenbrook- is it an unreasonable burden to have a ton of people using an

easement/the scope of the easement.

QUESTION 6

More servitudes

QUESTION 7

The Macsmay have been partially evicted. Does the jurisdiction have partial

constructive eviction? If so, have they been constructively evicted? Legal question

Should this jurisdiction adopt a rule that landlords should be responsible for the

activities of their tenants? Did the landlord do everything that was reasonable? Is

there a nuisance claim Bernie Mac can bring against Brittney Spearment.

Implied warranty of habitability by Peter Parker. Usually something very basic that

is not provided, or not following the housing code.

Britney claim that there was an unlawful eviction. She waived the right in the zero

tolerance clause. Can she waive this? Schwartz/Hale debate bargaining power vs.

Respect for terms and agreements. COPY CHARTS FROM BOOK!

Regulatory takings extend the minimum eviction notice requirement. Not a totaldeprivation or physical invasion so not per se. As a result we analyze via Grand

Central 3 factor test character of gov action, economic impact, interference withinvestment backed expectations. This is anticipated like the air rights about Penn

Central. Money has not been invested in this

QUESTION 8

Partial consturctive eviction? Should they adopt the rule if it is not there?

If so, is the remedy she takes ok? Can she stay and not pay rent? Did she put rentinto an escrow account?

There is a law for commercial property that makes landlords. Should the court

extend the existing rule to residential leases? If they do Mia says it is unreasonable


4/6

because they have funds, are kind. Other side will say it is reasonable to exclude

because he doesnt fit into the group.

Self-help issue. Ancient rules allowing landlords to use self-help, should we change

this or require notice and process? If we do adopt the prohibition on self-help, can itbe waived? Is this unconscionable?

Problem 9

First de we need this legislation, do we have a common law right to exclude? Callthe question?

Dont just skip to the takings issue!

Takings overview of the 5thamendment parameters for what is a takings, andwhen there is a takings the gov must pay.

First is it a categorical taking?

Permanent physical invasion (Loretto with the cable box)

- argue both ways if it is permanent- this is distinguished from Loretto in that the agreement is between two

private parties and that there is just compensation for what was technically

deemed to be a taking in Loretto

- Lucas- regulation that deprives the owner of all viable use. Not applicablehere but good to mention to pick up points

- Move to ad-hoc Penn Central 3-factor testo Economic value overall probablyo Character of the government action often local bodies regulate these

relationships and there seems to be a valid public interest. Could be

called a windfall for Cheap DSL but this should not be confused with

Public Use test. NOT PUBLIC USE

o Expectation backed investments investments are already made, willbe considered in future actions. It is not a takings just because there

is a transfer from landlord to tenant, think of Yee with rent control

and difficulty in eviction

- Pubic Use balancing test (Justice Kennedy test in concurrence in Keela, wehrethere is a apecific and identifiable private party that benenfits this may result

in strict scrutiny) - While I dont think it is a takings, the court mightdetermine contrary based on the following

o Promoting high speed internet is a strong interest, access leads tomany positive results


5/6

o You are directly transferring the benefit from the landlords to tCheapDSL. Worse than Wayne County because you directly transfer the

benefit to one company

Finally if there is a taking there must be just compensation

Question 10

Trademark infringement against MAW

Is it registered ort not? Either way the Lantham act protects unregistered logos.

Could be initial interest confusion like PETA would need to see website to

determine how similar and confusing the site might be.

Trademark dilution against MAW Abraham Lincoln will argue they are profitingfrom the mark, MAW will say they used it only enough to identify the mark (Parody

defense_. The face that alumni are not getting the parody goes against this defense.

ALU fight song copyright infringement

Fair use defense someone associated with the university would know right away

that the song was a joke. It is unreasonable to think that the song has been changed

to this. 4 factors

- purpose and character of the useo ALU says making moneyo MEW says parody

- Nature of the copyrighted work mount of the work and substantiality that itis used

o ALU says the heart of the songo MAW saws only four lines, only what they needed for the parody

Contributory trademark infringement

Since the university benefits as a place that is famous for political activity, this whole

situation may increase the value of their trademark.

RANDOM WILD DEEDS QUESTION #4 p. 886

In this situation Z would win even in a race jurisdiction because Bs deed is

wild. If Z goes back and looks for Os name in the grantee index they will not

find O in the period they are responsible for looking at. LOOK AT THE

BOTTOM OF 878 and top of 879 and focus on the suppose you are planning to

buy a house from Bob.


6/6

#5 As deed is wild.

#7 is the shelter doctrine

Multiple Choice Questions

14 a

15c

16 d

17 b

18 c

19 d

20 - b

Property Exam Review

Documents

Transcript of Property Exam Review