Property Quiz - Week 7

Give the state of the title in the following transfer. Marcus owns Blackacre in fee simple absolute immediately before the transfer.

Marcus conveys Blackacre “to Sophia for life, then to Liam and his heirs.”

• A) A life estate in Sophia, a vested remainder subject to divestment in Liam in fee simple.

• B) A life estate in Sophia, a vested remainder subject to open in Liam in fee simple.

• C) A life estate in Sophia, an indefeasibly vested remainder in Liam in fee simple.

• D) A life estate in Sophia, a contingent remainder in Liam in fee simple.

Answer explanation

In this situation, Marcus has conveyed Blackacre to Sophia for her life, which means Sophia holds a life estate. A life estate is a possessory interest in land that lasts for the life of the grantee, in this case, Sophia.

 

After the life estate is established, the question then concerns the nature of Liam's interest. Since Marcus's conveyance to Liam is "to Liam and his heirs," this indicates that Liam has a remainder interest in fee simple that will become possessory upon the termination of Sophia's life estate. There is no condition precedent to Liam's taking possession, other than the natural termination of Sophia's life estate upon her death. Therefore, Liam's interest is vested because it is certain to become possessory in the future and it is indefeasibly vested because there are no conditions attached that might divest him of his interest. It is a remainder because it follows a life estate and is designed to take effect in possession upon the natural termination of that life estate.

 

The remainder is not subject to divestment (option A) because there are no conditions that could lead to Liam losing his interest once Sophia's life estate ends. It is also not subject to open (option B) because the conveyance is to Liam and his heirs; there are no other parties mentioned who might also have an interest, so it is not a class gift that could expand to include more people. Lastly, it is not a contingent remainder (option D) because Liam's interest is not contingent on any event or condition other than Sophia's death, which is a certainty. Further, there is no implied condition of survival in remainders to a single individual, several individuals, or a single generation class. See p. 243.

Robin owns property in Michigan, located next to a large music festival venue. During events, her property is inundated with loud music, and the air is filled with dust from the activities at the venue. Robin files a lawsuit against the festival organizers for trespass, claiming that the noise and dust have unlawfully invaded her property.

Is Robin correct in her claim?

• A) Yes, because the dust and noise from the festival are tangible invasions onto her property.

• B) No, because trespass in Michigan requires a physical, tangible object to directly enter the property.

• C) Yes, because the festival's activities are a direct and intentional invasion of her property.

• D) No, because the festival has a right to conduct events on its own property.

Answer explanation

In Michigan, the traditional view of trespass requires a direct entry onto the land by a tangible object. The law of trespass does not cover airborne particulate, noise, or vibrations, which are intangible. In Robin's case, the dust and noise from the music festival, while possibly disruptive, do not meet the criteria for trespass since they are not tangible objects directly entering her property. Instead, these types of irritants typically fall under the category of nuisance. Therefore, Robin's claim of trespass is incorrect based on the legal standards in Michigan.

Give the state the title in the following transfer. Jasmine owns Blackacre in fee simple absolute immediately before the transfer.

 

Jasmine conveys Blackacre “to Carlos for life, then to Evelyn if Evelyn reaches the age of 25.”

• A) A fee simple determinable in Carlos, a contingent remainder in Evelyn in fee simple, and a reversion in Jasmine in fee simple.

• B) A life estate in Carlos and a reversion in Jasmine in fee simple. Evelyn’s future interest violates the rule against perpetuities and is therefore struck.

• C) A life estate in Carlos, an executory interest in Evelyn in fee simple, and a reversion in Jasmine in fee simple.

• D) A life estate in Carlos, a contingent remainder in Evelyn in fee simple, and a reversion in Jasmine in fee simple.

Answer explanation

Carlos is granted a life estate, which is an interest in property that lasts for the duration of his life. Upon his death, the property will pass to another person as specified in the conveyance.

 

Evelyn is granted a contingent remainder in fee simple. This means that Evelyn will receive the property in fee simple if she meets a certain condition precedent, which in this case is reaching the age of 25. A remainder is contingent if it is given to an ascertained person and is subject to a condition precedent, or if it is given to an unascertained person or class of persons that may or may not become ascertained.

 

A reversion occurs when the grantor conveys an estate of lesser quantum than she has (here, a life estate rather than a fee simple), and the property will revert back to the grantor (or the grantor’s heirs) after the termination of the life estate if the contingent remainder never vests. Since Evelyn's interest is contingent upon her reaching the age of 25, Jasmine holds a reversion because if Evelyn does not reach 25, the property would go back to Jasmine or her heirs.

 

It is important to note that this arrangement does not violate the rule against perpetuities, as Evelyn’s interest is not deferred beyond a life in being plus 21 years; the contingent remainder will vest, if at all, as soon as Evelyn reaches the age of 25, which is a measurable period that does not risk offending the rule.

 

The conveyance does not create a fee simple determinable because there is no durational language that automatically ends Carlos's interest upon the happening of a specified event and reverts to Jasmine (which would be indicated by words like "until" or "so long as"). An executory interest (Option C) is incorrect because that would imply that Evelyn's interest could cut short another's interest (like a shifting executory interest) or follow a gap after a prior estate ends (like a springing executory interest), which is not the case here since Evelyn's interest is set to follow Carlos's life estate without any gap or conditions that would cut short another estate.

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?

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

• B) 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.

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

• D) 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.

Oliver conveys Blackacre, a piece of real property, to Anna and Brian with the phrase "to Anna and Brian as joint tenants with the right of survivorship." Several years later, a dispute arises between Anna and Brian regarding the ownership of Blackacre. In his will, Brian decides to devise his share to Carla without Anna's consent. Brian dies. Carla contends she has a right to Brian’s share of the property. Anna argues that Brian’s actions cannot unilaterally sever the joint tenancy.

 

Assume that in this jurisdiction, a valid joint tenancy was created between Anna and Brian.  In the legal dispute between Anna and Carla, which party is likely to prevail and why?

• A) Anna, because in a joint tenancy, any sale or transfer of interest by one tenant without the others' consent cannot sever the joint tenancy.

• B) Carla, because each joint tenant has the right to sell their share without the consent of the other tenants.

• C) Anna, because severance of the joint tenancy required an inter vivos transfer by Brian.

• D) Carla, because Brian’s will put Anna on notice that he wished to sever the joint tenancy.

Answer explanation

In a joint tenancy, the right of survivorship is a key characteristic which means that upon the death of one tenant, their interest automatically passes to the surviving joint tenants, rather than to the heirs or devisees of the deceased. This automatic transfer is what distinguishes joint tenancies from other forms of concurrent ownership, like tenancies in common.

 

For a joint tenancy to be severed, there needs to be an action that disrupts one of the four unities required to maintain the joint tenancy: unity of time, title, interest, and possession. This usually requires some form of inter vivos action (an action taken by the joint tenant while they are alive), such as selling or transferring their interest in the property to another party.

 

In the case provided, Brian attempted to devise his share of the property through his will. However, a testamentary disposition (a disposition made upon death through a will) does not sever a joint tenancy because the right of survivorship takes precedence. Upon Brian's death, his interest in Blackacre would pass to Anna, not to his devisee, Carla, because the joint tenancy was never severed during his lifetime through an inter vivos transfer.

 

Therefore, Anna is likely to prevail in the legal dispute because the joint tenancy was not severed by Brian’s testamentary action, and upon his death, his interest automatically passed to Anna through the right of survivorship.