Deck 37: Real Property and Landlord-Tenant Law

Question 1

What can a person who holds property in fee simple absolute do with the property?

Answer 1

A fee simple absolute is one of the utmost extensive interests in case of real properties. An individual can retain it as it is restricted totally to the individual and its beneficiaries.
An individual who possesses real property in fee simple absolute can do whatsoever of any kind he/she wants to. For example: growing crops, removing trees, creating buildings, selling them etc. This type of estate has been regarded by law as perpetual.

Question 2

Property Ownership. Twenty-two years ago, Lorenz was a wanderer. At that time, he decided to settle down on an unoccupied, three-acre parcel of land that he did not own. People in the area told him that they had no idea who owned the property. Lorenz built a house on the land, got married, and raised three children while living there. He fenced in the land, installed a gate with a sign above it that read "Lorenz's Homestead," and removed trespassers. Lorenz is now confronted by Joe Reese, who has a deed in his name as owner of the property. Reese, claiming ownership of the land, orders Lorenz and his family off the property. Discuss who has the better "title" to the property.

Answer 2

Mr L has better "title" to the above land.
The land was unoccupied when Mr L first came there and after that he built up his home there without any protest from any person as the owner of that place was unavailable. He had freely set up his home and raised his children over there. Hence, he is better titled to that placed as he lived there openly for an extensive period without any protest from any quarters. Mr J came too late to make his claim over the property.
Hence, Mr L can hold his ownership of the place more highly than Mr J.

Question 3

Real Property and Landlord-Tenant Law
Vern Shoepke purchased a two-story home from Walter and Eliza Bruster in the town of Roche, Maine. The warranty deed did not specify what covenants would be included in the conveyance. The property was adjacent to a public park that induded a popular Frisbee golf course. (Frisbee golf is a sport similar to golf but using Frisbees.) Wayakichi Creek ran along the north end of the park and along Shoepke's property. The deed allowed Roche citizens the right to walk across a five-foot-wide section of the lot beside Wayakichi Creek as part of a two-mile public trail system. Teenagers regularly threw Frisbee golf discs from the walking path behind Shoepke's property over his yard to the adjacent park. Shoepke habitually shouted and cursed at the teenagers, demanding that they not throw objects over his yard. Two months after moving into his Roche home, Shoepke leased the second floor to Lauren Slater for nine months. (The lease agreement did not specify that Shoepke's consent would be required to sublease the second floor.) After three months of tenancy, Slater sublet the second floor to a local artist, Javier Indalecio. Over the remaining six months, Indalecio's use of oil paints damaged the carpeting in Shoepke's home. Using the information presented in the chapter, answer the following questions.
1. What is the term for the right of Roche citizens to walk across Shoepke's land on the trail?
2. In the warranty deed that was used in the property transfer from the Brusters to Shoepke, what covenants would be inferred by most courts?
3. Suppose that Shoepke wants to file a trespass lawsuit against some teenagers who continually throw Frisbees over his land. Shoepke discovers, however, that when the city put in the Frisbee golf course, the neighborhood homeowners signed an agreement that limited their right to complain about errant Frisbees. What is this type of promise or agreement called in real property law?
4. Can Shoepke hold Slater financially responsible for the damage to the carpeting caused by Indalecio?

Answer 3

(a)The right of Roche citizens to walk across Shoepke's land on the trail represents
.
An easement gives a right of permanent, discontinuous use of a land. It is an interest in land created by a deed. An easement is not transferrable, and can be used only by the person specified for its use.
(b)In the transfer of property from the Brusters to Shoepke, following covenants would be inferred by most courts:
• The Busters had the title to, and the authority to convey the property to Shoepke
• Shoepke was warranted quiet enjoyment stating that he would not be disturbed in his possession of the property
• The transfer of property's title is made without noticing the adverse claims of any third party.
(c) , the power of the government that limits the right of the private citizens to complain about errant Frisbees.
(d) , Shoepke can hold Slater responsible for the damages caused by Indalecio to the carpeting.
Slater subleased the second floor to Indalecio. However, a sublease, with or without owner's consent, does not release Slater from the obligations under lease. Shoepke can hold Slater liable for any damages caused by Indalecio.

Question 4

The following multiple-choice question is representative of the types of questions available in one of the four sections of ThomsonNOW for Business Law Today. ThomsonNOW also provides feedback for each response option, whether correct or incorrect, and refers to the location within the chapter where the correct answer can be found. The type of deed that provides a buyer with the greatest legal protection is a

A) grant deed.
B) warranty deed.
C) quitclaim deed.
D) special warranty deed.

Question 5

What are the requirements for acquiring property by adverse possession?

Question 6

Question with Sample Answer-Deeds. Wiley and Gemma are neighbors. Wiley's lot is extremely large, and his present and future use of it will not involve the entire area. Gemma wants to build a single-car garage and driveway along the present lot boundary. Because the placement of her existing structures makes it impossible for her to comply with an ordinance requiring buildings to be set back fifteen feet from an adjoining property line, Gemma cannot build the garage. Gemma contracts to purchase ten feet of Wiley's property along their boundary line for $3,000. Wiley is willing to sell but will give Gemma only a quitclaim deed, whereas Gemma wants a warranty deed. Discuss the differences between these deeds as they would affect the rights of the parties if the title to this ten feet of land later proves to be defective.

Question 7

What limitations may be imposed on the rights of property owners?

Question 8

Implied Warranty of Habitability. Sarah has rented a house from Frank. The house is only two years old, but the roof leaks every time it rains. The water that has accumulated in the attic has caused plaster to fall off ceilings in the upstairs bedrooms, and one ceiling has started to sag. Sarah has complained to Frank and asked him to have the roof repaired. Frank says that he has caulked the roof, but the roof still leaks. Frank claims that because Sarah has sole control of the leased premises, she has the duty to repair the roof. Sarah insists that repairing the roof is Frank's responsibility. Discuss fully who is responsible for repairing the roof and, if the responsibility belongs to Frank, what remedies are available to Sarah. (See page 972.)

Question 9

Answers to the even-numbered questions in this For Review section can be found in Appendix F at the end of this text.
What is a leasehold estate? What types of leasehold estates, or tenancies, can be created when real property is leased?

Question 10

Adverse Possession. In 1972, Ted Pafundi bought a quarry in West Pawlet, Vermont, from his neighbor, Marguerite Scott., The deed vaguely described the eastern boundary of the quarry as "the westerly boundary of the lands of" the neighboring property owners. Pafundi quarried green slate from the west wall until his death in 1979, when his son Cary began to work the east wall until his death in 1989. Gary's daughter Connie then took over operations. All of the Pafundis used the floor of the quarry as their base of operations. In 1992, NA.S. Holdings, Inc., bought the neighboring property. A survey revealed that virtually the entire quarry was within the boundaries of NA.S.'s property and that twenty years earlier, Ted had actually bought only a small strip of land on the west side. When N.A.S. attempted to begin quarrying, Connie blocked the access. N.A.S. filed a suit in a Vermont state court against Connie, seeking to establish title. Connie argued that she had title to the quarry through adverse possession under a state statute with a possessory period of fifteen years. What are the elements to acquire title by adverse possession? Are they satisfied in this case? In whose favor should the court rule, and why? [NAS. Holdings, Inc. v. Pafitndi, 169 Vt. 437, 736 A.2d 780 (1999)]

Question 11

What are the respective duties of the landlord and tenant concerning the use and maintenance of leased property? Is the tenant responsible for all damage that he or she causes?

Question 12

Commercial Lease Terms. Metropolitan Life. Insurance Co. leased space in its Trail Plaza Shopping Center in Florida to Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., to operate a supermarket. Under the lease, the landlord agreed not to permit "any [other] property located within the shopping center to be used for or occupied by any business dealing in or which shall keep in stock or sell for off-premises consumption any staple or fancy groceries" in more than "500 square feet of sales area." In 1999, Metropolitan leased 22,000 square feet of space in Trail Plaza to 99 Cent Stuff-Trail Plaza, LLC, under a lease that prohibited it from selling 'groceries" in more than 500 square feet of "sales area." Shortly after 99 Cent Stuff opened, it began selling food and other products, including soap, matches, and paper napkins. Alleging that these sales violated the parties' leases, Winn-Dixie filed a suit in a Florida state court against 99 Cent Stuff and others. The defendants argued, among other things, that the groceries provision covered only food and that the 500-square-foot restriction included only shelf space, not store aisles. How should these lease terms be interpreted? Should the court grant an injunction in Winn-Dixie's favor? Explain. [Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. 99 Cent Stuff-Trail Plaza, LLC, 811 So.2d 719 (Fla.App. 3 Dist. 2002)]

Question 13

Easements. The Wallens family owned a cabin on Lummi Island in the state of Washington. A driveway ran from the cabin across their property to South Nugent Road. In 1952, Floyd Maley bought the adjacent lot and built a cabin. To gain access to his property, he used a bulldozer to extend the driveway, without the Wallenses' permission but also without their objection. In 1975, the Wallenses sold their property to Wright Fish Co. Massey continued to use and maintain the driveway without permission or objection. In 1984, Massey sold his property to Robert Drake. Drake and his employees continued to use and maintain the driveway without permission or objection, although Drake knew it was located largely on Wright's property. In 1997, Wright sold its lot to Robert Smersh. The next year, Smersh told Drake to stop using the driveway. Drake filed a suit in a Washington state court against Smersh, claiming an easement by prescription (which is created by meeting the same requirements as adverse possession). Does Drake's use of the driveway meet all of the requirements? What should the court rule? Explain. [Drake v. Smersh, 122 Wash.App. 147, 89 P.3d 726 (Div. 1 2004)]

Question 14

Case Problem with Sample Answer. The Hope Partnership for Education, a religious organization, proposed to build a private independent middle school in a blighted neighbor-hood in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. In 2002, the Hope Partnership asked the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia to acquire specific land for the project and sell it to the Hope Partnership for a nominal price. The land included a house at 1.839 North Eighth Street owned by Mary Smith, whose daughter Veronica lived there with her family. The Authority offered Smith $12,000 for the house and initiated a taking of the property. Smith filed a suit in a Pennsylvania state court against the Authority, admitting that the house was a "substandard structure in a blighted area," but arguing that the taking was unconstitutional because its beneficiary was private. The Authority asserted that only the public purpose of the taking should be considered, not the status of the property's developer. On what basis can a
government entity use the power of eminent domain to take property? What are the limits to this power? How should the court rule? Why? [In re Redevelopment Authority of City of Philadelphia, 588 Pa. 789, 906 A.2d 1197 (2006)]

Question 15

Ownership in Fee Simple.
Thomas and Teresa Cline built a house on 76 acres next to Roy Berg's home in Virginia. The homes were about 1,800 feet apart but in view of each other. After several disagreements between the parties, Berg equipped an 11-foot tripod with motion sensors and floodlights that intermittently illuminated the Clines' home. Berg also installed surveillance cameras that tracked some of the movement on the Clines' property. The cameras transmitted on an open frequency, which could be received by any television within range. The Clines asked Berg to turn off, or at least redirect, the lights. When he refused, they erected a fence for 200 feet along the parties' common property line. The 32-foot-high fence consisted of 20 utility poles spaced 10 feet apart with plastic wrap stretched between the poles. This effectively blocked the lights and cameras. Berg filed a suit against the Clines in a Virginia state court, complaining that the fence interfered unreasonably with his use and enjoyment of his property. He asked the court to order the Clines to take the fence down. What are the limits on an owner's use of property? How should the court rule in this case? Why? [Cline v. Berg, 273 Va. 142, 639 S.E.2d 231 (2007)]

Question 16

A Question of Ethics: Seller's Duty to Disclose.

In 1999, Stephen and Linda Kailin bought the Monona Center, a mall in Madison, Wisconsin, from Perry Armstrong for $760,000. The contract provided, "Seller represents to Buyer that as of the date of acceptance Seller had no notice or knowledge of condi- tions affecting the Property or transaction" other than certain items disclosed at the time of the offer. Armstrong told the Kailins of the Center's eight tenants, their lease expiration dates, and the monthly and annual rent due under each lease. One of the lessees, Ring's All-American Karate, occupied about a third of the Center's space under a five-year lease. Because of Ring's financial difficulties, Armstrong had agreed to reduce its rent for nine months in 1997. By the time of the sale to the Kailins, Ring owed $13,910 in unpaid rent, but Armstrong did not tell the Kailins, who did not ask. Ring continued to fail to pay rent and finally vacated the Center. The Kailins filed a suit in a Wisconsin state court against Armstrong and others, alleging, among other things, misrepresentation. [ Kailin v. Armstrong, 2002 WI App 70, 252 Wis.2d 676, 643 N.W.2d 132 (2002)] (See page 962.)
(a) Did Armstrong have a duty to disclose Ring's delinquency and default to the Kailins? Explain.
(b) What obligation, if any, did Ring have to the Kailins or Armstrong after failing to pay the rent and eventually defaulting on the lease? Discuss.

Question 17

Critical Thinking and Writing Assignment for Business. Garza Construction Co. erects a silo (a grain storage facility) on Reeve's ranch. Garza also lends Reeve funds to pay for the silo under an agreement providing that the silo is not to become part of the land until Reeve completes the loan payments. Before the silo is paid for, Metropolitan State Bank, the mortgage holder on Reeve's land, forecloses on the property. Metropolitan contends that the silo is a fixture to the realty and that the hank is therefore entitled to the proceeds from its sale. Garza argues that the silo is personal property and that the proceeds should therefore go to.Garza. Is the silo a fixture? Why or why not?

Question 18

Case Analysis Question. Co to Appendix G at the end of this text and examine Case No. 9 [City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey, 526 U.S. 687, 119 S.Ct. 1624, 143 L.Ed.2d 882 (1999)]. The case has been excerpted there in great detail. Review and then brief the case, making sure that kair brief answers the following questions.
1. What actions taken by the city of Monterey led to this lawsuit?
2. Why did Del Monte Dunes claim that the city of Monterey had taken its property?
3. What did the trial court decide in this case?
4. What was the primary issue in dispute before the United States Supreme Court?
5. What was the question that the jury was asked to deter-mine and that the Court considered to be "essentially fact-bound"?