Deck 50: Real Property and Landlord-Tenant Relationships

Question 1

Why did the United States Supreme Court grant certiorari in this case, and what did the Court hold with respect to the principal issue

Answer 1

The Supreme Court reviewed the case to determine how broad the definition of public use could be regarding government takings of private property. The Supreme Court agreed with the Supreme Court of Connecticut. Bot courts found that the government can take private land for economic development because the benefit to the local economy can be considered a public use.

Question 2

Property Ownership Madison owned a tract of land, but he was not sure that he had full title to the property. When Rafael expressed an interest in buying the land, Madison sold it to Rafael and executed a quitclaim deed. Rafael properly recorded the need immediately. Several months later, Madison learned that he had had full title to the tract of land. He then sold the land to Linda by warranty deed. Linda knew of the earlier purchase by Rafael but took the deed anyway and later sued to have Rafael evicted from the land. Linda claimed that because she had a warranty deed, her title to the land was better than that conferred by Rafael's quitclaim deed. Will Linda succeed in claiming title to the land Explain.

Answer 2

Person M has previously sold a tract of land to Person R using a quitclaim deed. At that time he was not sure regarding whether he had the full title to that property or not. Later on, when Person M came to know that he had full title to the land, he sold the land to Person L by warranty deed. Person L was also aware of the previous deal; however she purchased the land and then sued to evict Person R from the land. It needs to be decided that whether Person L would get the title to the land.
Quitclaim deed provides the least protection to a person against any defects in the title. In case, the grantor has no interest in a land, then the grantee would not receive any interest. Contrary to this, a warranty deed provides the greatest protection to a person by providing him the greatest number of warranties.
In this case, Person R would probably be the winner. Although a quitclaim deed is the least protective deed, it covers the seller's entire interest. In this case, Person M's interest included the entire piece of property. Thus, Person R would receive the entire parcel of land.
On the other hand, Person L had knowledge of the previous sale of land to Person R, but she chose to ignore it when transacting with Person R. Thus, she was not a bona fide purchaser like Person R. Since, Person R is a bona fide purchaser and his deed was recorded, the court would probably find for Person R.

Question 3

Considering the impact of the majority's ruling, what are some arguments against this decision

Answer 3

There could be an argument that this decision allows the federal government to use any rational reason of possible benefit to the public to take private land. Here, there was no actual evidence that taking the private land would actually result in benefit to the economy. Regardless how attenuated the benefit might have been, the government still justified the taking. There is a slippery-slope argument that the government's discretion in taking private lands for public use is far too broad.

Question 4

Eviction James owns a three-story building. He leases the ground floor to Juan's Mexican restaurant. The lease is to run for a five-year period and contains an express covenant of quiet enjoyment. One year later, James leases the top two stories to the Upbeat Club, a discotheque. The club's hours run from 5:00 P.M. to 11:00 P.M. The noise from the Upbeat Club is so loud that it is driving customers away from Juan's restaurant. Juan has notified James of the interference and has called the police on a number of occasions. James refuses to talk to the owners of the Upbeat Club or to do anything to remedy the situation. Juan abandons the premises. James files suit for breach of the lease agreement and for the rental payments still due under the lease. Juan claims that he was constructively evicted and files a countersuit for damages. Discuss who will be held liable.

Question 5

QUESTION WITH SAMPLE ANSWER: Deeds.
Wilfredo and Patricia are neighbors. Wilfredo's lot is extremely large, and his present and future use of it will not involve the entire area. Patricia wants to build a single-car garage and driveway along the present lot boundary. Because ordinances require buildings to be set back fifteen feet from an owner's property line, however, the placement of Patricia's existing structures prevents her from building the garage. Patricia contracts to purchase ten feet of Wilfredo's property along their boundary line for $3,000. Wilfredo is willing to sell but will give Patricia only a quitclaim deed, whereas Patricia 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 6

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.

Question 7

CASE PROBLEM WITH SAMPLE ANSWER: Eminent Domain.
The Hope Partnership for Education, a religious organization, proposed to build a private independent middle school in a blighted neighborhood 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 1839 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 [ Redevelopment Authority of City of Philadelphia v. New Eastwick Corp., 588 Pa. 789, 906 A.2d 1197 (2006)]

Question 8

Ownership in Fee Simple Thomas and Teresa Cline built a house on a 76-acre parcel of real estate next to Roy Berg's home and property in Augusta County, 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 that 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.F.2d 231 (2007)]

Question 9

Commercial Lease Terms Gi Hwa Park entered into a lease with Landmark HHH, LLC, for retail space in the Plaza at Landmark, a shopping center in Virginia. The lease required the landlord to keep the roof "in good repair" and the tenant to obtain insurance on her inventory and absolve the landlord from any losses to the extent of the insurance proceeds. Park opened a store-The Four Seasons-in the space, specializing in imported men's suits and accessories. Within a month, and continuing for nearly eight years, water intermittently leaked through the roof, causing damage. Landmark eventually had a new roof installed, but water continued to leak into The Four Seasons. On a night of record rainfall, the store suffered substantial water damage, and Park was forced to close. On what basis might Park seek to recover from Landmark What might Landmark assert in response Which party's argument is more likely to succeed, and why [ Landmark HHH, LLC v. Gi Hwa Park, 277 Va. 50, 671 S.E.2d 143 (2009)]

Question 10

Adverse Possession In 1974, the Mansells built a shed with a dirt floor, to be used as a three-car garage, at the back of their property. This shed went beyond the Mansells' property line and encroached approximately fourteen feet on the neighboring property. The neighbor knew of the encroachment and informally approved it, but did not transfer ownership of the property. In 2001, Betty Hunter bought the neighbor's property. The survey done at that time revealed the encroachment. In 2003, Hunter's attorney notified the Mansells about the encroachment, and the parties held some informal conversations but did not reach an agreement. In 2006, the Mansells installed a concrete foundation and ran electricity to the structure. Hunter then sought a declaratory judgment that she was the fee simple owner of the property partially covered by the garage that encroached on her property, and demanded the removal of the encroaching structure. The Mansells filed a counterclaim arguing that the possession of the property from 1974 to 2001 gave them ownership by adverse possession. The trial court held that the property still belonged to Hunter, but did not order removal of the garage. Hunter and Mrs. Mansell (whose husband had died in the meantime) both appealed. Did the open occupation of the property for twenty-eight years give Mansell title by adverse possession Why or why not [ Hunter v. Mansell, ___ P.3d ___ (Colo.App. 2010)]

Question 11

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 Karlins 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, occupy about a third of the Center's space under a five-year lease. Because of Ring's financial difficulties, Armstrong hud agreed to reduce its rent for nine months in 1997. By the time of the sal e 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, misrep resentation. [ Kailin v. Armstrong, 2002 WI App 70, 252 Wis.2d 676, 643 N.W.2d 132 (2002)]
(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 12

SPECIAL CASE ANALYSIS: Eminent Domain.
Go to Extended Case 50.3, Kelo v. City of New London, Connecticut , 545 U.S. 469, 125 S.Ct. 2655, 162 L.Ed.2d 439 (2005), on pages 989-990. Read the excerpt and answer the following questions.
(a) Issue: On what issue did the Court focus
(b) Rule of Law: What does the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which the Court applied, require with respect to the legal issue in this case
(c) Applying the Rule of Law: How did the Court apply the rule of law to the facts of this case
(d) Conclusion: What was the Court's conclusion