PACE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW

1. Ken owns property that has wetland characteristics. Recently a small rare songbird known as the left-winged twiddler has been found living there. After Ken bought his property, the state legislature passed a new law to prevent the destruction of twiddler habitat. Ken would have a good chance of showing a compensable taking under the US Constitution:

a. If the new law to protect twiddler habitat deprives Ken's land of all of its economic value.

b. If the state takes physical possession and ownership of a substantial part (say, 40%) of Ken's land to use as a twiddler sanctuary.

c. Both of the above.

d. If the new law to protect twiddler habitat imposes use restrictions that deprive Ken's land of a substantial part (say, 40%) of its economic value.

e. All of the above.

2. Reanswer the previous question.

3. Martin Trapper caught a ferret in one of his "have-a-heart" traps. Later, seeing a sign about a lost ferret on a telephone pole, he called the number and made contact with Arthur Pett, who claimed to be the owner of a lost ferret. When the Pett refused to pay a reward, Trapper refused to turn over ferret.

a. If the ferret has animus revertendi, responding to Pett's calls, then Trapper probably has no lawful choice but to turn it over to Pett.

b. If ferrets of the type are not found naturally in area, and Pett can prove that he had lost a similar ferret nearby, in the appropriate time frame, then Trapper probably has no lawful choice but to turn the ferret over to Pett.

c. If the ferret has Pett's brand on it, then Trapper probably has no lawful choice but to turn it over to Pett.

d. All of the above.

4. Reanswer the previous question.

5. Fred made a contract to buy Greenacre. He made some payments under the contract but never received a deed. However, he took possession and built a small cabin there. After Fred's death, Eastland took actual possession of Greenacre, which was adjacent to his own land. Eastland erroneously believed that Greenacre was included under his own deed. About 2 years after Fred's death, his sole heir discovered that Fred had been in possession of Greenacre until his death. The heir has brought an ejectment action against Eastland.

a. Eastland should be able to successfully defend the ejectment action by pointing out that Fred never received a deed to Greenacre.

b. The court should award possession of Greenacre to the heir.

c. The heir's action will probably fail because the heir never had possession of Greenacre.

d. It cannot be determined whether or not the heir's action will succeed because the facts do not say how many years Fred was in possession of Greenacre before his death.

6. Reanswer the previous question.

7. In 1980, 15 years ago, Tom entered into adverse possession of Bill's land. Suppose that the local Statute of Limitations provides for a 21 year period to recover possession, with a 10 year 'disability' period, just like the Statute of Limitations we studied in class. The time that it would take for Tom to acquire a ripened title to Bill's land:

a. Would be more than 21 years if Bill had a 'disability' at the time Tom entered possession and still continues to have it.

b. Would be more than 21 years if Bill had a 'disability' at the time Tom entered possession and the 'disability' was removed in 1984, 11 years ago.

c. Would be 31 years if Bill had a 'disability' at the time Tom entered possession and still continues to have it for several years after the end of the basic 21 year period.

d. Could be more than 21 years if Bill acquired a 'disability' a year after Tom entered possession.

8. Reanswer the previous question.

9. In early 1985, Randall took actual possession of a part of a 4-acre parcel of land believing that he owned it all. In fact, the 4 acres belonged to Esther. Randall's acts of possession over the past 10 years have been exclusively concentrated in the easterly 2 acres of the parcel. After 10 continuous years of sole and open possession of such 2 acres (with nobody in actual possession of the other 2 acres), Randall would presumptively have a ripened title to:

a. The whole 4 acres, whether or not he had a deed or other color of title purporting to convey the whole 4 acres to him.

b. The whole 4 acres, but only if he had a deed or other color of title purporting to convey the whole 4 acres to him.

c. At least the easterly 2 acres that he possessed, but only if he had a deed or other color of title purporting to convey at least that 2 acres to him.

d. None of the above.

10. Reanswer the previous question.

11. In the preceding question, Randall's claim to a ripened title could be defeated simply by showing that:

a. Randall did not fully pay the property taxes accruing on the 4 acres during the 10 years of alleged adverse possession.

b. Esther, the true owner, had died in 1993, and her heir has had an ejectment action only since then, far less than the time he is entitled to under the Statute of Limitations.

c. Randall found out in 1989 that Esther was the true owner and he told Esther he'd appreciate being allowed to continue using the land for a few more years. Esther agreed.

d. Randall never had a deed purporting to convey any part of the 4 acres to him.

12. Reanswer the previous question.

Facts for Dave's Fence questions

Dave built a new fence between his backyard and his next door neighbor's. The fence was placed about 15 inches onto the neighbor's property, putting a 15" strip of the neighbor's property in Dave's possession. Dave has been cultivating a summer flower garden on this 15" strip ever since the fence was built. Recently Dave's neighbor, in connection with selling his house, had a survey done that showed the mislocation of the fence.

13. When the above facts were pointed out to Dave, he said: "After all this time, I think the fence should stay where it is."

a. If Dave built the fence more than 10 years ago, it can probably stay where it is.

b. If Dave built the fence more than 10 years ago, Dave's neighbor acquired an ejectment action that accrued 10 years after Dave built the fence.

c. Both of the above.

d. If Dave built the fence 7 years ago, the period of limitations would have to start over again if a new owner takes title to the neighbor's house.

14. Reanswer the previous question.

15. Suppose that Dave placed the fence where he did due to an honest measurement error. Suppose also that when the facts were pointed out to Dave, he apologized profusely, claimed he had made an "honest mistake," and promised to move the fence to the correct property line as soon as warmer weather returns. Now Dave has changed his mind and does not want to move the fence. Even if Dave built the fence more than 10 years ago:

a. Dave might never have acquired a ripened title to the 15" strip (at least in some states) because his possession of the strip was apparently due to an honest mistake.

b. By apologizing, claiming mistake, and promising to relocate the fence, Dave might (at least in some states) have undercut his ability to claim to a ripened title to the 15" strip.

c. Both of the above.

d. By apologizing, claiming mistake, and promising to relocate the fence, Dave would (at least in some states) have effectively relinquished any ripened title that he might have acquired by virtue of his previous adverse possession.

e. All of the above.

16. Reanswer the previous question.

17. The local Statute of Limitations on trespass is 6 years. Once the Statute of Limitations on ejectment has run, and Dave has acquired a ripened title to the strip:

a. His neighbor can still recover damages for injuries to the land occurring during the past 6 years.

b. His neighbor can still recover damages for injuries to the land occurring during the past 6 years, except for those occurring after title ripened in Dave.

c. His neighbor can still recover damages for injuries to the land occurring during the last 6 years of Dave's adverse possession (that is, before title ripened in Dave).

d. His neighbor cannot recover damages in a trespass action against Dave.

18. Reanswer the previous question.

19. Westland took actual adverse possession of 5 acres of Whiteacre, a 7-acre parcel, in the erroneous belief that Whiteacre was included in the deed under which he held his own adjacent land. If some squatters later moved a trailer home onto Whiteacre and began living there:

a. Westland would be able to remove the squatters in an ejectment action, provided the squatters occupied an area of Whiteacre that Westland had a claim of right to (but did not actually possess) at the time they entered.

b. Westland would be able to remove the squatters in an ejectment action, provided the squatters occupied an area of Whiteacre that Westland actually possessed at the time they entered.

c. Both of the above.

d. Westland would not be able to remove the squatters in an ejectment action because he himself does not have any title to Whiteacre.

20. Reanswer the previous question.

21. Ophelia was on her deathbed when she handed a silver locket to Annette saying: "I won't be needing this anymore. I want you to have it." Annette took the locket and said: "Thanks."

a. There has presumptively been an inter vivos gift of the locket.

b. There has presumptively been a gift causa mortis of the locket.

c. It cannot be determined from the facts given what kind of gift there presumptively was of the locket.

d. On these facts, there would not be considered to be any gift of the locket yet, because Ophelia has not yet died.

22. Reanswer the previous question.

23. Suppose that Ophelia was healthy and in no peril when she handed a silver locket to Annette saying: "I always thought this would look great on you. I want you to have it. It's yours." Annette took the locket and said: "Thanks." If Ophelia then took the locket back, at Annette's suggestion, and wore it until her death several years later, a court should most likely hold that:

a. There has presumptively been a gift causa mortis of the locket.

b. It cannot be determined from the facts given what kind of gift there was of the locket.

c. The donor had become the bailee of the donee.

d. On these facts, there would not be considered to be any gift of the locket yet, because the delivery requirement has not been met.

24. Reanswer the previous question.

25. Suppose that Olivia was healthy and in no peril when she handed a key to Alfie saying: "Here's the key to my safe deposit box down at the bank. There's a letter signed by George Washington in the box, and I want you to have it. It's yours." Alfie took the key and said: "Thanks" but, for a variety of reasons, he did not retrieve the letter until after Olivia's death. There was a note in the box with the letter, signed by Olivia, stating that she had given the Washington letter to Alfie. In holding Alfie to be the owner of the Washington letter, a court would most likely reason that:

a. Based on the clear donative intent stated in Olivia's note found in the box, the requirement that the letter itself be delivered can be dispensed with.

b. There has been a constructive delivery by means of the key.

c. Olivia's note in the box can be treated as a "deed" of gift, so the requirement of delivering the letter itself can be dispensed with on these facts.

d. All of the above.

e. None of the above. A court would not hold Alfie to be the owner of the Washington letter.

26. Reanswer the previous question.

27. While in a hospital in waiting to undergo a possibly fatal operation, Linton Naval gave a gold wristwatch to his life companion, Saralee. Later that evening, before the operation, Linton suffered a fatal stroke from a cause unrelated to the condition for which he was going to be operated on.

a. Linton could probably have revoked the gift to Saralee at any time up to his death.

b. The gift is probably revoked by virtue of the fact that Linton did not die from the operation that he was in apprehension of when he made the gift.

c. The gift would quite definitely be considered revoked if Saralee was tragically killed in a car crash on the way home from the hospital just minutes after Linton died from his stroke.

d. All of the above.

28. Reanswer the previous question.

29. Grayson Mookouse was a cattle rancher who wanted to give a horse to his daughter, Kate, for her 12th birthday. To meet the delivery requirement:

a. Grayson's daughter could ride the horse around for a while.

b. Grayson could make up a deed of gift and hand it to his daughter.

c. By some authority it would be sufficient to have the horse branded with a brand registered in his daughter's name.

d. All of the above.

30. Reanswer the previous question.

31. Suppose that Grayson wanted to give a horse to his married son, Jason, who lived 5 miles away. Suppose also that Grayson said to his daughter, Kate: "Please ride Trigger (the horse) over to Jason's place and leave it with him. I want Jason to own it." While Kate is still on the way to Jason's with the horse:

a. Grayson remains free to revoke the gift if Kate was acting as agent for Grayson in taking the horse to her brother's.

b. Grayson remains free to revoke the gift if Kate was acting as agent for Jason in taking the horse to his place.

c. Both of the above.

d. None of the above. This being an inter vivos gift, Grayson has no power to revoke it whatsoever once he has clearly expressed his donative intent and directed his daughter to make the delivery.

32. Reanswer the previous question.

33. Suppose that Grayson, on his deathbed from a severe kick in the head, wanted to give his silver and turquoise cowboy belt buckle to his son, Jason, who lived 5 miles away. Suppose that Grayson said to his daughter, Kate: "Please hold on to this belt buckle and see that your brother gets it if I don't recover." Kate asked: "Why don't you just give it to him now?" Grayson said: "Well, I may still need it. I may yet recover." If Grayson dies from the injury without indicating any intention to revoke the gift:

a. This gift should fail because the donor was equivocal in expressing his donative intent, imposing a condition so that he could elect to get the buckle back again.

b. This gift should fail because the intermediary appears to be acting solely on behalf of the donor.

c. This gift should succeed as a valid gift causa mortis through an intermediary. The condition expressed by the donor should not prevent a finding of donative intent because the gift is causa mortis.

d. This gift should succeed as a valid inter vivos gift of a future interest through an intermediary.

34. Reanswer the previous question.

35. Suppose that Grayson, on his deathbed from a severe kick in the head, gave a horse to his daughter. Later, still on his deathbed, Grayson executed a will that made a specific bequest of the very same horse (Trigger) to Grayson's nephew. After Grayson's death, Trigger would probably belong to:

a. Grayson's daughter. A subsequent will cannot revoke a prior gift.

b. Grayson's nephew. A specific bequest in a subsequent will can revoke a prior gift causa mortis.

c. Grayson's nephew. Whenever a donor makes conflicting gifts to different people, the donor's most recent expression of intention normally controls.

d. Grayson's nephew, even if Grayson expressly intended the deathbed gift to his daughter to be operative "whether I live or die."

36. Reanswer the previous question.

37. Suppose that, while shopping at Clarence's Market, Dobson accidentally dropped a valuable fountain pen on the floor as he reached in his pocket for cash to pay the cashier. Later that day, Clarence notices the pen on the floor:

a. If he does nothing about the pen, Clarence would not be under the slightest duty of care as a bailee to prevent another person from taking the pen.

b. In some jurisdictions, it would be proper to apply the rules applicable to mislaid property to determine who has the right to possess the pen

c. Even if Clarence picks up the pen and takes it back to his store office, he would not be considered to be a bailee of the pen because possession has come to him "involuntarily."

d. If Clarence assumes bailee responsibilities with respect to the pen, he would under the better rule be absolutely liable for misdelivery if the pen is claimed by and "returned" to the wrong person.

38. Reanswer the previous question.

Facts for Redacre questions

Dante conveyed Redacre to Zoe for life, remainder to Eschaton. While Zoe had her life estate, Poneros, a wrongdoer, entered onto to Redacre and cut down a substantial amount of timber, reducing the market value of Redacre by $240,000.

39. In jurisdictions applying the Winkfield principle to such situations:

a. Zoe should be able to recover only the value of reasonable estovers from Poneros.

b. Zoe should be able to recover from Poneros only the amount by which the wrongful timber cutting reduced the value of Zoe's life estate in Redacre.

c. Zoe should be able to recover the full $240,000 from Poneros, and keep it all, once recovered.

d. Zoe should be able to recover the full $240,000 from Poneros, but must share it with Eschaton according to their respective interests in Redacre.

40. Reanswer the previous question.

41. In jurisdictions that do not apply the Winkfield principle to such situations:

a. Zoe should be able to recover the full $240,000 from Poneros, and keep it all, once recovered.

b. Zoe should be able to recover from Poneros only the damages caused to Zoe's life estate in Redacre.

c. Zoe should be able to recover the full $240,000 from Poneros, but must share it with Eschaton according to their respective interests in Redacre.

d. Eschaton should be able to immediately recover, in a separate action of trespass against Poneros, the amount by which the wrongful timber cutting reduced the value of Redacre.

42. Reanswer the previous question.

43. In determining the value of Zoe's life interest in Redacre:

a. Zoe's age would be a very important factor, the younger she is the more valuable her interest.

b. Eschaton's age would be a very important factor, the younger he is (in relation to Zoe) the more valuable his interest.

c. Both of the above.

d. A court would look first and foremost to the uses, if any, that Zoe was actually making of the timber cut by Poneros.

44. Reanswer the previous question.

45. Dabny and a friend were sitting in a boat fishing in a large lake. Dabny caught a trophy-sized trout. Within minutes the trout flipped itself out of the boat and back into the lake. Several weeks later, Delovoise caught the same trout (identifiable because it had a natural marking in the form of a letter "V" on one of its fins). Dabny saw the trout at a taxidermy shop and claimed it. His friend confirms the identification.

a. Dabny acquired a right to possess the trout when he caught it.

b. By catching the trout, Dabny engaged in a act of "original acquisition."

c. As between Delovoise and Dabny, Delovoise is probably entitled to trout.

d. All of the above.

46. Reanswer the previous question.

47. Suppose that Dabny and his friend reached the lake where they were fishing by motoring their boat down a small navigable-in-fact river on which Dabny has a cabin. Although the lake is in the public domain, the bed of the river is privately owned by the respective adjacent upland owners. Under the common law rule:

a. Dabny and his friend would not be considered trespassers merely because they navigated in navigable-in-fact waters overlying a privately owned riverbed.

b. Dabny and his friend would be considered trespassers because their navigation activities took them into privately owned airspace over the riverbed.

c. Dabny and his friend would not be considered trespassers provided they touched only the water, but touching the privately-owned bed or bank of the river would definitely constitute a trespass.

d. Dabny and his friend would be considered trespassers while on the river unless it was the custom of the area to allow people to navigate over privately owned riverbeds.

48. Reanswer the previous question.

49. Suppose that Dabny and his friend, while boating through a privately owned stretch of navigable river, decided to stop and fish from the shore. The place where they chose to stop was an undeveloped tract of land owned by Urboff. When Dabny's friend asked if fishing from the shore there was okay, Dabny said: "Urboff won't mind. He said I could come onto his land to pick up driftwood any time I wanted." If Urboff has really said this to Dabny:

a. Dabny would almost certainly not be committing a trespass by fishing in that location, but his friend would be.

b. Urboff could not legally prevent Dabny from collecting driftwood on his (Urboff's) land in the future.

c. Dabny would appear to be exceeding the scope of his license by going on shore to fish at that location.

d. Probably neither Dabny nor his friend could be considered trespassers for merely fishing from Urboff's shore land because there is a general common-law presumption that undeveloped tracts of land are open to public fishing.

50. Reanswer the previous question.

Facts for Fenton-jewel questions

While replacing a malfunctioning electrical outlet in Fenton's newly purchased house, an electrician found a valuable jewel hidden in a small cavity inside the wall. (The electrician was a contractor engaged by Fenton but not Fenton's employee.) The true owner of the jewel is not known.

51. As between Fenton and the electrician:

a. Fenton should have the better claim to the jewel if the jurisdiction follows the so-called English rule with respect to finding.

b. The electrician should have the better claim to the jewel if the jurisdiction follows the so-called English rule with respect to finding.

c. Fenton should have a better claim to the jewel because, when you buy a house, you generally acquire the ownership of everything in it.

d. As neither Fenton nor the electrician is the true owner of jewel, most courts would decline to let either of them have it.

52. Reanswer the previous question.

53. Fenton made the mistake of disclosing the find to Garth, the person who sold him house. Garth said that he had no idea the jewel was there, but he claimed it nevertheless.

a. Fenton should have a better claim to the jewel than Garth if the jurisdiction follows the so-called English rule with respect to finding.

b. Garth should have a better claim to the jewel than Fenton if the jurisdiction follows the so-called English rule with respect to finding.

c. Fenton should have a better claim to the jewel because, when you buy a house, you generally acquire the ownership of everything in it.

d. As neither Fenton nor Garth is the true owner of jewel, most courts would decline to let either of them have it.

54. Reanswer the previous question.

55. Fenton took the jewel to a jeweller to let him examine and appraise it. The next day, when Fenton came to retrieve the jewel the jeweller told him, apologetically, that it had been taken in an overnight burglary. In most jurisdictions:

a. The jeweller would be held liable for the loss of the jewel, even if he was demonstrably not negligent, because he took possession of the jewel and is unable to return it.

b. In order to make out a prima facie case of negligence against the jeweller, Fenton must introduce evidence showing how the jeweller was negligent.

c. There would be a rebuttable presumption that the loss of the jewel was due to the jeweller's negligence.

d. Even in the absence of negligence the jeweller could be held liable for the loss of the jewel because he misdelivered it to the burglar.

56. Reanswer the previous question.

57. Dexter found a loose board on his porch. He went to his neighbor's house and asked to "borrow a hammer and some nails." The neighbor complied. Given the most likely intent of the parties:

a. There was a bailment of the hammer and of the nails that Dexter used to fix his porch.

b. There was a bailment of the hammer, and a transfer of title to the nails that Dexter used to fix his porch.

c. There was a transfer of title to the hammer and the nails that Dexter used to fix his porch.

d. There was a transfer of title to the hammer, and a bailment of the nails that Dexter used to fix his porch.

58. Reanswer the previous question.

59. Suppose that after using the hammer that he had borrowed from his neighbor, Dexter decided he liked it so much that he was just going to keep it.

a. Dexter would be guilty of common law larceny.

b. Dexter would be liable for conversion of the hammer.

c. Both of the above.

d. None of the above. Dexter would be considered the owner of the hammer until he gave it back to his neighbor.

60. Reanswer the previous question.

61. Arnold left his car at a lot owned and operated by Apex Parking Co. While the car was parked on the Apex lot, someone stole it. Apex would probably be held liable for the loss of the car if:

a. Arnold's car was parked by an Apex employee, who kept the key to the car.

b. Arnold had received a license to park his car in the Apex lot.

c. Apex charged Arnold a fee for the parking in the lot.

d. All of the above.

62. Reanswer the previous question.

63. Arnold left his car in the possession of the Apex Parking Co. While the car was in the possession of Apex, a valuable piccolo was stolen from under the car's front seat. Apex had no knowledge or reason to know that the piccolo was under the seat when it took possession of the car. The better theory for not holding Apex liable for the loss of the piccolo is that:

a. Apex was not a bailee of the car.

b. Apex was in no sense a bailee of the piccolo.

c. An ordinarily prudent person takes no particular steps to protect an object that he does not know or have reason to know exists.

d. None of the above. The better rule would be to hold Apex liable for the loss of the piccolo.

64. Reanswer the previous question.

65. Winsome owned 500 shares of stock in HiState Insurance Company. In the presence of witnesses, he declared himself to be "trustee" of the stock for the benefit of his nephew, Randolph.

a. Winsome would still have legal title to the shares.

b. Equitable title to the shares would now belong to Randolph, no delivery being necessary.

c. Both of the above.

d. Randolph would have no title to the shares, there having been no delivery.

66. Reanswer the previous question.

67. Calcutt executed a conveyance of Floweracre, which he owned in fee simple, to Lemon for life, with the remainder to Ratner. Twelve years ago, an adverse possessor entered into possession of Floweracre, and has possessed openly and continuously ever since. Lemon died four years ago:

a. If the adverse possessor entered before Calcutt's conveyance, then the adverse possessor may well now have a ripened title in fee simple.

b. If the adverse possessor entered after Calcutt's conveyance, then the adverse possessor may well now have a ripened title in fee simple.

c. Both of the above.

d. None of the above. At present the adverse possessor can, at best, have a ripened title to a life estate in Floweracre.

68. Reanswer the previous question.

69. In 1993 Mary and Darrell Kitchner bought a house on a four acre lot. When their neighbors, the Gluggs, built a new driveway in 1994 they modified a small stream so that it floods part of the Kitchners' land. The Kitchners have sued the Gluggs for permanent depreciation of their land. The Gluggs' attorney has found a defectively executed 1986 deed in the Kitchners' chain of title. The Gluggs were not a party to the 1986 deed and have no legal interest under it.

a. In some states the Gluggs would be able to rely on the defective execution of the 1986 deed to prevent the Kitchners from recovering permanent damages.

b. To be consistent with the rule against allowing jus tertii defenses, the Gluggs should not be allowed to assert the defective execution of the 1986 deed against the Kitchners.

c. Both of the above.

d. If the proof shows that the Kitchners do not own "their" lot and house which they occupy, they should not be able to recover any trespass damages at all from the Gluggs.

e. All of the above.

70. Reanswer the previous question.

71. During a large storm, Elgar's 25' boat washed up on land belonging to Goddard. In the process it did about $5000 of damage--through absolutely no fault of Elgar. Removing the boat will do an additional $2000 damage to Goddard's land.

a. Under some authority, Elgar would have a qualified privilege to retrieve his boat if he pays Goddard for the $2000 of additional damage that would be caused by retrieval, but Goddard could not force Elgar to pay $5000 for the damage already done.

b. Under some authority, Goddard could demand that Elgar pay up to $7000, including $5000 for the damage already done, for the privilege of retrieving his boat from Goddard's land.

c. Both of the above.

d. None of the above. If Goddard demands that Elgar pay him for the privilege of retrieving his boat from Goddard's land, Goddard would be considered a converter.

72. Reanswer the previous question.

73. Ingvald conveyed Stoneacre "to Asker and his heirs, so long as the land is used as a family farmstead, but if the land ceases to be so used, the grantor may re-enter and take possession."

a. If a court decides that these words of conveyance create a fee simple determinable then Ingvald has a right of re-entry.

b. Disregarding the last clause (beginning "but if..."), these words of conveyance would seem to create a fee simple on special limitation.

c. If it were not for the last clause (beginning "but if..."), these words of conveyance would seem to create a fee simple absolute because a retained right to get the land back (a "forfeiture") cannot be implied.

d. If Ingvald has a right of re-entry under these words, then possession will automatically return to him if the stated event (ceasing farmstead use) occurs.

74. Reanswer the previous question.

75. Suppose that Ingvald had leased Stoneacre to Asker "for 100 years, on the condition that the land is used as a family farmstead, but if the land ceases to be used as a family farmstead then the lessor may re-enter and resume possession as of his previous estate."

a. The resulting conveyance would be basically analogous to the old subinfeudation of estates in fee.

b. Asker would be a tenant and therefore he would be legally considered an owner of a property interest in the land.

c. A court would probably interpret this conveyance as creating a lease on condition.

d. These words of conveyance would seem to result in Ingvald's having an interest known as a right of re-entry for condition broken.

e. All of the above.

76. Reanswer the previous question.

77. The person who has a present life estate in Blackacre is called a life "tenant" because:

a. She is the holder of a right to possess the land at the present time.

b. She is, in effect, in a landlord-tenant relationship, except that the duration of her estate happens to be measured by someone's lifetime.

c. There was historically some confusion between life estates and terms of years, the only estate to which the term "tenant" strictly speaking applies.

d. None of the above. It is not proper to refer to the person who has a life estate as a life "tenant."

78. Reanswer the previous question.

79. Talbott owns a fossil skull of a Tyrannosaurus Rex. If he gives his daughter a "remainder" interest in the skull, while retaining a "life estate" in it:

a. The legal effect would be essentially identical to that of a will bequeathing the skull to his daughter.

b. Talbott should be able to revoke the arrangement at any time prior to his death, as long as he still has possession of the skull.

c. The daughter's rights to the skull would be cut off if Talbott later makes an unconditional gift of it to the Museum of Natural History.

d. Talbott would, once the gift is made, cease to have any legal power to control the right to possess the skull during any time after his death.

80. Reanswer the previous question.

<End of examination.>