Larceny and Adverse Possession in Property Law, Exams of Law

Download Larceny and Adverse Possession in Property Law and more Exams Law in PDF only on Docsity!

David Mungai [COMPANY NAME] [Company address]

MBE Mixed-subject MBE PQs Session 4

Multistate Bar Examination 2025 Exam 2

Review Questions and Answers | 100%

Pass | Graded +

MBE Mixed-subject MBE PQs Session 4

Multistate Bar Examination 2025 Exam 2

Review Questions and Answers | 100%

Pass | Graded +

delegation liability - Answer>> When obligations are delegated, the delegator is not released from liability, and recovery can be had against the delegator if the delegate does not perform, unless the other party to the contract agrees to release that party and substitute a new one (a novation) Larceny and Borrowing - Answer>> Larceny is the (i) trespassory (ii) taking and carrying away - this element of the crime, also known as asportation, requires only a slight movement of the property.(iii) of the personal property of another (iv) with the intent to permanently deprive that person of the property. If the defendant intends only to borrow the property with the ability to do so, then larceny does not occur because there is no intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property Moreover, if property is taken with the intent to return the property and the property is accidently damaged or destroyed before it is returned, larceny has not occurred. Insurance Evidence - Answer>> Evidence that a person was or was not insured against liability is not admissible to prove (or disprove) negligence of wrongdoing. Evidence that is both material and probative, or relevant, is admissible only if it is not excluded by a specific rule. There is a public policy exclusion for evidence that a person was or was not insured, and thus such evidence is not admissible even though it may be relevant.

residence on the land with his friend and maintain the two acres of his property that surrounded the residence. After the farmer died, the farmer's friend continued to live in the residence and maintain the two acres. The friend believed that she was the owner of the farm pursuant to the terms of the farmer's will, prepared shortly before his death, which specifically devised the farm to her. Unbeknownst to the farmer's friend, the farmer, several years before his death, had deeded ownership of the farm to his son, which the son did not record. The son became estranged from his father shortly thereafter and did not learn of his father's death for 11 years. Recently, the son brought an ejectment action against the farmer's friend.The statute of limitations for adverse possession in the applicab - Answer>> Under the doctrine of adverse possession, ownership of real property is transferred to a person who exercises open, notorious, hostile, and exclusive physical possession of that property for a certain amount of time. If a person enters property under color of title (a facially valid will or deed) and actually possesses only a portion of the property, then constructive adverse possession can give title to the whole. Here, several years before his death, the farmer transferred ownership of the farm to his son. Consequently, the farmer's provision in his will that devised the farm to the farmer's friend was not effective. However, for 11 years after the farmer's death, the farmer's friend occupied the residence on the farm and maintained the two acres surrounding it. Because the applicable jurisdiction has a 10-year statute of limitations, the farmer's friend has adversely possessed the residence and the two acres surrounding it. Although the friend did not actually possess the remaining 98 acres of the farm, the friend likely constructively adversely possessed the 98 acres through color of title as the friend erroneously thought that she owned the entire farm based on the farmer's will. Answer choice A is incorrect. The son's failure to record the deed to the farm does not void his father's transfer of the farm to him. Moreover, although the farmer's friend did not have notice of the earlier

conveyance of the property to the son, the recording act does not give the friend ownership of the farm because the friend was not a bona fide purchaser of the farm and therefore is not protected by the act. Answer choice C is incorrect. Although adverse possession generally requires a person to be in actual possession of the property, a person who enters property under color of title (a facially valid will or deed) and actually poss Tenant's Change to Property - Answer>> A tenant is entitled to make changes to the physical condition of the leased property that are reasonably necessary for the tenant to use the property in a reasonable manner, unless the landlord and tenant agree otherwise. Here, the sculptor and the landlord agreed that the property would remain as-is, thus the sculptor committed ameliorative waste. Ameliorative waste occurs when a change in use of the property increases the value of the property. A corporation owned large, above-ground tanks that were used to store petroleum. The corporation's construction and use of these tanks for this purpose predated the adoption by the city of a zoning ordinance that prohibited such structures in the area. As required by the ordinance, the corporation filed a notice of non- conforming use with the proper zoning authority, but inadvertently failed to include payment of the required filing fee. Due to a drop in the demand for petroleum, the corporation decided to stop using the tanks. For one year while looking for a buyer for the tanks, the corporation kept the empty tanks in good repair. The corporation then acquired another corporation and transferred title to the tanks to that corporation. The wholly owned subsidiary corporation plans to use the tanks to store liquid asphalt.Of the following issues, which is least likely to serve as proper grounds for the zoning authori - Answer>> Answer choice C is correct. Here, the parent corporation's use of the storage tanks on its property prior to the adopted zoning ordinance constitutes a nonconforming use that is permitted to continue. It is generally

modification of a product by the user in a manner that is neither intended by nor reasonably foreseeable to the manufacturer typically negates liability. The textile iron was not intended to be used to dry something as combustible as an oil painting, and this misuse of the iron will probably prevent the housecleaner from recovering. Domestic Animal - Answer>> A domestic animal's owner is only strictly liable for injuries caused by that animal if he knows or has reason to know of the animal's dangerous propensities, and the harm results from those dangerous propensities. taking - Answer>> A taking has occurred when a government's action results in a permanent physical occupation of private property by the government or a third party. It is not relevant that it was installed on an unused portion of the property. The mere fact that a government action adversely affects a property owner's interest is not enough to establish a taking, requiring just compensation. A variance - Answer>> When a property owner proposes to use her property in a manner that does not conform with the uses permitted by a zoning ordinance for the property, the owner should seek a variance from the zoning enforcement officer. a special use exemption may sometimes be sought as an alternative to a variance, a special use exemption requires the enumeration of the special use in the zoning ordinance as a use that can be permitted in a zone if a permit is obtained. A temporary restraining order (TRO) - Answer>> A temporary restraining order (TRO) preserves the status quo of the parties

until there is a full hearing on the application for a preliminary injunction. This temporary injunction remains in effect for an amount of days to be set by the court, but no longer than 14 days unless good cause exists or by consent of the adversary. Congress's power to tax - Answer>> As long as a tax has a reasonable relationship to revenue production, Congress may exercise its power to tax for any public purpose. the Congressional power to tax is not limited to activities over which Congress otherwise has the power to regulate, such as interstate commerce. Article I, Sec. 2 does require that all direct taxes be apportioned among the states based on their population, the tax on tickets for passenger train travel is not a direct tax, but rather an indirect tax Mortgage Liability Assumption - Answer>> If the transferee- buyer assumes the mortgage obligation, then, upon default, the transferee-buyer, as well as the mortgagor-borrower, is personally liable to the lender. If the transferee-buyer takes title "subject to" an existing mortgage obligation, then the transferee-buyer is not personally liable upon default, but the property may be sold at a foreclosure sale to satisfy the outstanding mortgage loan obligation. If there a deficiency after distribution of the sale proceeds, only the transferor-seller is personally liable for it. If a deed is silent or ambiguous as to the transferee-buyer's liability, then the transferee-buyer is considered to have taken the property subject to the mortgage obligation. Here, the second and third owners did not assume the mortgage obligation, but instead took the property subject to the mortgage. Consequently, only the original owner as the mortgagor-borrower is liable for the mortgage obligation that remains after the proceeds from the foreclosure sale are applied to this debt.

The evidence of the ex-girlfriend's past sexual misconduct may be admissible because the plaintiff's claim concerns the ex- girlfriend's sexual assault of the plaintiff, and the ten-year restriction on criminal convictions does not apply. Arrest of Wanted Suspect - Answer>> In situations in which a felony has been committed outside the presence of the one making the arrest, a police officer may arrest anyone whom he has probable cause to believe has committed a felony. In other words, there must be sufficient facts or evidence to lead a reasonable person to believe that a suspect has committed a crime. In this case, the officer reasonably had probable cause to believe that the man was the wanted suspect because he fit the description of the suspect. Larceny and Permanent Loss - Answer>> Larceny is the (i) trespassory (ii) taking and carrying away (iii) of the personal property of another (iv) with the intent to permanently deprive that person of the property. Here, the neighbor lacked the intent to permanently deprive the owner of his new car because the neighbor intended to return the car to the owner when the owner's spouse returned home at the end of the week. Although there is sufficient intent for larceny if the defendant intends to create a substantial risk of loss of the property, here the neighbor drove the car only a short distance (from the owner's driveway to the neighbor's garage) and left the car in the neighbor's garage. Consequently, the facts do not suggest that the neighbor created a substantial risk that the owner would suffer a permanent loss of his new car. An individual owed a friend $20,000. The friend told the individual that he would accept title to land held by a mutual acquaintance in payment of the debt. The individual entered into an oral agreement to pay $18,000 to the acquaintance who promised to

transfer title to the land to the friend. Subsequently, the acquaintance acknowledged the terms of her agreement with the individual in a signed writing. On the day set for closing, the individual paid the acquaintance $18,000, but the acquaintance refused to transfer title to the friend.Can the friend sue the acquaintance to compel the acquaintance to transfer title to the friend? - Answer>> In general, an intended beneficiary is one to whom the promise of the performance will satisfy the obligation of the promisee to pay money to the beneficiary or the circumstances indicate that the promisee intends to give the beneficiary the benefit of the promised performance. Here, the agreement between the individual and the acquaintance clearly indicates that the friend was an intended beneficiary. Consequently, because the individual has performed his part of the bargain, the friend, as the intended beneficiary, can compel the acquaintance to perform her part. Although generally a party who breaches a contract is only liable for damages, because land is the subject of the contract, the acquaintance can be compelled to transfer title to the property itself. Answer choice A is incorrect because a promisor can raise any defense against the third-party beneficiary that the promisor had against the original promisee. However, as discussed below with regard to answer choice C, the acquaintance cannot rely on the Statute of Frauds as a defense to this action. Answer choice C is incorrect. Although the Statute of Frauds makes an oral agreement to transfer land unenforceable, the acquaintance signed a written memorandum of that agreement. This is sufficient to satisfy the Statute of Frauds even though the memorandum was prepared and signed after the parties entered into the agreement. Consequently, although a promisor can raise any defense against the third-party beneficiary that the promisor had against the original promisee, the acquaintance cannot succeed with regard to this defense here. Answer choice D is incorrect because a promisor generally may not assert any defenses that the promisee has against the

Commerce Power - Answer>> The Commerce Clause empowers Congress to regulate interstate commerce. The Supreme Court has interpreted this Clause as authorizing Congress to regulate the "channels" of interstate commerce (e.g., rivers and highways) and its "instrumentalities" (e.g., ships and trucks), which includes criminalizing activities that misuse such channels and instrumentalities. Such misconduct would include using interstate electronic resources to engage in cyberstalking. Therefore, the Commerce Clause provides the strongest authority for this statute The Enabling Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 5 permits Congress to pass legislation to enforce the equal protection and due process rights guaranteed by the amendment. Because that is not the purpose of this federal statute, this does not provide Congress with the authority to pass the statute. Necessary and Proper Clause only enables Congress to act in furtherance of another enumerated power. On its own, this clause does not enable Congress to pass this statute. abnormally dangerous activity - Answer>> An activity is abnormally dangerous if that activity (i) creates a foreseeable and highly significant risk of physical harm even when reasonable care is exercised, and (ii) the activity is not commonly engaged in. Here, those requirements are met—the facts indicate both that driving piles is not an activity that is commonly engaged in and it creates a foreseeable and highly significant risk of physical harm. Thus, driving piles is an abnormally dangerous activity. Strict liability for an abnormally dangerous activity is available if the harm that actually occurs results from the risk that made the activity abnormally dangerous in the first place. In this case, the owner of the nearby building can recover for the damage to the building done by the vibrations because the risk of vibrations is what makes pile driving abnormally dangerous.

The owner of a ranch devised the ranch as follows: "to my wife for life, and then to my grandchildren." The owner devised the remainder of his property to his only child. The owner was survived by his wife and only child. At the time of the wife's death, the owner's child did not have any children.The applicable jurisdiction adheres to the common law Rule Against Perpetuities.What is the status of the title to the ranch immediately after the wife's death? A The child owns the ranch in fee simple absolute, because the contingent remainder in the grandchildren failed to vest when it became a possessory interest. B The child owns the ranch in fee simple absolute, because of the Rule Against Perpetuities. C The child owns the ranch in fee simple subject to an executory interest. D The child owns the ranch in fee simple subject to a contingent remainder. - Answer>> Answer choice C is correct. At the time of the owner's death, the wife had a life estate in the ranch, the owner's grandchildren held a contingent remainder, and the owner's child held the reversionary interest as the devisee of the owner's property other than the ranch. The grandchildren's interest was a remainder because it was a future interest created in a grantee that was capable of becoming an estate that is presently possessory upon the natural expiration of a prior possessory estate (i.e., the wife's life estate) that was created in the same conveyance in which the remainder was created. This interest was a contingent remainder because it was created in a grantee who was unascertainable. The owner's estate held a reversion in the ranch because there was the possibility that there

including $15,000 on uninstalled windows. The reasonable market value of the labor and materials provided at that time was $20,000. At this point, the nursery told the contractor to stop working because the nursery had decided to forego the greenhouse. The contractor was able to sell the windows to a builder for $10,000.In an action by the contractor against the nursery, which of the following is the highest amount of damages the contractor may recover? A $40,000, the contractor's construction costs of $25,000 plus the $15,000 profit. B $30,000, the contractor's construction costs of $25,000 plus the $15,000 profit, minu - Answer>> Answer choice B is correct. A recovery of $30,000 represents the contractor's expectation measure of damages and gives him the benefit of the bargain. The general measure of damages for the nursery's failure to pay the contract price, in whole or in part, is the profits that the contractor would have earned ($15,000), plus any costs incurred by the contractor ($25,000), less the amount of any payments made by the nursery to the contractor ($0) and any materials purchased by the contractor that are used by the contractor on another job or sold to a third party ($10,000). This amount would place the contractor in the position he would have been in but for the breach. It is also the greatest amount the contractor is able to recover. Answer choice A is incorrect because it fails to subtract the loss avoided by the contractor's sale of the windows to the third-party builder. Answer choice C is incorrect because it is a restitutionary measure of damages that will not allow for damages related to benefit of the bargain. Because the contractor can recover more by seeking expectation damages, this is not the correct answer. Answer choice D is incorrect. This calculation, which is the contractor's reliance damages, fails to allow the contractor the benefit of his bargain.

Attorney Fees - Answer>> In a diversity case on a state law claim, the federal court may properly use its inherent power to assess attorney's fees as a sanction for a defendant's bad-faith conduct during the litigation, even if the law of the forum state provides that attorney's fees may not be awarded to a successful party. Here, the court used its proper discretion to award attorney's fees, even though the farmer did not request them and the forum state did not provide for the award of attorney's fees principal in the second degree - Answer>> The difference between an accessory before the fact and a principal in the second degree is presence. An accomplice who is physically or constructively present during the commission of the crime is a principal in the second degree. For example, a getaway driver some distance from the scene is deemed constructively present and will be considered a principal in the second degree. An accomplice who is neither physically nor constructively present during the commission of the crime, but who possesses the requisite intent, is an accessory before the fact. Here, the potential gang member was constructively present at the crime scene because he was the getaway driver parked around the corner from the bank. Thus, he was a principal in the second degree, not an accessory before the fact. Under the majority and MPC rule, an accomplice is a person who, with the purpose of promoting or facilitating the commission of the offense, aids or abets a principal prior to or during the commission of the crime. An accomplice to the crime can be convicted of the crime, even if he was not involved in the principal's criminal actions. An accomplice is responsible for the crime to the same extent as the principal. A man loaned $200 to a friend, and the friend promised to repay the loan within a week. The friend's brother was present when the

justification for the crime of robbery. Here, the man's honest but mistaken belief that he had a claim of right to take $200 from his friend's brother might excuse larceny, but because a claim of right would not be a defense to robbery, the mistaken belief that he had a claim of right will not excuse the crime of robbery. Answer choice B is incorrect. When a defendant takes property with the honest belief that she is entitled to the property as repayment of a debt (i.e., a claim of right), then the taking generally does not constitute larceny. However, when a defendant uses force or intimidation to gain possession of the property from the person or presence of the victim, then a claim of ri third-party complaint - Answer>> A defendant may make a third-party claim against a nonparty for all or part of the defending party's liability for the original claim made by the plaintiff against the defendant. Here, the motorcyclist is not contending that, if he is found liable to the bicyclist, the automobile driver will be liable to him under either a contribution or indemnification theory, but instead that the automobile driver is directly and solely liable to the bicyclist. The motorcyclist is not making a claim against the automobile driver, but instead is raising the driver's conduct as a defense to his own liability. while a third-party complaint can assert that the liability for the plaintiff's injuries should be completely shifted from the defendant to the third party, this shift must occur because the third party is liable to the defendant, not because the third party is the sole person responsible for the plaintiff's injuries. An accountant leased office space in a building from the owner of the building for a four-year term. Under the terms of the written lease, the rent was $36,000 per year, with $3,000 payable monthly. The accountant occupied the office space for two years, and timely paid the monthly rent. At the beginning of the third year, the accountant orally leased the office space to a financial

advisor for one year. Their agreement made no reference to the original lease. The financial advisor occupied the office space for six months, but paid no rent. The premises were vacant for six months until the beginning of the fourth year, when the accountant returned. The accountant occupied the premises for the final year of the original lease, but did not pay any rent. At the end of the fourth year, the building owner sued the accountant and the financial advisor for all of the unpaid rent.How should the court rule? A Against the acco - Answer>> Answer choice A is correct. An assignment is a complete transfer of the tenant's remaining lease term. Any transfer for less than the entire duration of the lease is a sublease. Because the lease by the financial advisor was for only one year of the remaining two years of the original four-year lease term, the financial advisor's lease was a sublease, not an assignment. A sublessee is not in privity of estate or contract with the landlord. As a consequence, the sublessee is not liable to the landlord for the rent or any other covenants in the original lease, unless the sublessee expressly assumes the rent covenant or any other lease covenants. In this case, because the financial advisor did not expressly assume the rent covenant in the original lease, the financial advisor is not liable to the building owner for the unpaid rent. The accountant is liable for the full amount of the unpaid rent (two full years at $36,000 per year) under the terms of the original lease the accountant entered into with the building owner. Consequently, answer choices B, C, and D are incorrect because they state that the accountant is liable for only a portion of the unpaid rent, rather than the entire amount, and also state that the financial advisor is liable for a portion of the unpaid rent, which he is not. In a will contest, the contestant's attorney sought to show that the decedent lacked the requisite mental capacity to execute a valid will. The contestant's attorney called a witness who was present