Download Property Law Final Exam Questions and Answers 2025/2026 and more Exams Real Estate Management in PDF only on Docsity!
PROPERTY LAW FINAL EXAM 2025/2026 (
QUESTIONS AND CORRECT ANSWERS )
GRADED A+
On May 29th, Tenant signed a lease to rent an apartment from Landlord with the term commencing on June 1, and Landlord gave Tenant the key to the apartment. When Tenant showed up with her belongings, ready to move in on June 1, she found X living in the apartment. X admitted that he was "technically homeless," but that he had broken in and has been living in the vacant apartment for one week. When Tenant asked him to leave, X told her that he'd rather not, because the apartment had two bedrooms and she should "share the wealth with people less fortunate." What legal rights does Tenant haave with respect to X's occupancy of the apartment?
- In a majority of states, Landlord will be liable to Tenant for X's presence in the apartment.
- In a majority of states, Landlord will not be liable to Tenant for X's presence in the apartment because X lacks privity with Landlord.
- In a majority of states, X can only be removed if Tenant brings an action in ejectment and/or trespass.
- In a majority of states, X's actual possession will trump the bare legal right to possess conveyed to Tenant.
- In a majority of states, Landlord will be liable to Tenant for X's presence in the apartment.
Tenant rented apartment unit 2D from Landlord. There are 10 units on each of 5 floors in the building, all owned by Landlord. On October 1st, a new occupant moved into unit 3D, immediately above Tenant. Apparently this occupant is a professional dancer and practices dancing at home during the evening hours. Sometimes the dance practice sessions are not tremendously intrusive, but at least ten hours a week, Tenant's upstairs neighbor practices tap- dancing, which creates a tremendous racket in Tenant's apartment. The noise has been so awful
that Tenant is unable to enjoy being at home during those times. When the tap-dancing starts, Tenant immediately vacates his unit. He usually stays away for a couple hours, either at a friends' house, the library, or a local eatery. After the very first instance of tap-dancing, Tenant complained in writing to Landlord, but Landlord has done nothing to address the situation. It is now November 6th and this has been going on over a month. Does Tenant have a valid claim against Landlord?
- Yes. If a court finds that the tap-dancing is a significant interference with Tenant's quiet enjoyment of his unit, Tenant can win a constructive eviction claim against Landlord
- Yes. If a court finds that the tap-dancing amounts to a nuisance, Tenant can win a constructive eviction claim against Landlord.
- Yes. If a court finds that tap-dancing in an apartment building is an unreasonable use of property, Tenant can win an implied warranty of habitability claim against Landlord.
- No. Tenant does not have a valid cause of action against for constructive eviction against Landlord under these facts.
- No. Tenant does not have a valid cause of action against for constructive eviction against Landlord under these facts.
Tenant signed an agreement to lease an apartment in Landlord's multi-family building "from year to year, commencing with January 1, 2010." On November 1, 2015, Landlord informs Tenant in writing that the lease will terminate on December 31, 2015 because Landlord will be converting the building to a condominium. When, if at all, will Tenant's lease terminate?
- Tenant's lease will terminate on December 31, 2015 because Landlord has notified tenant of the termination in writing with adequate notice.
- Tenant's lease will terminate on March 31, 2016 because year-to-year tenants are guaranteed six months' notice of termination.
- Tenant's lease will terminate on December 31, 2016 because the lease will automatically renew for a year on January 1, 2016.
Tenant lived in apartment 2C in one of Landlord's mixed-use buildings. When Tenant moved in, the commercial space immediately below her was vacant, although the other portions of the first floor contained a wine store and a bank. Two weeks after Tenant moved in, a new commercial tenant moved into the vacant space on the first floor. The new tenant soon opened a "Smoking Lounge" in its commercial space below Tenant's apartment. This lounge is a private club that sells and permits on-site consumption of various tobacco products, including cigarettes, pipes and cigars. It operates from 6pm until midnight every night of the week. Tenant suffers from asthma, and the tobacco smoke seeping from her downstairs neighbor's space triggered more frequent attacks over the following few weeks. After leaving several voicemails for Landlord, with no response, Tenant packed up and moved out of the apartment. One month later, Landlord sued Tenant for unpaid rent, and Tenant raises constructive eviction as her defense. Will Tenant's defense likely be successful?
- Yes, because the smoke constituted constructive eviction, which breached the implied warranty of habitability.
- Yes, because the smoke constituted constructive eviction, which breached the covenant of quiet enjoyment.
- No, because the landlord has done nothing that would have deprived a reasonable person of any tenant rights.
- No, because a landlord cannot be held responsible for the legal actions of another tenant occurring outside the common areas.
- Yes, because the smoke constituted constructive eviction, which breached the covenant of quiet enjoyment.
S tells her sister, T, that she may live in her home for "as long as you like" if she pays $300 a month in rent to S. S and T sign a form lease that S finds on the internet, and in the blank labeled "commencement date," S wrote "September 1, 2012." In the blank labeled "expiration date," S wrote "T's choice." What interest does T have in the property?
- T has a license, not a lease.
- T has a life estate, not a lease.
- T has a month-to-month lease.
- T has a perpetual lease.
- T has a term of years.
- T has a month-to-month lease.
E and F orally agreed that F will rent "one of the rooms in E's house" for "fair market rent" for a period of "six months commencing January 1." Why would this lease be invalid or unenforceable?
- This oral lease is invalid because it fails to describe the premises.
- This oral lease is invalid because it fails to set rent.
- This oral lease is unenforceable because of the Statute of Frauds.
- Both A and B.
- All of the above.
- Both A and B.
L agrees to rent an apartment to T for "as long as T wishes to stay," and T agrees to pay rent to L in a stated amount on the first of each month. After just two months, L notifies T, on March 31st, that T will have to move out by May 1st. Must T comply with L's request and vacate by May 1st?
- Yes, because L remains the landowner and the landlord always has the right to exclude.
- Yes, because there has been actual eviction and a trespass is a trespass no matter how small.
- Maybe, but only if Q gave permission to S to build the wall.
- Maybe, but only if S should have known that the wall encroached onto R's leased property.
- No, because there was no intent to trespass.
- No, because landlords are not responsible for trespasses by other people.
- Maybe, but only if Q gave permission to S to build the wall.
Tenant entered into a one-year lease of Landlord's apartment commencing September 1. Several months later, Tenant accepted a summer job in another city starting at the end of May, so she asked Friend if she would move in on June 1st and pay rent for the months of June, July, and August. Friend agreed. The lease had a provision that "tenant shall not sublet without landlord's consent, given or withheld in landlord's sole discretion." Tenant did not talk to Landlord about Friend moving in, and when Friend sent Landlord rent on June 1st, Landlord returned the rent to Friend and told her that she would have to move out. He then sent Tenant a letter stating that she had breached the lease. Has Tenant breached the lease?
- Yes, because Tenant has violated an express lease provision.
- Yes, unless Landlord's failure to approve Friend's residency was unreasonable.
- No, because the lease contained an unlawful restraint on alienation.
- No, because Friend was not a subtenant.
- No, because Friend was not a subtenant.
Tenant rented a house from Landlord for a 1-year term commencing January 1. When Tenant failed to pay rent on September 1, Landlord went to the house to investigate. She found the lawn un-mowed and several newspapers in plastic bags on the front porch. Tenant's belongings remained in the house. Surmising that Tenant must have abandoned the premises, Landlord changed the locks, put Tenant's belongings in storage, and put a "for rent" ad in the paper, stating "small 2BR home for rent, $600/mo. Available immediately." The first applicant to rent the home was A, a first-year law student. Landlord dislikes lawyers, however, so she refused to rent her the property to A. The second applicant, B, was of a religion that Landlord particularly dislikes, so she refused to rent the property to B either. Landlord finally found a renter to her liking at the end of September and signed a lease with that tenant starting October 1st. On October 2nd, Tenant returned from vacation and demanded possession of the house. Did Landlord's actions violate any law?
- Yes, Landlord's refusal to rent to both A and B was illegal.
- Yes, Landlord illegally changed the locks on the home.
- Yes, Landlord illegally refused to reasonably mitigate damages.
- No, Landlord has not violated any law because the house is privately owned, residential property.
- Yes, Landlord illegally changed the locks on the home.
AD
Y leased half of Z's duplex for a three-year term. Before the end of the first year, Y decided to go to school in another state. Y's older brother, X, a wealthy partner in a local law firm, recently divorced and is happy to take over her lease for the last two years. The lease provides that "Tenant shall obtain Landlord's consent prior to any assignment to be given or withheld in Landlord's sole discretion." When Y approached Z to obtain consent to assign the lease to X, however, Z flatly refuses. Since X has a better and more stable income than Y, Y suspects that the true reason for Z's refusal of the assignment is that the rental rates have increased and she is paying slightly "below market." Y gives the keys to her brother and writes Z a letter that says
- No, because Landlord has likely not breached the restrictive covenant by leasing to Grocery Store
Tenant signed a lease with Landlord for a two-year term. The lease was silent with respect to Tenant's ability to assign or sublease. After occupying the premises for one year, Tenant entered into an agreement with Q whereby Q would "take over the lease from Landlord to Tenant" for the remainder of the term at a monthly rental amount that is $200 more than the amount payable under the lease between Landlord and Tenant. The agreement provided that Q would pay the monthly amount to Tenant, who would then forward the amount required under Landlord and Tenant's lease to Landlord. Upon learning of this arrangement, Landlord wishes to preclude the occupancy by Q unless and until the additional rental amount is paid to Landlord (not kept by Tenant). Will Landlord be successful?
- Yes, because landlords retain the right to all rents payable with respect to the property
- Yes, because landlords have the right to give or withhold consent to assignments and subleases
- No, because the lease fails to address the issue of transfer
- No, because Q is a subtenant, not an assignee
- No, because the lease fails to address the issue of transfer
Tenant signed a lease with Landlord for a two-year term. The lease was silent with respect to Tenant's ability to assign or sublease. After occupying the premises for one year, Tenant entered into an agreement with X whereby X would "take over the lease from Landlord to Tenant" for a six-month period. The agreement provided that X would pay rent to Tenant, who would then forward the rent to Landlord. After X has paid three monthly payments to Tenant, Landlord informs X that Landlord has received no rental payments because Tenant has failed to forward any monies to Landlord. Landlord has initiated a court action to terminate the tenancy and seek to evict X through judicial process. Will Landlord be successful?
- Yes, because a landlord may terminate a tenancy and evict the occupant if the landlord is not paid rent.
- Yes, because the occupancy by X was not sanctioned by the lease
- No, because X has paid rent
- No, because X is a subtenant, not an assignee
- Yes, because a landlord may terminate a tenancy and evict the occupant if the landlord is not paid rent.
Company signed a lease for office space on the ground floor of Landlord's office building. The lease term ends on December 31, 2017. In February 2015, Company assigned its leasehold to Law Firm. Two months after taking possession of the premises, Law Firm stopped paying rent and moved out, taking with it an expensive crystal chandelier that was hanging in the premises. What legal rights does Landlord have with respect to Law Firm's actions?
- Landlord can sue Law Firm for unpaid rent and for waste, and the law firm's actions operate to terminate the lease
- Landlord can sue for specific performance to regain the chandelier and reinstate occupancy by Law Firm
- Landlord has no privity of estate with Law Firm, and thus must sue Company in lieu of bringing any action against Law Firm directly.
- Landlord has no privity of contract with Law Firm, and thus has no right to receive rent from Law Firm
- Landlord can sue Law Firm for unpaid rent and for waste, and the law firm's actions operate to terminate the lease
- Yes, L will have violated the Fair Housing Act unless he can prove that he has a religious objection to homosexuality
- Both A and B.
- None of the above
- None of the above
L, a owner of a small 6-unit apartment building, advertised two of the units for rent. He had two applicants the day after he ran the ad seeking tenants. One was S, a young, single woman who owns a small dog. The other was T, a Hispanic man, mid 30s, who wears glasses. L decided not to rent to either of them. He asserts that the reason he rejected S was that he knows dogs make way too much noise and "can cause an apartment to stink." He claims the reason he rejected T was because he "can't trust people who wear glasses." Unless a plaintiff can prove that L was lying with respect to his subjective motives, which of the following statements are true?
- L violated the Fair Housing Act by refusing to rent to someone with a pet
- L violated the Fair Housing Act by refusing to rent to someone who is Hispanic and L violated the Fair Housing Act by refusing to rent
- L likely acted unreasonably with respect to S, probably violating state law
- L likely acted unreasonably with respect to T, probably violating state law
- L likely acted unreasonably with respect to T, probably violating state law
Grantor conveyed Blackacre "to Church, but if the property is ever used for non-church purposes, then to P." One year after this conveyance, Church leased the property to R for use as a restaurant. After the restaurant opens on Blackacre, who holds what interests in Blackacre?
- P owns Blackacre in fee simple absolute, and R is a mere trespasser.
- P owns Blackacre in fee simple absolute, subject to R's lease.
- Church owns Blackacre in fee simple absolute, subject to R's lease.
- Church owns Blackacre in fee simple subject to executory limitation, subject to R's lease, and P holds an executory interest in fee simple absolute.
- Grantor owns Blackacre in fee simple absolute because her Right of Entry has become possessory.
- Church owns Blackacre in fee simple absolute, subject to R's lease.
Grantor gifted his property "To Grantee for her life, and then to her first child to marry, provided that if such child should later divorce, then to my then-surviving issue." Which of the following best describes the effect of the Rule Against Perpetuities to this gift?
- If Grantee has a child when this gift is made, then this conveyance is valid under the Rule Against Perpetuities.
- Because of the Rule Against Perpetuities, Grantor will take in fee simple absolute when Grantee dies.
- Because of the Rule Against Perpetuities, Grantor retains a reversion and Grantee's first child to marry has a contingent remainder, both in fee simple absolute.
- The Rule Against Perpetuities does not apply to this grant because the contingent future interest is held by the issue of the original grantor.
- Because of the Rule Against Perpetuities, Grantor will take in fee simple absolute when Grantee dies.
- Grandson holds a life estate pur autre vie in the property, as well as a contingent remainder in fee simple absolute.
- Grandson holds a vested remainder in fee simple absolute in the property.
- Grandson now owns the property in fee simple absolute.
Grantor conveyed Blackacre "to A for her life, and thereafter to B, but if B is ever convicted of perjury, then to C." During A's lifetime, A conveyed "all my interest in Blackacre" to D. A year later, a tax lien is put on the property for failure to pay real estate assessments. Do A or D face possible liability for failure to pay the taxes on Blackacre?
- A is likely liable to B for permissive waste because A holds a life estate.
- D is likely liable to B for permissive waste as long as A is still alive.
- Either A or D would be liable to B for affirmative waste if they intentionally failed to pay taxes.
- Neither A nor D is liable to B for waste because B's future interest is contingent.
- D is likely liable to B for permissive waste as long as A is still alive.
Testator devised Whiteacre "to my widow for life, then to our grandchildren, but if the property is thereafter used as a place of gambling, then title shall revert to my estate." At his death, Testator had one grandchild who was one year old. Testator's widow survived her husband for five years before her death. Testator's only grandchild sold Whiteacre to a developer who opened a convenience store on the premises. The store sells lottery tickets. Assuming that the sale of lottery tickets would be found to render the convenience store a "place of gambling," will the developer lose title to Whiteacre by selling lottery tickets?
- Yes, because the defeasible condition would have been met.
- Yes, because Testator's heirs hold a reversionary interest.
- No, because the rule against perpetuities invalidates the future interest.
- No, because there is no automatic reversion in this case.
- No, because there is no automatic reversion in this case.
Grantor conveyed Redacre "to A for so long the property is not sold." What interest in Redacre does A have?
- Fee Simple Determinable
- Fee Simple Subject to Condition Subsequent
- Fee Simple Subject to Executory Limitation
- Fee Simple Absolute
- Fee Simple Absolute
Grantor conveyed Orangeacre "to A for life or until her son, B, reaches the age of 30, then to B for the remainder of his life, and then to his children." B died at age 25, leaving one child, C. A entered into a contract to have all the trees on Orangeacre cut and sold for timber. Does C have any grounds to object to A's contract to sell the timber on Orangeacre?
- Yes, because C has a Vested Remainder.
- Possibly, because C holds a Vested Remainder Subject to Open.
- Probably not, because C has a Contingent Remainder.
- Yes, because the Church's executory interest became possessory automatically upon the Charity's failure to use the property as a homeless shelter.
- No, because the Church's future interest did not automatically become possessory upon the Charity's failure to use the property as a homeless shelter
- No, because the Church's future interest was invalidated by the Rule Against Perpetuities.
- Yes, because the Church's executory interest became possessory automatically upon the Charity's failure to use the property as a homeless shelter.
N died at age 98, leaving his home "to my darling wife, O, for the remainder of her life, and then to her last child to reach the age of 30." At N's death, O was 95 and has one child, age 62. After O's death the following year, what is the state of the title for the property?
- O's 63-year-old child holds in life estate.
- O's 63-year-old child holds in fee simple absolute.
- O's heirs hold in fee simple absolute.
- N's heirs hold in fee simple absolute.
- N's heirs hold in fee simple absolute.
In 2000, Testator conveyed Tealacre, "to Andrew for his life, and then to Beryl's then-alive children for their lives, and then to their surviving spouses, if any." Testator left all of his remaining property "to the Red Cross."
In 2001, Beryl died, leaving two children, Charlie and Dawn.Beryl's will left all her property to her boyfriend, Jim.
In 2008, Charlie died. Charlie's will left all his property to his girlfriend, Kim.
In 2009, Andrew died. Andrew's will left all his property to his widow.
In 2015, Dawn died, leaving her husband, Edward a widow. Dawn's will left half her property to Edward and half to the Red Cross.
In 2016, who holds what interests in Tealacre?
- Edward holds Tealacre in fee simple absolute.
- Edward and the Red Cross each hold a fee simple absolute interest in Tealacre.
- Andrew's widow holds a fee simple absolute interest in Tealacre.
- Kim and Edward each hold a fee simple absolute interest in Tealacre.
- Jim holds a fee simple absolute interest in Tealacre.
- The Red Cross holds a fee simple absolute interest in Tealacre.
- The interest in Tealacre is still contingent and therefore void.
- The interest in Tealacre is still contingent, but if USRAP applies, the contingent interest remains valid until 2090.
- The Red Cross holds a fee simple absolute interest in Tealacre.
AD
