Dahlia owned a large lot in fee simple absolute. She decided to sever the lot into two parcels, Northacre and Southacre. At the moment of severance, Dahlia conveyed Southacre to Aldo. Her quitclaim deed read, in part: “to Aldo and heirs, together with an eight-foot right of way over Northacre to Southacre’s northern edge for Aldo and his successors and assigns.” Using this eight-foot strip was the only convenient way that Aldo could access his property. Shortly after Dahlia conveyed Southacre, a new road opened bordering the southern edge of Southacre. Thereafter, Aldo always accesses his parcel from the new road. At the present time, which of the following best characterizes Aldo’s interest?

Sara, a pilot, owned a 200-acre tract of undeveloped land.  The property was bordered on the west side by a public road, on the east side by a public-owned lake, and on the north and south sides by other parcels of privately-owned land.  The west half of Sara’s land was covered by forest, and she occasionally visited it to hunt; on most of these occasions, she reached it from the public road.  Occasionally, however, she reached the land by helicopter, landing in a meadow on the east half of the land and then walking over to the west half to hunt.  In addition, Sara sometimes reached her property by boat; she would launch her boat from the public dock on the northeast side of the lake, and then row across to the east half of her land.  Sara recently sold the east half of her land to Bill.  Bill has just sued Sara to obtain a declaratory judgment that he has an easement by necessity over Sara’s retained land to reach his own land.  Assuming that the jurisdiction requires strict necessity, who will win the lawsuit?

Gillian owned a nine-hole golf course. She played the course early each morning before it opened for public use, and she routinely did well, except on the fourth hole. For six years, every day two or three of her drives on this hole went far to the right, landing in the backyard of a home owned by Oscar. Oscar often found balls in his backyard, which he sold to passing golfers. He never complained to anyone about the errant golf balls until last week, when one of Gillian’s drives barely missed his head. Oscar then sent a letter to Gillian that read: “Gillian: Stop hitting golf balls into my yard! Sincerely, Oscar.” Gillian then sued Oscar to obtain a declaratory judgment that she had a prescriptive easement to hit golf balls into his backyard.  Assuming that the relevant statutory period is five years, who will win the lawsuit?

For many years, a landowner owned a parcel of land bordered on the west by a public road, and his neighbor owned a parcel of land located immediately to the east of that parcel. The neighbor had an easement to cross the west parcel to enter the public road bordering it. Because the neighbor’s east parcel is surrounded by swampland on the north, south, and east, the only route of ingress to and egress from that parcel over dry land passed through the west parcel. Subsequently, the neighbor sold the east parcel to the landowner, who proceeded to use both lots as a common tract. Last year, the landowner sold the east parcel to his friend. Does the friend have an easement over the landowner’s west parcel? Responses

Sam owned a 50-acre parcel of undeveloped land which adjoined a public highway on its north side.  He often hunted wild turkeys on the north half of his land (“Blueacre”), but he visited the south half (“Greenacre”) only four times over the 20 years that he owned the property.  Beth hoped to purchase Greenacre, in order to build a factory; but this property did not adjoin a public road.  Beth’s friend Fred owned Redacre, a 10-acre parcel of vacant land. The west side of Redacre adjoined Greenacre, and the east side of Redacre adjoined a public road.  Beth asked Fred:  “If I buy Greenacre, can I get access across Redacre?”  Fred replied:  “Yes.”  Beth then bought Greenacre for $100,000.  When she arrived at Redacre the next day, she found that Fred had installed “No Trespassing” signs all around the property.  Beth ignored the signs.  For two years, she regularly traveled between Greenacre and the public road by crossing Redacre, further developing her factory plans.  Beth then received a letter from Fred which read:  “Beth:  Sorry, but I’m going to sell Redacre, so you can’t cross it in the future.   Cordially, Fred.”  Under traditional law, which of the following theories is most likely to provide Beth with a legal right to access Greenacre?

A developer owned a 30-acre tract of farmland. As required by law, the developer filed a plat with the county planning board, but did not record it. The plat divided the parcel into 87 one-third-acre residential lots. A one-acre strip on the eastern edge of the parcel that abutted a busy highway was set aside for commercial development. The plat restricted each lot to a single residence and banned all “nonconforming detracting structures or appurtenances,” including “free-standing flagpoles more than six feet in height, television antennas and receiving equipment of excessive size and obtrusiveness, and windmills.” The restrictive clause was put into the deeds of all the residential lots in the subdivision, except for the deeds to lots 23, 24, and 25. This oversight was due to an error by the developer’s secretary. All the other lots had deeds stating that the restriction applied “to the grantee and his or her heirs and assigns.” A homeowner purchased lot 24 and duly recorded her deed in the office of the county recorder of deeds. The developer’s salesperson had orally informed the homeowner of the general restrictions applicable to lots in the subdivision. A year later, a sports bar purchased the one-acre commercial strip and installed a large satellite dish. Two years later, the homeowner sold her property to a buyer. The homeowner never mentioned any of the restrictions to the buyer. The buyer put a satellite dish on top of his house. His dish was not as large as the bar’s dish, but it was obviously bigger than any of his neighbors’ modest antennas. The owners of 15 lots in the subdivision sue the buyer, demanding that he remove the dish. If the court finds for the buyer, what is the likely reason?

If you are using your own calculator, hold your permissible calculator up to the webcam, so its front/model number is clearly visible. If you are not using a permissible calculator, regardless of your uploaded pdf’s content, your Worksheet Grade will be a 0.

With your webcam, show BOTH sides of your blank answer sheet, to the camera.

A seller contracted to convey her property to a buyer for $75,000. A title search revealed the following: (i) There were 25 years left on a lease of the property, which was recorded. The buyer agreed to take title subject to the lease but was not aware that the lease gave the lessee, his heirs, and assigns an option to purchase the land at any time before the end of the lease period. (ii) The roof of the garage on the property extended approximately one-half inch across the property line into the airspace of an adjoining neighbor. The garage did not interfere with any current or future use of the adjoining lot. (iii) The home on the property was subject to a $5,000 lien arising from a dispute involving some remodeling work. The seller promised to pay off the lien at closing with the proceeds from the sale. (iv) The property was subject to an easement by necessity in favor of the adjoining neighbor. Last month, the city extended the main road to the neighbor’s land, but the neighbor planned to continue to use the easement because it was more convenient. In a jurisdiction that has a standard race-notice recording statute and maintains the common law Rule Against Perpetuities without any modern statutory reformation, which encumbrance renders the seller’s title unmarketable?

“Every conveyance of real estate not recorded shall be void as against any subsequent purchaser in good faith and for a valuable consideration of the same real estate whose conveyance first is recorded.” This statute is an example of which type of recording act?