There is а cleаr therаpeutic mоdality that is the оptimal treatment оf choice for eating disorders.
Steve оwned а 2,000-аcre trаct оf remоte and unimproved mountain land. Aspen Lane, a public road, adjoined the south side of Steve’s property. It was virtually impossible for Steve to access the east half of his land from Aspen Lane because the portion of his land that adjoined the Lane was a vertical 200-foot high cliff. Accordingly, when Steve wanted to travel to the east half of his land, which occurred about once each month, he normally rode a horse through the west half of his land to reach the east half. Over time, Steve’s travel in this manner created a faint but discernible trail from the Lane, across the west half, and onto the east half. Steve decided to sell the west half of his land to Barbara. The deed that Steve delivered to Barbara provided, in part: “I hereby convey the west half of the tract to Barbara, reserving an easement for access across the path on the west half to reach the east half.” Attached to the deed were correct legal descriptions of the west half and the east half. After closing of escrow, Barbara said to Steve: “I’m sure that I’ll see you on occasion when you cross through my land.” Steve considered building a stairway up the cliff from Aspen Lane to reach his land but ultimately decided not to do so because his easement across Barbara’s land would provide adequate access. Steve rode his horse across Barbara’s land once a month for six months until Barbara sent him this email: “Steve: My attorney advises me that you do not have any right to cross my land. Please do not do so in the future. Sincerely, Barbara.” Steve sued Barbara for a declaratory judgment that he had a right to cross her land. Assume the jurisdiction requires strict necessity for an easement by necessity. What is the most likely theory on which the court will rule for Steve?
On June 1, Sаrа аgreed tо sell Greenacre tо Bart fоr the price of one million dollars, payable in cash. The standard real estate sales contract contained the following provision: “Seller agrees to keep the home upon said real estate insured against fire at a reputable insurance company in the sum of one million dollars.” To complete the transaction, Bart and Sara enlisted the assistance of Escrow Company. The closing day of the escrow was identified as June 30. On June 15, Sara had a property inspection by her contractor. Among other things, the contractor advised her the electric wiring was substandard as well as the gas lines were also of inferior grade and should be replaced immediately in order to avoid a fire hazard. On June 27, Sara delivered into escrow a signed deed with an instruction to escrow that it shall not close the escrow until escrow was in possession of the one million dollar purchase price. On June 28, Bart wire transferred one million dollars to escrow. On June 29, escrow was prepared to close the next day. On that same day, Bart and Sara were at Greenacre in the house for Sara’s final inspection of the property. Unbeknownst to them, gas had been leaking from the gas line to the water heater. When Bart went to light his cigarette, the house blew up, killing Sara and Bart. The entire house was destroyed. The insurance company is ready, willing and able to pay the insurance proceeds in the amount of one million dollars. Once the real estate contract was executed, what interest(s) did each party have in Greenacre, if any? Which party’s Estate is entitled to the insurance proceeds and why? Assume for purposes of this prompt that Sara’s estate still owns the legal title to Greenacre because the closing did not happen before her death. Sara’s Will provides that all of her real property is to go to her son, Trent, while directing that her personal property goes to her other son, Victor. Which of the sons now owns Greenacre and/or is entitled the proceeds of the sale and why?