To access this feature, please Log In or Register for your Casebriefs Account.

Add to Library





In deciding Lardner’s claim against Torrelson, the court should find for

(A) Lardner, since Torrelson failed to pay the rent as agreed.

(B) Lardner, since the lease reserved a right of re-entry.

(C) Torrelson, since the lease reserved Lardner’s right of re-entry.

(D) Torrelson, since, in effect, he gave Lardner a month’s notice of his intention to vacate.

  1. The City of Hampshire owned land known as Hampshire Heights which was located outside the city limits, east of the city itself. Because the Hampshire River ran along the western edge of Hampshire Heights, the City of Hampshire built a bridge across the river more than fifty years ago. The eastern part of Hampshire Heights had once been used as a storage yard for city maintenance equipment, and was surrounded by an eight foot chain link fence. The part of Hampshire Heights between the fenced yard and the bridge had been used primarily as a dirt road connecting the bridge to the storage yard.

Due to periodic flooding of the Hampshire River, the City of Hampshire stopped using the Hampshire Heights storage yard and bridge thirty years ago. At that time, Adpo built a wooden shack on that portion of Hampshire Heights which had formerly been used as a dirt road between the storage yard and the bridge. Since then, Adpo has been living in the shack, and has been raising donkeys on the land formerly used as a dirt road. In addition, he planted a vegetable garden which produced food for himself and his donkeys.

Earlier this year, the City of Hampshire decided to begin using the Hampshire Heights storage yard again, and demanded that Adpo remove himself and his possessions. Adpo refused, asserting that by adverse possession he had become the owner of the land which he occupied. A statute in the jurisdiction conditions ownership by adverse possession on twenty years’ continuous, hostile, open and notorious possession.

If the City of Hampshire institutes a proceeding to eject Adpo from Hampshire Heights, the outcome is most likely to turn on whether

(A) the City of Hampshire had knowledge that Adpo was in possession of part of Hampshire Heights.

(B) the jurisdiction permits the acquisition of city property by adverse possession.

(C) Adpo paid taxes on the land which he occupied.

(D) Adpo occupied Hampshire Heights under color of title.

Create New Group

Casebriefs is concerned with your security, please complete the following