Login

Login

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

Add to Library

Add

Search

Login
Register

MULTIPLE-CHOICE QUESTIONS

  1. Soon after Harold and Wilhemina married, they became interested in the purchase of a home with a price of $75,000. Because neither of them had been employed for very long, they were unable to find a bank to lend them money for the purchase. The seller indicated that he would be willing to accept a note for part of the purchase price if Harold and Wilhemina could obtain an acceptable co-signor.

Wilhemina’s mother Marion said that she would give them the money for the down payment and co-sign the note if Wilhemina and Harold promised to make all payments on the note as they came due, and if the three of them took title to the property as joint tenants. All agreed. On the day title closed, Marion paid $25,000 cash to the seller, and she, Harold, and Wilhemina all signed a note promising to pay the balance, secured by a mortgage on the realty which they all executed. The seller executed a deed conveying the realty to Harold, Wilhemina, and Marion as joint tenants.

Harold and Wilhemina moved into the house, but Marion never did. The following year Marion died, leaving a will purporting to devise her interest in the realty to her husband Allan. The year after that, Wilhemina and Harold were divorced. Wilhemina subsequently executed a deed purporting to convey her interest in the realty to Bernard. Harold subsequently executed a deed purporting to convey his interest in the realty to Charles.

Which of the following best describes the interests of Allan, Bernard, and Charles in the realty?

(A) Allan, Bernard, and Charles are tenants in common, each holding a one-third interest.

(B) Bernard and Charles are tenants in common, each holding a one-half interest.

(C) Bernard and Charles are joint tenants as to a two-thirds interest, and tenants in common as to a one-third interest.

(D) Allan, Bernard and Charles are joint tenants, each holding a one-third interest.

  1. Larrick executed a document purporting to lease a parcel of real estate to Teeter for fifty years at an annual rent of $1,000. Twenty years before the scheduled expiration of the lease, the entire parcel was taken by the state for the construction of a reservoir. At a condemnation proceeding, the trier of the facts found that the balance of Teeter’s leasehold was valued at $30,000. Of the total condemnation award, Teeter should receive

(A) $30,000, but Teeter will be required to pay Larrick a sum equivalent to the rent for the balance of the lease term.

(B) nothing, because Teeter’s interest violates the Rule Against Perpetuities.

(C) $30,000, and Teeter will have no further obligation to Larrick.

(D) $30,000 minus a sum equivalent to the rent for the balance of the lease term, and Teeter will have no further obligation to Larrick.

Create New Group

Casebriefs is concerned with your security, please complete the following