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

Add to Library





  1. When Fletcher died he left his farm to his son Sam for life with remainder to Unity Church. Because Fletcher had been a farmer, Sam tried farming the land for a while, but found the work unpleasant. Although gravel had never before been mined or removed from the land, Sam learned that he could derive a substantial income by doing so. He therefore dug a deep and extensive pit on the land from which he began removing gravel for sale to builders and other commercial purchasers.

If Unity Church asserts a claim against Sam because of his removal of gravel the court should

(A) grant Unity Church a proportionate share of any profits derived from the sale of gravel removed from the land.

(B) issue an injunction against further removal of gravel and order Sam to account to Unity Church for profits already derived from the sale of gravel removed from the land.

(C) deny relief to Unity Church, because no right of action will accrue until Unity Church’s interest becomes possessory at the termination of Sam’s estate.

(D) deny relief to Unity Church, because a life tenant is entitled to remove minerals from an open pit.

  1. Oscar, the owner of a summer beach cabin, conveyed it to his daughter Debra as a gift for her sixteenth birthday. Two years later, on her eighteenth birthday, Debra went to the cabin for the first time and found Adamo in possession of it. When she asked what he was doing there, Adamo said, “Anyone who lives around here can tell you that I’ve been coming here every summer.” In fact, Adamo had occupied the beach cabin every summer for the past ten years, but had not occupied the cabin during other seasons. Debra instituted a proceeding to evict Adamo. In defense, Adamo claimed that he had acquired title to the cabin by adverse possession. Statutes in the jurisdiction fix the period for acquiring title to realty by adverse possession at 10 years and the age of majority at 18 years.

Has Adamo acquired title by adverse possession.

(A) No, because computation of the period of adverse possession begins anew each time there is a change in ownership of the realty.

(B) No, because for the past two years the owner of the cabin was under a legal disability.

(C) Yes, if occupancy only during the summer was consistent with the appropriate use of the cabin.

(D) Yes, if Adamo had Oscar’s permission to occupy the cabin during the summers.

Create New Group

Casebriefs is concerned with your security, please complete the following