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

Add to Library





8. The holder of an easement may not unreasonably burden the servient estate by using it in a way not contemplated when the easement was created. Since the dangers incident to the possible leakage of poisonous materials are much greater than those incident to the possible leakage of non-poisonous materials, the change in Johnson’s intended use would unreasonably burden the estate of Belden.

Since most jurisdictions agree that commercial easements in gross may be freely alienated, A is incorrect. Non-use of an easement created by express grant is not sufficient to terminate it, so unless the holder of the easement extinguishes it by a deed that was properly recorded, the easement remains effective; C is therefore incorrect. Belden had constructive notice of the easement when he purchased, and would not have been justified in relying on the absence of visible encumbrances. D is, therefore, incorrect.

9. Ordinarily, a tenant who abandons the premises before the expiration of the lease is liable for rent for the balance of the term. If, however, the landlord accepts a surrender of the tenant’s interest under the lease, the tenant will be free from liability for the balance of the term. A surrender generally takes place when the landlord occupies the premises for its own purposes.

Reletting the premises for the balance of the term might also result in a surrender, but this depends on the intent of the landlord. Here, there was much other vacant space in the building, and the landlord has relet the premises for rent lower than provided in the lease, and on a month-to-month basis. Therefore, it is not likely that Lance’s intent was to surrender its rights, but rather, to relet for Tollup’s account (as a mitigation of damages). A is, therefore, incorrect. The agreement between Lance and Tollup did not restrict use of the premises to any particular activity. For this reason, the fact that the premises are not well suited to the activity which Tollup had in mind, or that Tollup is no longer licensed in the practice for which he planned to use them, is irrelevant to his liability under the lease. C and D are, therefore, incorrect.

10. Ordinarily, a tenant who abandons the premises before the expiration of the lease is liable for rent for the balance of the term.

The lease may reserve to the landlord the right to terminate the tenancy and re-enter in the event of non-payment, but B is incorrect because this is alternative to the right to collect rent, not the source of it. A landlord who elects to terminate the tenancy, will not be entitled to collect rent for the balance of the term. C is incorrect, however, because a landlord may elect not to terminate, as did Lardner, and hold the tenant for rent. D is incorrect because neither party to a lease may avoid obligations under it merely by giving notice, unless the lease so provides.

11. Adpo has been in continuous possession for twenty years. His possession was hostile, because it was contrary to the rights of the City of Hampshire, the land’s true owner. It was open and notorious because it was not hidden, and knowledge of his possession could have been obtained by anyone who looked. Having fulfilled all the statutory requirements, he would ordinarily be correct in his assertion that he has acquired title by adverse possession. Most jurisdictions, however, prohibit the acquisition of city or state property by adverse possession. This being the only legal obstacle to Adpo’s assertion, the outcome will most likely depend on whether the jurisdiction permits the acquisition of city property by adverse possession.

A is incorrect because if the possession was open and notorious as described above, it does not matter whether the actual owner ever really knew of it. Some adverse-possession statutes establish a condition that the adverse possessor pay taxes on the realty during the period of his adverse possession. C is incorrect, however, because this statute did not contain such a requirement. An adverse possessor who occupies land under color of title may become the owner of all the land which he believed he owned, including that which he did not actually occupy. Since Adpo asserts ownership only of the land which he occupied, however, color of title is irrelevant, and D is incorrect.

Create New Group

Casebriefs is concerned with your security, please complete the following