Follow us!

    Post: MBE

    Posted by John on 4/08/09


    MyBarPrep, The Original Online Bar Review

    Question

    The state of Red has an adverse statutory
    period of 15 years and David purchased a lot
    of land in Red in 1997. Adjacent to
    the lot of land David purchased was a
    private easement that was three yards in width.
    David was not certain of the location of
    the easement when he purchased the lot and
    enclosed his property with a chain-linked
    fence. The fence surrounded Davidís lot and
    the easement. David maintained the fence until
    2000 and then decided to change the entire look
    of his property by removing the fence and
    refurbishing his home located on the lot. David
    hired Eddie to remove the fence and in 2004 decided
    to sell his property. Eddie was obligated to
    oversee the nuts-and-bolts aspects of Davidís home
    improvement project, such as hiring and
    supervising workers, getting permits, making sure
    inspections were done as needed and providing
    insurance for work crews. David hired Sue to act as
    his agent to sell the lot of land and orally
    promised to give Sue six percent of the proceeds
    from the sale of the lot. David and Paula entered
    into a written agreement to convey the lot of land
    on September 19.

    The written agreement included a description that
    included the easement. Paula hired a title examiner
    named John to research the chain of title of the lot
    of land and John discovered that Sally previously
    owned the easement contained in the written
    agreement. On September 19, Paula refused to pay
    for the lot and David filed an action seeking
    specific performance.

    Will David be successful?

    (a) Yes, because of the statutory period in the
    state of Red.
    (b) Yes, because a valid contract was formed that
    was supported by consideration.
    (c) No, because the title to the lot is not
    marketable.
    (d) No, because the criteria for adverse possession
    has not been met.


    The correct response is (c). In general, land sale contracts
    contain an implied warranty that the
    seller is conveying a marketable title to the buyer.
    Unless David can show proof of an action to quiet
    title, then the title is not marketable and
    Paula is not obligated to purchase a potential
    lawsuit.

    ***

    No part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted
    in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical except
    as may be expressly permitted in writing by the Publisher.
    Requests for permission should be sent to MyBarPrep at
    support@mybarprep.com.

    Posts on this thread, including this one
  • MBE, 4/08/09, by John.


  Site Map:  Home Chatboards Legal Jobs Classified Ads Search Contacts Advertise
  © 1996 - 2013. All Rights Reserved. Please review our Terms of Use, Mission Statement, and Privacy Policy.