Unlock document.
This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
An agency relationship exists between brokers and sellers.
Zoning limiting adult bookstores to certain areas is unconstitutional.
A recipient of a counteroffer must accept the counteroffer upon receipt if they made the
original offer.
Parol evidence cannot be used to create a valid description.
Landowners are not responsible for injuries to others on their property.
Under an installment contract, the seller retains title until there is payment in full.
A creditor of a tenant in common has a lien on the entire property.
In the market approach to valuation, the assessor examines the stream of income.
The right to a view has been protected since the common law developed in England.
The Dodd-Frank Act created a new federal agency to handle all consumer debt
regulation.
The term 'hostile' in adverse possession requires proof of some underlying dispute
between the parties.
Requiring a landowner to place a small cable box on his or her property is a taking.
Mutual wills are void.
An ARMS index can be established by the lending institution making the ARM loan.
The deed must contain a recital of the purchase price paid.
In a grantor/grantee index, it is possible to miss a link in the title chain.
With respect to the transfer referred to in question 7, the non'‘transferring joint tenants
remain joint tenants.
An easement that prevents the change or destruction of historic buildings is a negative
easement.
One hundred forty-three residents of the Barnegat Pines Development area in Lacey
Township, Ocean County, New Jersey, brought suit against Exxon Corporation and
Richard E. and Susan M. Ritchie, who did business operating a gasoline station known
as Lacey Exxon. The residents brought suit in nuisance, trespass, and under various
environmental laws alleging that gasoline from Rule's service station, which had
operated between 1959 and 1975 as a Texaco Station, had seeped into the groundwater
and contaminated their wells.
The residents had an expert witness, Albert D. Young, a consultant in petroleum
distribution and a retired Exxon employee, who had 35 years of experience in
overseeing, viewing, and evaluating the distribution, storage, and retail sale of gasoline.
Young testified that the complaint of suspected gasoline contamination of wells in the
present case was typical of the kind of situation he had frequently investigated.
According to Young, the service station probably spilled gasoline 'more frequently than
not' between 1959 and 1975 and the spilled gasoline would have seeped to the
groundwater. Young's opinion was based on his knowledge that such discharges were
routine occurrences in probably all 200,000 service stations ever in existence.
Also, after considering the results of soil gas studies showing the presence of petroleum
vapors in the soil of the old tank field at the station, Young found it more probable than
not that spills would have occurred during deliveries in the pre-1975 period because
when tank sizes failed to keep pace with truck capacities, overfills were routine at all
stations. Such spills could have gone undetected by the station owner. The jury returned
a verdict of no liability in favor of both the Ritchies and Exxon. Was the jury's verdict
correct? What case law could the appellate court apply in making its decision?
A codicil can serve to revoke all or portions of a will.
A commercial tenant has the right to terminate a lease if construction or remodeling
limits access to its premises.
List the parties in a constructions project and what their responsibilities include.
A financing statement on a fixture is properly filed centrally.
"To A so long as the property is not used for a toxic waste dump" is an example of a fee
simple subject to a condition subsequent.
Describe the minimum steps required for due process on land assessments.
Norma and Mark Schwartz had a dog in their co-op, a violation of the co-op's no-pet
rule. They promised the manager that they would make arrangements for the dog so that
it was not living there, but each promise was followed by inaction. The manager would
then warn again about the dog, another promise would follow, followed by inaction.
The manager then brought an action against the Schwartzes for their removal from the
co-op. Discuss the issues involved in this situation.
