V. ANSWERS TO PROBLEM CASES
1. Fixtures. The court applied the three factors that cause property to be considered
2. Yes. The court found that Schlichtling’s use of the disputed property met the
3. Yes. Aidinoff’s use of the driveway was open, visible, continuous and
uninterrupted for at least 15 years and was done under a claim of right, so she
4. Yes, the court held that the language of the covenant indicating that it was to be
Yes, given the language of the deed that the property should be kept open, the
5. No. Under Title III of the ADA there is no duty to design an amusement park ride
that Plaintiffs are able to ride in spite of their disabilities. Title III does not
6. No. The parties had no agreement about whether the Olbeksons could remove the
furnace, so the case depends on whether the furnace was a fixture. The court
considered the applicability of factors that determine whether an item is a fixture:
7. No. The court held that the builder-developer and broker representing the builder-
8. No. The court stated that “[t]he residence of 2312 West Farwell Drive provides no
‘offering [of adult entertainment] to members of the public’….The City Code
9. Yes. The court found the law of fixtures was instructive in determining how to
interpret the statute. It stated that “an object may be ‘affixed to the land’ solely by
10. No. Michael was able to rebut the presumption of equal ownership by showing
that he and Nora were not married and he had disproportionately contributed to