Unlock document.
This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
ALTERNATE CASE PROBLEM ANSWERS
CHAPTER 49
REAL PROPERTY AND LANDLORD-TENANT LAW
49-1A. Easements
The court ruled in favor of Drake, and Smersh appealed to a state intermediate appellate court,
which affirmed the decision in Drake’s favor. The court stated that “[t]o establish a prescriptive
easement, a claimant must prove use of the servient land that is: (1) open and notorious, (2)
49-2A. Taking
The court agreed with the Nollans, and the CCC appealed. The appellate court ruled in the
CCC’s favor, and the Nollans appealed to the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme
Court concluded that there was not a sufficient connection between the Nollans’ proposed con-
B-2 APPENDIX B: ALTERNATE CASE PROBLEM ANSWERS—CHAPTER 49
49-3A. Easements
49-4A. Maintaining the premises
The trial court ruled in favor of SDR, and ARG appealed. The appellate court affirmed the trial
court’s decision. ARG was ordered to pay $200,000 in damages to SDR. ARG’s main argu-
49-5A. Lease renewal
The court held that MCM’s right to exercise the lease renewal option terminated when the lease
term expired. As a general rule, a lessee must exercise an option to renew the lease on or be-
fore the expiration date of the original lease term. If the lessee fails to renew the lease within
49-6A. Commercial lease terms
The court accepted the defendants’ arguments and granted an injunction on that basis. Winn-
Dixie appealed to a state intermediate appellate court, which reversed the lower court’s decision
and remanded the case for a revision of the injunction. The appellate court explained that
49-7A. Concurrent ownership
The court held that the three accounts were held in joint tenancy with right of survivorship,
based on the terms that the bank had placed on each account. The court acknowledged that if
there had been evidence of fraud, undue influence, or lack of capacity, or if the accounts “were
49-8A. Concurrent ownership
The county denied Hennefield and O’Dell’s claim, and they appealed to a state trial court, which
held that their attempted “re-conveyance” was not effective. The court explained that, among
other things, a “tenancy by the entirety can only exist between husband and wife.” Thus, for ex-
49–9A. Ownership in fee simple
B-4 APPENDIX B: ALTERNATE CASE PROBLEM ANSWERS—CHAPTER 49
ing unreasonably with others’ use and enjoyment of their property. In this case, the court
acknowledged that “the Clines would never have even thought about such a fence had they
been left alone” but believed that the fence was “an ugly scar on a beautiful area” and ordered
49-10A. A QUESTION OF ETHICS
1. The trial court held that the Urbans had acquired title to the disputed property by ad-
verse possession. On appeal, however, this ruling was reversed. The appellate court agreed
with the Stanards that the statutory period began in 1981, when the Urbans erected a perma-
2. If it does not, it should. One of the requirements for adverse possession is the contin-
uous possession of the property. Continuity is broken if the adverse possessor acknowledges
3. Generally, trespasses on another’s property must be substantial to establish adverse
possession. Furthermore, the trespasser is normally required to show by some act that his or
her entry upon the land is hostile and under a claim of right. As the court stated in this case, “It
4. A basic public policy reflected in adverse possession statutes is that land should be
