Unlock document.
This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
1
CHAPTER 49
REAL PROPERTY AND LANDLORD-TENANT LAW
ANSWER TO CRITICAL THINKING QUESTION
IN THE FEATURE
ETHICS TODAY—CRITICAL THINKING
At what point might the predicted benefits of a new private commercial endeavor outweigh
the constitutional requirement of a taking only for public use? Some people would say
never—that the predicted benefits of a commercial endeavor never justify the taking of real
property owned by individuals when it is not truly for public use. Others would say that if the
predicted benefits were large enough, taking for private development is justified.
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
AT THE ENDS OF THE CASES
CASE 49.1—CRITICAL THINKING
ECONOMIC
Why would the owner of a life estate refuse to pay the taxes and insurance premiums on
the property of the estate? Should any reason for this refusal have influenced the court’s
decision in this case? The owner of a life estate would most likely refuse to pay the taxes and
insurance premiums on the property of the estate due to a lack of funds to make those
payments. This may be a result of any number of economic constraints—sudden unforeseen
obligations, poor returns on investment, a job loss or medical issue, or a lack of foresight in
planning to meet one’s financial goals, for example. This circumstance seems most likely
CASE 49.2—CRITICAL THINKING
ETHICAL
In not disclosing the house’s reputation to Stambovsky, was Ackley’s behavior unethical
because she knew something he did not, or was it unethical because of the nature of the
information she omitted? What if Ackley had failed to mention that the roof leaked or that
the well was dry—conditions that a buyer would normally investigate? Explain your
LEGAL ENVIRONMENT
Why did the court decide that applying the strict rule of caveat emptor was inappropriate
in this case? How would applying this doctrine increase costs for the purchaser? The
CASE 49.3—LEGAL REASONING QUESTIONS
1. Bhatt claimed to have met all of the requirements to acquire a strip of public land
through adverse possession. Which element did the court find had not been met? Why?
The requirement to acquire property by adverse possession that the court expressly found had
2. What is the “potential trouble, both ahead and behind, for a pair of public works
projects” hinted at in this case? In whose favor is that “trouble” likely to be resolved?
4 UNIT TEN: PROPERTY AND ITS PROTECTION
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS IN THE REVIEWING FEATURE
AT THE END OF THE CHAPTER
1A. Citizens’ right
2A. Deed’s covenants
A warranty deed conveys the most covenants, or promises of any other deed. The seller
3A. Homeowners’ agreement
4A. Tenant’s responsibility
ANSWER TO DEBATE THIS QUESTION IN THE REVIEWING FEATURE
AT THE END OF THE CHAPTER
Under no circumstances should a local government be able to condemn property
in order to sell it later to real estate developers for private use. The Constitution’s Fifth
CHAPTER 49: REAL PROPERTY AND LANDLORD-TENANT RELATIONSHIPS 5
ANSWERS TO ISSUE SPOTTERS
AT THE END OF THE CHAPTER
1A. Bernie sells his house to Consuela under a warranty deed. Later, Delmira appears,
holding a better title to the house than Consuela has. Delmira wants Consuela off the
2A. Grey owns a commercial building in fee simple. Grey transfers temporary
possession of the building to Haven Corporation (HC). Can HC transfer possession for
ANSWERS TO BUSINESS SCENARIOS
AT THE END OF THE CHAPTER
49-2A. Eviction
6 UNIT TEN: PROPERTY AND ITS PROTECTION
ANSWERS TO BUSINESS CASE PROBLEMS
AT THE END OF THE CHAPTER
49–3A. Commercial lease terms
Park might seek to recover from Landmark for breach of its lease obligation to provide a roof “in
49–4A. BUSINESS CASE PROBLEM WITH SAMPLE ANSWER—Adverse possession
The McKeags satisfied the first three requirements for adverse possession:
CHAPTER 49: REAL PROPERTY AND LANDLORD-TENANT RELATIONSHIPS 7
49–5A . Rent
Yes, Flawlace owes rent for the three months between the time that it moved out and the new
tenant moved in. A lease typically indicates the amount of the rent and the length of the term.
49–6A . Landlord-tenant relationships
The court could impose liability on PI based on its ownership of the premises on which the injury
occurred. Depending on the provisions of the lease, Pretty Girl could be the liable party. Kumar
might be at least partially responsible for her injury if it was a result of her own negligence.
49–7A. Ownership and other interests in real property
Under the law of the Cayman Islands, and according to Arthur’s will, the three disputed
Cayman properties became Diana’s sole property when Arthur died. In a joint tenancy, each of
two or more persons owns an undivided interest in the property. A deceased joint tenant’s
49-8A. SPECIAL CASE ANALYSIS—Adverse possession
Case No. 49.3
Montgomery County v. Bhatt
Court of Appeals of Maryland, 2016
446 Md. 79, 130 A.3d 424
(a) Issue: What conflict, and between which parties, did this case highlight? The
Montgomery case highlights the conflict between a private property owner next to a rail/trail line
and the public owner of that right-of-way with regard to the rights of each to the property within
CHAPTER 49: REAL PROPERTY AND LANDLORD-TENANT RELATIONSHIPS 9
its boundaries—can the private owner satisfy the requirements to acquire a portion of the right-
of-way by adverse possession?
(b) Rule of Law: On which specific requirement of what rule of law did the outcome in
this case depend? To acquire property by adverse possession, a claimant must show that his or
her possession of it was actual, open, notorious and visible, exclusive, hostile, and continuous
(c) Applying the Rule of Law: What exception to the applied rule of law might have
resulted in a decision in the plaintiff’s favor? Why did that exception not apply in this case?
There is an exception to the rule stated above—if the government has abandoned its interest in
property, the property can be acquired by adverse possession. Abandonment can occur, for
10 UNIT TEN: PROPERTY AND ITS PROTECTION
(d) Conclusion: In light of the rule of law that applied in this case, what was the
49-9A. A QUESTION OF ETHICS—Adverse possession
(a) No, Mansell’s occupation of Hunter’s property did not vest title in her by adverse
possession. Adverse possession is a means of obtaining title to land without delivery of a deed.
(b) The ethics of Mansell’s conduct is arguable. She initially encroached on her
ANSWERS TO LEGAL REASONING GROUP ACTIVITY QUESTIONS
AT THE END OF THE CHAPTER
49–10A. Adverse possession
(a) An easement arises by prescription when one person exercises an easement,
such as a right-of-way, on another person’s land without the landowner’s consent, and the use
is apparent and continues for the length of time required by the applicable statute of limitations.
CHAPTER 49: REAL PROPERTY AND LANDLORD-TENANT RELATIONSHIPS 11
(b) The court should rule in favor of Drake, whose use of the driveway satisfied all of
(c) As stated in the text, there are a number of public-policy reasons for the adverse
