Faris Young

Advanced Bar Studies

Real Property Question

1. Is the man likely to prevail against the builder to recover the $80,000 he spent to
repair the concrete? Explain.

The man is not likely to prevail against the builder to recover the $80,000 he spent to
repair the concrete because he did not receive all of the warranties guaranteed by a general
warranty deed. Since he received a quitclaim deed to the house, he is not protected. When a
person buys a house they expect two things – marketable title and seller’s implied promises.
A marketable title is one free from the threat of lawsuit. To guarantee a marketable title you
want a general warranty deed. There are six warranties guaranteed when you receive a
general warranty deed. These include easements,

2. Is the man personally liable for the outstanding balance on the mortgage note
between the woman and the bank? Explain.

The man is still personally liable for the mortgage note between the woman and the bank.
Even though the mortgage note was not recorded, the man immediately began to make the
woman’s monthly mortgage payments to the bank after closing on the house. He also
received consideration for the mortgage on the house that is shown in the price point he
purchased the house.

3. If the bank is successful in its foreclosure action, will the man be able to recover
damages from the woman? Explain.

No, this is the man’s debt now that he owns the house. He was aware of the mortgage
payments when he purchased the home.

Torts MEE Practice Question

1. Based on the facts, may the jury properly award Nephew damages for his personal
injury from Tenant? Explain.

The jury may properly award Nephew damages for his personal injury from the tenant
because the tenant was negligent in his duty to his licensee. Negligence has five elements
which include: (1) duty, (2) breach of duty, (3) actual causation, (4) proximate causation, and
(5) damages.
The first element is duty. The general standard of care is that of a reasonable person.
Here, the Nephew was a social guest of the tenants, which makes him a licensee. A property
owner or renter owes their licensee’s a duty to warn them of known hazardous conditions.
The tenant must have warned the nephew of the boiling water he was carrying and the
bathtub that was filled.
Faris Young
Advanced Bar Studies
Exam 1
September 21, 2022

The second element is breach of duty. The tenant breached his duty because he failed to
warn his nephew of the fact he was carrying boiling water down the hall near where he was
playing with a ball.
The third element is actual cause. The test for actual cause is the but for test. A court
asks – But for the defendant’s actions, would this injury have arisen? Here, the test fails
because there are two people whose negligence created the breach of duty. It fails because
when asked, the but for cause cannot only be the tenant because the landlord was the one
who was not able to fix the furnance for 11 days. When the but for test fails and there is more
than one possible cause, you go to the substantial compliance test. This test asks who was
more negligent. It is arguable to say that the landlord created the issue and his negligence
was therefore more substantial but it is also arguable to say that the tenant carrying the
boiling water was more substantial to the burn.
The fourth element is proximate cause. The test for proximate cause is foreseeability of
the harm. The nephew is an eight-year-old child who was playing with a ball in a small
apartment. It is foreseeable that the nephew would not know that his uncle was carrying a
pot of boiling water and was so focused on chasing the ball that he would not know to look
out for hazardous conditions nor call out before running into the hall. Tenant was the
proximate cause of the damages.
The fifth element is damages. The damages here were the serious burns the nephew
suffered. In defense, the tenant argues that the Nephew’s own negligence was the sole cause
of the accident, but at best the nephew was contributorily negligent, not solely negligent.

2. Based on the facts, may the jury properly award Nephew damages for his personal
injury from Landlord? Explain.

The jury may properly award Nephew damages for his personal injury because the
Landlord was negligent is breaching the duty the state statute prescribed to him. Negligence
has five elements which include: (1) duty, (2) breach of duty, (3) actual causation, (4)
proximate causation, and (5) damages. The first element is duty. The general standard of
care is that of a reasonable person. Here, the normal standard of care would be that of a
reasonable landlord but because there is a state statute that provides “every apartment
building and every part thereof shall be kept in good repair. The owner shall be responsible
for compliance and a violation shall be punishable by a fine not exceeding $500” the
standard of care is of the one the statute gives the landlord. When there is a statute that lays
out the defendant’s duty, the court must ask two questions – (1) What was the group that was
intended to be protected by this statute? And (2) Was the group that was intended to be
protected by this statute, actually protected by this statute? Here, the answer to the first
question is any apartment building tenant. The answer to the second question is yes because
the tenant and his social guest was the one affected by the landlord’s negligence. The
landlord’s duty is to keep every apartment building and every part thereof in good repair.
The second element is breach of duty. Because the landlord’s apartment building went
without heat or hot water from March 25th – April 5th, the apartment was not kept in good
repair, therefore the landlord breached his duty under the statute. When there is a statute that
Faris Young
Advanced Bar Studies
Exam 1
September 21, 2022

lays out the defendant’s duty and breach of that duty, the last three elements do not have to
be analyzed. In defense, the landlord argues that the Nephew’s own negligence was the sole
cause of the accident, but it was because of this negligence in repairing the furnace, the
tenant had to carry hot boiling water into the bathroom to take a bath. When the tenant
collided with his Nephew and split hot water all over him, the Nephew was seriously burned.
Because the landlord breached his duty of care under the state statute, the jury may award
Nephew damages for his serious burn. A violation of a fine up to $500 can be punishable to
the landlord.

Real Property Question

1. Immediately before Sue sold Whiteacre to Dan, did Due have an easement over
Blackacre?

An easement is proper when (1) it is communicated by and to each party, (2) it is relied
upon. The easement Sue had to use the private gravel road crossing Blackacre disappeared
when Sue bought Blackacre because she no longer needed an easement to use that land, as it
was her own.

2. Immediately after Sue sold Whiteacre to Dan, did Dan have an easement over
Blackacre? Explain.

No because the deed from Sue to Dan, which was promptly and properly recorded, did
not mention the private gravel road crossing Blackacre. While the easement was
communicated to Dan, because he was aware that Sue has used to road, Dan did not rely
upon the easement.

3. How should the proceeds from the sale of Whiteacre be distributed between Bank
and Finance Company? Explain.

The proceeds from the sale of Whiteacre should first go $1,500,000 to the Bank and then
$400,000 to the Finance Company.