Landlord's Rights and Remedies against Tenants and Subtenants: A Property Law Case Study, Exams of Property Law

Download Landlord's Rights and Remedies against Tenants and Subtenants: A Property Law Case Study and more Exams Property Law in PDF only on Docsity!

EXAM#____________

Page 1 of 2 Klein: Property I, Final, F

PROPERTY LS1 KLEIN FALL 2009

Part II: Essay Questions Time: 90 minutes

Essay Question 1 (15 points) Recommended Time: 30 minutes

Landlord owns a building which has a commercial space downstairs and a small apartment upstairs. The commercial space is 100 Main St., and the upstairs apartment is 100A Main St. On January 1, 2009, Landlord enters into a two-year lease with Andy for 100 Main St., where Andy plans to run a coffeehouse. Andy promises to pay a flat rent (not based on coffeehouse revenues). On the same day, Landlord enters into a one-year lease with Bette for 100A Main St. Both leases state, “Subleases are prohibited without prior written consent of Landlord.”

Six months into her lease, Bette gets a promotion to an out-of-town position. She transfers her remaining interest in 100A Main St. to Connie, but tells Connnie, “I’m not supposed to be doing this, so just send a check to me, and I’ll keep paying my rent. The Landlord never comes around, I’m sure it will go fine.” Bette’s lease with Landlord included a promise by “Tenant not to paint or cause or allow any person to paint the interior of the apartment any color other than white.” Landlord’s lease with Bette also states that “breach of any of these promises entitles Landlord to terminate the lease and re-take possession.” Connie was unaware of these provisions, and painted the apartment hot pink shortly after moving in.

Around the same time, Andy was approached by a major national coffee-chain. They are planning to open up a new outlet across the street, at 101 Main St., and they would like to have no competition on that block. They offer to buy out the next year of Andy’s lease at twice what he is paying Landlord, intending to keep the space empty or lease it out to a non-competing business. Andy promptly notifies Landlord of the offer, and Landlord refuses to consent to the transfer, writing back to Andy, “I hereby refuse to consent to your proposed transferee. Independently-owned and -operated coffee shops are important to me, and I do not want that no- good franchise in my building.” Andy, finding the offer of double rent irresistible, makes the transfer anyway.

Landlord continues to receive regular rent payments. Three months later, Landlord comes to visit the building, only to find the downstairs space empty and dark, and someone he does not recognize (Connie) living in the upstairs apartment.

Please describe Landlord’s rights and remedies against Andy, Bette, and Connie. Answer under common law, as understood modernly. The jurisdiction follows Kendall v. Ernest Pestana.

END OF QUESTION I

EXAM#____________

Page 2 of 2 Klein: Property I, Final, F

PROPERTY LS1 KLEIN FALL 2009

Essay Question 2 (25 points) Recommended Time: 1 hour

Tina Testator is a loyal alumna of GGU School of Law and also a supporter of the opera. Tina Testator executes a valid will in 2009 that provides in pertinent part as follows:

Blackacre shall go to my daughter Ann for life, then to the children of my son Bill for their lives, and at the death of the last of them, to the person who is then Dean of the Golden Gate University School of Law if the bar pass rate in that year exceeds 80%, and otherwise, to the San Francisco Opera Foundation (a charity).

At the time the will is executed, Tina has two children, Ann and Bill. Under the applicable laws of intestate succession, they will be her heirs if they survive her. Bill has a child, Colby, born in

2005. Tina dies in 2010. Bill has a second child, Darby, born in 2015. Bill dies intestate in 2020, leaving Colby and Darby as his heirs. Ann dies in 2025, with a valid will leaving everything “to my brother’s children.” Colby dies in 2075, with a valid will leaving everything to Darby. Darby dies in 2100. In that year, GGU School of Law has an 82% bar passage rate.
2006. Classify all interests created by the conveyance and evaluate their validity under the common law Rule Against Perpetuities.
2007. Redraft the conveyance, striking any gifts which violate RAP.
2008. Reclassify as necessary, in light of any changes made.
2009. Move forward in time, explaining who comes into possession and when. A complete answer will end with some person or persons in possession of the fee simple absolute at an identified date.

EXTRA CREDIT (5 points): If you represent GGU, would you prefer that the jurisdiction adopt common law “wait and see” or the Uniform Statutory Rule Against Perpetuities, and why?

END OF QUESTION II

END OF EXAM