Property Multiple Choice Exam Questions

11. O conveys Blueacre “to my friend A for life, then to those of A’s children who graduate from law school.”A dies, survived by her sole child and heir B. B has not yet graduated from law school. In a jurisdictionthat follows the Rule in Shelley’s Case, the Doctrine of Worthier Title, and the Doctrine of Destructibilityof Contingent Remainders and the Rule of Merger, and without applying the Rule Against Perpetuities,which of the following is a true statement?

a. O holds a fee simple subject to executory limitation and B holds a springing executory interest in feesimple absolute.

b. B holds a fee simple subject to executory limitation and O owns a shifting executory interest in feesimple absolute.

c. B owns Blueacre in fee simple absolute because of the Rule in Shelley’s Case and Rule of Merger.

d. O owns Blueacre in fee simple absolute because of the Doctrine of Worthier Title.

e. O owns Blueacre in fee simple absolute because of the Doctrine of Destructibility of ContingentRemainders.

12. Alan and Beth own adjoining tracts of land, Alanacre (owned by Alan) and Bethacre (owned by Beth).One day a wild deer wanders onto Bethacre from a forest that is not on Alan’s or Beth’s land. Over thenext several months, Beth feeds it daily and allows her children to play with it. Each evening the deerreturns to the forest, but comes back to Bethacre again each morning. Six months later, Alan traps the deerand confines it on Alanacre. Beth demands return of the deer. Beth’s best argument would be based on:

a. Rule of Discovery.

b. Rule of Escape.

c. Rule of Animus Revertendi.

d. Rule of Lost Property.

e. Rule Against Perpetuities.

13. In the year 1500, Olivette conveys the family estate “to her granddaughter Alexis for life, then to Alexis’sson Beauregard for life if he graduates from medical school.” Alexis conveys her life estate back toOlivette before Beauregard graduates from medical school. Which of the following is a correct statementof the law?

a. In a jurisdiction that recognizes the Doctrine of Destructibility of Contingent Remainders, Olivetteowns the land in fee simple absolute.

b. In a jurisdiction where the Doctrine of Worthier Title applies, Olivette owns a fee simple absolutebecause it was an inter vivos conveyance to her heir Beauregard.

c. In a jurisdiction where the Rule in Shelley’s Case applies, Olivette owns a fee simple absolute becauseOlivette created a life estate in Alexis and a remainder in Alexis’s heir Beauregard.

d. Both b and c.

e. None of the above.

14. Which of the following is a true statement?

a. Joint tenants must receive their interests at the same time, but not necessarily in the same conveyanceor devise.

b. Joint tenants cannot alter their possessory rights by agreement.

c. Joint tenants must be married.

d. A tenancy in common will be converted into a joint tenancy as soon as the tenants acquire equal sharesin the property.

e. None of the above.

15. When determining who inherits in cases of intestacy at common law, the following order applies:

a. Collateral kin, ancestors, issue, state.

b. State, ancestors, collateral kin, issue.

c. Issue, ancestors, collateral kin, state.

d. Issue, collateral kin, ancestors, state.

e. Issue, ancestors, descendants, state.

16. O’Brien conveys Redacre “to Adams for life, then to Bailey for life if Bailey reaches 25, then to thechildren of Bailey who reach 25.” Applying the What Might Happen test of the Rule Against Perpetuities,which of the following is true?

a. Bailey’s contingent remainder is valid, and Bailey’s children’s contingent remainder is valid.

b. Bailey’s contingent remainder is valid, and Bailey’s children’s contingent remainder is void.

c. Bailey’s contingent remainder is void, and Bailey’s children’s contingent remainder is valid.

d. Bailey’s contingent remainder is void, and Bailey’s children’s contingent remainder is void.

e. None of the above, because Bailey’s and Bailey’s children’s interests are not contingent remainders.

17. Snidely Whiplash is a “rock hound” from the big city. He asks Polly Purebred’s permission to come ontoPolly’s land and collect rocks that are lying on the surface of the land. Polly, thinking the rocks have novalue, gives Snidely permission. Polly has no knowledge of any valuable rocks on her property. Through astroke of luck, Snidely discovers diamond-bearing rocks completely buried underground and withoutPolly’s knowledge, digs these rocks out, extracts the diamonds, and sells them for a fortune. Severalmonths later, Polly learns of Snidely’s extraction and sale of the rocks. Infuriated, she sues Snidely for thevalue of the rocks. The most likely result will be:

a. Snidely will win because the rule of lost property says that between a locus owner and a finder, thefinder wins if the locus owner is unaware of the existence of the object found.

b. Polly will win because the rule of treasure trove is that treasure trove found under the landowner’s landbelongs to the landowner.

c. Snidely will win because he had express permission to dig up the rocks.

d. Polly will win on the theory of constructive possession, because she owns everything under her land.

e. Polly will win because of the rule of mislaid property.

18. Oscar conveys “to Alvin for life, then to Bethany forever.” The interests created would be:

a. Alvin has a life estate, Bethany has a life estate, and Oscar has a reversion in fee simple absolute.

b. Alvin has a life estate, and Bethany has a vested remainder in fee simple absolute.

c. Alvin has a life estate, Bethany has a vested remainder in life estate, and Oscar has a reversion in feesimple absolute.

d. Alvin has a life estate, Bethany has a contingent remainder in fee simple absolute, and Oscar has areversion in fee simple absolute.

e. Alvin has a life estate, and Oscar has a reversion in fee simple absolute; Bethany has nothing.

19. In the conveyance “to A for life, then to B and her heirs,” the interest held by the heirs of B is:

a. A vested remainder subject to open.

b. A contingent remainder because B must die first before her heirs are known.

c. A reversion in the event B dies before A dies.

d. A remainder in the event B dies before A dies.

e. Nothing.

20. In the year 2000, Homer conveys “to Bart so long as he does not tease his sisters, then to Milhouse.”Classify the interests without applying the Rule Against Perpetuities.

a. Bart has a fee simple determinable, Milhouse has a possibility of reverter, and Homer has a reversionin fee simple absolute.

b. Bart has a fee simple subject to condition subsequent, Milhouse has a right of entry, and Homer has areversion in fee simple absolute.

c. Bart has a fee simple subject to executory limitation, and Milhouse has a springing executory interestin fee simple absolute.

d. Bart has a fee simple subject to executory limitation, and Milhouse has a shifting executory interest infee simple absolute.

e. Bart has a fee simple determinable and Homer has a possibility of reverter.

21. Gary Coleman, while on real property (“realty”) owned by Mr. Drummond, finds a gold watch. Mr.Drummond admits that he has never seen the watch before, but claims that he (Mr. Drummond) owns itbecause he owns the building where it was found. Gary Coleman claims he owns the watch. Facts thatwould best support Gary’s claim for ownership would be:

a. The realty is Mr. Drummond’s house, Gary was a guest in the house, and he found the watch in thebathroom on the counter next to the sink.

b. The realty is Mr. Drummond’s house, Gary is trespassing, and Gary finds the watch on the porch.

c. The realty is Mr. Drummond’s coffee shop, Gary was an employee of a pest control company hired byMr. Drummond, and Gary found the watch while digging up gophers behind the coffee shop on Mr.Drummond’s land.

d. The realty is Mr. Drummond’s coffee shop, Gary was a customer in the shop, and Gary found thewatch on top of a table.

e. The realty is Mr. Drummond’s coffee shop, Gary was a customer in the shop, and he found the watchon the floor under the table.

Questions 22 and 23 are based on the following facts:In 2000, Scott conveys Blackacre “to Charles and his heirs, but should the land be sold then to William and hisheirs.” Both Charles and William are alive.

22. Classify the interests without applying the Rule Against Perpetuities.

a. Charles has a fee simple subject to condition subsequent, and William has a right of re-entry in feesimple absolute.

b. Charles has a fee simple subject to executory limitation, and William has a shifting executory interestin fee simple absolute

c. Charles has a fee simple subject to executory limitation, and William has a shifting executory interestin fee simple subject to condition subsequent and Scott has a right of re-entry in fee simple absolute.

d. Charles has a fee simple absolute, and William has a vested remainder in fee simple subject tocondition subsequent and Scott has a right of re-entry in fee simple absolute.

e. Charles has a vested remainder subject to divestment in fee simple subject to executory limitation, andWilliam has a shifting executory interest in fee simple absolute.

23. Charles and William are still alive. William’s interest is:

a. Void under the What Might Happen test of the Rule Against Perpetuities.

b. Valid under the common law Wait and See test of the Rule Against Perpetuities.

c. Void as a restraint on alienation.

d. Both a and c.

e. All of the above.

24. O conveys Blackacre “to John for life, remainder to John’s heirs.” Five years later, John wishes to sellBlackacre to Nick in fee simple absolute. In a jurisdiction that recognizes the Rule in Shelley’s Case andthe Rule of Merger, can John convey a fee simple absolute?

a. John cannot convey a fee simple absolute because a life estate prohibits him from conveying anyestate other than a life estate pur autre vie.

b. John cannot convey a fee simple absolute unless his heirs agree to convey their remainder to Nick aswell.

c. John can convey a fee simple absolute.

d. John cannot convey a fee simple absolute because the remainder in his heirs is contingent.

e. John cannot convey a fee simple absolute because there is an intervening life estate.

25. Tim prepares a will that will devise Orangeacre “to my children, Aaron, Bridgette, and Cora, per stirpes.”Aaron has one child, Dan. Bridgette has one child, Ethan. Cora has one child, Frank. Cora dies, devisingall of her property to her husband Gerry. Then Tim dies and his will takes effect. Who owns Orangeacreand in what shares?

a. Aaron owns 1/3, Bridgette owns 1/3, and Frank owns 1/3 as tenants in common in fee simple absolute.

b. Aaron owns 1/3, Bridgette owns 1/3, and Frank owns 1/3 as joint tenants with the right of survivorshipin fee simple absolute.

c. Aaron owns 1/3, Bridgette owns 1/3, and Gerry owns 1/3 as tenants in common in fee simple absolute.

d. Aaron owns ½ and Bridgette owns ½ as tenants in common in fee simple absolute.

e. Aaron owns ½ and Bridgette owns ½ as joint tenants with the right of survivorship in fee simpleabsolute.

26. Tina is 115 years old, owns Redacre, and does not have a will. She has one son, Harry, and no otherrelatives. Harry has run up huge debts and wants to sell his interest in Redacre to pay the debts. Yourepresent the prospective buyer. Your soundest advice would be:

a. Harry will soon own a fee simple absolute in the property through intestacy. Therefore, the buyershould purchase the interest.

b. Harry is only an heir apparent. He currently has no interest in the property. Therefore, the buyershould not purchase the interest.

c. Harry will soon own a fee simple absolute through a devise. Therefore, the buyer should purchase theinterest.

d. Harry currently owns a contingent interest in the property, contingent on Tina dying. Therefore, thebuyer should pay only the value of a contingent interest.

e. Harry currently owns a vested interest in the property. Therefore, the buyer should pay the value ofthe vested interest discounted by the length of time that Tina will probably still own the property.

27. Opal conveys “to Avery for life, then to Avery’s children who graduate from law school.” At the time ofthe conveyance, Avery has no children. Two years later, Avery has Bob. Which of the following is a truestatement?

a. The Rule Against Perpetuities does not apply because Bob’s interest is vested.

b. The Rule Against Perpetuities does not apply because Avery’s children’s interest is contingent.

c. Avery’s children’s interest is valid under the What Might Happen test of the Rule Against Perpetuitiesbecause it will necessarily vest or fail within Bob’s lifetime.

d. Avery’s children’s interest will be valid under the common law Wait and See test of the Rule AgainstPerpetuities if the interest will actually vest or fail within ninety years.

e. Avery’s children’s interest is void under USRAP unless a child of Avery graduates from law schoolwithin ninety years.

28. In the year 2000, Omar conveys Brownacre “to my father Andrew for life, then to my mother Beatrice.”Beatrice dies devising all of her property to Omar and his sister Cecilia “in equal shares.” Then Andrewdies. Which of the following is a true statement?

a. Omar owns Brownacre in fee simple absolute because he held a reversion after Andrew’s life estate.

b. Omar owns Brownacre in fee simple absolute because Beatrice cannot devise her interest inBrownacre until she vests in possession.

c. Omar and Cecilia own Brownacre as joint tenants in fee simple absolute.

d. Omar and Cecilia own Brownacre as tenants in common in fee simple absolute.

e. Omar and Cecilia own Brownacre as tenants by the entirety in fee simple absolute.

29. Prior to the Statute of Uses, Oldfather enfeoffs Blackacre “to Xavier and his heirs for the benefit ofOldfather and his heirs, then to the use of Angelina when she turns 30.” Which of the following is a truestatement?

a. This type of conveyance was prohibited prior to the Statute of Uses. Therefore, Oldfather holds theland in fee simple absolute.

b. This type of conveyance was permitted prior to the Statute of Uses. Therefore, Xavier holds the landin fee simple absolute, and Oldfather and Angelina have no interests in Blackacre.

c. This type of conveyance was permitted prior to the Statute of Uses. Xavier holds an equitable interestin the land, and Oldfather and Angelina hold legal interests in the land.

d. This type of conveyance was prohibited prior to the Statute of Uses. If Xavier failed to hold the landfor the benefit of Oldfather and Angelina, Oldfather and Angelina could seek monetary damages in theCourts at Law.

e. This type of conveyance was permitted prior to the Statute of Uses. If Xavier failed to hold the landfor the benefit of Oldfather and Angelina, Oldfather and Angelina could seek equitable enforcement ofXavier’s duties in the Courts of Equity.

30. Owen grants Blackacre “to Andy for life, then to Andy’s children, but if any child born during Andy’slifetime dies before Andy then that child’s share shall go to his or her issue.” Andy has two children,Brandy and Candy. Andy is still alive. It is the year 2000. Classify the interests.

a. Andy has a life estate, Brandy and Candy have vested remainders subject to open, and the issue ofBrandy and Candy have shifting executory interests in fee simple absolute.

b. Andy has a life estate, Brandy and Candy have vested remainders subject to open and vestedremainders subject to divestment in fee simple absolute, and the issue of Brandy and Candy haveshifting executory interests in fee simple absolute.

c. Andy has a life estate, Brandy and Candy have contingent remainders in fee simple absolute, the issueof Brandy and Candy have contingent remainders in fee simple absolute, and Owen has a reversion infee simple absolute.

d. Andy has a life estate, Brandy and Candy have vested remainders in fee simple absolute, Andy’sgrandchildren have a contingent remainder in fee simple absolute, and Owen has a reversion in feesimple absolute.

e. Andy has a life estate, Brandy and Candy have vested remainders subject to open and vestedremainders subject to divestment in fee simple absolute, and Andy’s grandchildren have a shiftingexecutory interest in fee simple absolute.

Practice Property Multiple Choice Question Answers

1. C Betsy’s interest is a vested remainder subject to divestment in fee simple absolute. Her interest is aremainder because it follows a life estate. It is vested because Betsy is a known person and she does nothave a condition precedent in her granting clause. It is subject to divestment because the condition inCynthia’s granting clause could possibly occur (but does not necessarily have to) before Betsy takespossession of Blueacre. (This is why E is incorrect – Betsy would only have a vested remainder in feesimple subject to executory limitation if the condition can only occur after Betsy took possession of theproperty.) Because vested remainders subject to divestment are always followed by an executoryinterest, Cynthia has an executory interest. Cynthia’s interest is shifting because she will divest agrantee (Betsy). Note that D is incorrect because the remainder is not subject to open – the conveyancewas to Betsy specifically, not to a class.

2. D In contrast to #1, Bill has a vested remainder in fee simple subject to executory limitation because thecondition in Cathy’s granting clause can only occur after Bill takes the property. Because fee simplessubject to executory limitation are always followed by executory interests, Cathy’s interest is anexecutory interest; it is shifting because she will divest a grantee (Bill). Note that Bill’s interest is not avested remainder in fee simple subject to condition subsequent because the person who can divest him isa grantee (Cathy) and not the grantor (Olivia).

3. B Opie’s interest is a contingent remainder in fee simple absolute. It is a remainder because it follows alife estate. It is contingent because there is a condition precedent in his granting clause (he mustbecome the Sheriff). Barney’s heirs have a contingent remainder for three reasons: (1) the heirs areunascertained (Barney is alive and therefore his heirs are unknown); (2) the heirs’ granting clausecontains a condition precedent (Opie must not become Sheriff); and (3) because when the first futureinterest of a fee estate is a contingent remainder, the second stated future interest is also a remainder.The remainders are alternative because only one can vest—either Opie becomes the Sheriff or he doesnot become the Sheriff. Andy has a reversion because, whenever there is a contingent remainder, thereis always a reversion in the grantor.

4. E E is the correct answer. A pre-1536 enfeoffment can be compared to a modern-day trust. The feoffeeheld the legal interest in the estate for the benefit of the cestui que use, just as a trustee in a modern-daytrust holds legal interest in the estate for the benefit of the trust’s beneficiaries.

• A is incorrect because a vested remainder in fee simple subject to condition subsequent (which iswhat B has because of the language “but if”) has a right of entry and not a possibility of reverter(which only follows a fee simple determinable).

• B is incorrect because the divesting condition for a vested remainder subject to divestment mayoccur before the remainder becomes possessory. For example, O conveys “to A for life, then to B,but if C turns 21 to C.” C turns 21 before A dies. B’s interest is divested before B was entitled topossession of the property (no actual possession until A dies).

• C is incorrect because a condition precedent may occur before a grantee dies as long as that scenariois not the condition in the grant. (Compare O conveys “to A for life, then to B if B survives A” to Oconveys “to A for life, then to B if B turns 21.”)

• D is incorrect because a contingent remainder in life estate can be followed by a vested remainder(such as “to A for life, then to B for life, then to C in fee simple absolute”).

5. D This conveyance creates the following interests: A has a life estate; B has a contingent remainder in feesimple absolute; C has an alternative contingent remainder in fee simple absolute; O has a reversion infee simple absolute. Applying the Doctrine of Destructibility of Contingent Remainders, when A, thelife tenant, dies, neither condition (B reaching or not reaching 21) has occurred. Therefore, bothremainders are destroyed, and O’s reversion would kick in, resulting in O taking the property in feesimple absolute. Note that A is incorrect because the Destructibility Doctrine has nothing to do with theRule Against Perpetuities, which this answer suggests. Note also that C is incorrect because thisstatement would only be true if the Doctrine of Destructibility of Contingent Remainders did not apply.

6. A Pearl has a vested remainder subject to open because if Hester Prynne had another child, Pearl’s interestwould be divided in half with the second child. (Similarly, if Hester Prynne had a third child, Pearl’sinterest would be divided into thirds, with each of her siblings having a 1/3 interest.) Note that E iswrong for two reasons: first, Pearl does not have a contingent remainder, and second, even when youapply the Rule Against Perpetuities, the interest is valid because all children would vest as soon asHester (a life in being) died.

7. E E is correct because Gomez will step in and hold seisin for the one day that Lurch must wait before hetakes the property. Gomez will hold the property as a fee simple subject to executory limitation(because he will be divested by Lurch). Lurch’s interest is a springing executory interest because hewill divest the grantor. Note that C is incorrect because the answer classified Lurch’s interest as ashifting executory interest.

8. B Mr. Haney’s interest is a remainder because it follows a life estate. It is vested because Mr. Haney isknown and his granting clause does not contain a condition precedent. He will take it in fee simplesubject to executory limitation because the condition cannot occur until after Mr. Haney takes theproperty. The Ziffels have a shifting executory interest because (1) it follows a fee simple subject toexecutory limitation; and (2) they will divest a transferee.

9. A The answer to this problem is best understood in several steps.

• First, when this interest was created, Ruben held a life estate and Keith’s children held a contingentremainder (because they were unascertained) in fee simple determinable (because of the language“so long as”), and Shirley held a reversion in fee simple absolute (because of the contingentremainder) and a possibility of reverter in fee simple absolute (because of the children’s fee simpledeterminable).

• Second, when Laurie was born, the state of the title was life estate in Ruben, vested remaindersubject to open in fee simple determinable in Laurie, and possibility of reverter in fee simpleabsolute in Shirley.

• Third, when Keith died, Laurie’s class closed. Therefore, the state of the title was life estate inRuben, vested remainder in fee simple determinable in Laurie, and possibility of reverter in feesimple absolute in Shirley.

• Fourth, when Ruben died, Laurie vested in possession. Therefore, the state of the title was feesimple determinable in Laurie and possibility of reverter in fee simple absolute in Shirley.

• Fifth, when Shirley dies intestate, her estate went to her heirs. In this instance, her sole heir isLaurie (Laurie is her grandchild—the daughter of her only child, Keith). Therefore, the state of thetitle is fee simple determinable in Laurie followed by a possibility of reverter in fee simple absolutein Laurie.

• Sixth, because both estates are held by one person, the merger rule will apply and the smaller estate(the fee simple determinable) merges into the larger estate (fee simple absolute). Therefore, Laurieholds Partridge Meadows in fee simple absolute because of the Rule of Merger.

Note that the state gets no interest whatsoever because Laurie existed as an heir. Note also that theDoctrine of Worthier Title does not apply because the exact language required by the rule (“to A, thento O’s heirs”) was not used.

10. C Anderson has a life estate. Bartlett has a remainder (because it follows a life estate). It is vestedbecause Bartlett is known and he is not subject to a condition precedent in his granting clause.However, the language “so long as” does limit Bartlett’s interest to a vested remainder in some type ofdefeasible fee. Because the interest will revert to Coleman (a grantee) if Bartlett uses it for hunting,Bartlett’s interest is a vested remainder in fee simple subject to executory limitation and Coleman’sinterest is a shifting executory interest in fee simple absolute (because he will divest a grantee).

11. E When this interest was created, A had a life estate, A’s children had a contingent remainder in feesimple absolute (because the remainderman are unascertained and they are subject to a conditionprecedent), and O had a reversion in fee simple absolute (because there was a contingent remainder infee simple). When B is born, she still holds a contingent remainder because of the condition precedent.

• The Rule in Shelley’s Case does not apply because the conveyance did not say “to A, then to A’sheirs.” Rather, it was a remainder “to A’s children.” Therefore, this rule has no impact on thisquestion.

• The Doctrine of Worthier Title does not apply because the conveyance did not create an interest in“O’s heirs.” Therefore, this rule has no impact on this question.

• Applying the Doctrine of Destructibility of Contingent Remainders, when A dies, B’s interest hasnot vested because she had not yet graduated from law school. Therefore, her interest wasdestroyed and O owns Blueacre in fee simple absolute.

12. C Under the Doctrine of Animus Revertendi, a wild animal that escapes from a possessor does not lose titleto the animal if the animal has a habit of return. The Rule of Discovery applies to discovery of land.The Rule of Escape would work against Beth.

13. A When this conveyance is created, the interests are a life estate in Alexis and a contingent remainder inBeauregard (contingent because of a condition precedent) in life estate, and Olivette has a reversion infee simple absolute (because of the contingent remainder). Since the conveyance occurred in the1500’s, traditional common law rules applied. Therefore, when Alexis conveyed her life estate back toOlivette, the life estate ended and merger occurred, destroying the contingent remainder under theDoctrine of Destructibility of Contingent Remainders. Note that neither Worthier Title nor Shelley’sCase applied because (1) the correct language for each rule is not used; and (2) Beauregard is not an heiryet, he is only an heir apparent.

14. E A is incorrect because joint tenants must not only receive their interests at the same time (“time”), butalso from the same instrument (“title”). B is wrong because once the joint tenancy has been created, thejoint tenants can alter their right to possession by agreement. C is wrong because only tenants by theentirety have to be married, not joint tenants. D is wrong because a tenancy in common cannot turn intoa joint tenancy unless all four unities (time, title, interest, possession) required for a joint tenancy aremet and, depending on the jurisdiction, the title is specified to be held as joint tenants. Therefore, thecorrect answer is “none of the above.”

15. C This answer is self-explanatory. Note, however, that descendants in E is just another word for issue andissue take first. Note also that at common law, spouses were protected by dower and curtesy, and onlystatutory recognition of spousal intestacy rights places spouses at the same level as issue.

16. B Bailey’s interest is a contingent remainder (condition precedent). Bailey’s children’s interest is acontingent remainder (unascertained and condition precedent).

• Bailey’s contingent remainder is valid. Bailey is a life in being. His interest will vest or fail withinhis lifetime. (Using the Create/Kill/Count approach – no one other than Bailey can be created totake the interest. Therefore, the interest is valid.)

• Bailey’s children’s contingent remainder is void. Applying Create/Kill/Count approach—createBailey’s child, X. Kill Adams, Bailey, and O’Brien. Count 21 years. It is impossible for X toreach 25 years old in 21 years. Therefore, the interest is void.

17. D Under these options, the most likely result would be that Polly will win because of the idea ofconstructive possession. Constructive possession is the idea that a landowner owns everything undertheir land regardless whether they know what is there. A is less acceptable because the diamonds are not“lost” objects, which connotes that Polly had them in her possession then lost them (but if these werePolly’s anniversary diamond earrings that Snidely found, it would be a different story). B is lessacceptable because treasure trove is generally gold or silver coins or bullion or something like that andnot unrefined diamonds. C is incorrect because Snidely had express permission to take rocks lying onthe land, not buried underneath the land. E is incorrect because Polly did not know about the rocks, sothey couldn’t be mislaid.

18. C The words “to Bethany forever” at old common law would be insufficient to create a fee simpleabsolute, but instead would create a life estate. Therefore, since she (a grantee) is known and there is nocondition precedent, she has a vested remainder in life estate. Oscar would have a reversion in feesimple absolute because someone would need to be there to take the land once Bethany died.

19. E The words “and her heirs” are merely words of limitation, indicating that B will receive a fee simpleabsolute in the land once her interest becomes possessory. It creates no interest in B’s heirs.

20. D Bart’s interest is a fee simple subject to executory limitation because he can be divested if he ever teaseshis sisters and he will be divested by a grantee (Milhouse). Because fee simple subject to executorylimitations are always followed by executory interests, Milhouse holds an executory interest. It isshifting because Milhouse will divest a grantee (Bart). Milhouse will hold it in fee simple absolutebecause the language of his grant is “then to Milhouse,” which is equivalent to “then to Milhouse andhis heirs,” which grants a fee simple absolute.

21. E This question requires you to analyze the different scenarios discussed with regard to the law of find.The best facts to support Gary’s claim is E, because he could argue that the watch lying under the tableis lost property, and the finder keeps lost property over the locus owner. A is not a good answer becauseMr. Drummond is the locus owner and the watch neither seems lost nor mislaid. B is also not the bestanswer because the locus owner generally owns everything on, under or in his property. C is not thebest answer because, between an employer/locus owner (Drummond) and an employee (Gary), theemployer wins. D is also not the best answer because the watch seems mislaid (on top of the table), inwhich case the locus owner will win over a finder of mislaid property.

22. B The language of the grant conveys to Charles a fee simple subject to executory limitation. Because thisestate must always be followed by an executory interest, William holds an executory interest. BecauseWilliam’s interest will divest Charles (a grantee), the executory interest is shifting. Because thelanguage of William’s interest states it is to “William and his heirs,” William will take it as a fee simpleabsolute if the condition (i.e., that Charles sells the land) ever occurs.

23. D William’s interest is void under the What Might Happen test of the Rule Against Perpetuities becausethere is no guarantee that Charles’s heirs will sell the land within 21 years of Charles’ or William’sdeaths. The interest is also void as a restraint on alienation (see Martin Brow v. Toscano Lodge)because it absolutely prohibits the sale of land. B is incorrect because Charles and William are stillalive, so we do not know whether the interest will vest or fail within 21 years of a life in being. Wehave to wait until 21 years after Charles and William die. Therefore, D is correct.

24. C The Rule in Shelley’s Case states that if one instrument purports to convey a life estate in A and aremainder in A’s heirs, and both are legal or both equitable, then the remainder to A’s heirs is convertedto a remainder in A. The Rule of Merger provides that, if there is no intervening vested interest, a lifeestate will merge into a remainder in fee simple when they come into the same hands. Here, theconveyance was to John for life, then John’s heirs. The conveyance was in one instrument and both arelegal interests. Therefore, the Rule in Shelley’s Case applies, in which case the conveyance reads “toJohn for life, then to John.” Because there is no intervening life estate, the Rule of Merger applies andJohn’s life estate merged into his remainder in fee simple absolute.

25. A Per stirpes means that the child(ren) of a deceased devisee will take the share of the deceased devisee.Here, although the will was prepared before Cora’s death, it does not become effective until Tim dies.Therefore, no conveyance occurred until Tim died. Tim died after Cora died, so Cora received nothingfrom the conveyance and her share went to her child (Frank) and not her husband (Gerry). Aaron,Brigette and Frank own the property in fee simple absolute in equal shares. They take it as tenants incommon because the specific language required to create a joint tenancy (e.g., “as joint tenants with aright of survivorship”) are not in the conveyance.

26. B Because Harry is Tina’s sole relative, Harry is an heir apparent. As an heir apparent, Harry holds nointerest in Redacre. It would be unwise to advise the buyer to purchase the property at all because Tinacan still sell the property before she dies or prepare a will and devise it to another when she dies.

27. E Opal has created a life estate in Avery, a contingent remainder in fee simple absolute in Avery’schildren (contingent because they are unascertained and subject to a condition precedent), and areversion in fee simple absolute in herself.

• The contingent remainder is not a vested remainder until the class closes; therefore A is incorrect.

• Because the remainder is contingent, the Rule Against Perpetuities does apply.

• The children’s interest is void under the What Might Happen test of the Rule Against Perpetuitiesbecause it is possible that the interest might vest more than 21 years after Opal and Avery die.

Using the Create/Kill/Count approach: Create X. Kill Opal, Avery and Bob. Count 21 years. It ispossible that X will not graduate from law school until after that time (or not at all). Therefore, C isincorrect.

• Although the children’s interest might be valid under the common law Wait and See test, the testcalls for 21 years after a life in being and not 90 years. Therefore, D is incorrect.

• E is correct because USRAP allows 90 years to determine whether an interest will vest. If a child ofAvery’s does not graduate within 90 years, the interest is void.

28. D Omar created a life estate in Andrew and a vested remainder in fee simple absolute in Beatrice. Vestedremainders (regardless of the type) are conveyable, inheritable and devisable. Vesting in possession isnot required, only vesting in interest. Therefore, Beatrice could devise her vested remainder to Omarand Cecilia. When Andrew died, the vested remainder kicked in and Omar and Cecilia vested inpossession. Because Beatrice only used the words “in equal shares,” a joint tenancy could not becreated. Similarly, because Omar and Cecilia are not married (they are brother and sister – they’d betternot be married!), they cannot be tenants by the entirety. Therefore, Omar and Cecilia hold the land infee simple absolute as tenants in common.

29. E Enfeoffments creating a use were permitted prior to the Statute of Uses. An enfeoffment created a legalinterest in the feoffee (Xavier) and equitable interests in the cestui que use (Oldfather and Angelina).Equitable interests could only be enforced in Courts of Equity. Only equitable relief (e.g., injunctions)was available. Monetary relief (damages) was available only in Courts at Law.

30. B Andy has a life estate. Brandy and Candy, because they are named and because Andy is alive, havevested remainders subject to open. Because they can be divested by their respective issue if they do notsurvive Andy, their vested remainders are also subject to divestment. Because a vested remaindersubject to divestment is always followed by an executory interest, Brandy and Candy’s issue (which isnot equivalent to Andy’s grandchildren) have an executory interest that is shifting because it will divesta grantee (Brandy or Candy). All future interests are in fee simple absolute because the language used(“to Andy’s children,” etc.) are all equivalent to the common law “and their heirs.”

Tips on answering a Property Law Multiple Choice Quiz. In any test time is always your enemy. You must learn to proceed quickly from question to question. Everyone is different but here are some property multiple choice test tips that may help. First, none of the above is rarely the correct answer. Unless you are positive, don't chose this answer. Next read the answers first. Practice by covering the property law multiple choice question with a note card. Usually you can mark out two of the answers as an incorrect statement of property law. Then carefully read the question. From the answers you will already know what facts to look for. For more Property multiple choice questions click on the link above and order the Property Questions and Answers series.

Search for more Property Multiple Choice Questions

Custom Search