- What is the tour company's legal status with respect to the field?
Answer: It is a licensee, and the original license was terminated by the sale of the property.
The company's use began with permission, so it was a license, not an adverse use that could ripen into a prescriptive easement. A license is generally revoked by the sale of the servient property, even if the new owner knows of the use. Thus, the original license terminated, and the company must negotiate a new agreement or risk being a trespasser. While an estoppel argument might exist, it is often difficult to prove that building a business model constitutes the type of specific reliance (like making improvements on the servient land) required for an irrevocable license, making C the most accurate description of the default legal status.
- What is the corporation's strongest argument that it has a right to maintain the billboard?
Answer: The agreement created an easement in gross, which is an interest in land binding on a subsequent purchaser with notice.
The agreement, being a long-term written instrument granting the right to use a specific part of the property for a particular purpose, has the characteristics of an easement in gross, not a mere license. An easement is an interest in land that, if properly created, is binding on subsequent purchasers of the servient estate who have notice. A lease is incorrect because the corporation does not have exclusive possession of the property. While an irrevocable license theory might be arguable, characterizing the right as an easement is a stronger argument for binding a successor in interest. A profit involves the right to take something from the land, which is not the case here.
- In a lawsuit to re-establish access, what is the garage owner's strongest claim?
Answer: An implied easement based on prior existing use.
An implied easement from prior use (or quasi-easement) arises when a common owner severs property, a use was in place before severance that was apparent and continuous, and its continuation is reasonably necessary for the enjoyment of the dominant parcel. Here, the driveway was apparent, continuous, and necessary for the garage's use. This is a stronger claim than an easement by necessity, which requires strict necessity (landlocked property), not just inaccessibility of a garage. The use was not adverse, so prescription fails. Mere use, without substantial investment in reliance, does not create an irrevocable license.
- A man who owned a cabin gave his brother a key and told him, "You can use my cabin for a weekend fishing trip anytime you like." The brother used the cabin several times over the next year. The man then died, leaving the cabin to his daughter in his will. When the brother arrived for a fishing trip a month later, the daughter, who was there, refused to let him enter.
Answer: The brother has no right to use the cabin because the license was personal and terminated on the man's death.
The oral permission to use the cabin created a license. A license is a personal privilege and does not create an interest in land. Unless it becomes irrevocable through estoppel (which requires substantial reliance, not present here), a license is terminated by the death of the licensor. Therefore, the permission granted by the father is not binding on the daughter who inherited the property. The family relationship, delivery of a key, and lack of consideration are all consistent with a license but do not create a more durable property right.
- What is the neighbors' strongest argument that they have a right to continue crossing the property?
Answer: They have no right because the permissive use was a license that terminated upon the death of the licensor.
The use was expressly permissive, not adverse or hostile. Therefore, an easement by prescription cannot arise, regardless of the duration of the use. A license is a revocable privilege. Long-term use does not, by itself, make a license irrevocable; estoppel requires substantial reliance, such as making improvements, which is not indicated here. A license is personal to the licensor and is terminated by the licensor's death. Therefore, the heir is not bound by his predecessor's permission.
- What is the church's strongest argument for its right to continue using the driveway?
Answer: An irrevocable license because the church substantially relied on the permission to its detriment.
This question tests your understanding of property rights that arise when someone uses another's land with permission. When analyzing land use arrangements, you need to distinguish between easements, licenses, and the circumstances that make each enforceable.
The church's strongest argument is an irrevocable license based on detrimental reliance (D). Initially, the homeowner granted only oral permission to use the driveway—this created a revocable license, not an easement. However, when the church reasonably relied on this permission by spending $25,000 on a larger sanctuary instead of building its own driveway, the license became irrevocable under the doctrine of estoppel. The homeowner cannot revoke the license when doing so would cause substantial injustice to the church.
Option A fails because prescriptive easements require hostile use—use without the owner's permission. Here, the church had explicit oral permission, so the use was permissive, not hostile. Option B is incorrect because parol (oral) easements violate the Statute of Frauds, which requires easements to be in writing. The buyer's actual notice doesn't cure this fundamental invalidity. Option C doesn't work because easements by necessity arise only when land becomes landlocked and has no other reasonable access. The church has access to its property and could build its own driveway—it simply chose not to for economic reasons.
Remember: When you see permitted land use plus substantial reliance, think irrevocable license. The key is whether the user detrimentally relied on the permission in a way that would make revocation unjust.
- A farmer gave his neighbor oral permission to cross a field on the farm as a shortcut to a public road. The next day, the farmer erected a gate at the entrance to the field and locked it. When the neighbor asked the farmer for a key, the farmer refused.
Answer: The permission has been revoked by the farmer's actions inconsistent with the license.
A license is freely revocable at the will of the licensor. Revocation does not require formal or even direct notice. It can be accomplished by actions that are inconsistent with the continuation of the license, such as locking a gate or blocking the path. The farmer's act of locking the gate and refusing to provide a key was a clear revocation of the license. Mere use does not create an irrevocable license; substantial reliance is required.
- O sells P a boat stored on O's land; P may enter to retrieve it. O revokes. P:
Answer: Has an irrevocable license
P owns the boat, so the license to enter O's land is coupled with an interest in the chattel and is irrevocable until P has a reasonable chance to retrieve it. The tempting wrong answer, a revocable license, treats this as bare permission, but the ownership interest makes a mere revocable license insufficient.
- A landowner and his neighbor signed a formal, written document, which they recorded, stating that the neighbor was granted the right to use a swimming pool on the landowner's property for a period of 10 years. The landowner then sold his property. The new owner, citing liability concerns, has barred the neighbor from the pool.
Answer: The neighbor has a right to use the pool because the recorded document created an easement for a term of years.
The written, recorded document granting a right to use property for a specific purpose and duration created an express easement for a term of years. Unlike a license, an easement is an interest in land. Because it was recorded, subsequent purchasers have constructive notice and are bound by its terms. Therefore, the new owner cannot bar the neighbor from the pool. The right is non-possessory, so it is an easement, not a lease. The right to use recreational facilities is a recognized subject for an easement.
- What right did the residents have regarding the pool?
Answer: An easement to use the pool, created by the express covenant in their deeds.
When you encounter questions about property rights and covenants, focus on identifying what type of legal interest was created and whether it runs with the land.
Here, the developer made an express covenant in the deed to "build and maintain a swimming pool for the use of all residents." This language creates more than a mere personal promise—it establishes an easement appurtenant. An easement gives the holder a legally enforceable right to use another's property for a specific purpose. The covenant was written into the deeds, making it an express easement that benefits the residential lots (dominant estate) and burdens the pool parcel (servient estate). This right runs with the land, meaning it binds future owners of the pool property.
Answer D correctly identifies this as an easement created by express covenant. The residents have enforceable rights regardless of who owns the pool.
Answer A is wrong because a license is revocable permission, typically informal and not recorded in deeds. The formal covenant here creates stronger rights than a mere license.
Answer B fails because a leasehold requires a landlord-tenant relationship with exclusive possession for a defined term. The residents don't have exclusive possession—they share usage rights.
Answer C misapplies prescriptive easements, which require hostile, open, and continuous use for the statutory period (usually much longer than two years). Here, the residents used the pool with permission under the covenant, not hostilely.
Remember: Express covenants in deeds typically create easements when they grant usage rights in property. Look for formal language and recorded agreements rather than informal arrangements.
- O orally allows B to park on O's lot. O sells to S. B parks after the sale. S:
Answer: May eject B as a trespasser
An oral license to use land is revocable and personal to the licensee. When O sells the lot, the license ends, so B no longer has permission and is trespassing against S, who may eject B. The tempting answer is that S takes subject to the license, but a license doesn't run with the land like an easement.
- What is the best characterization of the buyer's right of access?
Answer: An express easement appurtenant, created by the deed.
When a right of access is created in a writing that complies with the Statute of Frauds (like a deed), it creates an express easement. Because it benefits a specific parcel of land (the dominant estate), it is an easement appurtenant. While the facts would also support an easement by necessity, the presence of an express grant in the deed is controlling and creates an express easement. The grant of a property interest in a deed is not a mere revocable license.
- Which of the following legal concepts is most critical for determining whether your client's actions were permissible?
Answer: The distinction between a lease and a license.
The central issue is the nature of the right granted by the parking pass. If it's a lease, the customer has a possessory interest in real property, and the landlord-tenant laws regarding eviction would apply. If it's a license, she merely has a contractual privilege to use the garage, which can be revoked for breach of its terms (like the 72-hour rule) without formal eviction proceedings. The lack of a specific, designated spot strongly suggests a license, not a lease. Bailment concerns possession of personal property, not rights to real property. The other concepts are irrelevant.
- What right, if any, does the friend have to continue hunting on the property?
Answer: He has no right because the failed attempt to create a profit resulted in a revocable license that terminated upon sale.
The right to hunt is a type of profit à prendre, which is an interest in land and must satisfy the Statute of Frauds and deed formalities. Because the writing was defective, it failed to create a valid profit. A failed attempt to create an easement or profit results in a license. Because the friend did not expend substantial funds on the land itself in reliance on the license, it remained revocable. A license is automatically revoked when the licensor conveys the property. The language "for the rest of your life" does not make a license irrevocable without estoppel.
- Two friends purchased adjoining lots. They orally agreed to create a shared garden that would straddle their property line. They jointly spent $1,000 on soil and plants. After one season, one of the friends sold his lot to a buyer who was unaware of the oral gardening agreement. The buyer immediately began constructing a fence along the exact property line.
Answer: The buyer can build the fence because he is a bona fide purchaser without notice of the equitable interest.
The oral agreement created a license. The joint expenditure likely made the license irrevocable between the two friends under an estoppel theory. However, an irrevocable license is an equitable interest. A bona fide purchaser (BFP) for value who takes without notice of an equitable interest is not bound by it. Since the buyer was unaware of the oral agreement, he takes the land free of the license and can build the fence. The Statute of Frauds prevents the oral agreement from creating a valid easement.
- A landowner orally told his neighbor, "You can park your car on the back corner of my lot whenever you need to." The neighbor parked his car there regularly for two years. The landowner then sold his lot to a buyer. The buyer, upon taking possession, immediately informed the neighbor that he could no longer park on the lot.
Answer: The neighbor has no right to park on the lot because his revocable license was terminated by the sale of the property.
The oral permission created a license, which is a revocable privilege to enter another's land. A license is not an interest in land and is generally revocable at the will of the licensor. Furthermore, a license is automatically terminated by the conveyance of the property by the licensor. The neighbor's use was permissive, not adverse, so an easement by prescription did not arise. An easement appurtenant requires a writing to satisfy the Statute of Frauds. An irrevocable license requires substantial reliance (e.g., significant expenditures), which is not present here; mere use is insufficient.
- Which of the following best describes the boater's legal right?
Answer: A license, because the marina's right to move the boat defeats the claim of exclusive possession.
The key distinction between a lease and a license is the right to exclusive possession. By retaining the right to move the boater to a different slip, the marina owner has retained control over the premises and has not transferred exclusive possession of Slip 23. Therefore, the agreement creates a license, not a lease. An easement is an interest in land, which is not what is typically created by a boat slip rental. A bailment may also exist regarding the boat itself, but the right to occupy the slip is best characterized as a license.
- An elderly woman orally told her neighbor, "Of course you can use the path across my backyard to get to the lake, dear. Use it as long as you live next door." The neighbor used the path for 10 years. During that time, the neighbor installed solar-powered lights along the path at a cost of $400. The woman died, and her son inherited the property. The son immediately blocked the path and told the neighbor she could no longer use it.
What is the neighbor's strongest argument for her right to continue using the path?
Answer: She has a license that became irrevocable through estoppel due to her expenditure on the lights.
The neighbor's strongest argument is that the license became irrevocable through estoppel. She reasonably relied on the licensor's promise by making a substantial improvement to the path (the lights). Courts will consider whether the $400 expenditure is substantial enough to warrant estoppel. An easement by prescription fails because the use was permissive, not adverse - permissive use can never ripen into prescription regardless of duration. An oral easement is invalid under the Statute of Frauds. A simple license is personal to the licensor and terminates upon her death, so it would not bind the son unless it became irrevocable.
- What is the university's best defense to the professor's claim?
Answer: The permit created a license, which did not grant a right to a specific space and was subject to the university's regulations.
The parking permit did not grant an interest in land (easement) or exclusive possession of a specific space (lease). It granted a privilege to use a general area, which is a classic license. As a license, its terms are governed by the contract between the parties. The university's best defense is that the license did not guarantee access to a specific lot, only to its parking system, and it retained the right to regulate its facilities. This is a much stronger argument than trying to terminate a lease or easement.
- O grants B and B's assigns, in writing, a right to cross O's land. B owns no neighboring land. This is:
Answer: An easement in gross
Because B owns no neighboring land, the right to cross O's land benefits B personally rather than any parcel of land. That makes it an easement in gross, not an appurtenant easement. The writing and the words "B's assigns" show an intended permanent, transferable property interest, so it is not merely a license. The tempting wrong answer is appurtenant easement, but an appurtenant easement requires a dominant estate that B does not have.
